_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
RSO mit Allwetterverdeck
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2014 - 04:18 PM UTC
Dragon Models has released a second RSO with a 7.5cm mounted, but this time with the all-weather cover, here Kevin Brant takes a peek inside the box.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
bjo949
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 09:38 AM UTC
Unfortunately, the Dragon RSO/01, RSO/03 kits and most likely the RSO/04 w/Pak 40 kit too, are utter dogs (I verified that the former two were), because Dragon rendered the vehicle cab and cargo bed 11 mm too narrow. Such an error in dimensions is simply unacceptable by today's standards. As I assume that this kit is just an earlier RSO/04 release with a weather cover added, it may be an utter dog too, and is not worth any money. Based on another positive review I bought the RSO/03 kit and found the hard way how hosed it was. Cheers, bob
nng-nng
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2013
KitMaker: 380 posts
Armorama: 376 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 09:57 AM UTC
so the decades old Italeri RSO is the better choice? at least the basic AM stuff to turn the old bastard into an acceptable model (tracks, Aber basic PE-set, replacement barrel) will cost you more than the Dragon kit at retail prices... not even speaking of the additional effort

I have somewere in my mind that the fixed the issue with the seats (as they had the ones out of a M113 on their earlier toolings)

but the carnvas seems to be not as interresting as shown on the box (to be quite euphemistic). As I thought you could just use the roof without the sides... copletely with or completely without... an awful choice
bjo949
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 12:30 PM UTC
Yes, the old Italeri kit is better dimensionally. The seats and their mounts are a problem, as the Eduard PE set, which has the seat mounts, is also incorrect. They are way too high. And if they were so high in reality, the driver's head would be sticking above the cab roof. To sum it up, as of yet there is no acceptable kit of this very important vehicle. But for Dragon releasing four incorrectly dimensioned kits of the same vehicle is really appalling. Cheers, bob
PantherF
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 12:36 PM UTC
"11 mm too narrow"? YIKES!


Too bad as I wanted to tackle one of these new kits after building 2 of the Italeri kits.





Jeff
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 02:08 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Unfortunately, the Dragon RSO/01, RSO/03 kits and most likely the RSO/04 w/Pak 40 kit too, are utter dogs (I verified that the former two were), because Dragon rendered the vehicle cab and cargo bed 11 mm too narrow. Such an error in dimensions is simply unacceptable by today's standards. As I assume that this kit is just an earlier RSO/04 release with a weather cover added, it may be an utter dog too, and is not worth any money. Based on another positive review I bought the RSO/03 kit and found the hard way how hosed it was. Cheers, bob


Bob

can I ask where you got your measurements? I did a measurement of the kit, and it looks to be less then 1mm to wide. The actual width of a RSO is 1.99 meters, or 199cm, scaled down to 1/35 scale that is 5.68cm and the cab and cargo bed measure just of 5.7cm, thus the I do not see where are are getting the 11mm to narrow measurement? Could you please explain?

Kevin
c5flies
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: October 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,684 posts
Armorama: 2,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 02:50 PM UTC
I no longer have the DML /03 kit so cannot verify the incorrect dimensions on that one...although nothing looked way off on the completed model as far as I can recall.

As far as the DML /04, chassis, cab and bed scale up well within tolerances with the scale drawings I have. So don't write this one off
Namabiiru
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
#399
Visit this Community
Rhode Island, United States
Joined: March 05, 2014
KitMaker: 2,888 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 23, 2014 - 03:43 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Yes, the old Italeri kit is better dimensionally. The seats and their mounts are a problem, as the Eduard PE set, which has the seat mounts, is also incorrect. They are way too high. And if they were so high in reality, the driver's head would be sticking above the cab roof. To sum it up, as of yet there is no acceptable kit of this very important vehicle. But for Dragon releasing four incorrectly dimensioned kits of the same vehicle is really appalling. Cheers, bob


Building models back in the 70s and early 80s I always found Italeri kits to be horrible in terms of fit and overall quality of the molding (sinkholes, etc.) Consequently I continue to avoid anything with an Italeri label. Have they improved significantly over the years? If so, then I might open the aperture a bit to allow them back onto the bench.
bjo949
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 - 02:10 AM UTC
SgtRam, you are correct regarding the width of the actual vehicle. It was 1990 mm wide, which scales down to ~57 mm in 1/35 scale. On the DML RSO/01 and 03 kits (DML #6684 and 6691) the cab and cargo bed are 45 mm wide. So, these DML kits are even 12 mm too narrow, not 11 mm as I stated initially. If what you are saying refers to the RSO/04 kit dimensions, that means that DML got this one right, which is even more puzzling. The cab and cargo bed being too narrow on the 01 and 03 kits is very evident, as on the real vehicle they were wider than the track edge-to-edge distance, while on the kits the tracks are showing from underneath the cargo bed and cab when viewed from the top.
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 - 03:26 AM UTC
Bob

When you refer to a RS0/4, not sure what you are refering too, as I can only find reference to RSO/01, RSO/02, and RSO/03. Which refer basically to the cab variants. I also don't understand how the previous release can be as you mentioned, as the parts for the original release from Dragon are in this box, and I measured them as well, and they measure the same. Can you please reference the kit you are talking about so we can clarify this? Thanks

Kevin
SgtRam
Staff MemberContributing Writer
AEROSCALE
#197
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 - 03:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

On the DML RSO/01 and 03 kits (DML #6684 and 6691) the cab and cargo bed are 45 mm wide.
....
as on the real vehicle they were wider than the track edge-to-edge distance, while on the kits the tracks are showing from underneath the cargo bed and cab when viewed from the top.


Just another note, on the RSO/01, as seen in pictures of the actual vehicle, the cab is much narrower then the track and cargo bed. I cannot confirm the actual measurements as I don't have those kits.

Kevin
bjo949
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 - 12:41 PM UTC
Kevin, the RSO/4 version is the one with the PAK 40 mounted on the cargo bed. I took my measurements on kit #6684 (RSO/3), which I still have. I checked instructions for kit #6691 (RSO/1) and found out that the cargo bed sprue was the same as for the RSO/3, so I concluded that for that kit the cargo bed was also too narrow. The cab for RSO/3 is definitely too narrow as I stated before - I got the cab width from the website, btw on this version the cab was ~as wide as the cargo bed. I also compared DML kit dimensions with the old RSO kits dimensions (Peerless, Italeri) and with those in the available drawings. All comparisons indicated that the DML cab and bed for RSO/3 were way too narrow. I am not sure about the RSO/1 cab width. But, here is the ultimate sanity check - try to take an average 1/35th scale sitting figure and fit it in the DML cab. On the RSO/3, 1/3 of the figure was "hanging" outside the cab. bob
 _GOTOTOP