Expensive and inaccurate just p!sses me off! I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
Paul
Hosted by Darren Baker
KPZ 70 arrived !
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 - 06:29 AM UTC
As I said earlier, I really don't mind paying a premium price for an accurate if simplistic model of a niche subject. Just, for that price, make it accurate in shape.
Expensive and inaccurate just p!sses me off! I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
Paul
Expensive and inaccurate just p!sses me off! I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
Paul
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 - 07:20 AM UTC
The real grill does look more like the Koblenz KPz 70, but the engine deck has details unique to the Munster KPz 70.
Perhaps Dragon mixed and matched details of both KPz 70s for the kit?
Are there any good images that show the rear hull of the Koblenz KPz70 straight on?
SEDimmick
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 - 07:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As I said earlier, I really don't mind paying a premium price for an accurate if simplistic model of a niche subject. Just, for that price, make it accurate in shape.
Expensive and inaccurate just p!sses me off! I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.
Paul
I agree with you, as long as the general shape is accurate, I can always add details to it.
blabla
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 - 09:04 AM UTC
Hello,
maybe I found the first big problems with the lower hull and the suspension. Regarding to Dragons photo booklet, the side walls of the lower hull are shahped by a step for the suspension system. At Dragon`s photos this step is around 2/3 of the complete high of the lower hull while the rest of the lower hull side wall is around 1/3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KPz_70_Bojo.JPG Dragon`s model refelcts this step, too. But 1/3 step and 2/3 hull. Furthermore the kit parts d13 and d14 looks wrong and are at a wrong position.
In the hope to be wrong,
Best wishes
maybe I found the first big problems with the lower hull and the suspension. Regarding to Dragons photo booklet, the side walls of the lower hull are shahped by a step for the suspension system. At Dragon`s photos this step is around 2/3 of the complete high of the lower hull while the rest of the lower hull side wall is around 1/3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KPz_70_Bojo.JPG Dragon`s model refelcts this step, too. But 1/3 step and 2/3 hull. Furthermore the kit parts d13 and d14 looks wrong and are at a wrong position.
In the hope to be wrong,
Best wishes
hugohuertas
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 27, 2014 - 11:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThe usual suspects are in Hong Kong. Do you actually know some in Korea?-you know, the usual suspects-
My bad, I was thinking about HK, bur wrote Korea!!!
blabla
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 - 09:38 PM UTC
Hello,
just to inform you, the reinforced stoppers of Dragon`s kit are wrong. They are the WTS Koblenz`s Type, not the Munster ones!!!
But the rest of the kit has the munster features. In a German board has already a small discussion begun!
Best wishes!
just to inform you, the reinforced stoppers of Dragon`s kit are wrong. They are the WTS Koblenz`s Type, not the Munster ones!!!
But the rest of the kit has the munster features. In a German board has already a small discussion begun!
Best wishes!
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 12:57 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello,
just to inform you, the reinforced stoppers of Dragon`s kit are wrong. They are the WTS Koblenz`s Type, not the Munster ones!!!
But the rest of the kit has the munster features. In a German board has already a small discussion begun!
Best wishes!
Thanks for the confirmation. Can you post a link to the German discussion board?
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 01:30 AM UTC
Would it be sufficient to simple remove those stoppers or would I have to replace them with a different type?
/ Robin
/ Robin
ivanhoe6
Joined: April 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,023 posts
Armorama: 1,234 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 03:00 AM UTC
Mine just arrived yesterday. On first impression Hugo Huertas comparison to a 90's Tamiya kit is pretty much right on. At $70 I expected at least PE grill screens. The 20mm auto cannon detail seems soft compared to their WWII German AA guns. Nit Pick, nit pick it's a historical subject I never expected to see in plastic and always wanted. But I am disappointed.
I think that Dragon should just stick to WWII German Armor and forget about diversification if they can't get it right.
My 2 cents worth.
Tom
Anybody want to buy it ? $60 plus shipping
I think that Dragon should just stick to WWII German Armor and forget about diversification if they can't get it right.
My 2 cents worth.
Tom
Anybody want to buy it ? $60 plus shipping
blabla
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 03:17 AM UTC
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 04:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
just to inform you, the reinforced stoppers of Dragon`s kit are wrong. They are the WTS Koblenz`s Type, not the Munster ones!!!
But the rest of the kit has the munster features. In a German board has already a small discussion begun!
Wouldn't be better to compare the model features to one of the KPz 70 prototypes as they existed in the 1960's? There are very few preserved or museum pieces that are completely authentic to the configuration of the vehicles when they were in service. I imagine most people want to model an in-service tank rather than a museum vehicle in 2014.
KL
chnoone
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 06:44 AM UTC
Right now I am building my KPZ 70 and I am quite happy with it.
As mentioned already in previous posts the kit resembles a prototype from about 50 years ago.
So nobody here really knows what happened during the years of testing and trails ... swapping turrets and hulls ... installing new further developed shocks, torsion bars and suspension elements, fire control system, engines .... etc.etc. etc.
And here we are complaining and moaning "this is not right , ... thats wrong ... but the other one had this and not that ...."
I just can't hear it anymore ... the M103 is crap... okay let's get this over with and move on.
This tank is a bl dy PROTOTYPE !
Feel free to improvise and enjoy ... even if it is not theeeee "perfect kit".
If not ... just give this one a pass !
Just added some "structure" to the hull and some bigger weld seams, already did some pre-weathering:
Cheers
Christopher
As mentioned already in previous posts the kit resembles a prototype from about 50 years ago.
So nobody here really knows what happened during the years of testing and trails ... swapping turrets and hulls ... installing new further developed shocks, torsion bars and suspension elements, fire control system, engines .... etc.etc. etc.
And here we are complaining and moaning "this is not right , ... thats wrong ... but the other one had this and not that ...."
I just can't hear it anymore ... the M103 is crap... okay let's get this over with and move on.
This tank is a bl
dy PROTOTYPE !Feel free to improvise and enjoy ... even if it is not theeeee "perfect kit".
If not ... just give this one a pass !
Just added some "structure" to the hull and some bigger weld seams, already did some pre-weathering:
Cheers
Christopher
C_JACQUEMONT
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 06:59 AM UTC
I don't see why a prototype shouldn't be held to the same accuracy standards?
I love prototypes and I still want my kits to be reasonably accurate.
Cheers,
Christophe
I love prototypes and I still want my kits to be reasonably accurate.
Cheers,
Christophe
chnoone
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 07:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't see why a prototype shouldn't be held to the same accuracy standards?
I love prototypes and I still want my kits to be reasonably accurate.
Cheers,
Christophe
Why would you concluded that this kit might not meet the "same accuracy standards" ?
Cheers
Christopher
C_JACQUEMONT
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 07:11 AM UTC
I was taking issue with your previous comments :
Cheers,
Christophe
Quoted Text
I just can't hear it anymore ... the M103 is crap... okay let's get this over with and move on.
This tank is a bl dy PROTOTYPE !
Feel free to improvise and enjoy ... even if it is not theeeee "perfect kit".
If not ... just give this one a pass !
Cheers,
Christophe
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 07:28 AM UTC
i would suggest, without being able to find any definitive photos on a quick net search, that there was a good point made about being wary of a combination of features in surviving examples. Speaking for the MBT 70 version which I've been searching out over the years, the surviving examples all seem to have either minor or major rear deck and exhaust differences. The actual tank blueprints and maybe even photos may match the existing kit while it doesn't match any of the surviving examples exactly.
PantherF
Joined: June 10, 2005
KitMaker: 6,188 posts
Armorama: 5,960 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 07:43 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Right now I am building my KPZ 70 and I am quite happy with it.
As mentioned already in previous posts the kit resembles a prototype from about 50 years ago.
So nobody here really knows what happened during the years of testing and trails ... swapping turrets and hulls ... installing new further developed shocks, torsion bars and suspension elements, fire control system, engines .... etc.etc. etc.
And here we are complaining and moaning "this is not right , ... thats wrong ... but the other one had this and not that ...."
I just can't hear it anymore ... the M103 is crap... okay let's get this over with and move on.
This tank is a bl
Feel free to improvise and enjoy ... even if it is not theeeee "perfect kit".
If not ... just give this one a pass !
Just added some "structure" to the hull and some bigger weld seams, already did some pre-weathering:
Cheers
Christopher
EXACTLY Christopher... and thanks! Love the pics!! Do you have anymore?
Just build it or pass! (geez)
Jeff
CMOT
Editor-in-Chief
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 08:06 AM UTC
I am enjoying watching you work on this Chris and on the whole it would seem fine with a few errors, all kits have them. The only objections I have is the high price for what would appear to be dumbed down contents, I don't mean the plastic but for there to be no photo etch, especially the grills I feel Dragons crown is slipping and there are a few contenders snapping at their heels.
chnoone
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 09:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I am enjoying watching you work on this Chris and on the whole it would seem fine with a few errors, all kits have them. The only objections I have is the high price for what would appear to be dumbed down contents, I don't mean the plastic but for there to be no photo etch, especially the grills I feel Dragons crown is slipping and there are a few contenders snapping at their heels.
Hey Darren !
Although I am in the fortunate situation of not having to watch out for each penny I spend you are right that the price for the MBT 70 is too much and many guys interested in this kit would rather take their money some where else ... and I honestly wouldn't blame them to wait a while.
If I compare it with what I can get for less ... say the T-80U from Xact or the T-90A from Meng ... then this kit is well overpriced.
But counting parts doesn't really help in comparison because there isn't much to this tank in the first place, speaking of exteriors like tools etc.
I don't think that a few PE parts thrown in would change much and I am not quite sure what the AM seriously wants to contribute ... grills for the fans and proper set of track ... yes! And a turned barrel (main gun & 20mm) though would add another 20 bucks each ... probably not.
For me the only thing that really counts is : I WANT THIS TANK !
So I will make due with I have and make it as best as I can.
Cheers
Christopher:-H
PS: I'll have some more pics tomorrow
CMOT
Editor-in-ChiefJoined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,954 posts
Armorama: 8,571 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 10:07 AM UTC
Sorry Chris what I meant was that a turned barrel, and PE should have been in the box for the cost, i will avoid the thorny issue of the tracks as magic tracks and rubberband tracks each have their followers and both would need to be in the box to keep everyone happy. I am aware that the cost we pay varies greatly depending on where it is coming from, and so I cannot blame Dragon completely for that issue.
I am a fan of their German WW2 kits, but I have noticed across the board that they are dumbing down the box contents while prices are still climbing. Some kits even show parts on the box which are in no way replicated by the contents, this is particularly true of the braille scale offerings. Dragon as a company dragged this hobby into a period of incredible levels of detail and choice, the advancments they have made in moulding technology have really been a big bonus to the hobby; however a number of recent offerings have left a nasty taste in the mouth.
I am a fan of their German WW2 kits, but I have noticed across the board that they are dumbing down the box contents while prices are still climbing. Some kits even show parts on the box which are in no way replicated by the contents, this is particularly true of the braille scale offerings. Dragon as a company dragged this hobby into a period of incredible levels of detail and choice, the advancments they have made in moulding technology have really been a big bonus to the hobby; however a number of recent offerings have left a nasty taste in the mouth.
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 10:46 AM UTC
At least the tools are not molded to the hull...or are they?? 
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 11:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I am a fan of their German WW2 kits, but I have noticed across the board that they are dumbing down the box contents while prices are still climbing. Some kits even show parts on the box which are in no way replicated by the contents, this is particularly true of the braille scale offerings. Dragon as a company dragged this hobby into a period of incredible levels of detail and choice, the advancments they have made in moulding technology have really been a big bonus to the hobby; however a number of recent offerings have left a nasty taste in the mouth.
There have been innumerable comments here and elsewhere complaining about the complexity and parts count of Dragon's kits along with pining for the simple elegance of Tamiya. Perhaps this is simply a case of Dragon "listening to its customers".
Another example of "Be careful what you wish for"!
KL
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 11:25 AM UTC
Kurt is spot on here.
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 02:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI am a fan of their German WW2 kits, but I have noticed across the board that they are dumbing down the box contents while prices are still climbing. Some kits even show parts on the box which are in no way replicated by the contents, this is particularly true of the braille scale offerings. Dragon as a company dragged this hobby into a period of incredible levels of detail and choice, the advancments they have made in moulding technology have really been a big bonus to the hobby; however a number of recent offerings have left a nasty taste in the mouth.
There have been innumerable comments here and elsewhere complaining about the complexity and parts count of Dragon's kits along with pining for the simple elegance of Tamiya. Perhaps this is simply a case of Dragon "listening to its customers".
Another example of "Be careful what you wish for"!
KL
Maybe. However, I think the excellent "Smart Kits" show that Dragon can lower the parts count and complexity without sacrificing detail and quality. There's a difference between lowering complexity and lowering detail.
Chuck4
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 03:29 PM UTC
No. There are no tools.
Just got mine. The molded plastic barrel is misshapen in my kit. This makes it necessary to wait for turned metal barrel.
The surface texture is generally sparse. Many prominent welding seams and welding beads are not depicted. The surface texture treatment is more similar to what one might expect from Revell of Germany kit from around 2000 than from a Tamiya or Dragon kit from after 2010.
However, many finicky small parts are intricately molded, rather better than typical revell kits I've been working with lately.
Certain details in the kit are dubious in accuracy. For example:
1. The swing arms for the hydro pneumatic suspension look reasonably long and wide. But seem remarkably thin, scaling out to only 3.5 cm in thickness. I suspect the real swing arms is considerably thicker than that.
2. The bottom of the sponson meets the side of the sponson not at the bottom, but about2mm above the bottom of the sponson side. As a result one could see though the bottom of exhaust louvre on side sponson (for an APU?) to the tracks.
3. The retractable 20mm gun can be installed in the raised, ready to fire position. But there appears to have no provision for any kind of ammunition feed.
Some parts that call for accurate positioning lack locating pins. For example the rails on which the retractable 20mm gun slides up and down the barbette can be accidentally installed off center, resulting in the 20mm gun barrel also being off center compare to the cutout designed to accommodate it.
Also, the kit instruction say the 20mm mount can be installed in the retracted position (it would usually be retracted, especially in tank to tank engagement). But the mount doesn't quite fit in the retracted position. The elevation pistons needs to be cut away. But this was not stated in the instructions.
In general, I would say this kit is is not really state of the art. It is tolerable. It reminds me of DML kit from mid-to-late 1990s. It's surface details is somewhat better than typical revell kits I've been working with lately, but far short of tamiya kit even from 15 years ago, such as the Leopard 2A5 kit. It also fall well short of dragon Panther kits I worked with 6-7 years ago.
Just got mine. The molded plastic barrel is misshapen in my kit. This makes it necessary to wait for turned metal barrel.
The surface texture is generally sparse. Many prominent welding seams and welding beads are not depicted. The surface texture treatment is more similar to what one might expect from Revell of Germany kit from around 2000 than from a Tamiya or Dragon kit from after 2010.
However, many finicky small parts are intricately molded, rather better than typical revell kits I've been working with lately.
Certain details in the kit are dubious in accuracy. For example:
1. The swing arms for the hydro pneumatic suspension look reasonably long and wide. But seem remarkably thin, scaling out to only 3.5 cm in thickness. I suspect the real swing arms is considerably thicker than that.
2. The bottom of the sponson meets the side of the sponson not at the bottom, but about2mm above the bottom of the sponson side. As a result one could see though the bottom of exhaust louvre on side sponson (for an APU?) to the tracks.
3. The retractable 20mm gun can be installed in the raised, ready to fire position. But there appears to have no provision for any kind of ammunition feed.
Some parts that call for accurate positioning lack locating pins. For example the rails on which the retractable 20mm gun slides up and down the barbette can be accidentally installed off center, resulting in the 20mm gun barrel also being off center compare to the cutout designed to accommodate it.
Also, the kit instruction say the 20mm mount can be installed in the retracted position (it would usually be retracted, especially in tank to tank engagement). But the mount doesn't quite fit in the retracted position. The elevation pistons needs to be cut away. But this was not stated in the instructions.
In general, I would say this kit is is not really state of the art. It is tolerable. It reminds me of DML kit from mid-to-late 1990s. It's surface details is somewhat better than typical revell kits I've been working with lately, but far short of tamiya kit even from 15 years ago, such as the Leopard 2A5 kit. It also fall well short of dragon Panther kits I worked with 6-7 years ago.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.