Hosted by Darren Baker
Dragon vs Accurate Armor Conqueror
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 04:29 AM UTC
First pass:
tnker101
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 117 posts
Armorama: 115 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:50 AM UTC
Looks like to different designs. Which is correct?
TankSGT
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:53 AM UTC
I have the AA kit. It looks like some major differences with the turret. Who got it right? I won't be getting the Dragon kit that's for sure.
Tom
Tom
Tank_builder
Joined: January 06, 2012
KitMaker: 394 posts
Armorama: 351 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:16 PM UTC
What are the differences between the Mk I and Mk 2? I know the AA is a I and the DML is a II, but don't really know much beyond that point. I'm planning on getting one later down the road for a BAOR vehicle.
-Seth
-Seth
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:46 PM UTC
Quoted Text
What are the differences between the Mk I and Mk 2? I know the AA is a I and the DML is a II, but don't really know much beyond that point. I'm planning on getting one later down the road for a BAOR vehicle.
-Seth
Sadly, my AA kit is the Mk.2.
blabla
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 - 05:52 PM UTC
Hello,
I asked the same question: http://armorama.com/forums/235878#1989254
AA is is accurate in question of the hull roof. Dragon used the MK I design.
The turret sharp of Dragon is wrong, too. Dragan? s turret looks to round. The real turret is not round but with more `nooks and corners.
Regards
I asked the same question: http://armorama.com/forums/235878#1989254
AA is is accurate in question of the hull roof. Dragon used the MK I design.
The turret sharp of Dragon is wrong, too. Dragan? s turret looks to round. The real turret is not round but with more `nooks and corners.
Regards
ChrisJohnson
Joined: June 02, 2005
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 01:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello,
I asked the same question: http://armorama.com/forums/235878#1989254
AA is is accurate in question of the hull roof. Dragon used the MK I design.
The turret sharp of Dragon is wrong, too. Dragan? s turret looks to round. The real turret is not round but with more `nooks and corners.
Regards
The question remains, what hard evidence are you using to make the sweeping judgement that Dragon's turret is wrong? We need to see some hard evidence before damning the Black Label kit, which seems to be all the rage these days. A good plan view photograph would tell the tale so if anyone has one, now's the time to show it. Until then, the jury is out.
Cheers,
Chris
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 05:57 AM UTC
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 06:00 PM UTC
Is there a way you could overlay a transparent image of the drawing on each of the kit parts in turn? It looks like the AA turret isn't a perfect match either. This could be a case of one being too big and one being too small.
Also, is the accuracy of the drawing known? In American manuals illustrations like this often use "sort of" sketches because true depictions have too much detail to reproduce cleanly and don't show the particular items intended by the illustration.
KL
Also, is the accuracy of the drawing known? In American manuals illustrations like this often use "sort of" sketches because true depictions have too much detail to reproduce cleanly and don't show the particular items intended by the illustration.
KL
blabla
Joined: December 02, 2006
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 142 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 10:17 PM UTC
Hello,
I have to prepare my post in the next days. But here a summery.
The best way to identify the wrong sharp of the turret is to look at the towing hooks on both side of the turret. Under these towing hooks is remarkable edge. Important is the edge itself and that is she is under the towing hook.
http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/British/3960-FV214%20Conqueror/P1040161_ConqJL_Bov_AA_c.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tTxZibECa3E/maxresdefault.jpg
Then watch to the Dragon turret. There is no remarkable edge! Only a very soft edge which crosses the towing hook not under them but at the middle of them.
The consequence must be that the noticeable edge is too high and too rounded. Thus there must be something wrong with the Dragon`s design of turret wall (angle, high, design itself).
Hope it helps for the moment.
Best regards
I have to prepare my post in the next days. But here a summery.
The best way to identify the wrong sharp of the turret is to look at the towing hooks on both side of the turret. Under these towing hooks is remarkable edge. Important is the edge itself and that is she is under the towing hook.
http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/British/3960-FV214%20Conqueror/P1040161_ConqJL_Bov_AA_c.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tTxZibECa3E/maxresdefault.jpg
Then watch to the Dragon turret. There is no remarkable edge! Only a very soft edge which crosses the towing hook not under them but at the middle of them.
The consequence must be that the noticeable edge is too high and too rounded. Thus there must be something wrong with the Dragon`s design of turret wall (angle, high, design itself).
Hope it helps for the moment.
Best regards
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 10:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is there a way you could overlay a transparent image of the drawing on each of the kit parts in turn? It looks like the AA turret isn't a perfect match either. This could be a case of one being too big and one being too small.
Also, is the accuracy of the drawing known? In American manuals illustrations like this often use "sort of" sketches because true depictions have too much detail to reproduce cleanly and don't show the particular items intended by the illustration.
KL
I pulled it from my copy of this http://www.afvhandbooks.com/army_tank_user_handbook_p001.html I generally don't trust plans much at all but finding a good overhead shot of any Conqueror, never mind the Mk2, has been outside my references and googling!
easyco69
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 10:50 PM UTC
Acurrate armor should be just that ...accurate? lol
The Dragon Black Label is mediocre?
The Dragon Black Label is mediocre?
ChrisJohnson
Joined: June 02, 2005
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
KitMaker: 65 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 - 11:48 PM UTC
The Handbook plan view also appears in the Conqueror Profile #38. I've scanned the drawing and placed a bounding box around the turret as you see below.
Next, I took an overhead photo of my completed Black Label Conqueror turret and added some transparency to it so the drawing would be still visible. I layered it over the drawing, scaling it to fit the turret width. Lastly, I lined up the front edges of the external mantlet in both photo and drawing, and this is the result.
As you can see, it doesn't line up very well. Next, I nudged the transparency forward bit by bit and here's what we have now.
The turret shape and features are very close to the plan view drawing with the two issues I see being that it seems just a bit short in the bustle and missing a bit of curvature on the right side. Of course, the major issue would be in the mantlet IF THE PLAN VIEW DRAWING IS ACCURATE. We have no means of determining if it is. The Black Label turret sure seems to look more accurate than the Accurate Armour turret to my eye though.
Cheers,
Chris
Next, I took an overhead photo of my completed Black Label Conqueror turret and added some transparency to it so the drawing would be still visible. I layered it over the drawing, scaling it to fit the turret width. Lastly, I lined up the front edges of the external mantlet in both photo and drawing, and this is the result.
As you can see, it doesn't line up very well. Next, I nudged the transparency forward bit by bit and here's what we have now.
The turret shape and features are very close to the plan view drawing with the two issues I see being that it seems just a bit short in the bustle and missing a bit of curvature on the right side. Of course, the major issue would be in the mantlet IF THE PLAN VIEW DRAWING IS ACCURATE. We have no means of determining if it is. The Black Label turret sure seems to look more accurate than the Accurate Armour turret to my eye though.
Cheers,
Chris
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:04 PM UTC
I think one of the places where the Dragon turret shape falls short is that the Dragon front face of the turret seems too bulbous, too rounded whereas the photos show a turret that is almost conical across the front 180 deg of arc. Not quite a true cone, but mush less curvature than evidenced in the Dragon kit.
Now, this isn't a serious deal, A little putty on the inside and a file taken to the outside and its not a hard fix. The crew hatches seem to be somewhat misplaced and misshapen, but they're not too bad. I may correct them, but one is not too far off if one leaves them as is.
Chris Meddings has a review of the turret up on Facebook on his page and the hatches and cupola are off and by enough for me to want to fix. His dimensions also show that the gun barrel is possibly the most off, so an aftermarket barrel will need to be sourced, but so far the turret ain't horrible and can be make correct without stupid amounts of work.
The hull roof over the driver, we'll see...
:)
Paul
Now, this isn't a serious deal, A little putty on the inside and a file taken to the outside and its not a hard fix. The crew hatches seem to be somewhat misplaced and misshapen, but they're not too bad. I may correct them, but one is not too far off if one leaves them as is.
Chris Meddings has a review of the turret up on Facebook on his page and the hatches and cupola are off and by enough for me to want to fix. His dimensions also show that the gun barrel is possibly the most off, so an aftermarket barrel will need to be sourced, but so far the turret ain't horrible and can be make correct without stupid amounts of work.
The hull roof over the driver, we'll see...
:)
Paul
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2015 - 04:19 PM UTC
I'm working on the hull review now
Lets put it like this; the turret is the least of the kits woes
Lets put it like this; the turret is the least of the kits woes
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2015 - 06:57 PM UTC
Hi Chris,
Do you have a link to your review that us non-Facebookers can use?
TIA!
Do you have a link to your review that us non-Facebookers can use?
TIA!
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Monday, July 13, 2015 - 10:12 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Lets put it like this; the turret is the least of the kits woes
"Oh, bother!", said Pooh.
I was rather afraid of this.
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 16, 2015 - 04:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Chris,
Do you have a link to your review that us non-Facebookers can use?
TIA!
When its done it will be posted on a modelling site too. (not here)
ChrisDM
Joined: January 01, 2010
KitMaker: 717 posts
Armorama: 697 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 - 04:56 AM UTC
the full review, warts and all is now on PMMS
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr3555.html
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr3555.html
TankManNick
Joined: February 01, 2010
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 543 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 - 05:23 AM UTC
Thank you for posting a very detailed review. Much appreciated!
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 19, 2015 - 06:45 PM UTC
Good review Chris, thanks.
One improvement would be to convert your circumference measurements to diameters. (For nominally circular objects this is perfectly reasonable.) Given that there are plenty of posts where people ask how to convert from 1/72 to 1/48 or how big an object would be in 1/35, I think many folks will be puzzled by the circumference reference. They will be even more surprised when their scratch-built gun tube is 3.1415 times larger than it looks to be photos!
For your own information, there are tape measures called "Pi tapes" or "diameter tapes" that have their markings spaced appropriately to give a direct reading of the diameter. One example is here, unfortunately they don't sell overseas. I've found them to be immensely useful.
KL
One improvement would be to convert your circumference measurements to diameters. (For nominally circular objects this is perfectly reasonable.) Given that there are plenty of posts where people ask how to convert from 1/72 to 1/48 or how big an object would be in 1/35, I think many folks will be puzzled by the circumference reference. They will be even more surprised when their scratch-built gun tube is 3.1415 times larger than it looks to be photos!
For your own information, there are tape measures called "Pi tapes" or "diameter tapes" that have their markings spaced appropriately to give a direct reading of the diameter. One example is here, unfortunately they don't sell overseas. I've found them to be immensely useful.
KL
 |
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.