I wonder if anyone is going to be interested in this build?
I will be attempting a double comparison build of the Rye Field Models # RM5001 Tiger I Initial Production Early 1943 Tunisia,
and the Dragon #6600 Tiger I Initial Production.
I.m not using the Dragon #6820 Tunisian Tiger , it's way too much money at a MSRP of $94
First the Boxes
Here are the lower hulls, they are pretty close in size.
At most a half mm difference.
Hosted by Darren Baker
A Tail of Two Tigers
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 01:50 AM UTC
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 01:55 AM UTC
I'm not going to be showing the Sprue anymore it takes too much time.
Donald
joepanzer
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 02:42 AM UTC
Pretty close in size? Looks like they don't line up very well to me.
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 02:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I.m not using the Dragon #6820 Tunisian Tiger
Dragon's real competitor to Rye Field, is the 6608 "Initial Tunisian" which will be released in about a month.
David
easyco69
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 03:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Pretty close in size? Looks like they don't line up very well to me.
Wow..thx for posting this. Not buying this new product.
edmund
Joined: November 10, 2014
KitMaker: 668 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 03:16 AM UTC
Look at picture 2 and picture 3 . And 6 and 7 . They look the same length . There's got to be something wrong with the way the picture was taken or all the tiger experts would of been up at arms with the rye field tiger .
Cookiescool2
Joined: May 09, 2014
KitMaker: 273 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 03:27 AM UTC
The issues with photos 4 and 5 just seem to be from the angle it was taken. The lengths and widths of the two hulls match in all the other photos.
joepanzer
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 03:44 AM UTC
You can see a difference in photos 3 and 7 as well. Look closely at the protrusions for the holes for the torsion bars or whatever they are. You can see theres a placement difference between the tan and the gray.
Tojo72
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,691 posts
Armorama: 3,509 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 04:28 AM UTC
Sure,will be interested in watching the Rye Fields Tiger build up.
acebatau
Joined: February 10, 2008
KitMaker: 730 posts
Armorama: 616 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 07:29 AM UTC
Count me in, very interesting
JPTRR
Managing Editor
#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 08:39 AM UTC
The hulls match up no prob. Angle makes them look off when shot from the side.
I am very interested in the Rye Tiger just because of all the detail molded into the lower hull. I'm watching!
I am very interested in the Rye Tiger just because of all the detail molded into the lower hull. I'm watching!
JPTRR
Managing Editor#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 08:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You can see a difference in photos 3 and 7 as well. Look closely at the protrusions for the holes for the torsion bars or whatever they are. You can see theres a placement difference between the tan and the gray.
Joe, that is because the torsion bars were mounted staggered in the hull; note photo 2. Photos 3 & 7 show the L. side of one model next to the R. side of the competitor; compensate for the axles stagger between the L. & R. side.
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 08:31 PM UTC
Hi Guys,
I held both of the Hulls against each other, they are almost exactly the same size. Maby a half a mm. in some areas.
Now back to the build.
There are two parts # B54 & B55 that go on the lower front hull of the RFM Kit these aren't listed in their instructions. The Dragon ones are on theirs.
You will have to make a bevel on the inside as shown to clear the weld beads.
The RFM Part # D23 is the same on both sides.
The Dragon uses # B20 on both sides.
I held both of the Hulls against each other, they are almost exactly the same size. Maby a half a mm. in some areas.
Now back to the build.
There are two parts # B54 & B55 that go on the lower front hull of the RFM Kit these aren't listed in their instructions. The Dragon ones are on theirs.
You will have to make a bevel on the inside as shown to clear the weld beads.
The RFM Part # D23 is the same on both sides.
The Dragon uses # B20 on both sides.
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 08:39 PM UTC
There is some filling needed on both kits.
The RFM Kit
The Dragon Kit
The RFM Kit
The Dragon Kit
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 08:43 PM UTC
Now it's on to the Torsion Bars .
First the RFM parts.
Now the Dragon parts.
They come in two parts , it looks like you could leave off the inner parts if your not having a movable suspension .
Their fronts, you cant see any of this once the wheels are installed.
Their backs need some filling if you are having a movable suspension.
Now to go install them.
Donald
First the RFM parts.
Now the Dragon parts.
They come in two parts , it looks like you could leave off the inner parts if your not having a movable suspension .
Their fronts, you cant see any of this once the wheels are installed.
Their backs need some filling if you are having a movable suspension.
Now to go install them.
Donald
edmund
Joined: November 10, 2014
KitMaker: 668 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 05:24 AM UTC
Check the fit of the top of the hull . The ryefield tiger , I believe it's going to be a little bit short and maybe it might have a very slight warpage to it .
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 07:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Check the fit of the top of the hull . The ryefield tiger , I believe it's going to be a little bit short and maybe it might have a very slight warpage to it .
Check the following Pics.
Mine was almost a perfect fit.
Donald
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 07:51 PM UTC
Here are the RFM side panels I had to remove the first two pair of placement pins, they wouldn't line up with the holes in the lower hull.
I found some replacement side panels in the spare parts box.
I have already built this Dragon Tiger Kit previously and plan on updating this one.
There is a slight gap on both sides between the side panels and front plat on the RFM kit.
I filled it with some thin strip and putty.
I found some replacement side panels in the spare parts box.
I have already built this Dragon Tiger Kit previously and plan on updating this one.
There is a slight gap on both sides between the side panels and front plat on the RFM kit.
I filled it with some thin strip and putty.
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 08:02 PM UTC
In regards to the fit of the Hull Top of the RFM kit,here it is below. It's not glued in yet and should pull tight.
Here is the Dragon Hull top fit.
The RFM Hull Top will even fit the Dragon kit.
The Dragon Kit with new sides.
And the RFM Hull
That's it for now.
Donald
Here is the Dragon Hull top fit.
The RFM Hull Top will even fit the Dragon kit.
The Dragon Kit with new sides.
And the RFM Hull
That's it for now.
Donald
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 09:49 PM UTC
I'm a little confused about what you're doing with the Dragon kit. 6600 is a Leningrad "Initial" Tiger, which had no side fenders at all. But you've attached side panels that do have fender mounts (the 16 little bumps).
Do you intend to remove them, or do you plan to build some other version from your 6600 kit?
And another question. Some people have reported that the hull upper front plate in the Rye Field kit isn't exactly as wide as the hull. I can't quite see if this is true in your photo.
If it is the case, do you think the hull side panels are too thick, or the front wall is too short, or the hull itself is too wide?
David
Do you intend to remove them, or do you plan to build some other version from your 6600 kit?
And another question. Some people have reported that the hull upper front plate in the Rye Field kit isn't exactly as wide as the hull. I can't quite see if this is true in your photo.
If it is the case, do you think the hull side panels are too thick, or the front wall is too short, or the hull itself is too wide?
David
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 10:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm a little confused about what you're doing with the Dragon kit. 6600 is a Leningrad "Initial" Tiger, which had no side fenders at all. But you've attached side panels that do have fender mounts (the 16 little bumps).
Do you intend to remove them, or do you plan to build some other version from your 6600 kit?
And another question. Some people have reported that the hull upper front plate in the Rye Field kit isn't exactly as wide as the hull. I can't quite see if this is true in
your photo.
If it is the case, do you think the hull side panels are too thick, or the front wall is too short, or the hull itself is too wide?
David
In regard to the Leningrad Tiger, I intend to update it to a slightly later version . I already have this kit built, and I don't really want two of them. It was cheap & I couldn't resist the price. As for the RFM Kit the side panels are a little short and the front plate is too.
I filled the gap between the side plate and front with some plastic strip, then trimmed it flush with the side plate. Then filled the end edge of the front plate with putty and sanded it smooth. The front plate is off a little , but not that much. See the Pic. #27 above.
Donald
edmund
Joined: November 10, 2014
KitMaker: 668 posts
Armorama: 456 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 10:08 PM UTC
Must be the kit I received , it was short by 0.020 . And the drivers front plate was a bit narrow . I added another .020 to either side to get it even with the hull sides . Same thing with those two panels , had to remove the pins . The fun comes with the stowage bin .
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 10:14 PM UTC
Oh, OK. Well, if you want me to list the features of a later Tiger version than 6600, just tell me what you have in mind.
David
David
OldWarloke
Joined: October 14, 2012
KitMaker: 2,663 posts
Armorama: 2,649 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 10:23 PM UTC
I would like to up date it to something close to the RFM Tiger kit but without the storage bin and the exhaust guard as I don't have the parts in the spare box.
Has anyone noticed, The side fender mounts on the RFM Tiger have an upsweep in the middle like on the panzer 38.
Is this supposed to be there ?
Donald
Has anyone noticed, The side fender mounts on the RFM Tiger have an upsweep in the middle like on the panzer 38.
Is this supposed to be there ?
Donald
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 - 10:36 PM UTC
Yes, I was wondering why you'd use side panels with the mounts in a straight line, when the hull front had the original "narrow" front mudguards. That combination didn't happen.
About the upsweep, you should read this;
Tiger side skirts.
About the upgrade of the Tiger; you would have to change the front mudguards to the standard "wide" type, if you want to avoid that big turret bin. Or stick with the earliest "Leningrad" Tigers, which you said you didn't want to do.
David
About the upsweep, you should read this;
Tiger side skirts.
About the upgrade of the Tiger; you would have to change the front mudguards to the standard "wide" type, if you want to avoid that big turret bin. Or stick with the earliest "Leningrad" Tigers, which you said you didn't want to do.
David
 |
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.