Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Anyone built RyeFields new Tiger 1?
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 01:27 PM UTC

Quoted Text

RFM is making corrections as it goes along with each release.



Let's look at that. What errors in 5001 have they actually corrected for 5003?

Let's look at physical parts only, and ignore the problems in the instructions (such as the shovel and the starter handle and sighting vane being wrongly specified).

And let's ignore errors that got fixed by becoming irrelevant. The tow cables are now the correct size, but not because they were retooled, they just happen to be right for this later Tiger. The old side mudguards are gone, not corrected.

What have Rye Field actually changed?


The turret smoke launchers
The right-hand mudguard "frame"
An exhaust without a deflector is now provided
The gun length


Now, what physical errors have Rye Field not fixed? Let's ignore the headlight base plates, because you won't see them in this build. Just concentrate on visible errors that were reported publicly.


All the bolts and holes under the turret ring
Top handle on the cupola hatch
The turret seating ring on the hull
Road wheels missing their joint


Please, add to these lists if you know of anything else.

David
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 06:39 PM UTC
How many errors were found in 6252, 27? How many were found in the next numerically sequenced release, 22? Even back in 2005, Dragon had an established reputation for the accuracy of its kits and still got a lot wrong. As I commented earlier, it took ten years to correct the mistakes. Dragon's instructions aren't problem-free either. Wrong/missing part callouts are a common feature. Too many damned arrows and balloons for each step are pretty annoying; but, that's just my opinion.

RFM is a company that had zero prior experience in producing scale model kits and, like Dragon, will learn from its mistakes and customer input. Not that Dragon actually gives a rat's patootie about customer feedback; but, you you know what I mean. I'll tolerate modeler-correctable errors in a $50 kit more than in one costing $80. Neither RFM kit is a pig to build. If anyone building them has issues with some aspects, pull out that spares box full of Dragon parts. Just about everything in there is interchangeable with the RFM parts.

Tip:

To ensure proper hull roof alignment, glue .040" x .060" strips 1mm in from the roof edge for the length of the roof section. This can also be done to the Dragon roofs to eliminate the pronounced hull warpage. It beats trying to stuff a brace across the width of the hull itself.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 08:13 PM UTC
The way the RFM kit is being constantly bashed, it would seem some people just don't want you to buy it.
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 09:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The way the RFM kit is being constantly bashed, it would seem some people just don't want you to buy it.



An idea has arisen recently in Western culture, that facts don't exist.
This idea can be seen playing out most obviously in political discussion. Statements (on climate change, terrorism, gun control, or many other topics) get challenged, not for themselves, but for the supposed motives of those who make them.
Eventually, people assume that they can ignore anything said by anybody who doesn't share their views. It's as though there is no reality, only opinions.

Mr. Biggles, maybe I don't want you to buy the kit. Maybe I do want you to buy the kit. Maybe I want to play with a fluffy kitten. But my motives are not the topic of this forum.
jwest21
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 10:08 PM UTC
I'd like to play with a fluffy kitten!
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 10:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I'd like to play with a fluffy kitten!



I don't believe you are allowed to use the word "fluffy" unless you possess a concealed carry permit.
sategner
Visit this Community
Gauteng, South Africa
Joined: January 07, 2015
KitMaker: 18 posts
Armorama: 18 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 10:43 PM UTC
All this negative comment doesn't put me off, I'll still get one.
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 11:02 PM UTC
Honestly, it's a pretty good kit and worth the price. Sure, it's not as detailed as the MFH Tiger. For four hundred smackers, one would expect a lot, magnetic suspension notwithstanding.

Tojo72
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: June 06, 2006
KitMaker: 4,691 posts
Armorama: 3,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 11:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

All this negative comment doesn't put me off, I'll still get one.



Exactly,thats what it's all about,look,listen,learn,and buy which Tiger you want.

Knowledge and discussion is good I want to hear what David or Joseph have to say.Then I buy,I thank all for their comments,both negative and positive about the kits.
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 11:41 PM UTC
I appreciate hearing the pros and cons of kits, especially if there are many to choose from as it all helps one make a decision on what's right for them. I will probably get this tank because it has some interior and I think I can deal with whatever is visible through the hatches. Then I will get whoever makes the best kit for the other versions. That could be Dragon or it could be RFM if they have more to offer by then.

Currently the only Tiger I've built so far is the Tamiya initial production, so I can only do better whatever I decide to buy.
Beastmaster
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: January 27, 2009
KitMaker: 592 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 12:38 AM UTC
Question is......has it got a pre drilled slide moulded machine gun barrel?
iowabrit
Visit this Community
Iowa, United States
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 585 posts
Armorama: 557 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 01:13 AM UTC
I still have the old dragon Tiger I (late) with all the bells and whistles that came in the box, in fact, when it came out I persuaded several people in my model club to buy one. To date (about 10 years later?) I don't think a single one of those kits has actually been built so I think I can live without another 'tiger'.
It must be very off putting for new manufacturers to hear all the negative stuff though....
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 01:56 AM UTC
[quote]

Mr. Biggles, maybe I don't want you to buy the kit. Maybe I do want you to buy the kit. Maybe I want to play with a fluffy kitten. But my motives are not the topic of this forum.
[/quote}
OK. Without sounding accusatory, most of your criticisms on the RFM kit have been on the model's "many" shortcomings, are there any redeeming values at all to this kit, in your opinion?
27-1025
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 05:04 AM UTC
Most of what I've seen from the two builders over on Track Link seem quite positive. Think I'll add this to my buy list.
astralscooter
Visit this Community
Telemark, Norway
Joined: March 24, 2015
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 05:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

But my motives are not the topic of this forum.



I guess not, but most Tiger enthusiasts know that you are closely affiliated with Dragon through your work on their Tiger line of kits, and that could easily make some wonder if there's not a wee bit of bias against any competing manufacturers? Which wouldn't be hard to understand at all.

I'm not saying that you are biased. Just that the very fact that you do contribute to the only true competitor to RFM, leaves that open to interpretation. I trust you to be aware of this and take it into consideration.

Best regards,

Arild
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 06:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

An idea has arisen recently in Western culture, that facts don't exist. . . Eventually, people assume that they can ignore anything said by anybody who doesn't share their views. It's as though there is no reality, only opinions.



Oh please. It's a goddamn model kit, not global conflict. No one is denying that the issues with the kit exist. What they are questioning is whether they are relevant to their enjoyment of the model.

In other words, David, the absence of a pipe in the engine compartment is a fact. The belief that it is an inexcusable, fatal omission in a model kit is merely a ridiculous opinion.

KL
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 08:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text



The belief that it is an inexcusable, fatal omission in a model kit is merely a ridiculous opinion.

KL



I seem to have missed it; where does David give this opinion, specifically?
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 09:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



The belief that it is an inexcusable, fatal omission in a model kit is merely a ridiculous opinion.

KL



I seem to have missed it; where does David give this opinion, specifically?



Nowhere to my knowledge. Who said he did?

KL
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 10:05 AM UTC
Well, if he nor anyone else said it why are you even mentioning it? You must have pulled it from somewhere.
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 02:54 PM UTC

Quoted Text

are there any redeeming values at all to this kit, in your opinion?



It's great value for money, and with a bit of detailing it gives you a great crew compartment interior. I'd buy it - but I'd substitute a Dragon hull roof and turret shell, if possible.

David
astralscooter
Visit this Community
Telemark, Norway
Joined: March 24, 2015
KitMaker: 69 posts
Armorama: 69 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 03:35 PM UTC
Glad to hear it, David!

As for the matter of facts, you are right. There are facts. Some may be weary of facts, but facts do matter and should be presented.

But, there's facts, and there's how you present those facts. And I think, perhaps, than some of the tension arise from differing perspectives.

You present facts as the uncompromising Tiger I expert, who wants all records to be straight. You use the MFH kit as an example to compare to, but in a modeller's mind, that comparison may not look fair, because the MFH kit is six times more expensive. It has nothing to do with accepting facts or not, it is judging value for money.

Others appreciate the facts too, but more importantly, they evaluate these kits as modellers. Will this kit be worthy of my hard earned cash? How is detail compared to relevant other kits? How easy is it to build?

That the instructions are vague sometimes on what goes where, is the rule in model kits overall. It is something most modellers have come to expect. That the painting instructions are off or simply wrong, is not at all uncommon.

It has been pointed out that the RFM instructions don't tell you enough on which parts go on what tank available in the decals instructions.

Well, have a look at the Cyber-Hobby Fehrmann group Tiger I. I'm building this, and wonder why Dragon sell a kit purporting to represent 1 specific vehicle ("F13"), and still give optional parts in their instructions.

They want me to chose between engine starter plates, tow shackles, exhaust shields mounted or not, different outer road wheels, and while the instructions says "F13" had a regular commander's hatch support, the painting instructions shows it as a cut down one.

Does this degrade my opinion of the kit? No. I do find it annoying, but having built a number of Dragon kits, I know they always present options without explaining these. I wish they did, but I can't stop buying their kits just because. If I care enough to get everything right, I do the research. Besides, I build "F01", and have to do my own homework anyway.

So, I'd recommend pointing out a few positive things every now and then, for balance. People read these threads to learn if a kit is worth buying, after all.

Arild
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 05:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Well, if he nor anyone else said it why are you even mentioning it?



If you'll recall, there was a broad statement made about people denying facts and substituting their own opinions. I was highlighting the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

KL



M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 06:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Do we have to keep reminding ourselves that the MFH kit costs about 6 times as much as the RFM offering, and the only relevant kit to compare the RFM kit to in that respect, is the Academy kit? And that we get a Tiger I with (almost) full interior for less than a re-issued Dragon Tiger without interior (or any of the goodies originally in the kit)? And workable tracks instead of DS...

If you have built a few kits before, you will probably have a standard fire extinguisher in the spares box, the ammo supports can be carved from a bit of plastic and the internal lettering (for two tanks) can be had from Archer for under $7 (if you choose the AFT sheet, you will get lettering for the Panther as well).

The engine tubing and drive shaft missing, is both strange and annoying, though. I do trust TMD to offer some of this eventually though. The tubing could be represented with some bent wire of the proper diameter as well.

I'm following the build reviews on Track-Link closely, I have the kit in the stash, and to me it looks like the only reasonable thing to do with your Academy kit, is to blow it up with fire crackers.

But, surely, the quest for the Ultimate Tiger I with interior is still on, as the MFH is not flawless either. I wonder what a perfect kit will cost?

Arild



This is EXACTLY why I generally avoid buying kits with "Fully-Researched and Accurate" Interiors. They are neither "Fully-Researched" nor "Accurate". Usually, the least offensive alternative is to buy an after-market "multi-media" Interior for your subject, if you want to spend the money. Cheaper alternatives would be to just buy a basic PE Interior, as marketed by EDUARD, GRIFFON, LIONROAR or VOYAGER, etc...

Personally, I'm not given to cracking my Tanks, AFVs and Soft-skins open every 5 minutes in order to ogle my work. I display my stuff behind glass. Consequently, most of my 1/35 stuff is built without a fully-detailed Interior, except where required as would be found on open-topped vehicles. But, that's just me. I have only four Tiger Is in my collection, and I feel that that is ENOUGH to represent the history of Tiger Is: Initial "Leningrad", Initial AFRIKA KORPS, Mid-Production, Russia, Late Steel-wheeled...

Conversely, even though I'm a confirmed "Shermaholic", I only have ONE M4 in my collection with a "full" Interior...

So, IMO, if you're a REAL "Tiger-Head", buy your favorite DRAGON Tiger I, and invest the money in an after-market Interior of your choice. Which one of several that are available, is beyond my experience, as I am NO way a Tiger I "expert"... There are quite a few very accomplished modellers on this site who, I'm sure, would be happy to help you out in this regard...
M4A1Sherman
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 02, 2013
KitMaker: 4,403 posts
Armorama: 4,078 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 07:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

An idea has arisen recently in Western culture, that facts don't exist. . . Eventually, people assume that they can ignore anything said by anybody who doesn't share their views. It's as though there is no reality, only opinions.



Oh please. It's a goddamn model kit, not global conflict. No one is denying that the issues with the kit exist. What they are questioning is whether they are relevant to their enjoyment of the model.

In other words, David, the absence of a pipe in the engine compartment is a fact. The belief that it is an inexcusable, fatal omission in a model kit is merely a ridiculous opinion.

KL



I AGREE, MOST EMPHATICALLY!!! A missing pipe?!?

SCRATCH-BUILD ONE, for PETE's SAKE!!! This is what bothers me about so many modellers today. Entirely too many of us are willing to blow a model into the weeds just because of a few inaccuracies or a few omitted parts. USE YOUR INGENUITY! Even the most "ACCURATE" kit on the market will inevitably show some flaw, or omission that the after-market companies will jump upon, so what's the big deal?
moomin
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 23, 2008
KitMaker: 19 posts
Armorama: 8 posts
Posted: Friday, November 20, 2015 - 08:32 PM UTC
I think the answer to your title is no. Nobody seems have built it..