HobbySearch posted images of the sprues from the new Takom Chieftain Mk.2.
One thing that looks wrong to me is the fume extractor - shouldn't it be noticeably larger diameter in Mk.2?...
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10372528n6/40/6/1
Now it is barely thicker than the thermal sleeve, like in later Marks...
Hosted by Darren Baker
Chieftain Mk.2 sprue shots
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 12:15 AM UTC
gastec
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 12:17 AM UTC
Quoted Text
One thing that looks wrong to me is the fume extractor
You post title also looks wrong too
Gary
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 12:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
One thing that looks wrong to me is the fume extractor
You post title also looks wrong too
Gary
Oups... Unfortunately I cannot edit it myself
gastec
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 12:28 AM UTC
I notice on the sprue shots that the engine deck acccess panel handles are now moulded in place? The PE offerings on the initial Takom kits were unrealistic being 2 dimensional and needed replacing...
... but I feel this is a backwards step by Takom. Reminiscent of the old Tamiya offering. Takom still have a long way to go IMHO
Gary
... but I feel this is a backwards step by Takom. Reminiscent of the old Tamiya offering. Takom still have a long way to go IMHO
Gary
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 12:36 AM UTC
Grab handles don't bother me much, but inaccurate fume extractor, specific to this early Chieftain is a big flaw
Luckily it is quite simple cylinder, so enlarging it slightly (e.g. with a layer of this styrene sheet) shouldn't be too hard.
Luckily it is quite simple cylinder, so enlarging it slightly (e.g. with a layer of this styrene sheet) shouldn't be too hard.
iowabrit
Iowa, United States
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 585 posts
Armorama: 557 posts
Joined: November 06, 2007
KitMaker: 585 posts
Armorama: 557 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 01:18 AM UTC
Looking at the sprue shots it appears that there is a second gun tube, the original one is on the sprue with the bazooka plates. So maybe the artwork just doesn't show the earlier fume extractor as pronounced as it should be. If not, then I guess Tamiya are going to sell a lot of their old kits just for the gun barrels..........:-)
BootsDMS
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 03:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I notice on the sprue shots that the engine deck acccess panel handles are now moulded in place? The PE offerings on the initial Takom kits were unrealistic being 2 dimensional and needed replacing...
... but I feel this is a backwards step by Takom. Reminiscent of the old Tamiya offering. Takom still have a long way to go IMHO
Gary
As Chieftain Mk 2 didn't have any mesh covers perhaps they just thought it made more sense to mould them on? I don't think this is too much of a show stopper. I am looking forward to this one - not least as it could be depicted in a gloss Bronze Green - just to ring the changes a bit.
Keef1648
South Carolina, United States
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Joined: January 23, 2008
KitMaker: 1,240 posts
Armorama: 1,192 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 05:05 PM UTC
C'mon chaps, let's wait until somebody has it in their hands before picking the thing apart eh.
If the 'fume extractor' is incorrect, no doubt the after market crew will soon sort things out.
The front thermal sleeve was normally folded back from the front of the extractor to allow the barrel to be locked down into the early gun crutch (later changed to clamp) and re set in place before firing.
Obviously unneeded extras are on the spru webs including both NBC packs and commanders cupolas. and the warning is clearly written for all to see, model may differ from box art.
It still has to be better than the Tamiya offering.
Keith.
If the 'fume extractor' is incorrect, no doubt the after market crew will soon sort things out.
The front thermal sleeve was normally folded back from the front of the extractor to allow the barrel to be locked down into the early gun crutch (later changed to clamp) and re set in place before firing.
Obviously unneeded extras are on the spru webs including both NBC packs and commanders cupolas. and the warning is clearly written for all to see, model may differ from box art.
It still has to be better than the Tamiya offering.
Keith.
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 05:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
It still has to be better than the Tamiya offering.[/b]
Tamiya isn't Mk2. What I am wondering is whether this kit has correct features to be a Mk2. One of the most noticeable feature of Mk2 tank, compared to later marks, is the larger diameter fume extractor and it looks like the kit may not have this feature correctly represented. Not the end of the world, but it would be nice to have such a key detail for this version properly done.
Vodnik
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 02:48 PM UTC
It looks like the Takom kit isn't a true original Mk2 at all. Original Mk2 should have different side skirts (different mounting) and different front fender stowage boxes. It doesn't look like early skirts and early boxes are on sprues and image in instructions also shows the later pattern skirts. I also don't see the very characteristic splash board (with round openings for large single headlights) on sprues.
Without these features, it still technically is a Mk2, but not how it would look like in 1960s.
Without these features, it still technically is a Mk2, but not how it would look like in 1960s.
hugohuertas
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 04:31 PM UTC
Nobody is picking the thing appart -so far, at least-.
But if the fume extractor shape is incorrect, well... it IS incorrect.
Nothing so difficcult to fix, but still wrong, so it is a fair critic.
Alaso, as Steve J said, there seem to be two gun barrels in the sprues, so a correctly shaped one may be there.
But some sprues are so "cleverly" photographed that only the back of them is visible.
This happens with the main gun's sprues, so we should wait until someone publishes better images to know the final true.
Up to now, I'm a bit more concerned about the other details Pawel pointed out.
We'll see...
But if the fume extractor shape is incorrect, well... it IS incorrect.
Nothing so difficcult to fix, but still wrong, so it is a fair critic.
Alaso, as Steve J said, there seem to be two gun barrels in the sprues, so a correctly shaped one may be there.
But some sprues are so "cleverly" photographed that only the back of them is visible.
This happens with the main gun's sprues, so we should wait until someone publishes better images to know the final true.
Up to now, I'm a bit more concerned about the other details Pawel pointed out.
We'll see...