Meng and RFM parts, side by side. Overall I think RFM has the crisper/finer detail with MENG sticking to their Tamiya like well detailed but chunkier detailing (not the first time I've made this comparison). I will leave the words short and let the pictures do the talking, any questions or more image requests go ahead. I also have the Academy kit on the way (if it ever arrives, AusPost sucks ) for more comparisons then.

One request please keep Meng fanboy comments objective

MENG are the parts attached to frames, if both are still attached to frames (2 images) then images are noted which is which.


Meng on the right
















MENG on left this time, IRC


Three photos with Trumpeters M1A1HA

Trumpeter's looks really big compared to the other two.

I was thinking about getting Ryefields and replacing the inaccurate/undersized parts with the remains of a Dragon M1A2 SEP that the cat knocked onto the floor.

There is an interesting comparison of the front turret for M1A2 kits by three manufacturers (Dragon, Meng & Rye field) http://s744.photobucket.com/user/hellrabbitzx/library/M1 kit compare. It looks like Meng's kit has some accuracy issue unless Pawel made a serious mistake in measuring real Abrams' turret.

I wasn't measuring anything myself, Pete Becerra was doing it for me

To be honest the information provided at that link confused me a lot. I have a feeling that Dragon design indeed has some flaw and I only see it now when I look at that comparison. I cannot explain it, as the numbers provided by Pete worked fine during the design. But looking at images I now think that we had an error in the measurement of the length of the armor edge adjacent to the mantlet on the right side of the turret.

It's nothing that a small triangle of styrene sheet glued to the Dragon turret couldn't fix though