Had this thing on pre-order since start of December, Hobby easy received stock early this month and mine finally arrived this morning. Will have an inbox review up both here & my website later today with build log following.
First impressions was WOW BIG BOX, on opening though while well filled it wasn't cram packed, also noticed no clear parts and for the haters 2 part barrel. Detail is of Hobby Boss standard and for the price $25 AUD pls post from china I'm not complaining.
If anybody wants any info fire away I will try and answer for you.
Box size
More to come as soon as I'm released from playing parent
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
HB T29E1 Review and Build log
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 04:25 AM UTC
JSSVIII
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
Armorama: 1,067 posts
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
Armorama: 1,067 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 05:02 AM UTC
Looking forward to your build Andrew, I'm still waiting for mine!
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 01:03 PM UTC
Kit contains over 1000 parts around 2/3's of these are for the workable tracks (3 parts per link with 113 links per side), leaving a manageable 340ish (from a quick count) parts for the hull and turret. No clear parts or PE included but honestly the kit does well without them. Minimal markings are supplied, these being of tank type and year. If the builder would like to show a fantasy vehicle in service or as a version from Wargaming.net's World of Tanks then additional after market markings will need to be sourced.
Parts breakdown includes
4x Sprue A, which mostly includes parts for the running Gear
2x Sprue B, including parts for both Running gear and Hull
Sprue C which contains both hull and turret parts.
Sprue D, Hull parts
Sprue E, 2 part Barrel
8x Sprue, Tracks
Upper Hull
Lower Hull
Upper Turret
Small Decal Sheet
Areas of Note
Cast texture is provided on turret but is fine and possibility exists of it being covered by heavy paint or weathering.
Road, idler and drive wheels use plastic washers not the more common polycap style, unknown if this will cause any problems.
While casting detail is of good quality it remains behind that of higher quality (and higher priced) kits in many areas
Overall with some online retailers selling it for $20-25 USD plus postage (mine cost just shy of $49 AUD inc. delivery, about $37USD) one cant (ok many will) complain too much. Overall have cleaned off the bench and about to get into this beast.
Parts breakdown includes
4x Sprue A, which mostly includes parts for the running Gear
2x Sprue B, including parts for both Running gear and Hull
Sprue C which contains both hull and turret parts.
Sprue D, Hull parts
Sprue E, 2 part Barrel
8x Sprue, Tracks
Upper Hull
Lower Hull
Upper Turret
Small Decal Sheet
Areas of Note
Cast texture is provided on turret but is fine and possibility exists of it being covered by heavy paint or weathering.
Road, idler and drive wheels use plastic washers not the more common polycap style, unknown if this will cause any problems.
While casting detail is of good quality it remains behind that of higher quality (and higher priced) kits in many areas
Overall with some online retailers selling it for $20-25 USD plus postage (mine cost just shy of $49 AUD inc. delivery, about $37USD) one cant (ok many will) complain too much. Overall have cleaned off the bench and about to get into this beast.
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 01:08 PM UTC
Pedro
Wojewodztwo Pomorskie, Poland
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Joined: May 26, 2003
KitMaker: 1,208 posts
Armorama: 1,023 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 04:48 PM UTC
Hi Andrew, thanks for the detailed photos!
First let me say I expected worse model after initial photos of trump's T29, but now it looks like a solid base, tracks may be tediuos to build but they look much better than what takom came up with.
If you want any advice re percieved accuracy of the model I can list what I see is suspicious in the model parts photos:
Few areas jump at me as underdetailed or wrong.
1. "Ventilator dome" between driver's and assistant driver's hatches is simplified and misses two 'intake' slots on either side. It should be much more blended with UFP and hull's roof as it is one casting.
2. Turret's 'front end' should be blended with the turret shell.
3. Turret misses casting scarrs along its lower edges of the existing T29E1.
4. Gunners periscope part C34 should be simpler periscope with a flap setup as on early shermans.
5. Turret vent misses intake slots altoghether, it should be empty inside with just one horizontal blade inside the intake and two vertical blades.
6. There is some strange 'blade' aft of the driver's hatch, I think it maybe trumpeters wild stab at some auxiliary engine or heater motor exhaust, should just be a piece of pipe then.
7. Trunnion covers on either side of the mantlet should have different, more blended profile to match the existing T29E1
8. Engine deck louvers are oversimplified and lack depth, hard to do anything about it, maybe with some clever washes, highlights in the painting stage they may be made to look decent.
Cheers,
Greg
First let me say I expected worse model after initial photos of trump's T29, but now it looks like a solid base, tracks may be tediuos to build but they look much better than what takom came up with.
If you want any advice re percieved accuracy of the model I can list what I see is suspicious in the model parts photos:
Few areas jump at me as underdetailed or wrong.
1. "Ventilator dome" between driver's and assistant driver's hatches is simplified and misses two 'intake' slots on either side. It should be much more blended with UFP and hull's roof as it is one casting.
2. Turret's 'front end' should be blended with the turret shell.
3. Turret misses casting scarrs along its lower edges of the existing T29E1.
4. Gunners periscope part C34 should be simpler periscope with a flap setup as on early shermans.
5. Turret vent misses intake slots altoghether, it should be empty inside with just one horizontal blade inside the intake and two vertical blades.
6. There is some strange 'blade' aft of the driver's hatch, I think it maybe trumpeters wild stab at some auxiliary engine or heater motor exhaust, should just be a piece of pipe then.
7. Trunnion covers on either side of the mantlet should have different, more blended profile to match the existing T29E1
8. Engine deck louvers are oversimplified and lack depth, hard to do anything about it, maybe with some clever washes, highlights in the painting stage they may be made to look decent.
Cheers,
Greg
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 05:31 PM UTC
Thanks for the tips Grzegorz, while I was aware of the turret cast edge as a possible issue ((I didn't want comment until I had a good test fit of upper and lower parts and to compare them to various images I have found).
As for the other points, noted and will look at them when I'm working on those areas thanks . I'm currently working from a smallish library of images I've sourced from the net.
As for the other points, noted and will look at them when I'm working on those areas thanks . I'm currently working from a smallish library of images I've sourced from the net.
GTDeath13
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 07:15 PM UTC
Thanks for sharing this. Looks decent enough, the tracks look nice.
Will be following your build.
Will be following your build.
ninjrk
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 07:45 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Andrew, thanks for the detailed photos!
First let me say I expected worse model after initial photos of trump's T29, but now it looks like a solid base, tracks may be tediuos to build but they look much better than what takom came up with.
If you want any advice re percieved accuracy of the model I can list what I see is suspicious in the model parts photos:
Few areas jump at me as underdetailed or wrong.
1. "Ventilator dome" between driver's and assistant driver's hatches is simplified and misses two 'intake' slots on either side. It should be much more blended with UFP and hull's roof as it is one casting.
2. Turret's 'front end' should be blended with the turret shell.
3. Turret misses casting scarrs along its lower edges of the existing T29E1.
4. Gunners periscope part C34 should be simpler periscope with a flap setup as on early shermans.
5. Turret vent misses intake slots altoghether, it should be empty inside with just one horizontal blade inside the intake and two vertical blades.
6. There is some strange 'blade' aft of the driver's hatch, I think it maybe trumpeters wild stab at some auxiliary engine or heater motor exhaust, should just be a piece of pipe then.
7. Trunnion covers on either side of the mantlet should have different, more blended profile to match the existing T29E1
8. Engine deck louvers are oversimplified and lack depth, hard to do anything about it, maybe with some clever washes, highlights in the painting stage they may be made to look decent.
Cheers,
Greg
I confess I'm really not a fan of the louvers, vastly better in the Takom kit. Similar detail simplification in the various hinges. However, the tracks look much better with the separate grousers and the turret hatches are noticeably better detailed than Takom. Some of the turret top contours appear funky based on memory but will need to research. I like the one piece 50 cal. Neither captured the complexities of the turret texture and joints well. Mine is en route so I look forward to comparing them directly. I may end up using the Takom kit as a base and harvesting some of the hatches and the tracks from the Hobby Boss kit. With that said, the question will be whether to use the HB turret or carve out the rangefinders on the Takom kit to make it a vanilla T29.
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 08:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
With that said, the question will be whether to use the HB turret or carve out the rangefinders on the Takom kit to make it a vanilla T29.
Cant imagine that being much fun
MikeyBugs95
New York, United States
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 09:19 PM UTC
But even by carving out the hoods, the hatch positions on the Takom kit won't be right for an E1.
ninjrk
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 10:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
But even by carving out the hoods, the hatch positions on the Takom kit won't be right for an E1.
True, but it's a pretty easy repositioning job. It'll depend on how the overall HB turret shape looks and which route would be less effort.
ninjrk
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 10:23 PM UTC
The good news is that I pulled the metal barrel and plastic muzzle break off my Dragon T28, so that should save some effort.
Konigwolf
Tasmania, Australia
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Joined: November 06, 2009
KitMaker: 368 posts
Armorama: 321 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 - 05:25 PM UTC
First build update
Tracks are not workable in the true sense of the term as the end connectors and duck bills (right term for the track extensions?) are too loose and keep coming off. They will need to be glued into position, but they will make for nice indy link tracks.
Step one, drive and road wheel, only issue encountered some push marks on the drive wheels but these wont be visible once built and in position.
Step 2, rear lower hull, no problems encountered but a lack of weld seem noticeable. Since my refrence images are not clear enough I don't know where and how obvious they should be.
Please if anyone can point to some nice high res images or a good walk around I'd be very thankful.
step 3, entails removing some tabs off lower hull, no problems
step 4, suspension right side, no problems.
step 5, suspension left side, One of the suspension arm parts (A9) that connects to C40 needed to be shortened by about 1/32" to allow part A8 to fit in position. I'm not sure of the cause of the problem here but if A9 isn't shortened then it will force the wheel this section connects with out of alignment with all others on both sides.
Step 6, no problems encountered.
Tracks are not workable in the true sense of the term as the end connectors and duck bills (right term for the track extensions?) are too loose and keep coming off. They will need to be glued into position, but they will make for nice indy link tracks.
Step one, drive and road wheel, only issue encountered some push marks on the drive wheels but these wont be visible once built and in position.
Step 2, rear lower hull, no problems encountered but a lack of weld seem noticeable. Since my refrence images are not clear enough I don't know where and how obvious they should be.
Please if anyone can point to some nice high res images or a good walk around I'd be very thankful.
step 3, entails removing some tabs off lower hull, no problems
step 4, suspension right side, no problems.
step 5, suspension left side, One of the suspension arm parts (A9) that connects to C40 needed to be shortened by about 1/32" to allow part A8 to fit in position. I'm not sure of the cause of the problem here but if A9 isn't shortened then it will force the wheel this section connects with out of alignment with all others on both sides.
Step 6, no problems encountered.