Yes Kurt that's right, at least that's what I was talking about. By making the base plate (part B4) more circular in shape you would seem to be able to create an acceptable overhang on the sides of the turret.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Black Label T54E1 - Dragon gets it wrong
JSSVIII
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
Armorama: 1,067 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 06:18 AM UTC
panamadan
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 06:28 AM UTC
Why would you even buy one in the first place? That's what I don't understand.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 09:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
they never did get the lower hull on thier M4A4 corrected
Wrong. The M4A4 hull was corrected long time ago - when the Firefly Vc kit was re-released years ago. There were other inaccuracies in those kits, but the hull length issue was addressed.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 10:24 AM UTC
Quoted Text
That is what modeling is! Look at some of the very early kits and what modelers did to make them look decent. An AMPS convention I attend has a category for kits that are over 25 years old,(and you have to have the instructions to prove it and it has to be out of the box), and some of the work done is amazing. A good modeler can take almost any kit, regardless of the issues, and make it a model that most of us would be more then happy to display front and center on our shelves.
Hello? To whom are you talking?... Have you seen my M103A1 model? Or my M3A2 made from crappy Lee copy of Tamiya old kit? You don't have to tell me what can be done with a POS kit with A LOT of effort. And even without any PE sets. But I refuse to do it to new kits anymore - the fact that I'm capable of correcting the kit is no excuse for lack of research and poor design. And I spent enough time working with DML to know what they were capable of years ago when they cared. They don't anymore and we, as customers, have full rights to complain.
Quoted Text
It is a fact of life that model companies are going to put out duds once in a while. Well instead of complaining, think of it as a challenge.
Thanks, but no, thanks. I've had enough "fun" rebuilding 80% of M103 kit from scratch to make it somewhat resemble the real thing... When I want a challenge, I do conversions. When I buy a kit, I expect it to be reasonably accurate for the version it's meant to represent. "Reasonably" is enough, I don't expect perfection.
Quoted Text
Now back to the Dragon Black Label Conqueror, because as a modeler, I will conquer it. With some help from Aber, Voyager, Master Club, and some skill.
And you will still have model with wrong armor shape around the driver's hatch, wrong size wheels, wrong length fender sections and skirts etc... It will be a nice detailed model I'm sure, but it will still have numerous inaccuracies, unless you are ready to do do some serious plastic surgery. I know such things don't bother you, but they bother some of the others - and it doesn't mean that they are not skilled enough to correct them.
Removed by original poster on 03/06/17 - 10:37:09 (GMT).
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
It looks like they tooled the original crappy CAD version, not the corrected one, reworked with Ron Volstad's assistance...
Correction - I checked and it looks like I was wrong, it seems to be tooled from the newer CAD, as displayed in the current "poster". How they missed the undercut though is beyond me...
The canvas looked better in the original CAD (although the overall turret shape was all wrong).
tanknick22
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:49 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
they never did get the lower hull on thier M4A4 corrected
Wrong. The M4A4 hull was corrected long time ago - when the Firefly Vc kit was re-released years ago. There were other inaccuracies in those kits, but the hull length issue was addressed.
are you refering to the firefly that was re
released under the cyber hobby line it wasn't the lower hull was still too long after their so called fix you still have too much space between the last bogie wheel and idler
that spacing between the last bogey assembly and the idler
should be the same as other sherman varients
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 03:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
are you refering to the firefly that was rereleased under the cyber hobby line it wasn't the lower hull was still too long
No, I'm refering to this original Dragon release: https://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr6182.htm
The same corrected hull parts were also used in this kit: http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr6323.htm
This is my M4A4 model built using the Dragon corrected lower hull:
And real tank for comparison - idler-bogie spacing is correct in DML kit:
The "Orange" series are often re-releases of the very old kits with no modifications, so it is possible that they used the old bad parts for it (just as they re-released their crappy old M1A1 Abrams kit in this line, even though they had MUCH better newer M1A1 kit sprues available).
SgtRam
Contributing Writer
#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 05:11 PM UTC
Quoted Text
And you will still have model with wrong armor shape around the driver's hatch, wrong size wheels, wrong length fender sections and skirts etc... It will be a nice detailed model I'm sure, but it will still have numerous inaccuracies, unless you are ready to do do some serious plastic surgery. I know such things don't bother you, but they bother some of the others - and it doesn't mean that they are not skilled enough to correct them.
Well, I don't see an issue with the wheel size or fender length. Hmmmm, gee the model looks like a Conqueror to me.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 05:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, I don't see an issue with the wheel size or fender length. Hmmmm, gee the model looks like a Conqueror to me.
Good for you. For me it also looks like a Conqueror. The difference is that "looks like" is enough for you to accept it, but not enough for me. I actually do see in those photos that Dragon wheels are too big (note the tight spacing between them) and skirt lenghts are not quite the same as in the real tank.
I have no problem with you building your kits any way you want. If you enjoy it - that's great, I'm happy for you - honestly! Just don't try to force your views on others. If others don't accept inaccuracies in new kits and want to complain about them, just ignore them please, instead of posting about how much you don't care and insisting that others shouldn't care either. It will make everyone happier - you included.
SgtRam
Contributing Writer#197
Joined: March 06, 2011
KitMaker: 3,971 posts
Armorama: 2,859 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 05:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
If others don't accept inaccuracies in new kits and want to complain about them, just ignore them please, instead of posting about how much you don't care and insisting that others shouldn't care either. It will make everyone happier - you included.
I am not insisting anything, other then the kits are not as bad as some people make them out to be. And if people have the right to share their opinion of the inaccuracy in the kit(s), then I have the right to share my opinion as well.
I am not trying to offend anyone, or how they enjoy the hobby, I am just sharing an opposing opinion, so that people can make their own decision.
And no worries, I am happy.
Cantstopbuyingkits
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 06:03 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Well, I don't see an issue with the wheel size or fender length. Hmmmm, gee the model looks like a Conqueror to me.
Good for you. For me it also looks like a Conqueror. The difference is that "looks like" is enough for you to accept it, but not enough for me. I actually do see in those photos that Dragon wheels are too big (note the tight spacing between them) and skirt lenghts are not quite the same as in the real tank.
I have no problem with you building your kits any way you want. If you enjoy it - that's great, I'm happy for you - honestly! Just don't try to force your views on others. If others don't accept inaccuracies in new kits and want to complain about them, just ignore them please, instead of posting about how much you don't care and insisting that others shouldn't care either. It will make everyone happier - you included.
Exactly!
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 06:40 PM UTC
Hold on a new mold modern kit with a molded on loader's hatch?
For $68 I want all separate hatches even if there's no detail on the inside. This is not 1/72 scale here.
For $68 I want all separate hatches even if there's no detail on the inside. This is not 1/72 scale here.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 07:04 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hold on a new mold modern kit with a molded on loader's hatch?
For $68 I want all separate hatches even if there's no detail on the inside. This is not 1/72 scale here.
But this is Black Label standard - M103 also had one turret hatch molded on...
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 07:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextHold on a new mold modern kit with a molded on loader's hatch?
For $68 I want all separate hatches even if there's no detail on the inside. This is not 1/72 scale here.
But this is Black Label standard - M103 also had one turret hatch molded on...
And I got my M103 for about what I thought it was worth as far as accuracy goes: free. My brother decided to get rid of it after reading all the work you did on it. I compared the shapes in the Dragon kit to a ROCO 1/87 scale kit and they got the shapes better.
I'm doing it as a what-if so it doesn't matter.
As for the Sherman V/M4A4 weirdness, it's like I've said before. They fix it in one release but leave it unfixed in another. Their mix-and-match of sprues leads to some very hit and miss kits throughout their line. Unless it's a subject they care deeply about and those all seem to have Balkan crosses on the side.
So I ended up changing my building habits without being aware of it. One day there was all this dunkelgelb on my shelf rather than olive drab. German seems to be the subject companies care about, so I started doing panzers. It was almost sub-conscious. I adjusted my preferences as a consumer to match what was available.
So there is some sense to Dragon's marketing strategy.
And yes there is some satisfaction to fixing a total mess of a kit. In the early 1980's I completely fixed a Revell 1/40 T-34/85 and an Ogonek 1/30 IS-3. But it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. There was nothing else. Now there is in great part thanks to Dragon. Seems their success opened the floodgates for all kinds of other companies from AFV-club and Trumpeter to Meng and Asuka/Takom. SO they have done great good. But they were never perfect and it's wrong to say they always were. They perpetrated a load of disastrous kits long before Black Label.
WXerock
#450
Joined: July 19, 2015
KitMaker: 672 posts
Armorama: 668 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 09:49 PM UTC
Stephen, my experience is exactly the opposite of yours. I bought three Dragon Tiger I kits in a row in the mid 2000 range when that was all Dragon released. I started doing research and the build on two of them. All Three were boxed up when military service forced a break in building. They have survived with me through six moves now. I have always been a fan of modern US armor but let Dragon's preferences affect my own as well. Now that I am building again, I see myself never building any WW II German armor. Those three kits and all of the aftermarket, plus books will get sold off. I have adjusted my reading habits as well, steering clear of the endless magazine and website builds by people who are obsessed with German armor. I for one, do wish that Dragon would release accurate kits of non German subjects. While there aren't many T prefixed vehicles that I am interested in, an M103 would have been nice.
Regards,
Eric
Regards,
Eric
Petition2God
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 11:37 PM UTC
It is again sad that Dragon managed to put out a product that is grossly inaccurate and grossly high-priced. It is even sadder that some of us as modelers and consumers will tolerate this and argue with folks who are expressing disapproval.
Come on, I said this many times before - it is 2017, when technology has evolved, information is abundant, there are experts willing to help, and competitors are doing fabulous jobs (Meng, Takom, RFM, Tiger - you pick your choice). We are not living in the 1980s. Expectations should be different. Why succumb to such gross disregard for accuracy, charging of high price, and even having to buy so many AM parts to fix? To me it's disrespectful to us hobbyists and consumers.
Times have changed. Cars have improved. Electronics have improved. We expect Dragon to keep up with the time and competition. My hard-earned money is not going to Dragon for this BL junk. And I appreciate these critiques.
Come on, I said this many times before - it is 2017, when technology has evolved, information is abundant, there are experts willing to help, and competitors are doing fabulous jobs (Meng, Takom, RFM, Tiger - you pick your choice). We are not living in the 1980s. Expectations should be different. Why succumb to such gross disregard for accuracy, charging of high price, and even having to buy so many AM parts to fix? To me it's disrespectful to us hobbyists and consumers.
Times have changed. Cars have improved. Electronics have improved. We expect Dragon to keep up with the time and competition. My hard-earned money is not going to Dragon for this BL junk. And I appreciate these critiques.
hugohuertas
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 03:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It is again sad that Dragon managed to put out a product that is grossly inaccurate and grossly high-priced. It is even sadder that some of us as modelers and consumers will tolerate this and argue with folks who are expressing disapproval.
Come on, I said this many times before - it is 2017, when technology has evolved, information is abundant, there are experts willing to help, and competitors are doing fabulous jobs (Meng, Takom, RFM, Tiger - you pick your choice). We are not living in the 1980s. Expectations should be different. Why succumb to such gross disregard for accuracy, charging of high price, and even having to buy so many AM parts to fix? To me it's disrespectful to us hobbyists and consumers.
Times have changed. Cars have improved. Electronics have improved. We expect Dragon to keep up with the time and competition. My hard-earned money is not going to Dragon for this BL junk. And I appreciate these critiques.
I keep saying the same thing again and again...
But there will always be enough people willing to pay today prices for these kind of crappy kits, in name of a theoretical "self-inflicted pain" obligation to be entitled to call yourself a modeler.
Good for them.
I prefer to spend my money in any of the many very good kits available today. Dragon caught me once with their Black Plague Kpz 70, and that was enough for me.
bots1141
Joined: October 14, 2013
KitMaker: 318 posts
Armorama: 313 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 05:59 AM UTC
Speaking of the Dragon BLS M103, its being re-released with fuel drums!!! I wonder if they even got those right!!!
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10453882
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10453882
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Speaking of the Dragon BLS M103, its being re-released with fuel drums!!! I wonder if they even got those right!!!
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10453882
Funny, they choose the version that didn't carry the auxiliary fuel drums to include with the fuel drums...
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Monday, March 06, 2017 - 06:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextChris in step 10 it lists the turret "cradle" as part B4, but in step 13 it lists the turret cradle BOTTOM as part B4. Could you please show a photo of those two parts, especially the bottom part (the part that sits in the hull) showing them side by side, (from above) will give an idea of how much material can be removed to try and fix the shape issue.
I'm planning to cut along the red line shown below to make the bottom part "B4" round to more or less match to circle on the tank chassis.
Chris,
Please continue to post your progress; this is not an uninteresting model and I'm very grateful for the insight to possible solutions you provide.
Many thanks,
Brian
2-32sherman
Joined: February 14, 2003
KitMaker: 64 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 03:25 AM UTC
Yes Chris,
your statement is absolutely correct!
I'll never buy the Dragon Black label yunk again!
Dragon should call it the "Black [auto-censored]"; - that's more appropriate!
The M60 plain is plagued by mistakes:
1. main gun barrel too long and too thin!
2, M83 barrel too long!
3. M19 cupola is a piece of [auto-censored]; - replaced it with the Legend one's!
5. The hatches are "liberated" of any interrior details!
6. Even the sprocket is void it's mud holes!!!
AFV Club has no problems in getting the details right with their M60 models! No missing mud holes or other crap!
Save your money and spare you any problems with the "Black [auto-censored]" Dragon models!
your statement is absolutely correct!
I'll never buy the Dragon Black label yunk again!
Dragon should call it the "Black [auto-censored]"; - that's more appropriate!
The M60 plain is plagued by mistakes:
1. main gun barrel too long and too thin!
2, M83 barrel too long!
3. M19 cupola is a piece of [auto-censored]; - replaced it with the Legend one's!
5. The hatches are "liberated" of any interrior details!
6. Even the sprocket is void it's mud holes!!!
AFV Club has no problems in getting the details right with their M60 models! No missing mud holes or other crap!
Save your money and spare you any problems with the "Black [auto-censored]" Dragon models!
Pongo_Arm
Joined: January 27, 2017
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 147 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 03:50 AM UTC
And piece B2 is open on the bottom, Siting on its cradle with no rubber canvas piece(which seems horrible btw) you can see up into the empty turret from behind and in front. Really the turret on this is of toy making quality not model quality at all.
Pongo_Arm
Joined: January 27, 2017
KitMaker: 147 posts
Armorama: 147 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 04:01 AM UTC
The cut out has to come up to the level of the front chin of the cradle. so some meat from the cradle will have to go on the sides, and it would be round in profile when viewed from below, not a straight line like has been drawn here.
I doubt the turret will even traverse without this modification. Those boxes will be in the way.
I doubt the turret will even traverse without this modification. Those boxes will be in the way.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 - 10:03 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes Chris,
your statement is absolutely correct!
I'll never buy the Dragon Black label yunk again!
Dragon should call it the "Black [auto-censored]"; - that's more appropriate!
The M60 plain is plagued by mistakes:
1. main gun barrel too long and too thin!
2, M83 barrel too long!
3. M19 cupola is a piece of [auto-censored]; - replaced it with the Legend one's!
5. The hatches are "liberated" of any interrior details!
6. Even the sprocket is void it's mud holes!!!
AFV Club has no problems in getting the details right with their M60 models! No missing mud holes or other crap!
Save your money and spare you any problems with the "Black [auto-censored]" Dragon models!
But... M60 kit is not Black Label... It's a "SmartKit".
 |
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.