Hi All,

I recently got the Rye Field M1A1/M1A2 (RM-5007) and having built several copies of the Dragon 3535 (M1A1 AIM), and going over the Rye Field instructions, I am absolutely floored by how the Rye Field exterior is almost an exact copy of the parts breakdown of the Dragon kit. I must say that the primary reason for my purchase of the Rye Field (and potentially, the Meng Abrams) is that it seems that the Dragon 3535 often seems to be out of stock, or back ordered, and I wanted to be sure that I would have a steady steam, if you will, of the current US main battle tank (I have been VERY happy with the Dragon kit, and really can't see any improvement in the exterior details, except for possibly crisper molds on the more recent kits). The Dragon 3535 would be, if not having been updated, running on 15 years without new tooling. Don't ask me why I am so anal about wanting to be sure of access to this particular tank model...I'm just goofy that way, even though I still have one more 3535, 2 copies of the 3536 (the M1A2 SEP V1), and 2 copies of the M1A2 SEP V2 which are still untouched, on my shelf.

In any event, I am just curious whether model manufacturers have any kind of 'copyright protections' on their kits. Yes, I know the Rye Field has an interior, and there appear to be a few exterior details that are slightly different (for instance, the 'dog house' is molded onto the turret exterior, as opposed to a separate part on the Dragon kit; it doesn't look like the Rye Field kit gives you the option of making the tow cables using wire cable and PE cable on the turret, and the engine deck has fewer parts on the Rye Field), but outside of that, the exterior parts look identical, as do the instruction details. Just curious.

And, one last question...if I wanted an essentially identical build to the Dragon 3535, that is an M1A1 AIM without an interior and no TUSK upgrades/additions, which of the Rye Field kits would be the best, and the same question for the Meng.

Thanks all, for your thoughts and opinions...

Hey Curt !

A happy new year to you !

I can understand the "irritation" with many new M1 kits being offered on the market recently, but I have come to a similar conclusion as you.
For me the Dragon M1 kits are still the best out there .... that said doesn't mean I don't try to improve with AM items such as the CROWS II from DEF for the V2 version.

Since I haven't got hooked on to doing "Interiors" or TUSK (yet) I can't identify any significant improvements by all these new offers over the Dragon kit. I have purchased the two MENG kits to have a closer look at and to "salvage" certain parts for other Dragon M1 projects ... but overall, the Dragon kit still seems to be the best researched one of all in terms of overall detail and accuracy.

My buddy Max, who is heavy into M1s finds the ACADEMY kit to be the most promising of all the newer kits in many aspects .... price being a being a big one ... and I believe they have corrected their running gear issues too.
I did get the RyeField M1 ABV which looks very nice .... probably ending up as a mix with the PSM kit (turret and blade).
The initial 105mm M1 is what I'm actually waiting for ... have to get a look inside the PANDA box first to see if it is worth supplementing Dragon spares or just wait a little and see what happens.

All in all we should still consider ourselves lucky though ! .... I mean, just look at all those poor "b@st@rds" being flooded with all these new and wonderful PANTHER kits .... at least one per week .... " If you can't convince them ... confuse them" seems to be the motto here.

I do like change and innovation striving for improvement ... but with my trusted Dragon kits ... I cannot identify any real competitor outer yet.

Cheers
Christopher

One of my ongoing projects: M1A1 HA 1-4 CAV ca. 2001 in Germany

One school will say there are only so many ways to break down the parts on a kit. Look at a P-51. Nearly all the kits break down the same way but you couldn't really call them carbon copies.

On the other hand there's "why reinvent the wheel?" Another company did the hard work, we'll just tweak it. That's the Academy M60 and M113 kits. The parentage is obvious but they're changed enough to make them their own kit. I can well imagine one company just using a CAD of another model as opposed to going to the real thing.

The rub is -- are the parts interchangeable? Will the RFM bits fit on the Dragon kit exactly matching nubs and marking tabs? That's when it's a copy. Is there an obvious error that is not corrected? Or an omission that it's obvious one company filled in or didn't?

Copying of tooling is so rampant that at times it looks like only a handful of companies actually do the tooling and farm it out to various makers just switching around the sprues that 15% to escape direct infringement. Or maybe they're safe from lawsuits somewhere in Asia.

It's complicated and there may be more to the story than what is on the surface.

the parts are interchangeable between dragon and ryefeilds

if you don't knows it, here the blog of Pavel which didn't finish his review about M1A1/2 kits.
With the wheels/hull comparaisons he did, the différences are on light.

http://www.vodnik.net/

Great work from Pavel, very usefull even if not finished.

I think the emphasis here should be on "AVAILABLE." The Dragon Abrams were OOP forever, and are still rather spotty from what I can see. Best bet seems to be to pick a kit in your price range and tart it up as your tastes indicate.

Quality wise, they are about equal. The only benefits I see w/the Rye Field over Dragon is the interior and tracks. I like full interiors, so that is right up my alley. I don't really like the DS tracks and usually replace them. With Rye Field and Meng, I don't need to. Also, I like how Rye Field and Meng give you all the parts (A1, A2, A2 SEP, A2 SEP v2, TUSK I, etc...) in one box so you can really build any version you want.

I have the new edition of the Academy M1A2 V2 Tusk II 13504 and I can confirm they corrected the spacing. The new kt also includes the DEF Model track.

Thomas