who designed those wheels and tires? Really a stange way to do something, at least in my opinion.

For those who haven't tried this kit yet, this AFV has really deep dished road wheels which is all fine and good, but AFV Club went and molded the wheel's rim itself into the 'rubber' of the tire. This leaves me totally at a stand still as to just why something like this was done, as there's just no way I can think of as to how to paint this 'rim' and have the paint stay on while they are mounted onto the wheels, the wheels onto the vehicle, and the tracks onto the wheels after that.

I took them back up to the hobby shop where a couple of other builders had a look at this set up and agreed that they have never seen anything designed quite like this and again, their question, why. One said that somebody who had a resin mold machine could maybe mold some tires to replace the kit's, but the vinyl is really soft and more than likely it wouldn't work do the 'give'. in the vinyl.

I painted the wheels tonight and when ahead and temporaily mounted the wheels on, looks nice except for the big deep dished 'rubber' lip where the rim is supposed to be. Seems to me that AFV Club could have just molded a plastc rim seperately and then the builders could simply add them when they wanted to and mount the rubber tire over top. Oh well......

Anyway, I was just wondering if anybody has heard anything about any aftermarket wheels to come out for this kit to replace this ill-logical set up on a really fine kit.

Thanks and take care, Larry

Legend Productions already makes a set of resin roadwheels for the Centurion. They were probably made for the Tamiya kit but I don't see why they wouldn't fit the AFV Club kit.

You can also contact Accurate Armour and they will sell you their Centurion road wheels out of one of their Centurion kits.

Im building the very same kit Larry and I have to agree the wheel rim thing had me scratching my head :-) , those tyres dont even fit that well either.

I have to admit I have been dissapointed with many aspects of this kit ,even more so after reading some very positive reviews

Some parts such as the turret and the housing for the drive sprockets are very nicely detailed but other parts are very poorly moulded and the detail is soft , the fire extinguishers for example .

Oh and while im ranting , some of the very small parts are very difficult to remove from the very very thick sprues without a lot of tlc

Oh and my final rant , wth is the deal with the part that attaches half way down the barrel ( the bore extractor ??? ) it wont fit without major surgery :-) :-)

Ian

Academy used the same wheel/tire setup on their Merkava II and M60A1. I like it. Makes it easy to leave the tires rubber by leaving them off till after the painting of the hull and wheels is done.

I have to admit I have been dissapointed with many aspects of this kit ,even more so after reading some very positive reviews


As a reviewer I find that a very interesting remark, as I like to hear as much of the negative as well as the positive responses to a review.
Personaly I mention both the good and the bad of a kit I review, and wonder where you read your positive reviews that you are dissapointed with.

Henk

Hi Henk

I know for definate one review I read was on perthmilitarymodelling and apart from a few minor detail errors the only major problem noted was the bore extractor otherwise it was given a glowing report :-)
Where i saw the other review escapes me right now LOL but both where more or less "in box" reviews and a few of the problems I have come across only appeared once the build started so this could explain a lot
I have built a few AFV Club kits in the past and found them to be very good , this kit just seems slightly below there normal standard in some areas.

Ian

Hmmmm skill or lack of it does not change the fact that there is a major error in the kit with the fitting of the bore extractor which apparently AFV Club have acknowledged and will be rectifying, nor does badly moulded parts with soft detail and injection pin marks have anything to do with skill levels either


Ian

Are you sure? As far as I remember Academy kits have only the vinyl tire molded separately. AFV Club Cent has the tire and part of the rim molded as separate vinyl part! So it does not help in painting, just the opposite - makes it more difficult.

But thanks to such design of wheel, the inner details of the rim are more accurately reproduced. I would just personally prefer if they made these parts in plastic, not vinyl.

Pawel

Not too impressed with the assembly of the turret. The lower piece with the turret ring (I28) has a tab at the back which doesn't seem to fit any corresponding notch, and there seems to be a lack of positive placement. I removed the tab and cemented the lower plate level with the bottom of the side turret pieces which (hopefully) is where it should be. Also, the small poly caps which allow the mantlet to move up and down are too large for the holes molded in the turret sides (I replaced the caps with 1/8" styrene tube and drilled the holes larger). Anyone else find this to be a problem? Maybe I missed something. It's like I has a test shot or something. Locating pins but no holes for them to fit into, that kind of stuff. (not that I really need them ) I can see that the rubber on the rims may be a problem, they can slide all over the place, at least the Academy Merkava wheels have a rim to butt against to hold them in place.

Jim

Hi Jim

I think the tab is meant to sit on the inner rear of the turret which is how ive fitted mine , im not sure which is the correct way to fit it as the instructions are a little vauge, but depending on the how it is fitted will make a difference in how high the turret sits

Also I had the exact same problem with the poly caps for the mantlet , I trimmed the caps given with the kit and it seems ok , but I do intend to make a canvas mantlet so the gun will probably be in a fixed postion once I fit the cover

Ian

Larry

I have had no problems with the roadwheels so far. I attached the vinyl tyres to the plastic wheels with Loctite super plastic and that has created a firm bond. The acrylic paint I used to prime the tyres adhered well and hasn't cracked, flaked or peeled off. I'm going to use an enamel for the Aussie OD (WEM Colourcoats) and it will be interesting to see how that does.

I think that one of the reasons for using vinyl may have been to replicate the two ridges on the roadwheel rim but who knows?

By the way, Firestorm has produced a replacement mantlet with the canvas cover. It doesn't have the searchlight bracket but that was removed from many Centurions in Vietnam. They are going to release a second mantlet with the searchlight bracket next week.

Firestorm also has an update set including the covered mantlet, commander's and gunner's hatch, stowage boxes with reinforcement, star picket mud scrapers, long range fuel tank, stowed searchlight, .30 cal rack (but not with the 25 set), lifting eyes with hootchie pole sockets and glacis applique armour. The kit parts are fine but this set does give added detail that I'm too lazy to scratchbuild.

This is my first 1/35 kit in 30 years (I normally build small scale) and it's light years ahead of the Tamiya kits I built all those years ago.

David

Hi David

Ive gone the same route as you ,ie attaching the tyres prior to painting , its a shame really I was hoping not to have to go through the chore of painting wheel rims :-) :-) :-)


Ian

hi

ok the wheels i agree with you , but when the rubber rims are fitted the shape looks right.

i questioned the use of the rubber rims when it was designed, the main reason was to reproduce the lips in side of the road wheel rim, which is evident on ALL modern uk tanks, i.e. centurion, chieftain, kahlid, challenger early ones. Far better then the resin ones. I asked a resin manufacture if they could reproduce those ribs and got told no because of the moulds.

I also agree with the poly caps for the gun mantel.

but in the end it does represent a very accurate centurion dimensionally .also I think personally a very nice kit.

reference searchlights, when I was researching my centurion dozer 169071 I had access to a lot of pictures and 90% except dozers had the searchlight mounting bracket fitted to the gun mantel.
Reference the firestorm resin parts, I agree with the mantel cover , and the searchlight for the rear basket , also the reinforced bins but the rest is really not needed.
Rear tank is the same as AA armours in size etc , I should know I measured three and gave both the real measurements.
Reference the fitting of the spare road wheel brackets which is the reason for the front plate , well every tank had them in different places, reason is that this was a field modification .
Reference the gun fume extractor, the easiest way to fit is to cut the barrel where the extractor fits , measure the length first so when you put the two halves in the extractor you have the right length.
I was lucky to get two kits very early and I can tell you I did tear in to them regarding certain things. A lot of what is mentioned.
But if care is used the kit is spot on for a centurion.
Reference reviews probably the two including what I said on Missing links modern discussion group.
We can all complain but it is the best kit I have built since 1966 when my first kit was a revell Sherman .
WARNING.
Do not use, the wire for the tow rope it is to stiff and will damage the tow rope connectors.

There is a lot more in the kit which is not use don the Australian version but does allow you to make vehicles up to a Mk11. It is a shame that no side plates or 105mm gun or the mesh for the headlights are not included but this I believe will be in the next kits
One final thing. I know how much work has gone in to designing this kit , mainly because i was involved in it in a big way. I also know that the designer looked at a lot of centurions, I personally took , I showed him 6, also he looked at Dutch and Australian centurions within museums measuring them. I originally asked for a MK11/ Australian kit , why you may ask , well there main subject period at that time was Vietnam , but I said to the designer that if they wanted a bigger market they must add bits to build other countries versions or later marks of the mark 5.
I can also tell you that more is planned and that some of the faults are being rectified. And also I do show him all what people write and say about the kit, which being his first tank that he has designed I am very pleased with it. But company policy does dictate what can or can not be done in some areas.
ossie

Ossie

I just arranged with Firestorm to change my order to the mantlet with the searchlight bracket. I think that this will be the most popular replacement part unless you want to build the dozer.

I was going to cut the barrel as you describe but I read that you can cut the bottom of the fume extractor so that it spreads enough to slide ove the muzzle. Once glued in place, the cut is filled and shouldn't be noticeable.

I was also intending to anneal the wire provided for the tow cable to make it more malleable. What do you think?

While I’m happy with the Vietnam version, it would have been good if the kit included parts for a standard Mk 3 or 5. One of my older brothers was a tank commander during his military service and I am toying with the idea of building a RAAC Centurion circa late 1950s for him. However, I’m not sure whether I want to go to the trouble of sourcing and buying the necessary extra parts.

David

I see what you mean Ossie it is a little on the stiff side :-)




I agree Ossie , Im not saying this kit is really bad. Mine is around 95% built and it does look an impressive beast sitting on the bench.
My original point was that there is a little inconsistency of quality throughout the kit but nothing that cant be addressed with some tlc




David if you have access to a dremmel or similiar another option is to just gently open up the hole running through the fume extractor ,then you can slide it over the barrel,I used this method and the amount of filling needed is minimal.


Ian

It does sound like the kit has some flaws but for me it comes down to a couple of things. It is reasonablely accurate and it is a Centurion (how long have we been asking for a new Centurion?). Add to that it is priced at a pretty reasonable price and I think flaws aside it is still a winner. Now give me a Mk11 and I will be very happy. Mine is still in the box but I plan on building it soon. As was pointed out it will take some work to make it the best it can be but for me I think it will be worth it.

hi all

if you want a MK11 then i have a little surgestion. in the kit there is allready 90% of all mk 11 bits.all that is missing is 105mm, side plates, covers for the headlights.

buy from AA the etch brass set for a MK11 and a 105mm barrel possible barrel point? or AA and you then have everything to build a mk 11,

if you want to go really daft then buy the etch brass for the centurion for the drivers screen , bin catches and turret and bin tie down cleats and straps ,
finally the flui track.

after i have built my Covenater i have just started then that is what i will be doing when i build my danish centurion.

hope this helps

Ian

I annealled the wire by passing it through a blow torch. It's now quite malleable and I had no trouble attaching the cable eyes and bending it to fit. What's more the wire is now a convincing cable colour.

I did cut the bottom of the fume extractor and used cyano to fix it in place as well as joining the cut surfaces - no additional filling required.

David

I'm in total agreement with jungle jim.
I think this kit is far below arv standard.
The instructions are not detailed enough,the fit on a lot of parts is bad and a lot of the smaller parts could have been molded as one piece.
Also was anyone missing the resin figure?
There is the form to send for missing parts that you can send directly to their office,but there is nothing stating the address of this office.

I had no problem with turret, really, other than the polly caps (reduced them with hobby knife). The rims, well no problem with them either I glued them with cyanoacrylate, varnished with future and painted, not too different than in other kits and the detail is really better.
I really don't know what you mean that it's below standard? I added all the late 'Nam mods and loved every minute of it :-)
Oh, I'd almost forgot, the figure was meant to be only inside the first batch of kits hence there is no mention of it in the instuctions. If there's no sticker informing of the extra figure on your box lid, then there shouldn't be one inside

Greg

Parrot,

The resin figure was only supplied in the first releases and is described a a bonus addition, with a prominant sticker saying nthis on the box front.
If you dont have the figure, it may well be that you have received a kit from the next release.

John

If someone who was'nt into the hobby of scale model construction looked at your finished cent, in your display case and said "wow, I can't beleive it looks so real. The dirt, grime, paint and scratches are so authentic". How would this make you feel. Proud I would expect.

The only nit picks you will get are from yourself and people who build scale kits, not the average joe.

I say jump your hurdles and continue on and either ask more questions before you buy, or buy cause you like the subject and build (fix) it to the best of your ability.

My only rant is the whinging and moaning I read here and on other sites about new kits not being true to detail. Is there ever going to be a kit produced that is true to scale, across the board, with no other companies producing AM products. We will what and see.

Anyway I have the AFV Club Cent in my stash and look forward to building it some day.

Cheers and good luck.

Having nearly finished both the RAAC and the "NATO" simultaneously, I've encounterd some of the same niggles. I've started a third as a Mk 10. The mantlet poly circles I just left out as it won't move anyway once I add the tissue mantlet covers. The wheel painting problem won't be an issue with the RAAC version due to the weathering.
There are other oddities in addition to the ones already mentioned. The hull stowage bin pieces are nicely angled so that the seam is invisible-except on the rear piece which leaves a difficult to hide butt joint due to the proximity of the top reinforcing ribs.
For the RAAC version I'd have been happier with the more modern fire extinguishers, as my references show them more often. Also some reinforcing angle for the stowage bins would have been a nice touch, in addition to some for mud scrapers.
The kit supplied mesh can both tossed immediately as well. Wedding veil is much closer to scale appearance.
The lack of welds up front, especially if using the supplemental glacis armor, is another time consuming fix, but not a difficult one.
It also might have been nice to leave a 20 pdr, even a plastic one, in the "NATO" kit. No kit is perfect...
Another problem inherent in multi-version molds are the raised locating rectangles on the rear plate, for the fuel tank. Unneccesary for one, and might not be noticed by someone not using the fuel tank. The instructions show the removal of such locators on the glacis, but not the rear plate. Someone unfamiliar with the other kit might leave them on, and they'd show up pretty readily after weathering.
My last complaint is the glacis piece with the fender portions. On all three of my kits it's slightly warped downward, and not as easy to remedy. Normally it could be let go as the front portion of the fenders tended to sag a little anyway, but if you're adding extended fenders it needs to be corrected to square everything up.
All in all I'd rate both kits slightly ahead of their M40, which I also liked but which was not without its share of faults.
I'm still trying to find the improvements in the turret in the NATO version over the RAAC version, but I blame that on failing eyesight.
The problem with the in the box reviews is that they rarely address the sorts of problems some have noted. Personally I don't care as I don't make my decisions based upon them, and I'll build even a dog of a kit just for the fun of it. Still, newer modelers should be aware of build problems and inaccuracies, if for no other reason so that they can remedy them without having having to spend extra time and money on references to discover them themselves.

Like any kit, some people will find shortcomings in the AFV "Cent" and others will build it out of the box and love it.

And like any kit, it's not perfect.

That said, it is very difficult to present a kit as an "Australian Centurion in Vietnam", as they were essentially ever-evolving, and each one was different in many small details.

The standard tanks that landed in 1968 complete with side skirts were very different from the "lean and mean" tanks that returned to Australia in 1972 minus fittings such as the smoke projectors and with reinforced hull stowage boxes and new track guards fabricated from 1/8 sheet steel.

While many of the mods were uniform, there was the factor of field repairs, the whims of individual tradesmen and the availability of materials.

What the kit essentially depicts is a tank in late 1968/early 1969 with the bazooka plates removed and spare wheels mounted on the reinforced glacis plate.

You could also quite easily depict an earlier tank by installing the glacis with headlight mounts which is supplied with the kit, or really turn the clock back with a set of bazooka plates (the Aussie tanks only ventured out once - Operation Pinaroo in 1968 - with the side plates installed).

Sure, you can't build a "later" (1969-1972) tank out of the box, but the modular design which includes separate track guards makes the job a lot easier.

I am yet to break out the slide rule and tape measure (and I doubt if I ever will), but the AFV offering definitely looks a lot more like a "Cent" than the old Tamiya offering ... the major differences I have noted is the turret is longer, hull wider and tracks guards narrower.

The rubber band tracks - which seem to be impervious to every glue known to man - have been installed on a Tamiya Mk3 I converted (as best I could) to a 5/1 back in 1991 (Readers of Australian Defender magazine may remember it from the first issue), and I am currently tinkering with the individual track links.

The turret mesh is not incorrect (there were several patterns), but I liked aluminium architectural diamond mesh, which was more convincing, and had the added bonus of making the basket rock solid.

The wheels to me are a complete mystery - to my mind, if you're going to provide rubber tyres, they should be just the tyre, and not incorporate the metal rim. Even if you can get this material to accept paint, it seems inevitable that down the track (pardon the pun) either the paint will flake and fall off or the tyre will shrink and crack.

I've opted for the Legends set of wheels (you need to trim the axles off level with the extremity of the inner hub to line them up with the front idler and rear drive sprocket) and resin items from Mousehouse Enterprises for the spares on the glacis.

I am trying to depict "The Very Diabolical" (call sign 4C) in late 1971 with reinforced bins, sheet metal guards, mud scapers and angle iron guards for the aerials. While the markings for the rear of the hull and turret basket are most probably correct, the nickname for the barrel is not supplied, and my research suggest ARN 169108 was in fact the "Iron Outlaw" ... stay tuned on this research.

I have a great snap of The Very Diabolical taken from another tank from the port side ... although no mud scrapers are visible, they may have been added with the onset of the wet season (remember what I said about ever-evolving?)

Replacing the guards is a simple affair and the resulting shape is far more utility and streamlined than the standard kit.

Firestorm Models' update kit is a Godsend for the mantlet cover and reinforced stowage bins alone. I didn't use the glacis plate because I just couldn't get it flat ... I was quite happy with the miliput weld bead I added to the kit item.

There is some talk about the position of the spare wheels, but there appears to be some variation from tank to tank with the wheel on the driver's side generally lower (originally this was a field mod, but was probably later standardised).

But all this is just me being fussy (or obsessive?) ... as a no brainer project, if I ever did build the AFV Cent "out of the box", about the only change I'd make would be replacing the wheels and the turret basket mesh.

I would post a pic of my ongoing project, but I am currently compiling an article for a major modelling mag, so some of you may get to read about the whole saga in a few months.