Jump to content

diablo rsv

Gold Member
  • Posts

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by diablo rsv

  1. Unfortunately I just haven't found the time to get this build finished by the deadline. Is it possible to get this thread be moved to the AFV wip section @PlaStix?
  2. Yes they were Peter, not perfect but a big improvement on the kit. Wayne
  3. I did a build of the Takom kit a little while back. I wouldn't bother with the AA barrel, the Takom one isn't too bad and an AA one I had for another build wasn't great and never got used. The kit tracks are pretty good as well. I have linked my WIP which outlines a couple of shortcomings of the kit and may be of help to you. and below is the finished result. It's a great kit as I recall. Wayne
  4. Great work Bob, that's an impressive line up, are you intending to paint them all at the same time? Wayne
  5. Thanks Darryl, That's pretty much what I have in mind. I was going to add the stowage before painting but as time is against me it's more likely that I will get on with the painting and add stowage another time. That's horrific. Wayne
  6. Definitely a help Bertie, once you get into the rhythm it's not a bad system. I wonder if the jig could be used for the Miniart Grant. Thanks Stix, to be fair RFM have most of the detail included, it's just my OCD that won't let me ignore the odd missing detail. Nice to see you back John. This my first of theirs and I am really impressed with the level of detail. The plastic feels similar to that of Takom but with much finer attachment points between the parts and sprue. My only gripe is that they include so many optional parts without any indication as to which is needed for a given subject. I have their Challenger 2 in the pile and this kit has given me an urge to get started on it. I just need to clear the backlog of started kits first. Thanks Bob, Would I be right in thinking that they would be carrying different stowage depending whether they are on the move or going into battle? The photo of my subject does seem to have a Jerry can stowed on the glacis, but it has just come off of the landing craft. Of course that could just contain water. Wayne
  7. Finally I've managed to find a bit of time to post an update. Using Matt's @Cerberus advice above, I sorted out the seam line on the bogies, and you're right Matt, it was so much easier than trying to use stretched sprue, what was I thinking? They could probably do with a little cleaning up but I imagine once the weathering is applied little will be seen. You can also see the three vertical bolt holes that needed to be drilled out as RFM hadn't included them. I also followed the advice given by @Retired Bob and glued the front bogies to stop the track pulling up the front wheels. The upper hull went together without any problems. The only addition was where the front fenders had been removed, on the particular tank that I am modelling they seem to have left an extra piece of the fender so I added these with some plastic card. The turret also goes together without any dramas apart from the stowage bin. The way RFM have engineered it means that there are some difficult seams to remove. I found it easier to replace the moulded on band with one made from lead foil. RFM have included many optional parts in this kit and there is no indication of what part is needed for any particular subject so you really need to do some research into the vehicle you are modelling. However the one part that I could really have done with having options for is the radio box that was fitted to the rear of the turret on the Firefly. There seems to be at least two versions used, one has round access covers on the top of the box and the other one has square covers and this is the only one RFM have included. The construction of the boxes seems to differ as well. The included box has a welded plate at the rear of each side of the box, the far more common box has flat sides that extend slightly beyond the back plate. In fact I have found it very difficult to find images of tanks with the box configuration that RFM have included. It's a bit of a shame really as it is quite a prominent feature. It would be a fairly straight forward modification but I am running out of time with this project so I shall leave as is. Apart from some tidying up I think I'm finally there with the construction phase. Most Firefly images show them with plenty of stowage and this is something I would like to replicate. I need to do a little research as to what they would most likely have under those tarpaulins, I imagine most of it would be camo nets, spares, fuel and liberated items. With a bit of luck I can get the painting process started soon but the way things are at the moment I feel I may struggle to get this finished by the deadline. Wayne
  8. No, I bought it in the UK, I can't remember who from though. All of the sprues were in my boxing and I didn't realise they did different boxings for different markets. Seems an odd decision. It is an expensive kit especially as there a few parts that need replacing to make it accurate such as the tracks and wheels which are wrong for the prototype. An enjoyable build though. This is a link to my work in progress if your interested. and the finished model below. Wayne
  9. Hi Alan I just saw this post, did you manage to find some? I built the prototype and have the grenade launchers spare if you want them. Wayne
  10. Blimey Bertie, you do get through an impressive amount of work. That engine looks like a model in it's self! My experience of Miniart kits is that there is a lot of cleaning up of parts, which for me is one of the least enjoyable parts of model making, however the detail that they put into their kits is outstanding. Keep up the good work, this is going to be a cracker. Wayne
  11. You look like you're cracking along nicely Ed, those handles look much better than the photoetch. Wayne
  12. I can't say I was looking forwards to putting the tracks together, but then who does? As tracks go though, these weren't too bad. Just four sprues. Once the parts were removed and cleaned up the provided assembly jig was used to make up a six link section of track. First the inner part of the link is laid face down onto the jig. These are then held in place with the top half of the jig. The next part was a little fiddly. The end plates and pins, still on their section of sprue, have to be held in the correct position.... whilst a clamp is fitted to hold them in place. Once both sides have been clamped in, the top half of the jig can be removed. Using a small amount of adhesive the top half of each track link can be fixed. The problem here was that pins were forcing the halves apart so each one needed to be held until the glue had dried. This was going to slow the process down considerably so I found it best to use super glue. Unfortunately I only had the slow type available so it still took a little longer than I had hoped. Once I was happy that the glue was dry the jig could be removed. The sprue holding the pins in place could be cut off either before or after removing the jig. I chose to do it after just in case the halves came apart. There are no spare end plate/ pins so I was paranoid about losing one. I adapted the bottom section of one of the jigs so that it could be used to join the sections of track together. The tracks were then test fitted to the model. The idlers are fitted to a concentric cam so that the track tension can be adjusted. I'm not sure how many links the actual tank used but Ryefield call for 83 in the instructions. This seemed a little tight to me. Because of the working suspension I found that the front road wheel was getting pulled up by the track slightly. I added another link but to get the track tight the idler had to be adjusted back to its maximum and it still pulled up the front wheel but not as bad. I'm wondering if the springs in the suspension may be a little weak. Adding a little weight to the model seems to solve the problem but then I don't know if the model is sitting at the correct height. Once construction of the model is finished I will see if I need to add some permanent weight. Working suspension maybe a nice idea for diorama builders but I'm not so sure it's really necessary. As for the tracks themselves, I think they look pretty good, maybe some metal ones would add the weight needed to get the correct the sit of the model but I really don't want to go down the after market route on this build. Assembly wise Ryefield's system seemed to work well enough. Having no experience of building Shermans before I don't have anything to compare theirs to so it will be interesting to see in the other build's in the group how other manufacturers go about it. One thing that I did find invaluable was a decent pair of single sided sprue cutters, especially when it came to removing the sprue from the teeth on the endplates. Trying to clean those up afterwards would have been a pain but I find these cutters make such a clean cut that I didn't have to. That's the most tedious part of the build out of the way. Hopefully the upper hull and turret will go together fairly quickly. Wayne
  13. Just the pressed ones in the kit, which is fine for my subject choice. Thanks for the link to your chart, it will definitely come in handy so I've downloaded it.
  14. That's an astonishing amount of detail that you have added Kristjan, excellent work. I feel I was rather lazy with mine now. Wayne
  15. Loving the work you're putting into this MD, this will be an impressive looking model. Wayne
  16. That's very helpful, thank you Peter.
  17. I have made some progress with the running gear. It's really good of Ryefield to have supplied three different styles of drive sprockets and return rollers however there is no indication as which ones are required for a particular vehicle. I guess it's up to the modeler to do some research on the subject they are modelling. For the drive sprocket I went with the fancier Chrysler one ( part numbers 3/9 ) as this seems most common on the VC. Finding clear contemporary reference photos of the return roller proved a little difficult so I went with the middle one ( part number 7 ) as this was the one fitted to an M4A4 in a walkaround that I found. Ryefield would have you glue the two halves of the sprocket together before fixing to the hub which is already inserted into the drive assembly. However that makes it very difficult to line up the pins on the hub with the holes inside the sprocket. Its much easier to fix the hub to the sprocket before gluing the halves together. The kit provides a workable suspension system. This makes assembly of the bogies a little fiddly as it involves holding a number of pieces in place and then gluing the two halves of the suspension unit around them. Using some superglue to hold the springs into part number J29 makes life a lot easier. The resulting join between the two halves isn't great but the application of some sprue goo soon sorted that out. Once everything is tidied up the units were fitted to the hull. I have to say I'm very impressed with them, even though I don't particularly need working suspension for those that do dioramas I imagine it would be a very useful feature. The only detail that I can see that they have missed is a horizontal join line across the cast section of the unit, although they do show the line in their instruction drawings. This is more noticeable in some photos of actual tanks than others and I did attempt to replicate it with some stretched sprue but it was proving easier said than done. I may have to have another go later if time permits but now it's time to tackle those tracks. Wayne
  18. Thanks Darryl, I haven't seen the Dragon one up close, yet, but the detail on this kit is superb and so far the fit has been pretty good. Considering it's a much more recent kit than the Dragon it should really be better but that's not always the case it seems. Thanks Six, that's really handy . I'm sure Peter @Das Abteilung won't mind me quoting it below as it will save me having to ask him to keep repeating himself. Track type is T62. Used almost exclusively by Chrysler on M4A4s in the latter half of production. They are very easy to identify because of the 3 rivets not found on any other curved-cleat type. However, as they wore out they could be replaced with any other type that was available. Track link armour was widely used, with both Sherman and Churchill track used. On which subject, Fireflies are rarely seen with no applique armour at all. RFM don't provide any but the hull plates are easily made from plastic card: the turret plate is more difficult. Sherman Minutia has dimensioned small drawings of the plates. RFM copied the Bovington tank which, as a school tank, never got the applique. They didn't always have the full set. Remanufactured tanks were fitted with it, as were very late production outside the time window for this kit. We preferred the leaf-spring towing attachment of our own design although it impeded engine access. If that was fitted the factory type below the engine doors (not in the kit) was removed, usually leaving a scar. The factory and vertical types were also incompatible with wading trunking whereas the leaf spring was not. Yes it had to be removed to fit the trunking along with the rear stowage box but the brackets remained and the spring was easily re-mounted. The vertical type is comparatively rarely seen and its brackets also had to be cut off to fit wading trunking. Both types of hull MG blanking plug were used but the D17 syle is most common. Travel locks were originally to the rear but moved to the left rear corner later, either to faciltate the wading trunking or give the driver greater head-our clearance. You see tanks with the old central brackets still in place after the lock was moved. I believe the L37 style travel lock was only introduced after M4A4 production had ceased and on the later designs of cupola with locks and torsion springs. Fireflies can be seen with all of the other 3 options. The brass ring Y30 is spurious as the interior of the cupola ring was much busier than that. I suggest getting hold of the Resicast replacement item (Historex Agents have them) or wait for the recently-announced Panzer Art version if you plan on an open hatch. Only about 1 in 4 British Shermans in NWE carried the 0.50 Browning anyway. The turret spotlight was seen with and without the shroud but wasn't always mounted anyway. The shroud was supposed to be the norm. British crews seemed to find them less useful than US. Some turrets suppled to Chrysler can be seen with a step around the base. This was a result of machining poorly-cast castings rather than rejecting them. If you're omitting the Houseboat brackets D24 along the hull sides then yes the glacis ones by the lift ring (D27/28) and the extended ones on the front trackguards (D14/15) are omitted also. Few M4A4s were fitted for Houseboat as the idea was really dropped after N Africa. While the M4A4 is the most homogenous of the Sherman variants, being uniquely (apart from the ill-fated A6) produced only by a single supplier, you still need to be careful as about 1,600 early models used in the US for training were later remanufactured and fitted with updated features before being supplied on to the UK. Hence why you see Fireflies still with Direct Vision, like the survivor in the Brussels museum. The RFM kit represents an A4 built roughly from about March 43 until about June 43. As the M4A4s used in NWE and Italy were a mixed bunch across production it is fine for pretty much any VC in those theatres. As a rule of thumb only A4s built after about April 43 were suitable for Firefly conversion because of certain features but the remanufactured ones also generally were as they mostly if not all had the necessary features. Make sure you use the right sprocket rings. A4s in this time period were all built with the "fancy Chrysler" sprocket shown in Step 5 - although they could be replaced in service with any design. The types shown in Steps 6 and 7 are not factory fit options in this period. The Step 7 type was fitted earlier but the Step 6 type never was. There are 2 muzzle brake designs included. AFAIK the MkIV gun for the Firefly was only ever fitted with the round-hole design and not with the square-hole type. Production M4A4s don't seem to have been fitted with the wire periscope guards but some remanufactured tanks were, notably the 2 on the turret. So don't use these. Wayne
  19. Good start Ed, I shall look forward to seeing your progress not least because I have their Mk.I Grant in the queue. Wayne
  20. I finally managed to find the time to make a start. First impressions of the kit on the sprues are very good. It looks as though they have put a lot of effort into capturing the fine details and textures. This is the bottom of the hull... and this is the transmission housing. Predictably construction starts with the assembly of the flat pack lower hull. The rear hull plate has its details added before fixing to the hull tub and this is where I hit my first quandary. There is a choice of having the vertical fixed tow bar or the horizontal type with the leaf spring. Ryefield's instructions would have you fit the mountings for both styles and I have seen them both fitted on some internet builds but I imagine one or the other would be correct so I removed the moulded in attachment indicators for the vertical one and just fitted the horizontal ones. I'm not sure if the smoke emitters were always fitted but I thought I would go with it, that does mean however that the actual tow hook wouldn't really have the room to be installed. I guess being primarily a tank destroyer that the ability to tow wasn't that important. At the other end the transmission housing assembly is straight forward but there is some gap filling to do. There are no casting symbols on the differential housings but I have seen images with and without them. I assume that if there is no casting symbols that that section of transmission housing and differential housing would have been cast as one piece. Once assembled the whole housing can be fitted to the hull. A little bit of fettling is required to get it to fit correctly so dry fitting first is advised. Next up will be the assembly of the bogies and the dreaded tracks. Wayne
  21. That looks spot on to me Simon, it gives the impression of recently acquired dirt that is still damp. That's a lovely little model. Wayne
  22. Thank you all very much! I know what you mean Francis but I use a grey card to get the colour balance right which tends to give a more accurate result but for some reason it just didn't look right compared to the actual model. My monitors are calibrated but in the end I had to resort to doing it by eye. Hopefully you will find the WIP interesting Nenad but I'm not so sure it's fun, I leave that sort of thing to Bertie, he's the master of that. Am I right in thinking you have a Border Models Crusader in progress? If so I shall look forward to seeing that. Wayne
  23. Thank you all very much! Your comments are very inspiring. Wayne
  24. I shall look forward to seeing this build and how it compares to the Ryefield one that I am building. Wayne
  25. It's ok Paul, I just moved him up the other end with the others. That's good enough for me Darryl, British it is then. Thanks for that, I did find an image and a profile of a Guards VC but it didn't have the counter shading. I could of course just guess at something but that kind of messes with my head so to be safe I will probably go with one of the better documented VC's without the counter shading or I could just go Polish. You're probably right there Bertie, I'm not the tidiest worker. This will be my first attempt at one of their kits so I hope it will be straight forwards, it's not like it's a Miniart full interior kit after all. Thanks Ed, me neither but there is certainly plenty of reference material out there so it should be fun.
×
×
  • Create New...