IBG Scammel cab issues

.

Hosted by John Prigent and Steve Zaloga, this is a discussion group dedicated to the armoured forces of the many Allied nations of the Second World War.

IBG Scammel cab issues

Joined: December 10th, 2012, 11:06 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 4:51 pm #1

There was a recently posted completion of this model in the Constructive comments section,
http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/t ... iew+Thread
...but I wanted to start a separate thread to discuss the problems with the IBG kit.

So far we have:

- The cab may be too low at the rear... but does need a cab overhang over the wipers.
Also most others seem to have a long slat / louvre over the side bonnet engine panel. Not seen on this model. - Andrew Tomlinson

- The side window areas above the drivers/passengers half doors "eat " into the cab roof, when the bottom / gutter of the cab roof should be a straight line all the way around.
The gap between the bottom of the windscreen and the top of the bonnet seems too tall
The curve at the back of the cab roof seems too sharp
The windscreen seems slightly too tall. - Simon King

-------------------

I'm not familiar at all with this vehicle, but something I've noticed is perhaps the windshield shape. I could be wrong, and this is standard characteristic, but it appears wider at the top than at the bottom - sprue shots below:




Now I did find a photo where it is like this, but it has narrow triangular windows on the side, perhaps a different style cab or completely different vehicle model?

-windshield sides parallel?


-windshield sides angled?



regards,
Jack



Last edited by Jack Geratic on April 23rd, 2017, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 26th, 2003, 7:23 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 5:28 pm #2

The second picture is not a SV2S - think it is a post war Explorer.

sk
Last edited by Simon King on April 23rd, 2017, 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simon King
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 23rd, 2003, 4:53 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 6:56 pm #3

One clue is the air cleaner (which looks remarkably like that in a Ferret s/c) shape in front of the driver's position. It was completely different on the Pioneer.

By the way, as always I am appreciative of any comments from knowledgeable people, backed up by evidence, as to where there are areas which could benefit from improvement on available kits. I am then in a better position to decide whether or not to address them. I spend enough time working on things where I do know anything about the subject as to limit my ability to do so on less familiar ones.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 11:55 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 8:08 pm #4

Another clear indicator that the second photo is a post war Explorer is the driven front axle.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 2:38 am

April 23rd, 2017, 8:54 pm #5

There was a recently posted completion of this model in the Constructive comments section,
http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/t ... iew+Thread
...but I wanted to start a separate thread to discuss the problems with the IBG kit.

So far we have:

- The cab may be too low at the rear... but does need a cab overhang over the wipers.
Also most others seem to have a long slat / louvre over the side bonnet engine panel. Not seen on this model. - Andrew Tomlinson

- The side window areas above the drivers/passengers half doors "eat " into the cab roof, when the bottom / gutter of the cab roof should be a straight line all the way around.
The gap between the bottom of the windscreen and the top of the bonnet seems too tall
The curve at the back of the cab roof seems too sharp
The windscreen seems slightly too tall. - Simon King

-------------------

I'm not familiar at all with this vehicle, but something I've noticed is perhaps the windshield shape. I could be wrong, and this is standard characteristic, but it appears wider at the top than at the bottom - sprue shots below:




Now I did find a photo where it is like this, but it has narrow triangular windows on the side, perhaps a different style cab or completely different vehicle model?

-windshield sides parallel?


-windshield sides angled?



regards,
Jack


Jack.
With all due respect, i'm not buying into it, not at all.
Like so many British built vehicles, Scammell had cab built by hand, in small garage type shops. No production line, no standard components, just a set of rough drawings and sometimes an example of finished product. Materials used varied from shop to shop, even from one cab to another built in the same shop.
Needles to say, you will be hard pressed to find two identical looking cabs. Look at the pictures of wartime Matador trucks, no two looked the same.
British vehicles are not like German or American ones, not at all. What was more or less standard was the frame, suspension and engine. Body work was not so i'm not really buying into your point.
Possibly IBG based the kit on pictures and measurements of particular vehicle.
Just my opinion but i'm sticking with it.
Cezar.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 10th, 2012, 11:06 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 9:59 pm #6

lol ... don't shoot the messenger, as they say.

I only started this thread so as to not totally hijack Domingo's build presentation.

Believe me, I would be than than happy to see it proven wrong, and that IBG did not drop the ball on this one.
Last edited by Jack Geratic on April 23rd, 2017, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 12th, 2004, 3:14 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 10:23 pm #7

Jack.
With all due respect, i'm not buying into it, not at all.
Like so many British built vehicles, Scammell had cab built by hand, in small garage type shops. No production line, no standard components, just a set of rough drawings and sometimes an example of finished product. Materials used varied from shop to shop, even from one cab to another built in the same shop.
Needles to say, you will be hard pressed to find two identical looking cabs. Look at the pictures of wartime Matador trucks, no two looked the same.
British vehicles are not like German or American ones, not at all. What was more or less standard was the frame, suspension and engine. Body work was not so i'm not really buying into your point.
Possibly IBG based the kit on pictures and measurements of particular vehicle.
Just my opinion but i'm sticking with it.
Cezar.
Try replacing a bolt, magazine or bayonet on an Enfield rifle. You have to try a dozen before you find one that fits a particular gun. Their stuff was definitely non standard. While the metalwork for the barrel and receiver is about the same, even the stocks vary in shape and details since they were made by a bunch of subcontractors in different countries and even continents,
DAVID NICKELS
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 26th, 2003, 7:23 pm

April 23rd, 2017, 10:26 pm #8

lol ... don't shoot the messenger, as they say.

I only started this thread so as to not totally hijack Domingo's build presentation.

Believe me, I would be than than happy to see it proven wrong, and that IBG did not drop the ball on this one.
i am not prepared to share the photo, as I have used someone else's excellently finished model as a basis, but if you use a standard photo-editing programme to copy and paste the roof a couple of mm lower and also reduce that window cutout into the roof - thus creating the level guttering line all around the roof of the cab, front back and sides, the appearance is considerably improved to the extent that it actually now looks like a Pioneer.

As a restorer of some full size British WW2 vehicles, I dont buy the "every one is different" line either

sk
Simon King
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 2:38 am

April 23rd, 2017, 10:40 pm #9

lol ... don't shoot the messenger, as they say.

I only started this thread so as to not totally hijack Domingo's build presentation.

Believe me, I would be than than happy to see it proven wrong, and that IBG did not drop the ball on this one.
Easy now, no shots are being taken here.
But it helps to know that method of manufacturing has an effect on how things looked like.
While american trucks rolled off production line assembled from stamped components, they were very uniform and had majority of interchangeable parts.
Same can be said about german stuff, mostly. Things changed late in the war but it was still rather uniform.
British trucks, well, it is completely different story.
This is why i do not get overly worried about what is being presented as " it doesn't look right by my eye" comments. Not having the kit in my hands yet i can not make real measurements but i'm not worried about it at all.
But hey, it is just my opinion, no one needs to concern himself with what i think.
It is a hobby after all, yes ?
Cezar.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 10th, 2016, 11:49 pm

April 24th, 2017, 12:51 am #10

Try replacing a bolt, magazine or bayonet on an Enfield rifle. You have to try a dozen before you find one that fits a particular gun. Their stuff was definitely non standard. While the metalwork for the barrel and receiver is about the same, even the stocks vary in shape and details since they were made by a bunch of subcontractors in different countries and even continents,
Never mind Lee-Enfields, SLRs had individually-fitted bolts and bolt carriers in the '60's. The weapon serials were engraved on each - one of the re-assembly checks. Don't forget that each of these parts - and those for the trucks discussed here - were produced by hand, even on machines. The machines were guided by the Mk2 hand and the Mk1 calibrated eyeball, hopefully connected by the Mk3 apprenticed brain. If you get 2 extreme-tolerance parts they may well not fit without fettling, which unit armourers and production line operators were trained to do. Which is staggering in the context of having set up the Pattern Room to permit interchangeability and standardisation of parts between weapon manufacturers in the era of muzzle-loaders!

Even F4 Phantoms had individually-fitted skin panels in what, the 70's and 80's? And US car makers were staggered in the 90's to find that Japanese car makers could hang any door on any bodyshell and it would fit exactly. They were still shimming hinges and adjusting each hinge and lock by hand: the door hanger was one of the most skilled jobs.

But I don't believe the sort of gross variances that would be noticeable when reduced to 1/35 would be permitted even in wartime Britain, despite what other posters may believe.
Quote
Like
Share