Pair of NbFz tank WIP's

.

This "virtual workbench" is hosted by Robert Oehler and Brett Green, and is designed so that Missing-lynx readers can share their "in progress" photos with the rest of the readership and generate constructive discussions. Participation is open to all Missing-lynx visitors.

Pair of NbFz tank WIP's

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

January 15th, 2012, 6:18 pm #1


The Cyberhobby NbFz #2 tank (with tracks) and Trumpeter's NbFz #3 - #5 chassis.

[/IMG]

The two tanks did differ in actuality with the #2 tank having a bolted turret, different MG turrets, different muffler arrangements, etc.

[/IMG]

Cyberhobby/Dragon's suspension was not well engineered. The axe had to be repositioned.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

I preferred the detail and assembly of the Trumpeter parts, although there is an error in that the main spring is angled (not really visible)

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

The Cyberhobby main gun assembly is pretty poorly done and is just simply split in half with a big seam down the middle and a lot of detail missing or simplified.

[/IMG]

Both kits have good and weak points. The biggest drawback with the Cyberhobby kit is that the engineering or execution of a lot of parts is just absolutely awful. The return roller mounts are not molded properly so you need to reposition them all in the right angles and positions... the front floating road wheels to not attach properly either. A good many of the parts just do not fit and require some trimming and manipulation. The way the suspension is engineered is very frail and difficult to align. The Trumpeter kit builds very well and easily but has some accuracy issues as well, and the workable link tracks take a ton of clean up with 5 big sprues per link.

DAVID NICKELS
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2005, 8:39 pm

January 15th, 2012, 8:13 pm #2

Thanks for the info an interesting comparison, I have the amusing hobby kit on the way and it would be interesting to see how that kit compares to the other two.
pete

http://petesmodelworld.blogspot.com/
Quote
Like
Share

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

January 15th, 2012, 8:50 pm #3

It's very good but vastly more complicated than the Trumpeter and Cyber/Dragon kits.

Dragon's would be ok if not a bit simplistic if they were not so poorly engineered. Half of the major parts require some sort of reworking to fit properly. The end result is nice but still...
DAVID NICKELS
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2006, 10:43 am

January 18th, 2012, 2:27 pm #4

The Cyberhobby NbFz #2 tank (with tracks) and Trumpeter's NbFz #3 - #5 chassis.

[/IMG]

The two tanks did differ in actuality with the #2 tank having a bolted turret, different MG turrets, different muffler arrangements, etc.

[/IMG]

Cyberhobby/Dragon's suspension was not well engineered. The axe had to be repositioned.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

I preferred the detail and assembly of the Trumpeter parts, although there is an error in that the main spring is angled (not really visible)

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

The Cyberhobby main gun assembly is pretty poorly done and is just simply split in half with a big seam down the middle and a lot of detail missing or simplified.

[/IMG]

Both kits have good and weak points. The biggest drawback with the Cyberhobby kit is that the engineering or execution of a lot of parts is just absolutely awful. The return roller mounts are not molded properly so you need to reposition them all in the right angles and positions... the front floating road wheels to not attach properly either. A good many of the parts just do not fit and require some trimming and manipulation. The way the suspension is engineered is very frail and difficult to align. The Trumpeter kit builds very well and easily but has some accuracy issues as well, and the workable link tracks take a ton of clean up with 5 big sprues per link.
To have a complete review of all three see the following link

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/r ... rzeug.html
Quote
Like
Share