Tiger I, AFV club vs Tamiya?

.

Hosted by Luciano Rodriguez and Pat Johnston, this discussion group is dedicated to 1/48 scale AFV, vehicle and figure modelling.

Tiger I, AFV club vs Tamiya?

Joined: March 4th, 2005, 9:59 pm

December 19th, 2011, 6:36 pm #1

Is it worth getting this over the Tamiya kit? Which is better? BTW, I'm not interested in an interior.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 8th, 2003, 4:32 am

December 19th, 2011, 7:12 pm #2

I answered over on HS as well, I like the Tamiya kit and the AFV Club/Skybow kits for different reasons. Probably prefer the AFV Club overall, but again, it depends on which Tiger you are modeling.

HTH

Scott G
Last edited by Scott Gentry on December 21st, 2011, 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 9:45 pm

December 25th, 2011, 10:49 pm #3

Is it worth getting this over the Tamiya kit? Which is better? BTW, I'm not interested in an interior.
The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so: This is not correctable and completely disqualifies the Skybow/AFV kit from serious contention in my book (the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval, which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Other than that, the Tamiya tracks are way superior to rubber bands (and fit well and easily too), and that really remove the need for metal sustitutes if the tracks are a bit muddy...

You might want to fit the fenders 2 mm lower at the rear, and 1 mm at the front, on either kits, to correct the slightly shallow side body plate which matches Tamiya's slightly shallow front hull bow plate, the one often hidden by a spare track (Skybow's bow plate is deeper and accurate, but this cascades into a humongous near- 3 mm (5-6 inches) step at the upper hull's front deck edge, because the Skybow's side hull plates are equally as shallow as Tamiya's)...

The front view of the drawings they both used did not match the (inaccurate shallow side plates) side view... Tamiya's solution is more discrete than Skybow/AFV's enormous front deck nearly half-foot step...

Gaston Marty





Last edited by GastonMarty on December 25th, 2011, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2004, 5:32 pm

December 26th, 2011, 1:29 pm #4

>> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale.


>> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize.


I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?

David

Last edited by DavidByrden on December 26th, 2011, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 29th, 2004, 11:40 pm

December 27th, 2011, 3:24 pm #5

What ever next??!! Someone who has access to real dimensions DARING to challenge Gaston, whose calibrated squinting eyeball Mk 1 and stack of grainy photos are, as we all know, beyond reproach??!! Wonders will never cease......

Tim



www.fighting48th-shop.com
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2003, 5:48 pm

December 27th, 2011, 7:32 pm #6

>> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale.


>> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize.


I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?

David
as a bit of a Tiger 1 nut, i too would be interested to see Gaston reference for his "findings" so i can judge for myself.

For those of you who are not aware. David Byrden has his own website http://tiger1.info/. Check it out, it`s in my humble opinion, the best web source of technical information on the Tiger 1.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 22nd, 2008, 9:45 pm

December 28th, 2011, 2:09 am #7

>> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale.


>> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize.


I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?

David
And especially to look at the KITS!


Quote "> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale."

-First of all, are you visually impaired in some way?

The Tamiya kit's chin undercut is 2.3 mm, the dimension you quote is 2.125 mm, Skybow's chin undercut is 1.8 mm (the Skybow kit is slightly assymetrical (about 1.9 mm on the right side) so I chose the shorter side): That is an 18.05 % error over the actual real life dimension YOU quote...

You claim the undercut between Tamiya and Skybow is "almost" the same: Once again, what kind of visual impairement do you suffer from? The difference between 2.3 mm and 1.8 mm is 27.7777%!!!!

[/IMG]
[/IMG]

That is far from the whole of it: The visual effect vs the Tamiya kit is actually larger than that: These are the vertical dimensions of the overhanging turret portion just behind the mantlet pivot: Skybow 12.9 mm, Tamiya 12.2 mm: A 5.7% difference.

[/IMG]

The total difference in chin undercut ratio to turret overhang appearance between the two kits can be roughly summed up by the following percentage: 27% + 5%: 32%, but that underestimates the much larger dimension of the turret's overhang... 32% is "Almost no difference?" Please consult your ophtamologist...

Yes the Tamiya does overshoot your quoted dimension by 8.8%, but that is a lot closer, and the Tamiya turret overhang ratio to the chin undercut looks a lot better as well... Supposedly the Tamiya mantlet is short one inch vertically, carrying over to the turret, but 9% vs 20% still makes it the better, and in fact for me the ONLY, useable turret by far... (Fitting the supposedly more vertically accurate Skybow mantlet (it is too wide) to the Tamiya kit looks awful, because the Tamiya turret is supposedly one inch too shallow overall to match its supposedly one inch too shallow mantlet... I'd rather have what looks OK and goes together... We are not spoiled for choice here, and not for a long time...)





Quote: ">> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize."

First of all, look at the KITS: I misremembered the two mm difference between the two kits: It is about 1 mm less in turret width and 1 mm more in turret length: Tamiya turret width: 48 mm, Skybow: 48.9 mm.

Tamiya turret length to mantlet pivot projection point: 54 mm. Skybow: 53 mm.

If you combine the two, it does make for a 2 mm difference between the two turrets...

Second, the Tiger's turret is CIRCULAR in plan view? Like a perfect circle you mean? Funny: You seem to have missed the mantlet projection extension... Did the Tiger have no gun? Well okay the rear is not "oval" itself: I did not mean an "oval" in the litteral sense, and in my defense I will say I was obviously not talking about the turret's rear portion alone either...




Quote: "I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?"

David"


Do you mean to tell me you didn't notice the 3.2 inch "step" (OK it wasn't 5 inches...) of the Skybow's deck between the deck and the top of the driver's visor plate?

[/IMG]

Do you mean to tell me if an over three inch tall step appears on the ground in front of you, you will not notice it? On the real Tiger this step was more like one inch or so...

Let's say on the Skybow kit the step is 1.7 mm, or 3.2 inches: Let's say the actual original step was one inch: That's still about a 220% error...

And the hull's side plates do look at least about 1 mm too vertically shallow, or at least two inches (this seems to be the same on many Tiger kits in most scales), and more like three inches vertically at the rear... But both the Tamiya and Skybow are the same in that respect (at last together in being wrong!)...

A 3.2 inch step is enough to send you stumbling: Please do consult your optician...

Gaston

P.S.: Why do I get the feeling you've worked for Skybow or AFV? The Skybow kit has a few other serious problems compared to the Tamiya kit: One of the more glaring ones, even ignoring the inferior look of the Skybow barrel and its muzzle (and its tracks!), is the length of the mantlet tube: Tamiya's mantlet tube (top) looks like it is dead-on:

[/IMG]

All that being said, the Skybow is still a much more pleasing model in terms of crispness of detail, but it is definitely NOT the more accurate model, not by a very long way (but it is about on par or better for the hull)... All the information you have seems to be of surprisingly little use in clarifying all those glaring issues: My advice to you is to please observe photos of the real thing more attentively...

G.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2004, 5:32 pm

December 28th, 2011, 10:33 am #8

I obtained a micrometer with 0.1mm resolution to measure this feature better.

The Skybow Early kit's undercut, on the right side, is 2mm. The Tamiya Early is 2.3mm. So I was not correct to say that they are "almost the same".

But the Skybow is the correct one; indeed it is remarkably accurate.

So I don't understand your statement that it "lacks" the "correct deep undercut".

>> 32% is "Almost no difference?"

You obtained this 32% by bringing the size of the overhang into the calculation.
Since the overhang was unmentioned in any of the prior messages, I don't understand why you did that.


David

Last edited by DavidByrden on December 28th, 2011, 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2004, 5:32 pm

December 28th, 2011, 10:59 am #9

And especially to look at the KITS!


Quote "> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale."

-First of all, are you visually impaired in some way?

The Tamiya kit's chin undercut is 2.3 mm, the dimension you quote is 2.125 mm, Skybow's chin undercut is 1.8 mm (the Skybow kit is slightly assymetrical (about 1.9 mm on the right side) so I chose the shorter side): That is an 18.05 % error over the actual real life dimension YOU quote...

You claim the undercut between Tamiya and Skybow is "almost" the same: Once again, what kind of visual impairement do you suffer from? The difference between 2.3 mm and 1.8 mm is 27.7777%!!!!

[/IMG]
[/IMG]

That is far from the whole of it: The visual effect vs the Tamiya kit is actually larger than that: These are the vertical dimensions of the overhanging turret portion just behind the mantlet pivot: Skybow 12.9 mm, Tamiya 12.2 mm: A 5.7% difference.

[/IMG]

The total difference in chin undercut ratio to turret overhang appearance between the two kits can be roughly summed up by the following percentage: 27% + 5%: 32%, but that underestimates the much larger dimension of the turret's overhang... 32% is "Almost no difference?" Please consult your ophtamologist...

Yes the Tamiya does overshoot your quoted dimension by 8.8%, but that is a lot closer, and the Tamiya turret overhang ratio to the chin undercut looks a lot better as well... Supposedly the Tamiya mantlet is short one inch vertically, carrying over to the turret, but 9% vs 20% still makes it the better, and in fact for me the ONLY, useable turret by far... (Fitting the supposedly more vertically accurate Skybow mantlet (it is too wide) to the Tamiya kit looks awful, because the Tamiya turret is supposedly one inch too shallow overall to match its supposedly one inch too shallow mantlet... I'd rather have what looks OK and goes together... We are not spoiled for choice here, and not for a long time...)





Quote: ">> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize."

First of all, look at the KITS: I misremembered the two mm difference between the two kits: It is about 1 mm less in turret width and 1 mm more in turret length: Tamiya turret width: 48 mm, Skybow: 48.9 mm.

Tamiya turret length to mantlet pivot projection point: 54 mm. Skybow: 53 mm.

If you combine the two, it does make for a 2 mm difference between the two turrets...

Second, the Tiger's turret is CIRCULAR in plan view? Like a perfect circle you mean? Funny: You seem to have missed the mantlet projection extension... Did the Tiger have no gun? Well okay the rear is not "oval" itself: I did not mean an "oval" in the litteral sense, and in my defense I will say I was obviously not talking about the turret's rear portion alone either...




Quote: "I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?"

David"


Do you mean to tell me you didn't notice the 3.2 inch "step" (OK it wasn't 5 inches...) of the Skybow's deck between the deck and the top of the driver's visor plate?

[/IMG]

Do you mean to tell me if an over three inch tall step appears on the ground in front of you, you will not notice it? On the real Tiger this step was more like one inch or so...

Let's say on the Skybow kit the step is 1.7 mm, or 3.2 inches: Let's say the actual original step was one inch: That's still about a 220% error...

And the hull's side plates do look at least about 1 mm too vertically shallow, or at least two inches (this seems to be the same on many Tiger kits in most scales), and more like three inches vertically at the rear... But both the Tamiya and Skybow are the same in that respect (at last together in being wrong!)...

A 3.2 inch step is enough to send you stumbling: Please do consult your optician...

Gaston

P.S.: Why do I get the feeling you've worked for Skybow or AFV? The Skybow kit has a few other serious problems compared to the Tamiya kit: One of the more glaring ones, even ignoring the inferior look of the Skybow barrel and its muzzle (and its tracks!), is the length of the mantlet tube: Tamiya's mantlet tube (top) looks like it is dead-on:

[/IMG]

All that being said, the Skybow is still a much more pleasing model in terms of crispness of detail, but it is definitely NOT the more accurate model, not by a very long way (but it is about on par or better for the hull)... All the information you have seems to be of surprisingly little use in clarifying all those glaring issues: My advice to you is to please observe photos of the real thing more attentively...

G.
>> It is about 1 mm less in turret width and 1 mm more in turret length

>> If you combine the two, it does make for a 2 mm difference between the two turrets...


I don't understand why you would combine width and length. Your original statement concerned how "broad" the turret was. The word "broad" refers exclusively to width.

And you originally said that the Skybow kit was "too broad", not "broader than Tamiya".
That statement compares it to the true width, not to the other kit.
I don't understand why you are now calculating the difference between the two kits.

David
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2004, 5:32 pm

December 28th, 2011, 11:07 am #10

And especially to look at the KITS!


Quote "> The Tamiya kit has the correct deep turret "chin undercut" which the Skybow/AFV lacks, being half as deep or so:

Not so. The undercut on both Early Tiger kits, Tamiya and AFV/Skybow, is almost the same. They are both almost precisely correct.

Specifically, the Skybow/AFV Early Tiger's undercut is a scaled-down 102mm. The real Tigers had an undercut of 100mm. The difference is imperceptible in this scale."

-First of all, are you visually impaired in some way?

The Tamiya kit's chin undercut is 2.3 mm, the dimension you quote is 2.125 mm, Skybow's chin undercut is 1.8 mm (the Skybow kit is slightly assymetrical (about 1.9 mm on the right side) so I chose the shorter side): That is an 18.05 % error over the actual real life dimension YOU quote...

You claim the undercut between Tamiya and Skybow is "almost" the same: Once again, what kind of visual impairement do you suffer from? The difference between 2.3 mm and 1.8 mm is 27.7777%!!!!

[/IMG]
[/IMG]

That is far from the whole of it: The visual effect vs the Tamiya kit is actually larger than that: These are the vertical dimensions of the overhanging turret portion just behind the mantlet pivot: Skybow 12.9 mm, Tamiya 12.2 mm: A 5.7% difference.

[/IMG]

The total difference in chin undercut ratio to turret overhang appearance between the two kits can be roughly summed up by the following percentage: 27% + 5%: 32%, but that underestimates the much larger dimension of the turret's overhang... 32% is "Almost no difference?" Please consult your ophtamologist...

Yes the Tamiya does overshoot your quoted dimension by 8.8%, but that is a lot closer, and the Tamiya turret overhang ratio to the chin undercut looks a lot better as well... Supposedly the Tamiya mantlet is short one inch vertically, carrying over to the turret, but 9% vs 20% still makes it the better, and in fact for me the ONLY, useable turret by far... (Fitting the supposedly more vertically accurate Skybow mantlet (it is too wide) to the Tamiya kit looks awful, because the Tamiya turret is supposedly one inch too shallow overall to match its supposedly one inch too shallow mantlet... I'd rather have what looks OK and goes together... We are not spoiled for choice here, and not for a long time...)





Quote: ">> the Skybow/AFV turret plan view is also wrongly circular rather than a slight oval

Not so. The Tiger's turret plan was perfectly circular.


>> which translates into making the Skybow/AFV turret too broad by around 2 mm)...

Not so. The external radius of all Tiger turrets was 2320mm. The Skybow/AFV kit diameter is only 0.5mm oversize."

First of all, look at the KITS: I misremembered the two mm difference between the two kits: It is about 1 mm less in turret width and 1 mm more in turret length: Tamiya turret width: 48 mm, Skybow: 48.9 mm.

Tamiya turret length to mantlet pivot projection point: 54 mm. Skybow: 53 mm.

If you combine the two, it does make for a 2 mm difference between the two turrets...

Second, the Tiger's turret is CIRCULAR in plan view? Like a perfect circle you mean? Funny: You seem to have missed the mantlet projection extension... Did the Tiger have no gun? Well okay the rear is not "oval" itself: I did not mean an "oval" in the litteral sense, and in my defense I will say I was obviously not talking about the turret's rear portion alone either...




Quote: "I won't check your statements concerning the hull just yet; rather I will ask you the sources that you are quoting? Or, are we even talking about the same kits?"

David"


Do you mean to tell me you didn't notice the 3.2 inch "step" (OK it wasn't 5 inches...) of the Skybow's deck between the deck and the top of the driver's visor plate?

[/IMG]

Do you mean to tell me if an over three inch tall step appears on the ground in front of you, you will not notice it? On the real Tiger this step was more like one inch or so...

Let's say on the Skybow kit the step is 1.7 mm, or 3.2 inches: Let's say the actual original step was one inch: That's still about a 220% error...

And the hull's side plates do look at least about 1 mm too vertically shallow, or at least two inches (this seems to be the same on many Tiger kits in most scales), and more like three inches vertically at the rear... But both the Tamiya and Skybow are the same in that respect (at last together in being wrong!)...

A 3.2 inch step is enough to send you stumbling: Please do consult your optician...

Gaston

P.S.: Why do I get the feeling you've worked for Skybow or AFV? The Skybow kit has a few other serious problems compared to the Tamiya kit: One of the more glaring ones, even ignoring the inferior look of the Skybow barrel and its muzzle (and its tracks!), is the length of the mantlet tube: Tamiya's mantlet tube (top) looks like it is dead-on:

[/IMG]

All that being said, the Skybow is still a much more pleasing model in terms of crispness of detail, but it is definitely NOT the more accurate model, not by a very long way (but it is about on par or better for the hull)... All the information you have seems to be of surprisingly little use in clarifying all those glaring issues: My advice to you is to please observe photos of the real thing more attentively...

G.
>> Like a perfect circle you mean? Funny: You seem to have missed the mantlet projection extension...

Since the extension has straight sides, I didn't think you were referring to it. Only the rear, curved half could possibly be seen as "a slight oval".

>> I did not mean an "oval" in the litteral sense

It is generally advisable to say exactly what you mean.

>> I was obviously not talking about the turret's rear portion alone

This was not obvious, because you were discussing the width, and the width is measured across the rear portion alone.

David

Last edited by DavidByrden on December 28th, 2011, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share