login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Review
Dragon: Dragon Models Panther ausf D
CMOT
Staff MemberEditor-in-Chief
ARMORAMA
#406
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2006
KitMaker: 10,654 posts
Armorama: 8,384 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 29, 2016 - 02:10 PM UTC


Jacob Hederstierna-Johnsen review Dragon Models new 1:35 Panther ausf D V2 Versuchsserie.

Read the Review

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
WAYNEO
Visit this Community
Nelson, New Zealand
Joined: January 24, 2016
KitMaker: 38 posts
Armorama: 37 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 02:23 AM UTC
Good to see a reviewer tells what he thinks and why ,good or bad. Well done
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
Armorama: 2,598 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 03:46 AM UTC
It seems that this is the same corner-cutting, surgery-necessary piece of *#%** that the previous prototype Panther offering from Dragon turned out to be. When the first review came out I specifically asked if anyone could tell me what the differences were between these two kits and if Dragon had gotten wise and corrected the many short-comings of the first one. No one answered. Now that I have one in my possession I can safely say that, apparently, the only difference worth mentioning is the unique two-into-one muffler system unique to this version. Same necessary surgery, same cookie-cutter sprues. While it does offer a good start on modelling this unique tank, Dragon did indeed drop the ball on this one and I'm profoundly disappointed in their cheap approach to what is now a pricey kit.
Jmarles
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: November 02, 2008
KitMaker: 1,096 posts
Armorama: 917 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 04:03 AM UTC
Pretty lazy attempt here. As usual for Dragon these days, using old kit parts to make Frankenpanzers. This kit will probably cost like $75 and features 1990 Maquette style surgery requirements. For a few more bucks I can pick up the SS100 tractor and V2 kit.
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
Armorama: 2,598 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 04:26 AM UTC
Kind of different subject matter, but I agree that its a beast that is rather lacking considering that its over $67USD which hits me at just over a hundred CDN. Ouch! Especially considering that there is no interior and that you have tout and file while mix and matching parts from who knows which generation of earlier Panther releases. Oh well, now that I have one I'll just have to soldier on and make it work.
Hederstierna
#247
Visit this Community
Nordjylland, Denmark
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 1,092 posts
Armorama: 1,008 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 02:27 PM UTC
Guess it's becoming sort of a gamble with Dragon kits. I too really love their kits, but when they are constantly milking their "cows", something like this is bound to happen. Personally I think it's a wrong path they are taking, because all these negative feedback might remove the focus from their brand new and really excellent kits.
Just my two cents worth.
Jacob
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,669 posts
Armorama: 2,407 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 05:28 PM UTC
Good review Jacob, thanks I greatly appreciate the frank, no non-sense write-up. And I thought they would have come up with the appropriate hull by this second release... Cheers, Tat
PanzerKarl
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 20, 2004
KitMaker: 2,309 posts
Armorama: 1,858 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 06:59 PM UTC
Been a great admirer of Dragon kits for a long time but now they are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with these kits their sending out.
You would think they would be upping their game what with the kits Takom and Meng are producing.
gregcctrn
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: January 09, 2013
KitMaker: 317 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2016 - 10:24 PM UTC
Now that Dragon has the Marvel Super Hero Series line my hunch is that military kits are going to be set aside.....

Jmarles
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: November 02, 2008
KitMaker: 1,096 posts
Armorama: 917 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 01:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Kind of different subject matter, but I agree that its a beast that is rather lacking considering that its over $67USD which hits me at just over a hundred CDN. Ouch! Especially considering that there is no interior and that you have tout and file while mix and matching parts from who knows which generation of earlier Panther releases. Oh well, now that I have one I'll just have to soldier on and make it work.


I am sure it will build into a fine kit and the surgery is simple. My gripe is that should not be needed in 2016 on a kit that puts you back a Canuck note. Not too sure about those missing details that come off with the amputated parts though...
Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 04:10 AM UTC
I have the kit. Other than the lack of clear parts and the asymmetrical barrel travel lock, I have no complaints. I got it on eBay for $41 plus free shipping.

The instruction to shave off the external covers for the external starter and track tensioner is puzzling to me. But I have found no photo of the prototype vehicle shot from behind to contradict it. It seems not entirely impossible the back plate of the prototype is really devoid of those openings. The prototype may not really need an external starter. The track tensioner may conceivably be accessed through the firewall from inside the vehicle.

One detail the kit did miss is the torsion bar swing arms is arranged wrong for the prototype. The kit replicated the swing arm configuration of the production vehicle, in which the second swing arm from the front is beefed up. This arrangement reflects the fact that the hydraulic damper in the production vehicle is connected to the second pair of road wheels on each side. In the prototype, the dampers were connected to the first pair. Hence the beefed up swing arms, if there at all, ought to be on the first pair of road wheels.
Hederstierna
#247
Visit this Community
Nordjylland, Denmark
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 1,092 posts
Armorama: 1,008 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 05:17 PM UTC
Chuck: I have to say that I don't agree with you on the no opening's on the rear plate theory. Especially about the track tension issue, which really doesn't make any sense to me, sorry 😉
But if anyone has pictures to prove which one of us are right, please do enlighten me.
Jacob
urumomo
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 07:07 PM UTC
There is no way the track was tensioned from the fighting compartment .
no way
you'd need to go thru the entire cooling system somehow ..
.. swinging a giant wrench in the fighting compartment -- pretty unheard of ,,

and I have no proof

I know , operationally , the engines in all Wehrmacht armor were to be started via hand-crank , centrifugal starter normally ... not by the electric start .
Seems unlikely they would test a platform devoid of a manual starter -- a different access plate maybe , sure
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,096 posts
Armorama: 756 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 08:00 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Now that Dragon has the Marvel Super Hero Series line my hunch is that military kits are going to be set aside.....



They're also doing Star Wars vehicles and perhaps they have too many irons in the fire. So maybe this is their new business model, re-release old kits and make them worse than they were originally.

BTW..... where is the 1/35 AT-AT at?

Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 08:15 PM UTC
Interesting the box art shows a normal configuration of access plates on the rear hull.
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
Armorama: 2,598 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 08:39 PM UTC
Weird that I posted a comment on this kit the other day, pointing out that for its cost surgery shouldn't be expected, and how this is simply a two-into-one muffler version of the earlier prototype release, and when I came back to review reactions today I find my posted comment GONE! Weird. Why?
urumomo
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 08:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Weird that I posted a comment on this kit the other day, pointing out that for its cost surgery shouldn't be expected, and how this is simply a two-into-one muffler version of the earlier prototype release, and when I came back to review reactions today I find my posted comment GONE! Weird. Why?



What ??
Still drunk from last night ?
See your posts above ?

I see your 2 posts above about that --- shake your monitor ,, they're probably stuck up in there somewhere ...
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 6,987 posts
Armorama: 5,638 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 09:04 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Now that Dragon has the Marvel Super Hero Series line my hunch is that military kits are going to be set aside.....



They're also doing Star Wars vehicles and perhaps they have too many irons in the fire. So maybe this is their new business model, re-release old kits and make them worse than they were originally.

BTW..... where is the 1/35 AT-AT at?

DML could really use new management!


firstcircle
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: November 19, 2008
KitMaker: 2,164 posts
Armorama: 1,927 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 11:03 PM UTC
Just a further nit pick, the interlocking join between the turret sides and the front plate should be dove tailed, as per the Ausf D, not square cut as per the Ausf A.
easyco69
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 03, 2012
KitMaker: 2,275 posts
Armorama: 2,233 posts
Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2016 - 11:07 PM UTC
the DS tracks should not be considered a low....some people prefer them over magic tracks. Wow 60% score lol. I guess I will avoid this one. At least this kit contains the PE grills.
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
Armorama: 2,598 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 - 08:04 AM UTC
Shook the monitor and it didn't help at all, my earlier posting is just gone. Oh well, the point is that Dragon -again- took a powder rather than offer an ace after the goof-up that was the other V1 offering of this prototype. Fixing it would have cost money and time and they were interested. Though the kit does cost about a c-note up here in Canada. Ouch!
Hederstierna
#247
Visit this Community
Nordjylland, Denmark
Joined: January 03, 2008
KitMaker: 1,092 posts
Armorama: 1,008 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 - 09:05 PM UTC
Frank: I might have solved the mystery of the missing replies. If you look under the topic, and not under the review itself, you'll find them still there.
Jacob
Taeuss
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 2,607 posts
Armorama: 2,598 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 01:03 AM UTC
Thanks, I was getting worried that I had offended and was being bleeped!