login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
HB M911 Tractor new pic and price
aleluya
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 25, 2010
KitMaker: 247 posts
Armorama: 247 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 - 11:16 PM UTC
HobbyBoss has posted some new shots of their incoming M911 Sprue preview and the recommend retail price in EU is 115 Euros. Any thought?













Bigred69
Visit this Community
Armed Forces Europe, United States
Joined: December 27, 2015
KitMaker: 276 posts
Armorama: 236 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 02:11 AM UTC
Oh Boy, Looks good, if the EU price is correct, it will be a lot cheaper than Mengs!
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 02:22 AM UTC
I don't think these are actual styrene sprues, they look more like CAD-generated images to me.
Meng kit is on pre-order at Hobbyeasy at 110USD, which means they are in the same league regarding the price. Accuracy and value for money are a totally different story, so let's wait until the actual kits hit the market.
aleluya
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 25, 2010
KitMaker: 247 posts
Armorama: 247 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 03:23 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I don't think these are actual styrene sprues, they look more like CAD-generated images to me.
Meng kit is on pre-order at Hobbyeasy at 110USD, which means they are in the same league regarding the price. Accuracy and value for money are a totally different story, so let's wait until the actual kits hit the market.


Hi there. The preorder price o. Hobbyeasy are normally based on Chinese’s price HK currency and RMB but not the retail price in EU nor NA.From what I know. In China the retail price is far more cheaper than Meng one. The actual retail price for EU and NA is here. Euro price Meng 145(139) vs HB 115. NA Meng 150 US dollars vs HB 100 USD.
As for the accuracy. I’m not impressed about what Meng did with their 9A52-2 which totally a joke as they just simply changed the scud model which based on maz7911 into a freak: only the cabin shell is maz543...
Let’s see the final result.
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 03:35 AM UTC
Well, I am not one of those who admire Meng either. If it is good - so be it, if not, HB kit to the rescue! These larger size vehicles kind of suppose to be more accurate than 'normal' kits such as tanks and softskins due to higher prices. You know, you wouldn't buy a 100-150 dollar kit if you are a dummy, occasional hobbyist, but you certainly would if you're a serious modeller. I hope I'm clear.
pgb3476
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 965 posts
Armorama: 964 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 05:06 AM UTC
Meng kit is 110 US Dollars on Hobbyeasy.
Kenaicop
#384
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,363 posts
Armorama: 1,260 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 06:08 AM UTC
I want
armouredcharmer
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 670 posts
Armorama: 410 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 05:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I want



Me Too - Just shut up and take my money!

By the way, what would be seen on the back of this baby?
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,099 posts
Armorama: 1,061 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 05:25 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I want



Me Too - Just shut up and take my money!

By the way, what would be seen on the back of this baby?



any load could be a IPM1 ,M1A1 or a Bradley or even a M109 or M113

I have to build one of theses beasts for a commission build
all i can say im glad he didnt want Hobby boss's M1070 HET


HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,412 posts
Armorama: 13,526 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 05:33 PM UTC

Quoted Text

By the way, what would be seen on the back of this baby?



The M911 C-HET was the predecessor to the current M1070 HETS. It was used from the late '70s until the mid '90s. It carried all sorts of armored vehicles that were in use at the time. It could have any of the vehicles tanknick22 listed or earlier vehicles such as the M60A3, M60A2, etc.
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,099 posts
Armorama: 1,061 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 05:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

By the way, what would be seen on the back of this baby?



The M911 C-HET was the predecessor to the current M1070 HETS. It was used from the late '70s until the mid '90s. It carried all sorts of armored vehicles that were in use at the time. It could have any of the vehicles tanknick22 listed or earlier vehicles such as the M60A3, M60A2, etc.



so how big will the M911 be when built?

JavierDeLuelmo
Visit this Community
Spain / España
Joined: February 29, 2016
KitMaker: 179 posts
Armorama: 176 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 06:00 PM UTC
The HB images are definitely sprue CADs, so good to check the level of detail included but better wait for real sprues to really appreciate their quality. The built-up test shots of the Meng kit, seen some weeks back, looked quite nice anyway.

I have been waiting for years a plastic kit of the M911, specially after checking several times the HobbyFan resin offering and deciding it was not worth the prices asked for it. But won't rush now for it, I can perfectly wait a bit more till both companies release their beasts to check and decide.
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 3,951 posts
Armorama: 3,919 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 06:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text



so how big will the M911 be when built?




Tractor is 9,3 m long and semitraler 13 m long. I`d say its about 2 feet in scale.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,174 posts
Armorama: 5,156 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 06:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

By the way, what would be seen on the back of this baby?



The M911 C-HET was the predecessor to the current M1070 HETS. It was used from the late '70s until the mid '90s. It carried all sorts of armored vehicles that were in use at the time. It could have any of the vehicles tanknick22 listed or earlier vehicles such as the M60A3, M60A2, etc.



so how big will the M911 be when built?




Short answer: Big!
Long answer: Didn't take the time to dig up exact numbers but the trailer is about 12.95 metres long and the distance from front bumper to center of the fifth wheel on the tractor is about 7.5 metres. If the trailer length from kingpin to the rear end is set at 12 metres (probably more) we would get a combined length of 55-56 centimetres which would be somewhere around 22 inches ...
It's not small ....
This photo of the Miniart resin kit gives a hint about the size:


A bit more than 2 Abrams tanks, barrel to the rear.


/ Robin
GeoffSteer
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 23, 2014
KitMaker: 18 posts
Armorama: 15 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 07:11 PM UTC
Possible loads: Don't forget that the M911 was in service during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the problems in Yugoslavia. Also, the first Gulf War. So, you could have any Russian equipment abandoned during the withdrawal from various Warsaw Pact countries on the trailer. Or, some of the American WW-II armour still in use found in Yugoslavia. Gulf war; well, I think I can leave that to you!
HTH-
Geoff Steer
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,412 posts
Armorama: 13,526 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2018 - 08:18 PM UTC
M60A3 load


Look here at this earlier thread for some more ideas.

Removed by original poster on 01/19/18 - 15:40:03 (GMT).
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,313 posts
Armorama: 2,288 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 12:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text

These larger size vehicles kind of suppose to be more accurate than 'normal' kits such as tanks and softskins due to higher prices.



No, they cost more because they have higher design and production costs.

KL
trahe
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 03, 2006
KitMaker: 1,154 posts
Armorama: 948 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 01:23 AM UTC
I thought the load limit on the M911 w/ M747 trailer was 60-tons? If so, I don't think an M1A1 could be safely transported...
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 01:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

These larger size vehicles kind of suppose to be more accurate than 'normal' kits such as tanks and softskins due to higher prices.



No, they cost more because they have higher design and production costs.

KL


But will they have high sales rate if underresearched and simplified? Those behemoths in big boxes cost a lot and they are not the main profit-makers for manufacturers. IMHO, they are made to demonstrate potential, experience and confidence of design and development team of a particular kit maker, along with their moulding craftsmanship. 'See, that's what we can do!'
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,534 posts
Armorama: 12,322 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 02:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I thought the load limit on the M911 w/ M747 trailer was 60-tons? If so, I don't think an M1A1 could be safely transported...







H.P.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,412 posts
Armorama: 13,526 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 03:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I thought the load limit on the M911 w/ M747 trailer was 60-tons? If so, I don't think an M1A1 could be safely transported...



As you can see from Frenchy's pics, that is what they were used for. They were overweight and that is why the current M1070 HETS was eventually developed. The M911 was a quick, off-the-shelf solution to a new problem; a tank that ended up being heavier than originally designed. That is why the C in C-HET stood for Commercial.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,174 posts
Armorama: 5,156 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 03:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I thought the load limit on the M911 w/ M747 trailer was 60-tons? If so, I don't think an M1A1 could be safely transported...



"With the introduction of M1A1 Abrams main battle tank into service with the US Army, the M911 was unable to carry the load. Vehicles demonstrated poor durability with loads in excess of 60 t during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Its replacement emerged as the Oshkosh M1070."
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/m911.htm
max load according to Janes is 54545 kg and there should be a safety margin in there somewhere. It was designed for the MBT-70 and fails (after a while) when carrying the M1.
/ Robin
U-mark
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: January 04, 2017
KitMaker: 128 posts
Armorama: 89 posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2018 - 03:36 AM UTC
I was planning on buying the Meng kit, I'll wait and see how they both look now. If the HobbyBoss kit is anything like their m1070/m1000 it should be good, and the trailer should be an easier build without having to make 40 wheel/tire sets.
Wierdy
Visit this Community
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 20, 2018 - 03:00 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I was planning on buying the Meng kit, I'll wait and see how they both look now.


Here is the Meng kit unboxed:
http://www.moxing.net/2018/0121/8636.html