login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
FEATURE
  Building the DML Panzer IV E
Clanky44
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 15, 2005
KitMaker: 1,901 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 02:50 PM UTC
I'm in the process of completing the running gear on DML's Pz IV E and true to Vinnie's review, step one is VERY complicated, the layout in the instructions gives a general layout of the parts, but does not give a sequence of construction, which needs to be carefully thought out before diving into....

Follow this sequence on the bogey's and it should make life much simpler....

1. A14, A8, A27 as shown
2. attach part O to A17 (nice touch by DML to give you a separate rubber tyre to paint and then attach, it works well for the outside road wheels, but not for the inner wheels, there is simply no way to attach the inner tyres after construction of the bogeys, so do it now!)
3. A25, A11 to lower hull
4. A6, to A3 around A14 (without gluing to A14)
5. A6/A3 to O and A17
6. attach road wheel assembly to A11 and fine tune placement by gluing A10 ( you might want to wait till all 8 bogey assemblies are ready before attaching them to the lower hull, this way, you can adjust and make sure all wheels are touching the ground)
7. A2 and outside tyres last

Hope this helps...

Frank
Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 06:23 PM UTC
Thanks Frank, although I have to nitpick the last of your steps. The bogeys are actually designed to be completely workable. There is absolutely no need to make sure all the wheels touch the floor. They can't fail too if you assemble them properly, since they all work and remain fully adjustable. Also, O should be left off A17 and A 13 since they can be painted and fitted later if you leave the wheels completely off for seperate painting.
The next step should be to place A8 and A3 on A11 and use a minimal amount of glue between A11 and A10 to hold A8 and A3 in place, yet leave them movable. Doing it this way, carefully, should ensure the bogey's remain fully workable.

Vinnie
rfeehan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: July 20, 2003
KitMaker: 727 posts
Armorama: 648 posts
Posted: Friday, October 28, 2005 - 01:54 AM UTC


I think what people seem to be failing to realize from reading this post and the posts on the other forums and boards is that many of the reviews are being done by fellow modelers aka. amateurs. They have no vested interest in Dragon or any other company and we are in the most cases NOT experts with the vehicle in question. We will make mistakes, we may not catch something that someone else will. Also it's been my experience that building the same kit 5 times will yield 5 different results things do not always fit together the same way every time so isn't it reasonable to assume the problems you think the reviewer overlooked may not have happened when they assembled the kit. I don't do reviews with a caliper and micrometer because quite frankly I don't want to. I write about what I experienced building the kit and what is in the box. How it looks and goes together for me. If I see something I think is missing or wrong I will say so and every review I read is the same. No they don't always catch the fact that the top glacis plate of tank a is out by 2mm but this doesn't put them in anyones pocket. It just means they either missed that or they didn't focus on it. Again they are not professionals they are fellow modelers.

My recent Nashorn review is a good example I have a lot of reference material but I am not an expert on the Nashorn or any other vehicle for that matter. After finishing it I found out some things about the vehicle which would have helped my review. The only thing I am an expert on is databases because I get paid to be one. We do the reviews because we volunteer and are asked to by people running sites. All we can do is our best and wording a post in a fashion to make it seem like reviewers are dishonest is in my opinion very poor judgement. Acknowledging where the sample came from is simply being polite. My Nashorn sample came from Armorama in a box, I assumed they got it from Dragon but who knows perhaps Jim bought it and sent it to me. Results would have been the same regardless, I built it and wrote a build review. Maybe people would be happier if we called them "Build Previews"? Perhaps that is more PC like everything else these days in life (don't get me started down that path...).

I see build reviews both in magazines and on web sites as a way to "preview" the kit and decide if I personally want to build it. I don't see it as a way to ensure I am getting a perfect kit to build. Nor do I see it as a way for the company to suck me in and make me buy a dud. If the reviewer tells me it is a bad kit sometimes I still buy it because many times I am buying a kit because I am interested in the subject not how well the company is at executing a slide mold. Instead of attacking reviewers (and I am not saying anyone in this thread did but a quick read of the major boards will show what I am talking about) perhaps posting questions in a polite manner asking about differences in what you encountered vs what they did would be constructive and informative. I enjoy those exhanges.

In the end if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck it is a duck. It is a past time for 99% of us lets try and keep that in mind. If you want to flame me for what I said here feel free to send me a PM or email me.
zappa93
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: October 20, 2005
KitMaker: 1 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 12:50 PM UTC
Good for you, Vinnie!

I had no such gap on the kit I have been working on. But I did experience the problem with the mount for the antenna deflector...which I was (luckily) able to fix. Hint: don't use the small plastic collar next to the gun breech if using the turned aluminum gun tube.

NOTHING MADE BY MAN is perfect. NOTHING!!! Not kits, not build articles and certainly NOT review articles.

And, I AM "beholdin' "to DML/Concord, since I recently began authoring books by them. But that did not effect the fit of my sample's parts.

Keep up the good work. I KNOW what it is to turn out tons of reviews and then take "flak" from those who contribute nothing to the general knowladge of all.

And, thanks for the very positive review of my latest Concord book.

Cheers,

Frank V. (stands for "Vincent"...my late father's name, BTW...so perhaps we are "kindred spirits'?) De Sisto
Violetrock
Visit this Community
European Union
Joined: March 09, 2003
KitMaker: 811 posts
Armorama: 771 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 01:43 PM UTC
Hi all!

I am a "modern tanker" which means I build only vehicles past 1945. But I followed the debate on Dragons Pz. IV kit very intensive.
I noticed, that some builders have trouble with the 2mm gap and some don´t.
So the following questions came to my mind:

1. Is the gap maybe in an "initial series" of kits and Dragon noticed and corrected it, without telling?

2 Maybe the gap only occurs when you attach the parts in a certain order? What´s the building sequence of modellers who have the gap, and what´s the building sequence of modellers who don´t?

Maybe this could be the way to find a solution.

Thomas
Clanky44
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: September 15, 2005
KitMaker: 1,901 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 04:35 PM UTC
To whomever it may help...

Here is my sequence for the 'troubled area', please note that I encountered a very small gap issue in the front, which was addressed with the slightest amount of pressure and a bead of C.A. glue.

1. Attach D52 and B31 to lower hull

2. Attach E22, G3, B29, B30 to upper hull (E37)

3. attach S1 and S2 to upper hull

this sequence allows you to apply the slight pressure needed to close the small gap between B31 and D52 without messing about with the rest of the hull components, should have three photos attached, if not, please click on 'my photos'



jet
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: December 30, 2002
KitMaker: 306 posts
Armorama: 295 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 06:16 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Also, O should be left off A17 and A 13 since they can be painted and fitted later if you leave the wheels completely off for seperate painting.



Hey Vinnie,
wonderful build-
but just thought I'd share this , something that Tom Cockle posted about the tires and wheels

Quoted Text

4. I would suggest that you glue the rubber roadwheel parts on the rims as the fit is so snug that it will be impossible to slip them on after there is paint on the rims. Also, one of my test shot wheels split after a while possible becasue of the snug fit but it could have been from the number of people that handled it here as well. I didn't want to take any chances.


Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 06:27 PM UTC
Thankyou Gentlemen, for the wonderfully supportive comments. And Thankyou Frank for the support! Whatever issues people have with the kit, I intend buying a couple more of them, it will be interesting to see if I have 'fit' issues with them! I'll keep people informed! :-)
Thanks again everybody!
Vinnie
sgirty
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 12, 2003
KitMaker: 1,315 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 02:41 AM UTC
Hi, Have a question here concerning step 10 in the area of the rear part of the two fenders. I see on parts ME 6 and 7 that just the end of this wire goes up through the fender and the rest lays underneath. What in the world are these things and how exactly do they fit without bending them. The two pre-bent pieces of wire in my box comes nowhere near fitting like it is shown on the instruction sheet. I must be missing the obvious here, which has been known to happen.

Thanks and take care, Sgirty
Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 02:45 AM UTC
The two pieces of wire actually do fit, with a lot of effort. They actually 'clip' around the rear towing hooks. I fit mine, but eventually left them off as they threw the alignment of the hull deck out somewhat.

Vinnie
sgirty
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: February 12, 2003
KitMaker: 1,315 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 08:21 AM UTC
Hi, Leaving them off sounds like the best idea so far, being as one of them has already went flying off into the 4th dimension anyway.

Since I'm using the fenders with the holes already in them, I think I'll just run a bit of wire of through that particular hole and out on top so at least it looks like the whole thing is there. A bit of Shep Paine's "gizmology."

Thanks and take care, Sgirty
jet
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: December 30, 2002
KitMaker: 306 posts
Armorama: 295 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi, Have a question here concerning step 10 in the area of the rear part of the two fenders. I see on parts ME 6 and 7 that just the end of this wire goes up through the fender and the rest lays underneath. What in the world are these things



Hi,
Those wires are the electrical leads to the rear lights.
Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:20 AM UTC
Aha! That's what they are eh? Well they're still too springy!

Vinnie
PLMP110
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: September 26, 2002
KitMaker: 1,318 posts
Armorama: 837 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:30 AM UTC
Thank you Vinnie for a great article. I received my kit yesterday and will be starting it very soon with your article printed and used alongside the instructions.

To the others who have added other tips; thanks to you as well.

Patrick
Teacher
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Joined: April 05, 2003
KitMaker: 4,924 posts
Armorama: 3,679 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 02:33 AM UTC
Don't mention it Patrick. We're here to serve!

Vinnie
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 06:24 PM UTC
I noticed the rivets on the turret roof, and have spend the last few days trying to find some clear pictures of an Ausf E (or indeed another Ausf.) with such large prominent rivets. No luck. I don't know if this has been brought up before, but those rivets seem rather 'over the top', if not downright fictional. As far as I'm aware all rivets or bolts/screws in the turret roof were countersunk/flush.

Cheers
Henk
LeXav
Visit this Community
Ille-et-Vilaine, France
Joined: December 02, 2004
KitMaker: 3 posts
Armorama: 3 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 09:53 PM UTC
Hi all,

To calm down the controversy, here is a picture of the actual gap that you can find on the PzIVE, gap that is filled using a 0.010 " (0.25 mm) styrene spacer.
The gap is greatly empashized on the picture, due to zoom effect.



If image doen't appear check url :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/LeXav/PzIVE_1.jpg


In defense of Brian (who I don't know btw), I must say, that I too was amazed by the gap shown on Vinnie's pictures. It may lead people to think that there actually is a huge gap at this place.
In defense of Vinnie, at least he BUILT the kit.

Also (I already discussed this by mail with Saùl Garcia) there are far too many "In box reviews" on the net that look like "covert adverts".

I think, that, when a company sends a kit to a reviewer, the reviewer should :
1/ First know the subject he is talking about (for instance, if you don't know modern armour, don't review modern AFV models).
2/ OPEN the box (yes, sometimes you wonder if the reviewer actually opened the box)
3/ Objectively examine the parts for moulding quality and SHOW digital pictures of the sprues and details in the review.
4/ Check accuracy (dimensions, details) with historical documentation (that's why the reviewer needs to know the subject).
5/ BUILD the kit, at least partly, to check the acual fit.
6/ Only then write his conclusions.

Some reviewers do it, like on PMMS or here on Armorama, some don't even show a picture of the box content.

I say it again, a "plain-text-in-box-review" is completely useless.

So some "reviewers" should get less kits and write less reviews, in order to have time to make more thorough reviews. (and buy a digital camera too).

There are too many kits produced today to pretend to be able to thoroughly review ALL the released kits (just like trying to drink water from a firehose, as you say in english)

Pawel Wodnik spectacular reviews are a good example of what reviewers SHOULD try to attempt.

Regards and sorry for the broken english.

Xavier
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,925 posts
Armorama: 9,484 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:13 PM UTC
Xavier, first of all, welcome to the site. Secondly, I have to say that you raise some interesting points - very few of which I would disagree on.

Where I particularly agree with you is in in your first point:


Quoted Text

1/ First know the subject he is talking about (for instance, if you don't know modern armour, don't review modern AFV models).



This is a policy we have here on Armorama. There is nothing more irritating when I see reviews on other sites done by people who have a) No knowledge or b) No experience with the subject being reviewed.

One thing that I will re-emphasise, is that (for example) in the case of DML, they put NO pressure on the site to 'slant' the review in their favor. They are suffciently confident in the quality of their product (and the professionalism) of the reviewers here... Some of the companies who don't provide samples for review, occasionally seem to be lacking confidence in their own products - that however is something for another thread! Once again, welcome!..Jim
nicoropi
Visit this Community
Vaud, Switzerland
Joined: September 29, 2005
KitMaker: 243 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:24 PM UTC
Hey Xav!
Funny how I notice straight away a countryfellow 's post! :-)
Have you been burning some cars lately?

Anyway back to the thread, where is the gap?

I have a question about this kit. Do you know if it has the attribute of "Superkit" in the Dragon package, or at least in Germany?
I've made a deal on eBay, and the seller is missing 2 of the boxes I've bought, I don't know which but most were Dragon figures. The seller is offering to replace with the Dragon Panzer IV E (Superkit).
Do you know if it would be this kit or is there different kits?
Anyway, it doesn't sound too bad a deal to replace 2 boxes of figs (or maybe a Tamiya truck) with a Dragon Panzer, does it?

Vinnie thanks for all your contributions to the site!
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,925 posts
Armorama: 9,484 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 02:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

have a question about this kit. Do you know if it has the attribute of "Superkit" in the Dragon package, or at least in Germany?
I've made a deal on eBay, and the seller is missing 2 of the boxes I've bought, I don't know which but most were Dragon figures. The seller is offering to replace with the Dragon Panzer IV E (Superkit).
Do you know if it would be this kit or is there different kits?
Anyway, it doesn't sound too bad a deal to replace 2 boxes of figs (or maybe a Tamiya truck) with a Dragon Panzer, does it



In my opinion, I wouldn't touch this 'offer' with a bargepole. The 'Superkit' thing is a load of garbage - it was NEVER classified by this as DML. Sounds like the seller is out to make a fast buck...Jim
nicoropi
Visit this Community
Vaud, Switzerland
Joined: September 29, 2005
KitMaker: 243 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 04:01 AM UTC
Hey Gary,
Not sure I understand you...
Do you mean to say the kit called "superkit" is not from Dragon?
Looking at the name they give it, apart from the superkit word, it looks like it is the one Vinnie has reviewed, or is there many many kits of this one? I do realize my question is silly as I write it...
So the best is probably to wait for the parcel to arrive and to judge then.
Again this is only 2 boxes of Dragon or Tamya figures out of 15... so the panzer IV doesn't have to be that nice...
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,925 posts
Armorama: 9,484 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 04:47 AM UTC
There are lots of different PzIV kits on the market, so logically they'll all look a bit similar. I'll repeat what I said before. 'SUPERKIT' has never been used by DML to describe ANY of it's kits... Jim
Panther88
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 01, 2005
KitMaker: 70 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 04:58 AM UTC
Vinnie, you are my mentor. I have been modelling for over 20 years now but mostly aircraft. I have just got into WWII armour and I love it. But I did have so much to learn with preshading, tracks, painting and weathering and your articles have helped me so much and probably kept me from giving up and going back to aircraft.

I just wanted you to know this and to thank you and tell you to keep up the reviews and tips, love them and I need them.

As for the other guy with comments and accusations, well you are intelligent enough to ignore him and I believe your response was tackfull and warranted.

Thanks again.
sharkmouth
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 40 posts
Armorama: 24 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 05:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Also (I already discussed this by mail with Saúl Garcia) there are far too many "In box reviews" on the net that look like "covert adverts".

I think that, when a company sends a kit to a reviewer, the reviewer should:
1/ First know the subject he is talking about (for instance, if you don't know modern armour, don't review modern AFV models).
2/ OPEN the box (yes, sometimes you wonder if the reviewer actually opened the box)
3/ Objectively examine the parts for moulding quality and SHOW digital pictures of the sprues and details in the review.
4/ Check accuracy (dimensions, details) with historical documentation (that's why the reviewer needs to know the subject).
5/ BUILD the kit, at least partly, to check the acual fit.
6/ Only then write his conclusions.



Hi Xavier,

Sharing our information, are you?

This is in defense of the sites which get samples from manufacturers. Truth be told, it is difficult to find someone who is expert, or at least knowledgeable, in all subjects. Keep this in mind since many vendors do not ask what samples they should send, they just do. For example, it took me a while (and some money spent) to gather the necessary references to be able to review Dragon's aircraft carrier kits which I was sent. I did not find anyone with the combination of skills (which include photography) so I could send it to them.

As for number 2, yes...I have been left scratching my head sometimes as well!

Three is very important and a reason why some knowledgeable modelers I know do not get samples forwarded by me. Photography is important. In some cases, I will photograph the sprues and then send the kit. By reading the submitted text, I will know if the kit was actually built since I PREFER build reviews. This goes towards your fifth point as well. Test fitting of major parts is the least to expect.

The fourth point is the most difficult. Every modeler I know has a reference library. Sadly, there are occasions where this library is not up to date. Not everyone has the wherewithal to buy the latest books on a particular subject. So the accuracy check you find is limited to what the reviewer had at hand. For this reason, I ask that all reviews include a list of references used. Note that the sites you mentioned include them? So even if some item is not accurate, the reviewer can point out that it was to the references they used. No one is perfect and we should not expect them to be.

Value was not mentioned. This is a personal thing, just like the overall opinion. For example, (even if the kit was sent for free) how do you feel paying full price for the kit? Again, there are many factors here since a kit’s price may be different in other areas of the World.

So I ask that reviewers state the facts, where they got the facts, show us some images so we can form our own opinions and give me theirs (which I may or may not agree with).

What to do when inaccuracies are found? Point them out and how to overcome them. Let the reader decide if they wish to go through the trouble, if at all. An example is this Panzer IV Ausf E. Many improvements can be made to it, while I plan to do all I find; some may do some and others none at all. It is a beautiful kit. Here is where opinions some into play. Some modelers will not bother trying to improve the kit and revel in all (and there is plenty!) that is right. Some may be thrilled at the value, all the goodies including such a wonderful figure. Some may be disappointed since they are in the quest for the perfect kit (a very long quest, of that I am sure), and others may see the inaccuracies, fix them, and be so happy at having added their touch to a wonderful model.

Note that I do not represent any one site. I have posted my reviews here (mostly aircraft, books, or in Spanish) and Track-Link (only armor in English). I do get samples from many vendors and pass them on to reviewers such as Christopher Wilson, Konrad Schreiber, and others.

Regards,
Saúl García
kuz
Visit this Community
Vestsjalland, Denmark
Joined: November 14, 2005
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2005 - 08:52 AM UTC
Hey all armor freaks
Being an old man in Panzers, I started some 35 odd years ago doing a conversion of a Nichimo Panzer IV F1 into an E version, things certainly have changed since then , I have on and off, been doing some early German Panzers up to 1942, or more correctly the later months of 1942. Seeeing the new releases of Dragons good looking version, yet only in review form makes me wonder, why no one, or at least only a few have mentioned the Tristar version, or perhaps I haven't found it yet
Modellers today are more “picky“ than earlier, in their search for precise detail, where, at least here in Denmark, people sat pride in correcting errors, and getting a more “correct“ model, that was the difference between mediocre models and “the super models“, ring a familar bell
We have certainly been spoiled by the manufacters these last years, now I only need some soft skin early german vehicles.
By the way a SUPER SITE with lots of good stuff for almost every taste.
Greetings to all contributers from Denmark