login   |    register
Armor/AFV
For all ground-operating modelling subjects.
REVIEW
Rye Field Model Tiger I Early
firstcircle
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: November 19, 2008
KitMaker: 2,249 posts
AeroScale: 34 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 04:42 AM UTC
Adie Roberts follows up Darren Baker's earlier in box review with a full build review of Rye Field Model's Tiger I Ausf.E Early, including some diorama work at the end.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
MZ3
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: August 26, 2005
KitMaker: 229 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 06:19 AM UTC
OK, I haven't posted here in a REALLY long time, but I feel like chime in on this one...

This model sucks. I've been building for 30 years and I've never had such a horrible experience building something like this. Every part had to be worked, filed, sanded or cut to make fit. That's not normal. Nothing on the hull fit properly. Nothing on the turret fit properly. About half of the wheels weren't the same size as the rest. Major gaps all over, more then what is considered normal.

Now, it could very well be I just got a bad copy. For me, I think a Dragon or Tamiya kit would be better.
Byrden
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,232 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 01:07 PM UTC
Interesting to see a build from a naive user who brings a fresh eye to the subject, unaffected by the last 20 years of research.
But I want to correct that comment about RAL 8020. We have solid evidence that these Tigers arrived in RAL 7008 / RAL 8000 camouflage. In some cases they were "touched up" with RAL 8020 where new parts were added, such as the Feifels or turret bins; but the overall colour was much like what you see in Bovington Museum's example.

David
SDavies
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 01:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Interesting to see a build from a naive user who brings a fresh eye to the subject, unaffected by the last 20 years of research.



David as blunt as ever. You should have done the review if you felt so strongly

I liked the review but I am disappointed with the kit, Especially with Jason's comments above.
Byrden
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,232 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 01:26 PM UTC
Steven: given that I collaborate closely with Dragon, I don't think I should be trusted to perform an unbiased review of any kit. I do publish my comments on them.

Jason, there have been build reviews of this kit by a few people, and your post sounds much more negative than their experiences.
I don't have the kit myself. Can you go into more detail about the fit problems? Is it possible that you got a badly moulded example?

David
SDavies
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 09, 2010
KitMaker: 979 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 01:34 PM UTC
David, I would not have any issue with you doing a review on a Dragon, Academy or RFM Tiger as I have always known you to be very honest. The fact that you take consulting work from Dragon would have no impact on your honesty.

The problem is that people might be reticent to post a review of a Tiger when you pop up and make comments like you have, try being more positive or at least more polite !
Byrden
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,232 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2016 - 01:50 PM UTC
Well you can take it as negative, but I seriously meant what I said. Every Tiger review I've read lately has been from somebody familiar with the shared opinions on the kit. Mr. Roberts didn't repeat any of the familiar complaints about Rye Field's 5001. He just took it "as is". That's refreshing, and we should bear in mind that a lot of kit purchasers are in that position.

David
MZ3
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: August 26, 2005
KitMaker: 229 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 04:33 AM UTC
More detail....please excuse any spelling issues. I posted this from my phone.

I'll start at the beginning and work my way through the instructions.

Step 1- the left half of the turret (A42) was taller then the right half (A43). Where they join in the front I had to cut the peg off and putty the joint after placing the mantlet. When I was test fitting everything, the mantlet was pushing the the 2 halves of the turret apart pretty badly. The 3 mantlet parts (A1, A32 and A33) did not fit at all and needed a lot of work to get together. The first part of the barrel that attaches to the mantlet (A4) fit, but there was a gap in between it and the mantlet. The only part that seemed to be fine was the barrel, but I have read it's too long.

Step 2- because of the turret half issues, the top plate did not fit well at all. It was too wide at it's widest point and with the way the mantlet was spacing the halfs at the front, it was too narrow. Niether of the optional loaders hatches fit at all. I went with A23 and had to extremely carefully sand and file it to get it to fit. The part that goes in above the mantlet on the bottom front of the top plate (A17)did not fit at all. It had to be sanded so much it looked like crap when I put it in.

Step 3- NONE of the clear parts fit into the copula at all. Not a huge deal to me, I was sealing the hatch closed anyway and you can barely see in the ports. But then the hatch didn't fit. Then the copula didn't fit. There was a gap between the bottom of the copula and where it sits on the top plate.

Now at this point I'm starting to get a little negative towards this build. Almost every part I've had to make fit.

Step 4- because of the bs with the turret halves, the turret ring does not fit. Not a deal at all, who's going to see it? The pistol ports don't fit. The curve on them does not match that of the turret. All 4 of the parts for the storage bin don't fit very well. Fill the gaps, not an issue. Storage bin doesn't fit. Had to cut the peg off to get it to work. But here's the turret issue again. It fit on to A42 well enough,but not on to A43. Almost like the back part of the storage bin (E22) is too wide.
|:(
Now the huel...

Step 5- nothing too major here. Some of the torsion bars were either too long or short. Blah. Whatever.

Here's where things started to reall go bad...

Step 6- the back plate on the hull was to short at the bottom and there was a bad gap. Every small detail part needed more work then normal. Size issues with the wheels as stated above. The 2 halvea of the drive sprockets didn't fit. D59, the part that holds the hub on to the drive housing did not fit on to the hub part(D52) under the housing. That was apain in the ass to fix.

Step 7 is detail parts, same little fit issues, nothing major.

Step 8, oh step 8 - Parts E13 and 14, the side plates on the hull were too short. There are 8 pegs thelat are supposed to line up on holes. The back 4 go in fine, the front 4 don't fit at all. Cut them off and glue. These 2 parts also did not fit to the back plate, leaving gaps on all 4 corners of the hull.

Step 9- The engine hatch(B2)had to be significantly sanded to get it to fit into the deck. The hatches at the rear that cover the fans had to have every nook and cranny sanded to get them to fit, especially around the hinges. They just simply would not fit with out filing. But this was a bit of a blessing in disguise beacause the 2 halves of each hatch (E9/10 and E7/8)... can you guess what I'm about to type at this point?

Step 10 is detail that I never got to.

Step 11- Top plate on, front horizontal plate on. Front horizontal plate (B4)isn't wide enough and won't fit into the lower hull because the natches are too wide apart. After working B4 for about an hour and not really making any real headway I gave up. There were gaps between that part and the side.plates from earlier, between B4 and the top plate and between B4 and the lower parts of the hull on the back of B4.

It's almost over

Step 12- One thing to do, put the front plate/fenders (E5)part on. Does not fit. It won't fit into the grove on part B4. So I basically sanded and filed almost all of the bottom of E5 away until it fit. But, to get it to fit properly against B4 it left a millimeter gap in the front that I had to fill with evergreen strips.

At this point I had enough. This was supposed to be a mental health project. Something different from what I normally build. Something I.didn't want.to put a huge amount of effort in to. Maybe, like I stated in my first post, maybe I got a bad kit. But damn! I don't want to look at this thing ever again.

In my opinion, the Dragon and the Tamiya are far better tanks to build. I haven't built either in a long time, but I remember how well they went together. Especially when compared to this one.
Biggles2
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
AeroScale: 121 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 04:53 AM UTC
Really odd that Adie Roberts didn't mention the problems you had.
Mannloon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: May 18, 2015
KitMaker: 99 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 05:36 AM UTC
I didn't have many issues with it, maybe just the turret halves fitting with the roof. You have to sand one or the other, but this kit went together pretty easy for me. I found 5003 (Which I will post my review of here in the next few days) a bit more trying. But still doable. I have something called an "After Action Report" I filmed of it over on my YouTube channel.
Mannloon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: May 18, 2015
KitMaker: 99 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 05:36 AM UTC
https://youtu.be/C7k6D1PcAJw
Thirian24
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: September 30, 2015
KitMaker: 2,493 posts
AeroScale: 2 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 05:40 AM UTC
I watch a lot of your YouTube videos, Adam. Thank you for doing them.
MZ3
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: August 26, 2005
KitMaker: 229 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 06:42 AM UTC
Again, I may have just gotten a bad kit. It wouldn't be the first time. It's definitely not going to be the last. It's all fixable, but very annoying. It seemed like everytime a cut a part off a sprue it didn't fit.

You know, a couple problems on a build is whatever. That's model building. But on every step, that leaves me not interested in finishing this or in building anything else from Rye.
MZ3
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Colorado, United States
Joined: August 26, 2005
KitMaker: 229 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 06:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

https://youtu.be/C7k6D1PcAJw



I LOVE the disclaimer at the beginning!
In_War_and_Peace
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODELGEEK
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: September 26, 2015
KitMaker: 116 posts
AeroScale: 71 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 07:56 AM UTC
Hi Guys
Thank you all for your comments about the build I did on the Rye Field Tiger 1 Early D.A.K. I have read through them all several times. So if I answer some of you in turn.

MZ3 Jason; I am very sorry that you experienced the difficulties with your build, I truly am. I did not experience many if any at all of the ones you mentioned I did have some issues for which I mention in my review. It is a shame that you did have such issues as now you will be probably reluctant to purchase anything else from Rye Field which is understandable considering the issues you experienced. I built this kit and reviewed it how I did see it I know how much difference there is especially when it comes to a Tiger Tank. But I wanted to do a build and review completely fresh trying very hard to give everyone here something to take from the build.

I love building models and genuinely try hard to express my work by doing dioramas I am not the best in the world I would like to be one day lol. I made several mistakes on the tank with the paint which I tried to research as best I could in the short time I had. The paint colour scheme I chose was from a picture in the AK Interactive's profile D.A.K. book I then spent hours online reading forum posts and seeing loads of different points of views I did decide to go with the RAL 8020. I am not an expert on Tigers or any other German armour and certainly not a rivet counter (not that I have an issue with rivet counters) I just try to build something and ultimately bring it to life by way of a diorama that is my passion dioramas.

SDavis; thank you for your comments and glad you liked the review I can see and understand why you would be disappointed in the kit, But please have a go with one it is not an expensive kit it may not be the most accurate one in the world either but I did enjoy it and compared to some tigers I have seen comes with a lot to offer (just not the instructions) well not all of them anyway. When I was asked to do the review on the Rye Field Tiger I have to say I felt very honoured, when Darren turned up and gave it to me I was over the moon I am a humble man who is disabled after a terrorist bomb that took its toll on me over the years and modelling for me is a way of being as creative as I can be and being able to do the reviews that Jim Stark and Darren Baker and others who I don't know it felt like a chance to feel worthy again. I am not looking for sympathy just trying to explain my review and where it came from.

Byrden, MZ3, SDavies, Biggles2 and Mannloon I really do appreciate your comments MZ3 please don't give up on them (Rye Field Models) I am not working for them but I do feel looking back again at your experience that you had a bad kit

Mannloon; loved your after action you tube review and your knowledge and I have learnt a lot from this build and review I typed how I found the experience and build.

Lastly I would like to thank Jim Stark, Darren Baker and the other editors and staff for allowing me to do some reviews and builds for you it really is an honour for me.
TopSmith
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
AeroScale: 14 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 09:55 AM UTC
I agree with both Adie and David. The old Tamiya panther is a fine example of the same thing. A non Panther person buys the kit without reading the reviews and builds it and is happy that the kit went together well and looks fine when finished. A panther person who has read the reviews grumbles that the bottom of the sponsons are open and the turret doesn't match the drawings in Xyz's book, and those holes in the bottom of the hull!!! One person enjoyed the build and the other was frustrated at the inaccuracies. I agree it is nice to see someone enjoy the build without having to repair every inaccuracy other than to make sure the parts fit. When I build a kit I decide early on just how accurate I want to be. I try to do a couple fun builds to every serious attempt. For the others that had issues, I'm sorry your kit had issues. I know how frustrating that can be to power through to finish a tough kit.
Mannloon
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: May 18, 2015
KitMaker: 99 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 - 05:36 PM UTC
Thanks Thirian24 and MZ3, and I agree with TopSmith too. As a matter fact back in 2009/10 that old Panther was the first kit I built, and I didn't know what was what. I think people who have made it a point to know the accuracy of a subject are one resource, but certainly not the only one. It's a very esoteric line we walk, and at times it's nice to be reminded not everyone cares as much as we do. And frankly they look like they're having more fun because they're still in the infatuation stage with the hobby.