After reading Terry Ashley's comparison on the Trumpeter and AFV-C kits, I was surprised at the differences in the measurements. (see it here: http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/afvclub/afv35126.html )
I had a chance to take a few quick measurements last time I was out at the Edmonton base, and found that the Trumpeter kit actually is the closest to scale, at least in these two measurements. I'm pretty sure the Stryker and LAV-III would have the same width? (I used Dan's photo as I didn't have a good overall dead-on shot from the back) One thing I should have got was the hull length on the sides, maybe next time.




Mmm, wonder what the Dragon one will be like??

Jim

I think such differences should be expected. I strongly suspect that the measurements used by all three manufacturers to make their respective Stryker kits are deduced from photographs together with published figures in the public domain such as Jane's Armour and Artillery etc. The closest “official” specifications (detail enough to build a scale model) I can find on the LAV III family were at the Mowag website (www.mowag.ch) and the recently published Mowag Piranha book by Tankograd. It is of the PIRANHA III C 8X8; the closest cousin of our LAV III.

Back in 1999 when the LAV III series was in full production we had a tour of the London production line. I asked the GM representative for a set of drawing for modelling. I emphasized that I just wanted the “outline drawing” for building a scale model. The response was a very polite No! That may be due to security or copyright reasons; I don’t know but I have not seen a good enough line drawing of the LAV III (for that matter a Stryker) in the public domain as yet.

In the present security climate where both the LAV III and the Stryker are on active service I seriously doubt that any official drawings have been released to the three model kit manufacturers based respectively in People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. That is why I suspect that they produce the kits by working from photographs and the limited public domain information available. Once Dragon’s is available, it will be interesting to see who has done the best guesstimate!

Alfred,

I had a tour with a friend of the plant and the Loco plant around that time frame also.
At that point I knew 4 people all in upper mamangement that worked there.
I was not allowed a camera on the tour and one part of the LAV plant was fenced off with the "Test Mules" inside it.

Was probably a security thing most places are not happy about giving out that stuff.
Even have been on car plants, and part plants as I am an SAE member and we are not allowed cameras and if the give out anything it is a standard press release kit which has not much in it.

Hi Clarence,

Yes, security is an issue, I understand perfectly. On the other hand, an outline drawing should not give away too much important info. May be in the hands of some experts they can deduce something from it I don't know. The fact remains that eventually and inevitably these babies will be seen by the general public and studied intensively by good guys (modelers like us) and bad guys alike. So publishing a good set of outline drawings should not really be that harmful. As it turn out three kit manufacturers can now independently produced a kit (with slightly different dimensions)for all to chose from so all these precaution seemed irrelevant. Well this is from my Scale Freak point of view.

Alfred

yea..

I went to the Paris airshow around the time the F-16C/D models where coming online.

They were handing out these little flyers with the specs on 2 of the pages..
showed Mission radius, weights, even had the drawings for the diagrams for all the combat loads and which pylon they went on..

I know for sure some of those ended up in the wrong place..

For some Reason GMDD and now GDLS has alwasy been that way on tours.
even the loco side is the same way.

Thanks for the info Jim.