(Login TopGunBob) Registered Users from IP address 72.70.159.39
The M4 Composite is back on line and available. I've made the corrections to it and added some more details such as tie-down cleats, casting numbers and opened up drain holes. The corrected T-23 early turret will be available on Monday followed by the 75mm High Bustle Turrets. The STUG IV will be available as soon as I find a couple more pics. Lu pointed out a couple things that I want to fix before re-releasing it.
So what's new? 8 more new products for May! Yes Folks, among them are the M4 Direct Vision, M4A2 with CAST Hoods, 4 of the new hollow-cast Sherman Turrets, the Steyr 1500 Radio Car conversion and a surprise.
We've set the two Mercedes Truck kits to "Limited Productions" along with the Radio Truck conversion so get them while you can. Only 100 of each will be produced.
Bob
Bob and Steve
Top Gun Military/IRON DIVISON Resins
http:www.topgunmilitary.com
Great news! Looking forward to the M4 DV. Steyr Radio Car? Nuts, I just finished assembling a Steyr that I picked up at a show last Saturday. Guess I'll have to buy another one.
Okay, I just bought a number of Iron Division products over the past few months. Now it appears these weren't up to snuff, or why change them? Anything going to be done to help out those with the "lesser" product?
I bought an M4 composite hull and a T23 early turret, just before they were both pulled from the site to be redone!
But I guess there were plenty of folk who got these before me, too. At least Bob and Steve are willing to correct any defects that are brought to their attention, so future customers get the best product they can. As you know, once you buy a plastic kit, that's it, errors and all.
All the best,
Matt
p.s Yes, I'd love to replace my kits, but I don't expect it
This message has been edited by mattwrixon from IP address 202.81.69.133 on Apr 25, 2008 7:14 PM
I have already fixed the ventilator cover (or whatever it is) on mine, but foundry marks and casting numbers would have been nice. I was hoping that it came with sponson covers but did not. My suggestion is that all hulls be sold with sponson covers.
I also just bought an M4 composite hull from Iron Division within the last 60 days, just before they were pulled and re-done. It was my first purchase from Iron Division. I understand things change and are improved, it's just sort of a bummer to be one of the unfortunate customers who bought the version 1.0 a week before version 2.0 is announced.
Perhaps a list of the corrections/improvements could be offered with suggestions for fixing them ourselves? It would be good if we could get some sort of graphic showing what we need to correct on these resin hulls we just bought.
Really sorry to hear your troubles guys. Wish I could exchange them all for you, unfortunately though, I cannot. For those of you that have Composite Hull conversion kits, email me at topgunmodels@verizon.net . There is something I can do for you to get the newer versions at a lower rate if you are not happy with the old ones. We do our best to keep the quality and accuracy of our kits to higher standards and if that means pulling something off-line for corrections we'll do it. That is why we depend on feedback from Reviewers and Modellers to let us know when something is wrong. Unfortunately in this case, I just didn't have the time to get to these things sooner but will do my best to make corrections to kits a hell of alot faster in the future!
Bob
Bob and Steve
Top Gun Military/IRON DIVISON Resins
http:www.topgunmilitary.com
I can understand that some here are disappointed that they bought ID resin parts, and now find there is a part 2.0 available while they bought part 1.0. I think it's important to consider two things.
One, it is good that a company wants to improve its products as new or better information comes out. I have seen a lot of the photos that people have used as detail references, and in the case of US manuals, the quality of these photos is very suspect, because most of the photos in manuals have been retouched to show details "better", but not in all cases do they show details exactly as they are. They were retouched for better reproduction, not necessarily clarity. And, not all the details are shown in manuals, so we have to wait for walkaround photoshoots.
So, to an extent, we all (modelers and manufacturers) are subject to the availability of good information. Do we as modelers want companies to improve their products as better information comes out, or not? As someone has mentioned, many plastic models have errors and they are perpetuated for decades because of the expense of correctng the molds. With RTV molds and resin products, changes can be made when the molds have to be redone. This should be an advantage. I hav examples of both old and new parts from Steve Faxon. As many of you know, Steve completely revamped his Sherman kits a year or so ago. His new stuff, though solid cast, will hold up with anybody else's in external detail and accuracy.
Do I want to throw away the older stuff? Not at all - usually I can modify it fairly easily to bring it up to the latest standard. Steve had an error in the shape of the welded drivers' hoods on his intermediate M4A2 hull. The correction (made on his latest hulls) takes about 10 minutes with a Dremel, after which his hull will stand up to the excellent Formations M4A2 in detail and accuracy; I can't tell them apart except for an extra fuel cap behind the engine deck hatches on the Faxon hull. This brings me to my second consideration: how bad are the changes? Are the part 1.0 parts so bad they are completely unusable? Or are the improvements all relatively minor? Externally, there is no difference between a solid cast turret and a hollow cast example.
Other detail improvements may often be things that anyone can do. Cable guides, tiedown clips, things like that are just a few very small chips of plastic stock to add. Casting numbers are tougher, but you can make your own molds just for casting numbers easily, and casting numbers are not always visible. I challenge anyone to find casting numbers on the front of a typical Sherman in Europe, with all the stowage, spare track, and general clutter piled on the glacis and even hung off the sides. Yes, it might be nice to have the casting numbers there, but on the finished model, they might not be seen anyway, so the lack of numbers is not a problem. On some tanks, the casting numbers aren't visible anyway, like all the British Sherman IIs at Alamein in October 1942. They just aren't there, folks.
We are very fortunate to have companies that are trying to make our rather tiny corner of the modeling world a bit better. I think the best solution here would be for ID to list the changes they made to the parts and let the modelers decide oif they want to make the changes. It is not fair to say that they released parts they knew were wrong, if what they did was go from solid to hollow cast turrets; that is a technical improvement to be sure, but if you model a tank with crew in the hatchways, or the vehicle buttoned up, solid is not a problem. On a bad day, everything ID has made so far is better than the ICM SdKfz 222 armored car kit. Period.
Thanks Bruce, well put. In the case of the Composite Hulls, the major glaring error was the vent cover. That error was due to subtle differences in the photographic information I had on hand. It has been corrected. The only other additions to the reworked Master were 3 small Tie-Down cleats for the Pioneer Tools, Casting Numbers behind the Drivers hatch area and drilling-out the drain holes on the upper sides. The "extras" that were added to the new version can be easily added to the older versions. Our main goal in this was to give everyone a better product and to keep our fellow Modellers informed of what we are up to.
On the brighter side, I am adding sponson covers to all future upper hull conversions. In addition to this, I'll be sending test shots out to someone and get them checked first before releasing them on the market. This might avoid such problems in the future. I hope.
Bob
Bob and Steve
Top Gun Military/IRON DIVISON Resins
http:www.topgunmilitary.com
Even though I haven't bought any of Iron Division's products (I don't suffer from a Sherman addiction), I have to salute Bob for even taking the initiative he has and producing the products he does. Where else are you going to get them at such a fair price and in such a timely fashion, other than Steve Faxon? Some people moan about Steve's products because they aren't hollow-cast. Now Bob takes the noble step of deciding his masters could be better, and implements improvements. I knew when he announced upgrades the whinging would begin.
When you buy a product from someone, you buy it as-is and in good faith. If you are satisfied upon receipt, then it's a done deal. If you buy the first edition of a book or the initial release of a DVD, are you entitled to complain or call "defective" when the second edition/director's cut comes out? Try it and see how much luck you have.
A business that is willing to improve on their products is one that understands the long-term realities, and one that stands a better chance of surviving. If Bob had announced upgrades on these parts earlier, how many of the in-stock 1.0 versions would have sold? How would Bob have paid for the time/effort/materials? He wouldn't have, and so his efforts in 1/48 could have fizzled. As little as we have in 1/48, every contribution should be nurtured. If you got the lesser product and aren't happy, sell it on Ebay and buy the new upgrade (until the next upgrade comes along).
Sorry 'bout the rant and nothing personal toward anyone in this community, but business is as business does, and Bob is doing all the right things, IMHO.
Your comments are less than helpful. And if it had been a member of Iron Division who had called his customers "whinging", I can assure you it would be the last time I dropped even ten cents with them.
Also your comment that he had to clear his shelves of the lesser versions in order to make money, knowing they were inaccurate is again something I hope wasn't in Iron Division's mind. Knowingly sell me a defective product, and again, I am done shopping with you.
Calling anyone who complains a "whinger" is to me someone who lacks the ability to rationally offer up a solution to a justified complaint. I agree, Iron Division is in business, and that business stands or falls on its ability to satisfy its customers' "demands". And right here we have an issue for Iron Division to ponder: how to help those customers who first bought their product in good faith, assuming it was accurate. And apparently it wasn't.
Dave Clark has suggested posting a corrections list. I agree, perhaps on this forum, with up close photos.
DML Dragon has had this issue, and have been roundly criticized for it on the net. People are now gun-shy about being first to buy their product, in fear of getting a dud. WOrse, or better depending on your viewpoint, DML then reissues the dud kit later, with the corrections. You then become foolish if you purchase first, rather than awaiting critiques, and retools. This is one solution to the Iron Division issue. We hold off for months, until the product has been through its paces with the reviewers and early purchasers.
Anyway, Malcolm, I would advise you cancelling postings that turn into rants that irritate people if you wish to support the firms on whose behalf you are ranting. I for one am now irriated that I purchased the ID product, rather than just curious about how a solution to the issue might constructively have been had.
Remember recently when Rob Gronovius said that 1/48 would eventually end up where 1/35 is today, in terms of what was acceptably accurate and detailed? Well,it appears we've arrived at that point, and it took us less than four years...... FIVE years ago, the few hardy souls working consistently in 1/48 were either buying expensive European resin or figuring out how to convert and detail the old Bandai stuff, bad tracks and all. Now, we are arguing about the lack of casting numbers on aftermarket resin parts. We've come a long way in a short time; even in 1/35, casting numbers everywhere is a relatively recent development.
For those who want to add casting numbers and symbols, there are two ways to go. Archer makes excellent 3-D printed decals that allow you to add casting numbers and symbols to any kit piece. They are easy to use, and really work very well. You can use them two ways: you can apply them directly to the model you are building, or you can apply the markings to a scrap piece of plastic and make a mold so you can reproduce the markings for as many kits as you want.
To make a mold, apply the decals, use a bit of Mr. Surfacer or thin putty to blend in the edges if needed and paint for protection from the mold process. Apply a mold release (a QUICK dip in soapy water and draining the excess works fine) and for neatness make a little box around the marking to contain the RTV, just some thin cardboard taped together will be fine. Get some white silicone bathtub caulking in a small tube, and carefully apply it over your "master" copy. Let it flow around the markings, avoiding air bubbles, and let it set up overnight. If you want to copy casting markings already on a kit, just make a mold of the markings as above,and let the RTV set up.
Pull off the mold, and you should see a clear negative image of the casting symbols and markings. Use a small amount of filler and squeegee it into the mold impression, and finish by removing most of the extra filler, leaving a thin film to hold the markings together. When this is dry, roll the RTV mold off the molded part and apply the piece to your model. Silicone bathtub caulk was how the advanced modelers made parts eons ago before commercial RTV was available in hobby quantities. And, for casting markings, you do not need resin; model filler putty will do just fine for the high relief details of casting numbers and symbols.
Note that you can mold any small details this way, anything from the kit you're working on, or a part from another kit that you need to finish or detail the one you're doing. Cable guides, tools, gas caps, ventilators, etc. - all can be molded in just a few hours, and if you are copying kit components, there are no masters to make. Tools and full thickness parts may require resin for strength. Enjoy.....
My two cents---Actually, many of the postings were reactions, not complaints. We were reacting as consumers because we had ordered the hull so very close to the time when the changes were announced. I knew ahead of time about the incorrect ventilator cover, but, as this was easy to fix, it was of no concern. I had assumed that the hull would have casting numbers because IDs other products such as turrest and final drives do. Therefore, I hope that ID keeps this in mind as they continue to make products--consistency--all hulls, turrets and drives should have casting numbers if one of them does. As for drainage holes, it is no problem to add these myself, or it wouldn't be if my small drill bit hadn't broken. I am still looking forward to future ID products and have been waiting impatiently like a 6-year-old on Christmas eve for their new turrets. I have two Sherman projects on hold until then.
Respectfully, I think we arrived at the place Gronovius was referring to a while ago with the numerous threads Gaston generated, dissecting the Tamiya Panther, King Tiger, and Sherman kits down to an imperceptible level. That strikes me of the uber-detail, uber-accuracy common to most 1/35th scale sites. I'm all about reasonable accuracy.
I don’t see this discussion as an expectation of absolute perfection right out of the mold on the part of Iron Division’s customers; at least it isn’t for me. I don’t expect anything I purchase to be absolutely perfect when it comes to scale models and AM parts. There is always something that is missed and more that can be tweaked - a few more little details added here and there. Drain holes, vent covers, and especially sponson fillers are all easy enough to add and I already have a set of Archer details for foundry marks. It would always be nice if the item was spot-on but it never is 100%.
What I do think is reasonable to expect from a manufacturer who makes a change in his product is some consideration for his customers who purchased the original version just before the changes were introduced. Lots of manufacturers in lots of different industries offer errata sheets or sometimes even upgrade parts to bring previous versions up to current release standards. In the case of a 1/48 scale resin Sherman hull, I wouldn’t expect a set of tiny additional parts to arrive in my mailbox. I doubt Bob makes enough profit from his Sherman parts after casting, cleaning and packaging to afford that sort of thing. It’s not a reasonable expectation and neither is a full replacement. A simple errata sheet/illustration of what, where, and how I need to add missing detail is all I’m suggesting here. I think that’s a reasonable request and undeserving of the verb “whining”.
Personally, I hate returning things. It’s a hassle for both customer and retailer. I don’t want a replacement hull for a few minor details. If the hull was grossly incorrect and looked like a HobbyBoss product, I might feel differently but it’s not. Bob’s offer to recent purchasers of the composite hull is generous and representative of the kind of consideration I’m talking about. He’s thrown us a bone and I won’t forget it. That’s good and reasonable customer service. I’m happy enough with the hull I have and don’t want to add undue expense to a small operation like Iron Division. I’m glad they are here and I look forward to purchasing more of their products in the future.
I agree with everything you have said here. It is important that the manufacturers feel they have the option to improve and/or correct things in their products, and those who just "miss the boat" do deserve some consideration vis-a-vis making the corrections/additions. Fortunately, here the differences were minor as details go. In general aviation in the US, many manufacturers have not upgraded older designs because there are lawyers who will convince a jury somewhere that the old design is "defective", when in fact it may be perfectly acceptable and safe, just not as advanced as a newer design having the benefit of newer research. Cessna devloped a very efficient new laminar flow wing for their venerable 172 high wing light plane. It had a 40% increase in flight performance over the standard design, but you will never see that wing on any production Cessna 172; they can't afford the potential liability. (Of course, there is also the potential liability of making the older wing and not using the newer wing, and who knows how that will work out?) I hope we can accept that from time to time, kit makers will make improvements or corrections to their products. That benefits all of us in the end.
I'm still in a state of shock as well...what I mean is; look at all of the fabulous, high quality resin stuff that we are being flooded with to help fill in the empty spaces we are so eager to see filled with mainstream plastic kits. Wow, I'm getting indigestion just thinking about how I'm going to handle all this stuff! I'm just putting the finishing touches on dumping a huge load of 35th armor and accessories onto the Rare Plane Detective himself; Jeff Garrity. I seriously have to make room for my new motor pool! My hats off to all of our Quarter scale pioneers; Steve Faxon and Garfield Ingram, Tim Perry and Bob and Steve of Iron Division Resin. Keep up the great work guys. Chris Schwach
I think guys like Tim, Bob 'n' Steve and all the rest who put themselves out to increase our range of kits deserve everything we can give them. Even if its only a pat on the back and warm thanks for all their effort. I don't think we have a right to complain because the 2.0 release has some minor tweaks, if it builds a good tank with 4 sides and tracks who cares! Look how many mistakes DML and Tamiya made with their releases, and they DON'T bother to fix theirs for years. These guys are a credit to our hobby.
A big thank you for all the effort you guys put in. One day I will have the cash to get some of your stuff. Lets see... assuming my daughter goes to university at 18 and leaves 5 years later at 23... I make it 21 short years to go before I actually see some money. Maybe then I won't have to be content with paper shurtzen.
Note the fuel filler cap next to the armoured vent cover on this composite hull M4:
The Iron divsion composite hull does not have these. Therefore, they either should be added or the oil filler cap on the engine deck needs to be added, as with late-production M4A1s.
Note the oil filler cap on the engine deck in this pic:
Note that this hull has the rear stowage rack as found on the late-production M4A1. Therefore, my question is, Do the hulls with oil filler caps on the engine deck also have rear vertical plates without the cutout? The ID composite hull has the cutout rear plate. Does that mean I need to add the two fuel filler caps?
this is an experimental model of the M4, with a late composite hull, 76mm turret (not used on service M4s, which were reserved for the 105mm howitzer), and a very early experimental HVSS design. This is an APG special, and while interesting, it never got out of APG if it's like most of these developmental models.
As far as the M4 composite hull is concerned, I have seen photos of three variants. John O'Reilly sent me a few of the small hatch composite hull, but it appears this model was used for training and didn't see combat. The large hatch composite hull did evolve, and for my models - if I have only partial photo coverage - this is how I am separating the different details: if the hull has the outboard gas filler caps, I use the original cutout rear tailplate design; if it doesn't have the inboard gas filler caps, I add the rear deck extra oil filler cap and armor ring, and also use the later straight tailplate without the cutout. This is a bit arbitrary, but it works for most of the production examples. So, if I have a shot showing the cutout tailplate, I'll do the inboard gas caps. If I have a shot showing the later straight tailplate, I'll add the rear oil filler and delete the inboard gas caps. Obviously, if the photos show the relevant details, I'll model what is there, but sometimes you don't get all the info you need in your reference photos.
I am sure, given the truly bizarre production history of the Sherman, there may well have been late composite hull M4s with unusual combinations of such details, such as late gas cap layouts with the cutout tailplate, or the later straight tailplate with the earlier gas cap layout. Some days......
Bruce, I can post a photo here showing a composite hull with rear cutout and exhaust baffle as found on the late M4A1. Also, browsing through the Internet, I found pics of a composite hull M4 with rear cutout AND a stowage rack added. The reason I keep asking these questions is that I have a spare exhaust baffle and stowage rack and would like to use them on my ID hull, so I want to know which configuration is the appropriate one.
I am limiting myself to Shermans that actually saw combat service, so some of the developmental tanks and limited run variants that were used only for training are not for me, but if you have a photo that shows a particular detail installation, that is the only proof you need to make that configuration "appropriate." If it's a combat shot, then it would be appropriate for me too. I'd love to see anything you have on this. There are so many variants of the Sherman around because production quotas were the most important thing, and minor external detail changes would have no effect on the designation or usefulness of the vehicles, so Shermans were built with the assemblies available, with the result that there will very likely be occasional odd combinations of earlier/later details, especially during transitions between major changes or upgrades. This also happened to the Germans - you could occasionally find Panthers or other tanks being assembled with older detail parts if the later parts were not available. So post away, thanks.....
You guys are doing a great job so forget the nitpickers. Some people think every model company has the backing of Mr. Tamiya. In fact most business are small operations and I know how hard it can be to make a go of it. Don't worry about getting every detail right; there are those out there who would still find fault with your product. I think you guys are doing a great job. Years ago 1/48m modellers wwould kill for the after market stuff that you produce. Keep up the good work.
But the question still stands: If the fuel filler caps are missing because the inner gas tanks were removed on the late production M4s, do I need to add the oil filler cap on the engine deck? As far as I can tell, there are at least three versions of the composite hull: early with the small hatches, mid with the old gas tank arrangement but with the large hatches and late with the new oil filler port added and deleted gas tanks. I'm curious because there are other details effected by this such as the rear vertical plate (cutout or not cutout) and the position of the exhausts and addition of the exhaust baffle. I am still waiting eagerly for the new ID turrets.
First off, Thanks a million for everyone's support and kind comments. We'll continue to bring you folks the best quality kits we can crank out and keep everything affordable. AND, of course, to listen to your feedback. To us, that really counts.
Marlowe, there were different versions of the "Big Hatch" composite hull. If my info is correct, the different oil-filler cap arrangement was used on 76mm later model types (along with that extra cap on the rear deck). The 76mm M4A1's also had this extra cap/Guard combination. The new turrets are just about ready, pics are already posted. Just hit the Product List page and click on the Thumbnails.
Bob
Bob and Steve
Top Gun Military/IRON DIVISON Resins
http:www.topgunmilitary.com
I didn't know if I should pitch in here, but since some thanks have been offered, at least I should acknowledge that. As Bob said above, the good wishes and appreciation of our efforts really do make a difference.
But I am also reluctant now to mention a number of 'improvements' that I have made to the M4A4 masters through their production, but there have been several. Perhaps some are unaware of the production methods we garage outfits use, but generally we have to remake our moulds every few dozen or so shots, and simply removing the the master from the rubber usually causes some damage, so at the very least there will be some repair work to do before the master can be remoulded. If some comment has been made about a missing fixture or weld seam, we would be foolish not to incorporate the mod at that point. Wouldn't we? Say 'Yes', Andrew. But are your REALLY expecting us to send out revised mouldings to every customer we have ever had, because we have added a weld seam? Now, if there was something massively wrong, or missing, or broken, or mis-moulded, or we would of course do everything to sort that 'problem' out, but we have to draw a line somewhere. At some point in the design process, we have to say it is good to go now, and get the items in production. They will NEVER be perfect. NEVER. Be thankful that the process does allow improvements to be incorporated, or else you have the injection moulded opposite, where it was rubbish 30 years ago, and it is still rubbish 30 years later.
I stand behind my products. If anyone is THAT disappointed with any of my kits, for whatever reason, I'll give them a refund. No quibble. Send the kit back, unstarted and undamaged of course, and I'll Paypal the funds to you by return. But send out a continued stream of replacement castings as I 'improve' things? No. Give some kind of penalty discount to previous customers when I repair a master? No. Be realistic. I've got a 2002 Yamaha FJR. What sort of response do you think I would get if I called up Yamaha UK and demanded they swap it for a 2008 model, just because it has been 'improved' in the meantime. I think I can guarantee the reply would be in Anglo-Saxon. And quite rightly so.....
Tim
PS Isn't it ironic that the root cause of this discussion, is that the M4 tank was subject to continued improvements and alterations, and the perceived 'problem' seems to be the garage producers getting a bollocking for doing exactly the same thing........
In the defense industry, where I toiled in the vineyards of the Merchants of Death, there was a saying: "There comes a time in every program when you have to shoot the engineers and get on with production." You have put this very well indeed, and perhaps some more of the members will have a better idea of the realities of producing detail parts and conversions for our merry band. I can see the value of having a cheat sheet showing the improvements that could be emailed to recent customers so they could add the mods themselves, but exchanges would very quickly mean the end of the improvements to aftermarket products; it would be cheaper and better business for the producers to keep selling the old stuff and not correct or improve it, rather than have to send out free parts. This is, as you say, especially true when the changes are minor in nature like weld seams, tool brackets, drain plugs and the like. Press on; I need those T54E1 tracks with the paddle EECs..... "Semper fi" and all that.....
Firefly,Klein-Willebroek.JPG)
