IBG Scammel cab issuesApril 23 2017 at 12:51 PM
|Jack Geratic (Login Jack123Ger)|
from IP address 220.127.116.11
There was a recently posted completion of this model in the Constructive comments section,
...but I wanted to start a separate thread to discuss the problems with the IBG kit.
So far we have:
- The cab may be too low at the rear... but does need a cab overhang over the wipers.
Also most others seem to have a long slat / louvre over the side bonnet engine panel. Not seen on this model. - Andrew Tomlinson
- The side window areas above the drivers/passengers half doors "eat " into the cab roof, when the bottom / gutter of the cab roof should be a straight line all the way around.
The gap between the bottom of the windscreen and the top of the bonnet seems too tall
The curve at the back of the cab roof seems too sharp
The windscreen seems slightly too tall. - Simon King
I'm not familiar at all with this vehicle, but something I've noticed is perhaps the windshield shape. I could be wrong, and this is standard characteristic, but it appears wider at the top than at the bottom - sprue shots below:
Now I did find a photo where it is like this, but it has narrow triangular windows on the side, perhaps a different style cab or completely different vehicle model?
-windshield sides parallel?
-windshield sides angled?
|This message has been edited by Jack123Ger from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Apr 23, 2017 12:53 PM|
|April 23 2017, 1:28 PM |
The second picture is not a SV2S - think it is a post war Explorer.
|This message has been edited by simonbking from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Apr 23, 2017 1:29 PM|
|April 23 2017, 2:56 PM |
One clue is the air cleaner (which looks remarkably like that in a Ferret s/c) shape in front of the driver's position. It was completely different on the Pioneer.
By the way, as always I am appreciative of any comments from knowledgeable people, backed up by evidence, as to where there are areas which could benefit from improvement on available kits. I am then in a better position to decide whether or not to address them. I spend enough time working on things where I do know anything about the subject as to limit my ability to do so on less familiar ones.
There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps
|April 23 2017, 4:08 PM |
Another clear indicator that the second photo is a post war Explorer is the driven front axle.
Not buying into it at all.
|April 23 2017, 4:54 PM |
With all due respect, i'm not buying into it, not at all.
Like so many British built vehicles, Scammell had cab built by hand, in small garage type shops. No production line, no standard components, just a set of rough drawings and sometimes an example of finished product. Materials used varied from shop to shop, even from one cab to another built in the same shop.
Needles to say, you will be hard pressed to find two identical looking cabs. Look at the pictures of wartime Matador trucks, no two looked the same.
British vehicles are not like German or American ones, not at all. What was more or less standard was the frame, suspension and engine. Body work was not so i'm not really buying into your point.
Possibly IBG based the kit on pictures and measurements of particular vehicle.
Just my opinion but i'm sticking with it.
Re: Not buying into it at all.
|April 23 2017, 5:59 PM |
lol ... don't shoot the messenger, as they say.
I only started this thread so as to not totally hijack Domingo's build presentation.
Believe me, I would be than than happy to see it proven wrong, and that IBG did not drop the ball on this one.
|This message has been edited by Jack123Ger from IP address 126.96.36.199 on Apr 23, 2017 6:00 PM|
Emperors new clothes
|April 23 2017, 6:26 PM |
i am not prepared to share the photo, as I have used someone else's excellently finished model as a basis, but if you use a standard photo-editing programme to copy and paste the roof a couple of mm lower and also reduce that window cutout into the roof - thus creating the level guttering line all around the roof of the cab, front back and sides, the appearance is considerably improved to the extent that it actually now looks like a Pioneer.
As a restorer of some full size British WW2 vehicles, I dont buy the "every one is different" line either
|April 23 2017, 6:40 PM |
Easy now, no shots are being taken here.
But it helps to know that method of manufacturing has an effect on how things looked like.
While american trucks rolled off production line assembled from stamped components, they were very uniform and had majority of interchangeable parts.
Same can be said about german stuff, mostly. Things changed late in the war but it was still rather uniform.
British trucks, well, it is completely different story.
This is why i do not get overly worried about what is being presented as " it doesn't look right by my eye" comments. Not having the kit in my hands yet i can not make real measurements but i'm not worried about it at all.
But hey, it is just my opinion, no one needs to concern himself with what i think.
It is a hobby after all, yes ?
Even their small arms were that way
|April 23 2017, 6:23 PM |
Try replacing a bolt, magazine or bayonet on an Enfield rifle. You have to try a dozen before you find one that fits a particular gun. Their stuff was definitely non standard. While the metalwork for the barrel and receiver is about the same, even the stocks vary in shape and details since they were made by a bunch of subcontractors in different countries and even continents,
|April 23 2017, 8:51 PM |
Never mind Lee-Enfields, SLRs had individually-fitted bolts and bolt carriers in the '60's. The weapon serials were engraved on each - one of the re-assembly checks. Don't forget that each of these parts - and those for the trucks discussed here - were produced by hand, even on machines. The machines were guided by the Mk2 hand and the Mk1 calibrated eyeball, hopefully connected by the Mk3 apprenticed brain. If you get 2 extreme-tolerance parts they may well not fit without fettling, which unit armourers and production line operators were trained to do. Which is staggering in the context of having set up the Pattern Room to permit interchangeability and standardisation of parts between weapon manufacturers in the era of muzzle-loaders!
Even F4 Phantoms had individually-fitted skin panels in what, the 70's and 80's? And US car makers were staggered in the 90's to find that Japanese car makers could hang any door on any bodyshell and it would fit exactly. They were still shimming hinges and adjusting each hinge and lock by hand: the door hanger was one of the most skilled jobs.
But I don't believe the sort of gross variances that would be noticeable when reduced to 1/35 would be permitted even in wartime Britain, despite what other posters may believe.
I am always suspicious
|April 24 2017, 8:21 AM |
when someone looks at photos of someone else's model and can proclaim that something is off by .87 mm and that it is instantly and glaringly obvious. I just don't believe it or if you really are that fussy you need to get a life.
IBG in a rush, Thunder forecast?
|April 23 2017, 8:54 PM |
I think that IBG might have rushed to the finish line with this one to beat Thunder to market. I'm waiting to see the Thunder kits before choosing. Of course if you want the transporter or artillery tractor then Thunder are the only choice. Let's hope they haven't used the same source data: they claim to have raided the Scammell archives.
|April 24 2017, 11:23 AM |
The problems do not surprise me. Even though I work in Braille Scale, I have yet to buy an IBG kit as pics of them always look just a little odd when compared to the original. Hoping the Hungarian ones are different!
IBG Vs Thunder Road
|April 25 2017, 4:47 AM |
Why I'm not surprised? (rich illustrated)
|April 24 2017, 9:43 PM |
Right, I'm everything but surprised. The "looking but not seeing" approach of IBG was confirmed through the years with all their softskin kits, the scale apart. And those excuses used to clean IBG, about certain "hand made" boutique one-off British lorries built almost by verbal descriptions only, are simply funny.
I didn't pay attention to this newcomer till now for 1/35 isn't my scale but your talks made me curious and I've decided to take a look what IBG has done again.
I'll start with the issue of Jack: "...something I've noticed is perhaps the windshield shape. I could be wrong, and this is standard characteristic, but it appears wider at the top than at the bottom".
You're not wrong, Jack. A factory pic straight from the front confirms you're right:
Next is Andrew Tomlinson:
1. "The cab ... does need a cab overhang over the wipers".
2. "Also most others seem to have a long slat / louvre over the side bonnet engine panel. Not seen on this model."
Not most, Andrew. All have this slat.
Confirmed by factory pic:
Now on the constructive issues of Simon King:
1. "The side window areas above the drivers/passengers half doors "eat " into the cab roof, when the bottom / gutter of the cab roof should be a straight line all the way around."
2. "The gap between the bottom of the windscreen and the top of the bonnet seems too tall".
Confirmed, using the height of the lower windshield pane as a measure:
3. "The curve at the back of the cab roof seems too sharp".
Confirmed by factory pics and blueprints ("a set of rough drawings" to some):
It seems also the general curve of the roof at the rear and the rear right window aren't correct in the kit. IMHO the rear roof shape is much closer to the postwar Explorer cab.
4."The windscreen seems slightly too tall".
Confirmed, using the same measure as in 2 above:
Well, that's all, folks. Sorry to rain on your parade but these are the facts. The pictorial facts only for now. And there are also blueprints that can reveal even more interesting things...
And why spare wheel in the kit? I still have to see any Scammell Pioneer carrying spare.
|This message has been edited by ilfil from IP address 188.8.131.52 on Apr 24, 2017 11:08 PM|
|April 25 2017, 2:58 AM |
Thank you for your detailed analysis of the issues with this kit. It was good of you to visually analyse and confirm the perceived errors that myself and others saw in this model
It seems, unlike you, that I do know what I am talking about after all. Instead, next time perhaps keep your worthless counsel to yourself. I assume your apology is in the post.
I'll get back to my life now, which in addition to being a full time carer, involves full scale military vehicle restoration and, at the moment, researching a much requested British soft skin for a plastic model company.
Incidentally I suspect those handles on the bonnet side panels are more usually seen on the front of draws.
|This message has been edited by simonbking from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Apr 25, 2017 5:28 AM|
|April 25 2017, 3:50 AM |
That is really helpful!
|This message has been edited by Hon.JohnByng from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Apr 25, 2017 9:26 AM|
Don't worry Roger, not a problem at all. What I see is my normal name.
|This message has been edited by ilfil from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Apr 26, 2017 5:38 PM|
Weird N54 thing!
|April 25 2017, 9:27 AM |
It happens when I type it but apparently it shows up as normal when I hit Respond!
Thanks, Ilian, v useful...
|April 25 2017, 4:05 AM |
I think I'll now await the competitor's model release...