On the plus side they did do a pretty good job on the launch truss assy and the missile itself looks pretty good - I have not taken any measurements.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Dragon's M752 Lance Missile
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 10:48 AM UTC
Got my pre-order Lance Missiles today. Mixed bag on first glance. Lots of omissions. How they managed to not include the GSU container box and the MP box is beyond me. They did include the control surface containers, erroneously referring to them as tool boxes
On the plus side they did do a pretty good job on the launch truss assy and the missile itself looks pretty good - I have not taken any measurements.
On the plus side they did do a pretty good job on the launch truss assy and the missile itself looks pretty good - I have not taken any measurements.
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 11:02 AM UTC
Another typical Black Plague kit? 
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 11:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Got my pre-order Lance Missiles today. Mixed bag on first glance. Lots of omissions. How they managed to not include the GSU container box and the MP box is beyond me. They did include the control surface containers, erroneously referring to them as tool boxes
Easy, they used a museum exhibit as their sole reference... I've seen photos of M752 in some museum somewhere, with exactly these features you described...
That museum example was also missing the missile head support structure - that's probably the reason Dragon designed it incorrectly attaching it to the engine deck, not to the cargo deck floor...
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 07:31 PM UTC
Well, for me this is an iconic Cold War essential and I'm looking forward to it; I'm sure it will be fixable and I hope the missile modellers out there show the way. I would further hope that any variations for a British version can also be identified - if indeed there are any.
I'm sure that it's highly likely we'll pay somewhat over the odds for a less than perfect kit but I'm just chuffed to have one in injected plastic.
Rejoice I say!
I'm sure that it's highly likely we'll pay somewhat over the odds for a less than perfect kit but I'm just chuffed to have one in injected plastic.
Rejoice I say!
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 07:49 PM UTC
Still giving it the once over. So far I don't see anything that can't be fixed.
sauron
Joined: September 18, 2007
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 132 posts
KitMaker: 134 posts
Armorama: 132 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 08:35 PM UTC
Mine should be delivered tomorrow. I'm just happy to have one in plastic and 99.999% of the people who see it won't know if it's accurate or not. Especially with my lousy modeling skills.
I suspect the 'toolbox' moniker is just a mis-translation of the original Chinese instructions. The actual translation for the part is "portable one-hole crapper"
I suspect the 'toolbox' moniker is just a mis-translation of the original Chinese instructions. The actual translation for the part is "portable one-hole crapper"
Removed by original poster on 06/28/17 - 15:59:20 (GMT).
Cookiescool2
Joined: May 09, 2014
KitMaker: 273 posts
Armorama: 270 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 08:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, for me this is an iconic Cold War essential and I'm looking forward to it; I'm sure it will be fixable and I hope the missile modellers out there show the way. I would further hope that any variations for a British version can also be identified - if indeed there are any.
I'm sure that it's highly likely we'll pay somewhat over the odds for a less than perfect kit but I'm just chuffed to have one in injected plastic.
Rejoice I say!
Perfect Scale Modellbau put out a resin lance kit a while back, maybe that would be a better base for any conversion than this plastic kit
http://www.perfect-scale.de/en/www--perfect-scale-de/M752-Lance-Launcher.html
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 11:19 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Another typical Black Plague kit?
No, not that bad
I think with some minor corrections and additions it will build into a decent replica. BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 11:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWell, for me this is an iconic Cold War essential and I'm looking forward to it; I'm sure it will be fixable and I hope the missile modellers out there show the way. I would further hope that any variations for a British version can also be identified - if indeed there are any.
I'm sure that it's highly likely we'll pay somewhat over the odds for a less than perfect kit but I'm just chuffed to have one in injected plastic.
Rejoice I say!
Perfect Scale Modellbau put out a resin lance kit a while back, maybe that would be a better base for any conversion than this plastic kit
http://www.perfect-scale.de/en/www--perfect-scale-de/M752-Lance-Launcher.html
I was aware of this and I do like their stuff, but this is just a case of my build rate being overtaken by events. Hopefully other builders on this site can show us the way on the plastic version.
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 02:59 AM UTC
Just to clarify, this is not me bashing this kit. Overall pretty happy with what I see. Needs work? Absolutely. First looks tell me they were trying to model a M234 warhead (they actually got a M240 Trainer Round) A bit of scribing will yield the correct result.
To go with the M234 warhead, this requires the large M29 control surfaces. In scale they should measure 4.49cm long and 1.4cm tall at the tallest point. Mixed bag here. Dragon has the overall dimensions pretty close but fails in the over all shape when compared to Hobby Fan. The Hobby Fan is way off in height if they were trying to model the M29 (way way off if doing the smaller M30)
Dragon completely missed the boat with the front Missile cradle. As Pavel pointed out the cradle mounts to the hull body. Hobby Fan has this one right.
These are comparisons of the Dragon and Hobby Fan control surfaces. Not impossible to fix. The Dragon control surfaces measure 4.42cm long and 1.22cm in height.
This is the support brace from the Hobby Fan kit for the forward missile cradle. Again not a huge undertaking to scratch build this.
Here are the missile halves from the Dragon kit. To make a M234 you need an access hatch just above and a bit to the right of the access plate on the right.
To go with the M234 warhead, this requires the large M29 control surfaces. In scale they should measure 4.49cm long and 1.4cm tall at the tallest point. Mixed bag here. Dragon has the overall dimensions pretty close but fails in the over all shape when compared to Hobby Fan. The Hobby Fan is way off in height if they were trying to model the M29 (way way off if doing the smaller M30)
Dragon completely missed the boat with the front Missile cradle. As Pavel pointed out the cradle mounts to the hull body. Hobby Fan has this one right.
These are comparisons of the Dragon and Hobby Fan control surfaces. Not impossible to fix. The Dragon control surfaces measure 4.42cm long and 1.22cm in height.
This is the support brace from the Hobby Fan kit for the forward missile cradle. Again not a huge undertaking to scratch build this.
Here are the missile halves from the Dragon kit. To make a M234 you need an access hatch just above and a bit to the right of the access plate on the right.
salemguy
#476
Joined: March 17, 2017
KitMaker: 33 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2017 - 04:34 AM UTC
Man I'm really starting to hate PhotoBucket.
Regards,
Brad.
Regards,
Brad.
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2017 - 06:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Man I'm really starting to hate PhotoBucket.
Regards,
Brad.
Yes they suck. In process of getting my pics on IMGUR. Will try to repost my new Lance stuff.
MikeyBugs95
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2017 - 08:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextMan I'm really starting to hate PhotoBucket.
Regards,
Brad.
Yes they suck. In process of getting my pics on IMGUR. Will try to repost my new Lance stuff.
I'm with you both. Photobucket sucks. Too many ads, too slow, too intrusive and now unusable. I say good riddance. Imgur is much better.
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Friday, June 30, 2017 - 08:41 AM UTC
Just to clarify, this is not me bashing this kit. Overall pretty happy with what I see. Needs work? Absolutely. First looks tell me they were trying to model a M234 warhead (they actually got a M240 Trainer Round) A bit of scribing will yield the correct result.
To go with the M234 warhead, this requires the large M29 control surfaces. In scale they should measure 4.49cm long and 1.4cm tall at the tallest point. Mixed bag here. Dragon has the overall dimensions pretty close but fails in the over all shape when compared to Hobby Fan. The Hobby Fan is way off in height if they were trying to model the M29 (way way off if doing the smaller M30)
Dragon completely missed the boat with the front Missile cradle. As Pavel pointed out the cradle mounts to the hull body. Hobby Fan has this one right.
These are comparisons of the Dragon and Hobby Fan control surfaces. Not impossible to fix. The Dragon control surfaces measure 4.42cm long and 1.22cm in height.
This is the support brace from the Hobby Fan kit for the forward missile cradle. Again not a huge undertaking to scratch build this.
Here are the missile halves from the Dragon kit. To make a M234 you need an access hatch just above and a bit to the right of the access plate on the right.
To go with the M234 warhead, this requires the large M29 control surfaces. In scale they should measure 4.49cm long and 1.4cm tall at the tallest point. Mixed bag here. Dragon has the overall dimensions pretty close but fails in the over all shape when compared to Hobby Fan. The Hobby Fan is way off in height if they were trying to model the M29 (way way off if doing the smaller M30)
Dragon completely missed the boat with the front Missile cradle. As Pavel pointed out the cradle mounts to the hull body. Hobby Fan has this one right.
These are comparisons of the Dragon and Hobby Fan control surfaces. Not impossible to fix. The Dragon control surfaces measure 4.42cm long and 1.22cm in height.
This is the support brace from the Hobby Fan kit for the forward missile cradle. Again not a huge undertaking to scratch build this.
Here are the missile halves from the Dragon kit. To make a M234 you need an access hatch just above and a bit to the right of the access plate on the right.
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 01, 2017 - 09:22 AM UTC
Could not resist starting this kit. Lots of microscopic parts and the usual awful Dragon instructions. Go slow and look at your references
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 09:21 AM UTC
The main truss assembly fit requires some persuasion. The fit of most of the parts is actually very good. Problem with mating the truss to the lower frame may be errors on my part. The instruction sheet is horrible even by Dragon standards.
Kevlar06
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 09:59 AM UTC
Since they already have the chassis, I wonder if they will release the towed/airmobile version of the Lance-- it doesn't look like it would be to hard to do.
VR, Russ
VR, Russ
avenue
Joined: May 25, 2013
KitMaker: 544 posts
Armorama: 542 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 12:12 PM UTC
detail not bad.I am going get one.
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 02:38 PM UTC
Chris,
Keep it up - this is most useful.
Brian
Keep it up - this is most useful.
Brian
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 04:22 PM UTC
Is the launcher positionable, say in travel or firing modes?
KL
KL
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 04:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is the launcher positionable, say in travel or firing modes?
KL
Yes the launcher itself can be elevated and traversed.
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 04:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Since they already have the chassis, I wonder if they will release the towed/airmobile version of the Lance-- it doesn't look like it would be to hard to do.
VR, Russ
That would be nice. Like the real thing it was just a mobility kit i.e wheels. You could sling it underneath a 1/35 Chinook. That would make a cool display.
skyshark
Joined: November 16, 2005
KitMaker: 703 posts
Armorama: 499 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 02, 2017 - 07:46 PM UTC
M668 Lance supply vehicle, we need this now
27-1025
Joined: September 16, 2004
KitMaker: 1,281 posts
Armorama: 1,222 posts
Posted: Monday, July 03, 2017 - 12:56 AM UTC
Some areas need some putty to clean up various joins. Ultimate Putty is perfect for this.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.