Fixed. Seems it was edited to change something and not put online again.
I was probably seeing it from my cache of the first view.
I have so many reactions to this kit, I don’t know where to begin.
Wow! Three new Pumas. What a time we are in.
Woah didn’t know rfm was doing one and this one will be great! We are spoiled
Looks good although I’d love a good 231 kit in 1/35.
I may need to settle for the Puma.
The exposed interior has some great modeling possibilities
1 reply
6 rad or 8?? I’d go 6, myself.
Imagine Andy’s 1/16 Puma being this detailed, and not just a scaled up Italeri repop.
Each to their own and all that, but you’d have to be a real special modeller to want the Miniarts over the RFM.
I mean the RFM will have many hundreds of parts and be extremely detailed but the Miniarts will be another level above. I have an aversion to Miniarts - they give me anxiety hahahaha Tried two Miniarts kits and found the plastic brittle, the instructions a bit inconsistent and vague and the parts count frustratingly high in some cases where I really don’t think it adds to the build. A few people have told me to get onto one of their Panzer IVs and StuGs and it will change my mind so maybe I will do at some point but likely not with this one if there is an RFM option. Those CAD pictures above look stunning though don’t they?
I heard a rumour Tamiya were looking at doing one as well.
Its a nice choice to have isn’t it? We’ve seen Border do the 251, I wonder if we’ll see Miniarts or RFM etc do a load of 250s or sd.kfz 6/7/8/10?
My experience with MiniArt kits is similar to @BringupthePIAT’s. I purchased a few of MiniArt’s, studied carefully then gave them away to be rid of them as they looked extremely time intensive to build and I’d rather paint.
Goldie Locks & the Four Puma kits.
Italeri - old, lame and generally sucky with randomly terrible quality control
MiniArt - exquisite details, high parts count, complex with full interior, cutting edge trendy and nice box art
RFM & Dragon - somewhere in the Goldie Locks spot.
The Puma is my favorite armored car of World War II and I really like MiniArt models so this is the one for me.
I gotta go with Miniart all the way…they are miles ahead of any other manufacturer. Rfm is overpriced especially when you add in their upgrade solutions.
What about the piston rings? 
Maybe they provide a wiring diagram?
Have to leave some space for the super detailers so that they don’t get bored …
Will we be able to set the points in the distributor?
Glow plugs or not?
My dads 1965 Mercedes had glow plugs that had to be heated before trying to start the engine.
Quicker and easier start, less smoke, less work for the starter motor …
Have to guess that if those fuel lines are in the picture, something to make them is included in the kit. Maybe wire. I would like to see a build video that breaks down the construction of the engine, but most don’t go into that level of piece-by-piece construction. Usually, it’s, “OK. I’ve built up the engine…”
1 reply
Based on my experience with Miniart, those wires will be on the sprue with all the other parts and made of the same soft plastic. It will be molded as one piece; the challenge will be getting it on the kit in one piece.
When I try to separate those really thin parts of MiniArt kits from the sprues and clean them up, I consider that I’ve done well if I only break the part once. No sarcasm here. I was breaking pieces left and right building those AEC armored cars.
My experience with MiniArt models matches that described by 2Far2Go. Plastic used by MiniArt is curiously both brittle and soft such that parts often break and, in rare cases, shatter. Multiple, large sprue gates to fragile and small parts make clean up challenging. A supply of styrene rod and sheet stock is helpful for adding strength and replacing things that break.
The designers at MiniArt tend to break down a model into parts in the same way the prototype breaks down. This results in a high fidelity but very fragile model. Very little effort is made to consolidate, simplify, or strengthen assemblies to ease construction for the model builder.
MiniArt models are often not suitable for people who prefer Tamiya type models. That is not a dig. Different people approach and enjoy the hobby in different ways.
Wade has it right with his Goldilocks analogy. With 4 options available, pick the one that works best for you. If you go the Italeri/Testors route, which is perfectly fine if you will enjoy a fairly easy, fairly fast, curb side build, seek out a well molded specimen .
1 reply
Thanks!
Do You have pictures of the drivers seat ? The pictures of the PaK version I found online look simmilar.
Ive been in touch with Miniart to ask where they got info regarding interior that I haven’t seen exist anywhere.
The ammo bins and turret interior is a dark spot in research.
They have yet to reply which makes me doubt the validity of this kit
Edit. I have amended my view in a further comment. I know about the panzer farm - I know that there was a turret ring in France which gives us a good steer regarding seat posts (and from that the kind of basket) and the traverse gear which was quite simple. The ammo lockers I have seen nothing of
1 reply
James, any idea what sort of projects the Panzer Farm in Poland is currently working on? I don’t keep up with research anymore being retired Panzer Police from long ago.
Panzer Farm Tour by The Australian Armor Museum
At least one (unknown to me which) kit manufacturer(s) has a tight relationship with the Panzer Farm. PF shares 3D scan data of actual parts with said kit manufacturer to aid in accuracy. The specifics of such information is proprietary in nature and not available at this time for public consumption.
If some (enough) 234/x scrap parts or relic items turned up at the Panzer Farm, I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t “inspire” an aggressive manufacturer(s). MiniArt is hungry and aggressive in my view.
Given what we see with MiniArt kits (Ukraine) and Panzer Farm (Poland) location, I wouldn’t be too surprised if MiniArt has an outstanding source of information. I also wouldn’t be too shocked Ryefield has a connection too.
BTW - if you need a new set of real Panther tracks, wheels or sprockets, Panzer Farm can and do make many new OEM spec WW2 tank parts. I think brand new manufacture Tiger I transmissions are the up coming list of parts offered.
1 reply
Thought that somebody might be interested in this:
Although, I do expect an article to published on this here on the Armorama site.
Guys, I love MiniArt, but I’m very skeptical of this interior layout. First there is no comprehensive reference for puma interiors. Just doesn’t exist, unless MiniArt has access to something no one else has. There are some turret photos that give an incomplete picture of the turret. The hull is a mystery on par with who shot JFK.
I have serious issues with the rear driver position. There is no known photo of a cut out for the steering wheel in the fuel tank. I have photos of existing 234s - not pumas - that indicate no such arrangement. Doubtful the Germans altered basic construction for 101 sub-variants.
We do know what the hull contained in the way of shell stowage. But not WHERE or HOW they were stowed. If MiniArt were to reveal the source of their interior design, that would help.
I do not purport to be an expert on 234s, but I have followed the series closely for a couple of decades. I just need a little more proof.
Kip
2 replies
It matters to me as now I am likely to save a bit and go with the RFM over the MiniArt now as MiniArt kits are fiddly and not as fun to build IMO.
Seriously? You are joking right?
If you aren’t, why don’t we just call it the sci-fi puma?
We do know what other 234 series interiors look like. Are you suggesting the Germans made wholesale changes in the basic structure of the vehicle just to put an enclosed turret on it?
That steering wheel cutout is bogus according to every available 234 reference.
If you, or MiniArt, have different information in that regard I would be happy to change my opinion. I have been searching for interior info on this beastie since the 1980s.
That being said I’ve always been a big proponent of the “if they can’t prove you right, they can’t prove you wrong theory of modeling,” but in this case we have a pretty good idea what that firewall consists of.
1 reply
Not sure if you guys watch the Australian Armor Museums Workshop wednesdays you tube(they are awesome), but they get a lot of parts and projects from an outfit in Czechoslovakia - can’t recall the exact name.
In the latest episode, they asked the museum fellows to identify a turret roof they had found. It was a puma turret roof. The question was posed where’s the rest of it, and the answer was we are still digging it up. That posits that maybe in the future we may have a better idea of the puma than we have now.
They also had a very well preserved commander periscope from the puma. So perhaps there is a 1:1 scale puma on somebody’s workbench.
1 reply
Not joking at all. First, I could care less as it is not my area, and I am not going to build one. Second, still stand by the point that, as of now, you can’t conclusively say they got it wrong or not. Third, if for some reason I did want to build one, it would look close enough for me.
2 replies
Welcome to the forum, Kip. Good to have you aboard.
We’re talking about German WW2 AFV right? The kings of unnecessary complexity of dubious value? The idea they wouldn’t do something like that brightened by day given they frequently made so many unique changes during AFV production.
I’ll skip the MiniArt Puma with a Dragon Puma in the stash & a Ryefield Model Puma on order. However, even if the MiniArt interior is pure vaporware the kit should build up very nicely when buttoned up and look great.
1 reply
Kip, would that be Panzer Farm, mentioned in post #34?
I don’t think so. This outfit is in the Czech Republic. Methinks panzer farm is in Poland.
Check out the latest workshop Wednesday video.
The Czech outfit has an immaculate 250 runner that was actually engaged in Stalingrad.
I think in one episode they did get some parts from panzer farm.
Guilty, guilty and more often than not, guilty.
I’m just saying there is no evidence - that I know of - that supports miniarts interior on that firewall.
Ok, if you don’t care, why are you responding?
I’m not offering the definitive verdict on this kit. If you read closely and use your vocabulary skills, I have said no available evidence supports this firewall. I called it bogus for that reason. It will remain bogus until minimart - or anyone else - can produce better evidence.
You will also recall I said unequivocally that I am open to better evidence.
I’m not spoiling for a fight, but this puma interior by minimart has perplexed me since they announced it. Perhaps in their instructions they will credit their sources. I would be eternally grateful to them. Since no known pumas exist today, perhaps they found one.
But as a non-engineer, the cutout makes no sense either production-wise (more complex, ergo more expensive) or design wise (why not just use a 251/250 style wheel?). And if the firewall is questionable, then what else may be open to wrong interpretation?
1 reply
Let’s see, it’s an open forum and where we are supposed to share ideas.
I would contend you are since you came on here as a brand-new member with a rant about the kit and are offering no evidence of your own that it is incorrect.
I can read and use vocabulary just fine. Lastly, get over it. It is just a model. Most people won’t care either way if it is totally accurate or not.
2 replies
Just to throw my hat in the ring, Miniart, Dragon, and RFM have this cutout in the fuel tank. I simply find it interesting that the 234 variants offered by these companies have this cutout. This doesn’t prove anything, they may have just copied Dragon, but it’s worth noting.
Can you provide us with photos of the fuel tank from your research? I can’t seem to find any of the fuel tank from any 234 variant. However, that’s just with a Google search, if I had access to the nuts and bolts book I would take a look at that.
BTW, I wasn’t sure that RFM had the cutout, but AHHQ has released an open box review of the kit for those who are interested.
Edit: Please don’t feel like we’re jumping on your case, we’re (at least I am) just after evidence and such. Statements without evidence behind them spark doubt, and, since you are new here, no one can back up your credibility. Again, I’m not saying that you’re lying or anything, just that evidence helps.
3 replies
Nuts&Bolts 40. Page 175. Very clear photo of rear driver position in a 234/4 at Fort Benning USA. Compare to miniarts concept versus the photo. Not even close.
Sdkfz. 234 by progress on page 16 a photo from bovington’s 234/3. Inconclusive, but has pretty much the same construction as previous.
Kagero #20 Sd.Krzysztof 234 has several photos of the rear driver area. None correspond to the miniart kit. Pages 41-42.
Jentz has nothing on interior changes in the 234 series.
Now to be fair. A photo taken by a friend of mine of the bovington 234/3 appears to show a cutout near the rear wall. Unfortunately I cannot establish the depth and location or location of the firewall to the steering wheel. The shot was taken through the front visor opening so depth of field is limited.
That;s all I can dig out on short notice. Like I have stated, I’d be glad to be proven wrong. But I need evidence.
1 reply
I’m more than willing to concede that it occurred. But I need some proof that this mod - if it is a mod - appeared in the puma.
Alright, thank you for providing that. Could you provide a photo of that page from the Nuts & Bolts book? I don’t doubt you I’m just curious myself.
Completely hypothetical question with absolutely no proof behind it; is it possible that these fuel tanks were replaced by the museum in, let’s say, a restoration? They may not have known about that or maybe there were two types, maybe a later version without the cutout and an earlier version with. Again, jsut hypothetical, but could that have possibly happened?
1 reply
I’ll try. But I’m a bit of Luddite when it comes to these type of things.
As to the museums… oh hell yeah plastic modeling is rife with examples of perfectly measure museum pieces that included astounding mistakes when museums rebuilt them.
That parts are missing or replaced would not surprise me at all. I’m also willing to bet that the puma kits we’re seeing now probably share some lineage. If there is a mistake it might be repeated by several companies sharing measurements. By that same token they might all be right. I’d just like to square that with what I do know.
Let me see is I can be a teenager and get your pic.
2 replies
Thanks for the pics! Personally, I don’t think the fuel tank is in the photos from Nuts & Bolts. The reason I say that is that the fuel tank sticks out over the pedals and half of the steering wheel arm. When you look at the Bovington photo and compare it to the rear wall you can see the differences, i.e. the mounting arms for the fuel tank (?) and rivets that aren’t on the fuel tank. The fuel tank is smooth expect for one vertical indentation.
When you look at the second photo, which is the steering wheel from above, it really highlights the fact that the fuel tank isn’t there.
Just for an example, you can see how the steering wheel fits over the fuel tank on my Dragon Puma build from last year:
In the Bovington photo, the indentation is there. You can see it right behind the top of the steering wheel.
I agree 100%, I’m sure they’ve pulled something from one another.
Typo? I’m having a bit of trouble deciphering that one.
1 reply
Here’s another pic where you can see the indentation better in the fuel tank:
(Thanks to @Frenchy for finding this for me, I couldn’t find any interior walkaround things like this)
Image for discussion purposes only, not my photograph
1 reply
Read to me like our new member wants pictures of you…
Myself, I’d Swipe Left (j/k)
1 reply
I have teen granddaughters that navigate this electronic quagmire far better than myself. I cut my eye teeth on rotary dial phones and party lines.
I completely see what you’re talking about. I concede that it appears the 234/4 is missing significant parts. But doesn’t that seem to be a small fuel tank for a vehicle with a 12 cylinder diesel?
Anyway I stand corrected. Not a problem, but I wish we could get a comprehensive interior view of all four variants. But these pics lead me to believe that the missing tank (fuel,oil or bourbon) is correct in the kits.
Sorry for all the fuss.
1 reply
That makes more sense! 
I agree, that would make our lives so much easier! But until someone invents a time machine…
You don’t have to apologize! This is why we have forums. I’ve enjoyed this discussion (although I can’t speak for you) and I’m glad we had it. 
@Jkrudge Kip, likewise I have enjoyed the conversation as well. You’ve provided several outstanding points and questions regarding the Puma plus excellent photos.
If my attempt at jest, rubbed the wrong way, I fully apologize.
Apropos of nothing, I’m just looking at the position of the ammunition boxes and wondering what happens to the turret crew’s legs if they rotate the turret quickly without thinking?
3 replies
Hmmm that’s a good point… Maybe, since he seats are at the back of the turret, they’d be fine unless they spin all the way around? That would kinda make sense but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re a little off or something. Who knows, though? I guess it’ll be something someone will have to check who builds the kit just to see.
From stalemates:
I’m not so sure about the ammo bins. There should be 55 rds or according to US sources 51. Here is the breakdown:
RACK - nominally a ready storage system where rounds are easily and quickly accessible - either horizontally or vertically
LOCKER - an enclosed storage solution nominally with a lid
BIN - typically an upright vertical storage with up to a third of the round exposed - either nose up (Panther) or nose down (Jagdpanzer IV L/70)
7 x rds in RACK both sides of vehicle - below the turret on the hull walls and maybe stored upright with clips (?) = 14
16 x rds in LOCKER forward left = 16 (this kit has 17)
21 x rds in LOCKER forward right = 21 (kit piece way out)
14 + 16 + 21 = 51 rds
In the kit you will see a large tilted ammo locker. I suspect that wasn’t there.
Instead, tilt the left and right ammo lockers in the same manner and increase their content by using all available space in as much as possible the same area.
This would ensure;
the correct ammo load
More freedom of movement for the turret crew
Access to the crew hatches for the forward driver
NB.
This was a company that gave a totally inaccurate turret floor for their
Panzer III.
In addition they pushed out a partially produced T-54 with missing details. The drivers controls, the drivers hatch spring housing and all the transmission.
This was fixed in their T-55 release which is a great kit but still modellers were left with the option of spending more in a separate transmission and having to scratch the missing drivers details.
That said I really like this kit and I did get in touch with Miniart to find out why they configured kit this way and if it was a contrivance. They did not provide a satisfactory answer only stating that all their kits are carefully researched. Hmmm…
The rest of the kit seems to be accurate - as I believe they have the same sources I have.
Miniart should be applauded for their efforts. The ammo bins can be corrected which will be worthwhile if all the many hatches are left open.
If only the turret hatches are open it will be totally ok just to omit the middle ammo locker. When looking through the turret hatches, with everything else closed up it will look very good.
The engine seems spot on but I know nothing about the engine bay. It seems unlikely that the Puma would have engine trouble given its high repute and the duration of the remaining time at war.
They will be thinking. A little bit of empathy is helpful. They live in the vehicle. Enough said
As for turret traverse - This wouldn’t have happened very often - it’s not a tank.
The commander has a 360 rotating periscope
Also both turret seats hinge upward making the loaders job easier for access to ammo.
Each to their own. For some the fantasy, what if aspect of modelling is appealing.
But there are also those modellers who search for historical fidelity
Most modellers who are interested in this kit do care. If you want to build a Puma using a washing up liquid bottle with egg cartons and conkers for wheels that’s fine but no need to be bigoted.
1 reply
Really? I am being bigoted because I don’t agree with his unfounded and unsupported assertion that the kit is wrong, which was later proven incorrect by a picture. Maybe you should go review the definition.
We are all adults here. I think Jkrudge can defend himself. He doesn’t need you to do it for him.
1 reply
Boys, boys, boys. Do I really need to quote Rodney King here?
Perfect. Clears it up nicely.,
No one should have to justoify their views based on length of time in a forum. Unless it’s the I’m going to cure brain cancer today forum. 
Absolutely.
I’m not omniscient, so I can’t speak for most people on Armorama, but I care.
I would venture a guess there would have to be a few more out there.
Crewmen learn very quickly. I saw a private get to close to the breech of an M102 when it recoiled. No, it did not break his legs, but it scared the bejeezus out of him and knocked him down. I’ll bet he never did it again. Manual traverse - probably resulted in a few choice shouts of Verfluchten (fill in the blank)!!
Well at least we can all agree that not everyone thinks the same, not everyone can speak for everyone else and not everyone likes people to defend a point of view and not everyone can understand clear evidence.
1 reply
What exactly does this mean? I agree with the rest of your statement but I’m not quite sure what you mean about this.
I also agree that not everyone likes to defend a viewpoint, but I’m not exactly sure how this relates and why you stated this.
@18bravo , I am in complete agreement with your post, I think that it sums it up nicely. I also agree about the crew; If I happen to be in that crew and that’s how it really was laid out, I’d learn pretty quick!
I think you will be better off with the Italeri kit. It is a nice simple build
I’d pass on Italeri’s suck-taclular Puma with wildy inconsistent QC in the age of Dragon’s, Ryefield & MiniArt options unless one has a fetish for sink marks and short shots. Sometimes they’re OK but with Italeri often it’s a box of badly manufacturered 
.
I understand that part, but what do you mean “clear evidence”? What is the clear evidence?
Do we need to get a ruler?
The MiniArt Puma beats the RFM kit hands down - because 1 - plastic tyres, 2 open hatches , 3 choice between interior or standard versions , 4 all of the above !
3 replies
All depends on what the modeler wants. I would say 1 is a general win among most general modelers.
RFM would win easy of construction, which I think most general modelers would want.
I’m building the RFM as we speak and I disagree with you. Miniart kits are no joy to build and this kit is. I replaced the kit tires with their 3D versions but the rubber tires do look nice if you don’t want to spend the money.
I don’t care about an interior that barely can be seen.
And the price? Much cheaper from Andy’s presale than miniarts will ever be.
I bet that most people who buy the miniart version will never build it.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read today! A+++
What’s great is the market for hobby kits is strong and supports a variety of choices. Much of preference depends on what the modeler wants out of a kit.
If you or someone likes MiniArt or is even a MA fanboi that’s cool! We all have our preferences. Ryefield & Tamiya fan here, I like painting 10x more than building. What’s fantastic is we have so many PUMA kits, we can select what we like best in a kit.
I buy a fair number of AFV kits, probably ~15 to 25 a year, yet MiniArt is never a contender for any purchase. I started a MiniArt kit and hated everything about building it.
Gave away the half dozen MiniArt kits I’d purchased accordingly, haven’t and won’t buy anymore MA’s due to:
YMMV
I was thinking it a simple straightforward build for those amongst us who can do without detailed analysis. Each to their own I guess
1 reply
On the contrary, we all care enough on here to help those who struggle - even if they are trolls! Just calm yourself down and stop being so confrontational.
1 reply
Always happy to provide analysis.
Generally, folks have a good attitude and disposition on the forum.
Remember
What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Cheers 
Then if you don’t mind I will test it on you
I have drawn the same conclusion - congratulations! you are now ignored lol
It’s quite a large kit though. I mean you can get an ultra tiny sdkfz 221 etc with a good interior that can be seen.
As for this kit - my stash is already over flowing - i waited years for some company to do this so salute to mini art.
I will scratch build my Dragon kit with a full interior minus engine
It’s a long story
