The kit builds up nicely into a very detailed representation of the equipment. But, the instructions are…chaotic, busy, confusing and in some cases, just wrong.
If I could offer any advice, it would be to read the instructions and study them before even thinking about cutting parts from the sprue. And I found it paid to literally remove one piece at a time from the sprue, test fit it, and double check against the instructions. Yes, it was literally that demanding (for me anyway).
The other thing is part clean-up. Dear God, what a chore. Literally every single piece has at least 2 and usually more of those annoying excess sprue parts attached that needed nipping off. To add insult, they were more often than not in places hard to get a clean cut to and many frustrating hours in total were spent on clean-up.
Is every Dragon kit like this? Actually, I know, i’m just starting on the 8T half-track thats going to be towing this, and its every bit as bad.
This said, i’m pleased with the result. Its my first Anti-tank (aircraft?) gun and it taught me some lessons in how small the parts can be and how fiddly these builds often are.
I used the decals from Tamiya’s venerable old '88 because the ones supplied with this kit just didn’t interest me.
Only very lightly weathered, i’ve learnt from experience that basically, i’m just not very good at realistic weathering and the reality is, most equipment wasn’t as wethered as much as most modellers depict.
That is a great job, the proof being that all the vicissitudes you detailed are not evident in the result. I’m no expert on 88’s but it looks completely convincing, albeit a challenge.
Interesting aside about attachment points. I’d like to believe that the necessities of injection moulding demand a certain number of sprue links – the finer the part the more points may be required, unfortunately. But there have been times, particularly with ICM and MiniArt when I’ve wondered if that’s always true, I haven’t built anything Dragon for yonks but it was probably also thus.
It comes down to my own criticism of MiniArt especially, I love most of their stuff but does anyone at the factory ever actually test-build the test-shots…and btw using the Instructions? For example, if it’s nigh-on impossible to separate a fragile part without breaking it, maybe it should be sent back to the designers for a re-think.
Roly that’s an excellent job on a very detailed kit! The build looks perfect and the finish excellent as well.
I have this kit and someday I’ll get to it. After having built a bunch of Dragon kits, I agree completely about their instructions. Their DAK Panzer IV was similar in that the instructions were very busy and sometimes confusing and as you mentioned did require much study - at least for me.
My only nitpick would be if you could maybe have better lighting so we can see your outstanding model better!
Sounds very Dragon to me. Before building read the built reviews for a kit as Dragons instructions are all that mentioned and many times wrong. In their mass popped kits you will get sprues with the same letter with similar type parts but one will have the correct 8 bolts and the other sprue will have 10 bolts meant for a different version/timeframe but have some common parts used on this kit. Very easy to mix it all up. For example a T-34 kit might have 3 rear plates in the box. All might be correct for its version but which one works for your build now.
Most Dragon kits will have left over parts for spare parts bin.
Looks good to me and I agree with your comments about over-weathering. I’ve made kits from virtually all the manufacturers (the latest was AFV Clubs LeFH18M). Dragon is good on detail without getting into ridiculously small parts as some other manufacturers do (hello Gecko!). The “nubs” are necessary because when the plastic is injected into the die, air can get trapped in corners, particularly with small intricate parts. The nubs prevent this. Even when I was casting in white metal many years ago for Stadden Studios, we used to get the same problem and solved it the same way. We drilled the rubber mould with a very small drill and vented to the outside. The hole being so small lets the air out, but the surface tension of the filling medium prevents it escaping too.
That looks really nice @Khouli ! Agree that some of the Dragon kits require some serious study before implementing along with a modicum of common sense to bridge some gaps. You seem to have done that really nicely here. The only ‘88 I’ve ever built was the old Tamiya one which was simpler to build but didn’t come out as well as yours. I also like the understated weathering as it’s so much more realistic.
First off, great job, the 88 looks amazing, and honestly I understand the gripes. However… this is still (in my opinion) the best 88 on the market till this day.
The annoying pips you need to remove ensure there are no dimples on the flat pieces and are a necessary evil.
The dragon instructions are done by the one guy in the factory that has nothing else to do, from memory, after a night of drinking, and watching conspiracy videos all night… They will often mislabel parts, have parts inexplicably show up in the next step, and worst of all they do not label the different options as you build (example for the 88 - the chain hanging on the gun sides is to secure the outrigger legs in transport mode, there is not a lot of differences listed between flak 18, 36 and 37 other than the gun and gun shield, differences between transport and firing mode not clear…)
Excellent model, phenomenal finishing. Nice solid build and beautiful paint job. Despite all of the Dragon deficiencies, you have done an outstanding job. Dragon models are not easy on the modeler, but the result is worth the frustration. I like the weathering, used but not abused, it looks just right. Beautiful job.
