Hey All,
I just realized that there are kits from Meng and Rye Field that are virtually identical (no surprise to those aware of the insane Abrams proliferation of the last several years). I got the Rye Field RM–5004, and I honestly can’t recall why I did…I must have had some specific tank in mind, but the reason escapes me at the moment. Well, it turns out that Meng has essentially the same kit, their TS-026, which Meng says you can build either the M1A2 SEP Tusk I or Tusk II tanks, while the Rye Field states that THEIR similar kit, can ALSO build an M1A1 Tusk (I, I presume). So, the only difference is that the Rye Field kit can build an additional type type, the M1A1 Tusk, which the Meng kit does not say is an option in their kit. I know the Vodnik site does comparisons of many of the M1 kits, down to the nitty gritty details, but curious what others may think of the over all build between these 2 manufacturers’ kits.
The main difference should be the rear deck on the Meng, Part B3 vs K3. From there it’s a matter of what tusk package you may want and adding on kit the citv.
I have Abrams from both companies, they both look nice. I still am looking forward to seeing your Marine Abrams.
I’m enjoying the Abrams from both manufacturers. I give the edge to RFM because their kits with the interiors and engines cost about the same as theirs (and Meng’s) without.
Yes, the interior is quite nice.
Thanks for the responses, all.
I have gotten about 60% through yet another RFM Abrams, the RM-5007, M1A1/A2 w/Full Interior, and stalled on the build about 2 years ago. It is/was a great kit, not sure why I stopped building it, but will get back to it at some point. I’ve got so many Abrams kits, just like I have so many Tiger 1 kits, and Spitfire kits, etc., etc. I’ve also built at least 3, maybe more, of the Dragon M1A1 AIM kits, and frankly, I couldn’t see that any manufacturer could have improved on the details for that tank in 1/35 scale. I guess you really can’t go wrong with any of them, even the Academy, which I didn’t ask about, or the relatively new Voio M1.
But, back to my thread here, I was curious about what others thought about the Meng versus RFM kits. I appreciate the opinions.
Oh, and @Tank_1812: I’m anxious to see my Marine Abrams, too!! The extreme weathering on that tank is amazing, and, I have to say, pretty intimidating when thinking about trying to duplicate it on a model. It will take time and effort, though I’ve seen several builds from others who have done a really fabulous job in trying to make that tank. I can only hope mine, when I do it, will look even close to as good as the ones I’ve seen.
Same here Meng, Rye and Dragon. All to be Marine hogs. Even a Panda for a USA 1st gen.
And yes, if they even come 1/2 as good some here I will be happy.
I have the RFM kit. It is not built but looking through the box, I am very happy with the kit.
I’ve been working on putting together the tracks for my RM-5004 kit last night and today. They look great, but they are a pain to work on! I’d tested the track build for the Meng Leopard 2A7 kit I have, and THOSE tracks go together like a dream, a ‘press fit’ that requires no glue at all, whereas the RFM tracks are 6 parts per link, and some glue is needed to keep the parts together, though you’ve got to be super careful if you want the links to articulate. To be fair, though, the Meng USMC M1A1 AIM TS-32 kit tracks look just as yucky as the RFM Abrams tracks. I do have 2 sets of Friul metal Abrams Big Foot tracks which I could use, but I don’t want to spoil myself by using a really easy option for tracks…
This Meng USMC kit (I have 2) is the one that I’ll use for the Marine ‘ultra weathered’ Abrams that Tank_1812 and I mentioned earlier in this thread, and I AM kind of anxious to get started on that build, but I’ve got SO MANY other kits, airplanes and tanks, which I’ve started and stopped in the middle, and I kind of feel as though I should complete those, or at least SOME of them, before starting another new project. We shall see!!
The Meng and RFM Abrams tracks are really frightening to start, but with a little practice they go together nicely. I’m not even any good at fiddly assembly but I got them to fall together.
You make a great point. I hadn’t looked at prices for awhile, but the Rye Field RM-5026 (M1A2 SEP Tusk I / Tusk II with interior) is $66.99 and the Meng TS-026, the same tank without interior, is only $0.50 cheaper, at Scalehobbyist. So, in essence the same price, but Rye Field gives you an interior. Definitely something to consider if you’re pondering the purchase of an M1A2 SEP tank!