TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

This board is for talk about tanks after WW2. The ups and downs. The ins and outs. All of it here.

Postby kintaroukinji » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:01 pm

Hello everyone.
I tried assembling a lower hull (road wheel) at the beginning of remodeling the Tamiya M1A2 Abram display model to a radio control. First I sprayed a metal primer and a lacquer paint (Tamiya's light sand) to the metal lower hull. Tamiya has recently released lacquer paint, and its coating seems quite strong.

Because it is made by Tamiya, it was able to build a tightly combined structure with enough strength as RC tank without any stress. In the article of Armor modeling magazine, the black cap screw which fixes the suspension mount of the road wheel was reworked since its shape and position are completely different from the real tank, but I will not stick to that considering the strength. Although it is a part that can be seen from the outside, I will keep that part inconspicuous by painting. (It is true that I have no guts to remodel to that extent.)

In rebuilding to RC next time, I am thinking about whether to go Tamiya's full operation type or TORRO, HengLong type.

The characteristics of each will be summarized as follows.
① Tamiya full operation type
• It is possible to assemble the whole with certainty. Because it is the newest RC model, strength is sufficient.
• It has the latest gun barrel stabilizer function.
• Drive gear box is Tamiya's unique differential gear
• It is difficult to change or expand the function of my choice.
• Complete turret 360 ° turning function (slip ring), smoker function is not equipped.
• Because it is necessary to purchase Tamiya's after parts in order to make it full operation, it costs as much as it costs.

②TORRO, HengLong type
• If you are seeking reasonable sound, you need a third party sound board.
Especially since M1A2 is a turbine engine, TORRO, HengLong unit sound is completely different sound.
• Modification is necessary to fix the drive gear to the lower hull. It is necessary to prepare sprockets that match the gear box for TORRO, Heng Long, and it is necessary to check whether it matches Tamiya track.
• Easy to change, add and extend my own functions.
• It can be selected widely from the viewpoint of cost. (Commercially available general parts can be used.)

In the case of Tamiya full operation, the battery or turret control unit is designed in the turret, so it would have been impossible to use slip rings that can withstand the driving motor power.

I tried to see if the spare HengLong plastic gear fits into this lower hull.
This is a state in which the gearbox is raised with aluminum color and temporarily placed (unfixed). Centering of the drive shaft seems to be no problem. If 360 ° turret turning (slip ring) is adopted, batteries and controllers must be placed in the lower hull.

Somehow it is likely that all parts will fit within the lower hull. If you use the speaker box of the full operation kit, you only have to put the battery and the controller inside the turret.

I am worrying about which to proceed with Tamiya full operation type, TORRO, HengLong type.
Attachments
DSC_1221_012.JPG
Painted lower hull and road wheel
DSC_1223_013.JPG
HengLong drive gearbox temporarily placed in TAMIYA lower metal hull
DSC_1224_014.JPG
HengLong drive gearbox temporarily placed in TAMIYA lower metal hull
DSC_1229_017.JPG
Drive shaft in lower hull
DSC_1232_019.JPG
Temporary placement of speaker, battery, controller in lower hull

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby Eastern Front » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:34 pm

I think you will stress those gears in those gear boxes..Look for the tamiya gearbox if you can, even though the tamiya box is plastic (like the Leopard) the design is more than adequate for the stress of RC driving, its actually a transmission..

Cheers!
Attachments
d9.jpg
User avatar
Eastern Front
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
 
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:39 am
Location: Sumter SC

Postby kintaroukinji » Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:13 am

Thanks for your comment. As you say, I think that it is better to use TMAMIYA 's differential gear better quality. However, in that case, TAMIYA full operation will eventually be assembled, so it seems to be difficult to add my favorite functions. Although it is possible to introduce TAMIYA gear and a third party sound controller, it may cost very expensive. I'm very annoyed as to which way to go.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby kintaroukinji » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:13 am

Tamiya M1A2 Abrams display model makes radio control possible.
For the time being, I confirmed by temporary wiring to see how far it works with TORRO's RX18 controller. Turret turning is OK. I removed the motor from the unnecessary HengLong turret turning unit and incorporated it as Tamiya's original recoil system as a barrel recoil motor, but since it has no stopper it can not be used as it is. Anyway, I plan to operate the gun barrel lifting and recoil with the servo using the sound board. Since the sound is also from RX 18, it is not a turbine engine sound, and the sound quality is not so good either. The speaker will eventually be installed in the lower hull.
Attachments
DSC_1315 _544.JPG
DSC_1315 _544.JPG (82.08 KiB) Viewed 871 times
DSC_1316_01.JPG
DSC_1316_01.JPG (83.23 KiB) Viewed 871 times

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby kintaroukinji » Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:16 am

I got a sprocket wheel from "MatoToys" to match the axle of HengLong  drive gear. The painted one on the left is of Tamiya, but the hole in the wheel has not penetrated. The right one has a hole exactly like a real tank. As this part is visible from the outside, I think whether it is important about the details whether this hole penetrates or not.
What I was most interested in was whether this Sprocket fit Tamiya's genuine track, but it matched without problems. I can not judge whether it will match if I do not finally check the driving performance, but for the time being, I feel relieved.

I installed the USM-HL-2 sound board and the TORRO RX18, but as a basic concept, remodeling is limited within the range where it is easy to remodel Tamiya genuine full operation.
Wiring was done as follows.

In Tamiya full operation, tail lights and headlights can be switched to blackout (BO) headlights, BO brake lights, BO taillights, etc. in various ways so-called camouflage mode, but this USM-HL-2 is also possible with the "light switching function". Lifting of the main gun was also possible with servo control by this boad.

Temporarily, I installed these for operation function check. The servo for main gun lifting is a old servo that was used in RC helicopter. It is about 30 years old, but works well.
All except the battery are in the lower hull.  The main switch has not been fixed yet and is left floating.

In addition to the coaxial machine gun, I am planning to make the CROWS on the turret also able to emit light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CokERzMBFZg&t=1s


It would be fine if TAMIYA full operation unit could be added to the machine gun light emission function, but I think it is impossible for me.
Attachments
DSC_1324_01.JPG
Sprocket wheel TAMIYA(left) and MATO(right)
DSC_1324_01.JPG (66.03 KiB) Viewed 656 times
DSC_1329_01.JPG
DSC_1329_01.JPG (87.1 KiB) Viewed 656 times
DSC_配線1330_01.JPG
Wiring diagam
DSC_配線1330_01.JPG (86.22 KiB) Viewed 656 times
DSC_1327_01.JPG
TORRO RX18, USM-HL-2, speaker, and output terminal in Lowe hull
DSC_1327_01.JPG (87.67 KiB) Viewed 656 times
DSC_1332_01.JPG
Gun lifting unit, barrel recoil unit, turret rotating unit, and main switch
DSC_1332_01.JPG (74.45 KiB) Viewed 656 times

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby c.rainford73 » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:27 am

You are making great progress. Following along :thumbup:
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
 
Posts: 5266
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Postby kintaroukinji » Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:40 am

Tank you very much.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby HERMAN BIX » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:28 am

Certainly making all the dots join together Sir. :thumbup:
Over all, would you say that converting a static to an RC model is the best option ?
Or would you go with getting an RC version (of any brand) and detailing it to suit if you had your time again ?
User avatar
HERMAN BIX
Major
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:15 am
Location: Gold Coast,Australia

Postby kintaroukinji » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:43 pm

I do not always think that converting a static model is the best option. Each person has different ways of enjoying model assembly. As for me, I think that simply assembling the RC assembly kit according to the manufacturer's instructions is not very interesting. With regard to this TAMIYA 1/16 ABRAMS kit, of course, simply assembling the genuine full operation as directed by the manufacturer will be the most reliable as the final RC finished product. That's because the manufacturer designed this kit for the most reliable finish.
Currently I will convert this display model to radio control with BEIER-Electronic's soundmodule (using TORRO's RX18). Of course TAMIYA's genuine full operation system is also very attractive, but it is easier and cheaper to use a third party soundboard while taking advantage of the quality of this model to add my favorite function . For example, it is easier to add CROWS to flash the MG, or to enable 360 ​​degree turret rotation with a slip ring. It seems more fun to modificate this kit as I like, than just assembling the default spec RC model. However, after I enjoyed this modification enough, I may purchase the necessary TAMIYA parts in the future, and make this a genuine full operation.
Last edited by kintaroukinji on Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby kintaroukinji » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:39 am

I fixed the HengLong default gearbox (plastic) to the lower hull and installed headlights, blackout (BO) headlights, brake lights, BO brake lights, and taillights. Although the main gun coaxial machine gun and BO headlights are designed to use an optical fiber by TAMIYA original in the assembly manual of TAMIYA, I used the LED chip in consideration of brightness. The main switch is fixed in a self-made switch box and installed in the turret. This is the place where the TAMIYA turret control unit (with main switch) is attached.

As for the wiring on the car body side, there are many output wiring from the sound board, so I use a 16-pin socket for the output terminal made by myself, but as usual, I can not feel a sense of stiffness. I really feel that I am not good at handling the wiring in a smart way. In particular, wiring from the turret to the lower hull may cause troubles in the turret's turning unless it has a certain degree of slack. On the other hand, if there is too much slack, the wiring may become embroiled. This is the point I always worry about. The wiring process is very smart if the turret control unit, the body control unit and the speaker of Tamiya genuine full operation system are used.

Watch the video for the sound and behavior of the tank. The tank kit is unpainted and the guns on the turret are also unequipped.
[video]
phpBB [video]
[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVSHmOD_qX8

I picked up the real machine sound from YouTube and edited the idling sound, the running sound, the main gun and the MG firing sound. The battery is a Nicd battery attached to the HengLong tank, so it is a bit short of power, but on the floor the speed control is good.

Well, this time I assembled the kit as it is, but despite the fact that this is the latest 1/16 scale Tamiya tank, I am completely dissatisfied with the details. This is not completely out of the so-called TOY zone.
First of all, the external handrails and handles are molded, and the shape is quite rough. I think that it is unavoidable if it is a complex shape, but even handrails and hooks of simple shape are expressed by molded strange shape. I feel that the strength is considered too much in the radio control.
I was forced to remodel this handrail immediately.

There are many other places where remodeling and detailing should be done. It is not easy to go to the painting process. Then I got the 3D print kit of M153 CROWS from Shape ways. Though I thought of my own work, I do not have the skills and patience to create everything from the beginning. The surface of the 3D print kit is rough, but the main shape is kept. I will build on this base and improve the detail and make it possible to fire the machine gun.


Headlights, BO headlights, brake lights, BO brake lights, and tail lights can be combined and switched on.
Attachments
DSC_1338_01.JPG
DSC_1341_01.JPG
main switch
DSC_1339_01.JPG
peli_1336_01.JPG
molded handrail
DSC_1348_01.JPG
Replaced molded handrail with brass wire
DSC_1349_01.JPG
3D print kit CROWS

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby tankme » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:48 pm

Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm

Postby tomhugill » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:13 pm

tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.


What's wrong with the tamiya?
User avatar
tomhugill
Captain
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:21 am

Postby c.rainford73 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:00 pm

You have done an outstanding job with your efforts to make this static kit come to life! The sounds are well done and it's all very impressive :thumbup:
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
 
Posts: 5266
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Postby kintaroukinji » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:45 am

tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.


Thanks for your comment.
I do not think that TAMIYA is wrong at all. Certainly TAMIYA is expensive, but its strength and overall quality are considerably better than cheap HL. The outer shape of HL's M1A2 is basically a copy of TAMIYA's old 1/35 MM series. Even though it is 1/16 TAMIYA, its detail and texture are better than HL. However, I feel dissatisfied with the details compared to the latest 1/35 scale model. I have remodeled several HL tanks, but I do not think that it was a mistake to select the TAMIYA display model for RC remodeling this time.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby kintaroukinji » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:03 am

c.rainford73 wrote:You have done an outstanding job with your efforts to make this static kit come to life! The sounds are well done and it's all very impressive :thumbup:

Thanks for your comment. It is easiest to assemble TAMIYA's full operation, but there is no extensibility of the function as the completed one is nothing more than the TAMIYA full operation kit. Then I thought that there was not much interest in making RC models.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby kintaroukinji » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:59 am

The M153 CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) mounted on US military vehicles is very few even modeled on the 1/35 scale. The 1 / 16th CROWS model is so hard to get, so I ordered it as soon as I found a 3D printed product in Shapeways HP. However, the white natural versatile plastic of this 3D printed product is a very hard material with rough surface. The surface does mot hardly become smooth by only paper sanding.

If I choose the option of another material Fine Detail Plastic, the surface must be smooth but the price is quite high. I stopped the surface treatment at an appropriate level and painted it. As a result, although it takes some time and effort, I feel that I could somehow make this model by using plastic and brass materials. Anyway, I was able to save the time and effort for the survey and work required to scratch this CROWS model.

Next, I cut the barrel of the M2 machine gun in this kit in order to enable the MG to flicker. After cutting, for the new barrel, a 2.5 mm diameter plastic tube (tapered toward the tip) is used, and two enamell wires with LED chip soldered to the end are inserted in the tube. This is my favorite method, and I think it is a method that can flicker easily and inexpensively without affecting the appearance of fine parts where optical fibers are difficult to insert. However, it is necessary to solder a thin enameled wire to a very small LED chip.

This picture shows the condition that the LED is lit experimentally.

I planned to mount this directly on the rangefinder on the turret, but for a real tank, the CROWS seems to be attached to a dedicated mount. Although the detailed whole shape of the mount can not be seen well only from a real tank photograph, I found a wonderful 3D CG image.
After all, I have no choice but to make this mount with plastic plate etc referring to this image and the real tank photograph. I will do this little by little as part of the detailing up.
Attachments
DSC_1362_01.JPG
MG flickered
DSC_1366_01.JPG
MG flickered

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby tankme » Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:53 am

tomhugill wrote:
tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.


What's wrong with the tamiya?


I would agree that the Tamiya 1/16 offering was molded from the Tamiya 1/35 offering. The problem with that is that the old Tamiya 1/35 offering is highly regarded as one of the worst M1A2 Abrams models on the market. Academy, Meng, and Dragon all make better, more accurate Abrams models that have been released before this kit. I have over a dozen books of reference on the M1, M1A1 and M1A2. I also own the Academy and Dragon 1/35 kits. I previously owned the 1/35 Tamiya M1 kit. I do think Tamiya did a wonderful job engineering the R/C aspects of the kit.

Things wrong or I don't like - no troop phone on rear, no NATO charging port on rear, upper rear lifting handles are round and solid (they should be square profile and hollow in the middle), solid squares on the front near the fenders (should be hollow), handle molded solid on loader's hatches, smoke dischargers are poorly modeled, ammo can holders on the front of the turret storage racks are missing, all of the filler caps are molded with soft details, all of the storage bin handles are molded badly on turret and hull, missing mine plow connection on the front of the tank, missing driver's hatch stop, wrong version of blow off hatches are in the kit for an A2, missing details on loaders hatch, missing GPS antenna, missing Blue Force Tracking system, missing all the upper bolt detail for the track skirts, fender retaining springs are molded in to the top of the fender but not along the side of the fender, one of the long engine covers is missing the grill and not sloped correctly, mounting holes for the counter sniper machine gun are missing on the two outer tabs on the mantlet, handles missing on the CIP panels, mud holes missing from sprockets, tow cable mounting hooks are molded onto the cable and not on the tank itself...

Those are just things I can see from pics I've seen on the internet. Overall the entire rear section of the tank is setup like an A1 model. An A1 model would have the generator on the left rear (with filler cover). The A2 should have a battery box back there with 3 distinct panels and no filler port. Even for an A1 the exhaust port is missing. I personally would convert the plastic footloops to actual cable and make real rubber type mud guards on the fenders. I can forgive them using the older turret bustle based compressor unit and not the new VCU (Vapor Compression Unit) since there was a transition period, but they put the new VCU on their Tusk2 1/35 kit in 2013. So why didn't they include it on this model? I can also forgive the missing DUKE system and the missing 3rd antenna mount behind the right storage box.

So with all of my research on the Abrams that's what I feel they did poorly. I'm sure if I had my hands on the actual kit I could find more things to fix.

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm

Postby tankme » Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:12 am

kintaroukinji wrote:The M153 CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) mounted on US military vehicles is very few even modeled on the 1/35 scale. The 1 / 16th CROWS model is so hard to get, so I ordered it as soon as I found a 3D printed product in Shapeways HP. However, the white natural versatile plastic of this 3D printed product is a very hard material with rough surface. The surface does mot hardly become smooth by only paper sanding.

If I choose the option of another material Fine Detail Plastic, the surface must be smooth but the price is quite high. I stopped the surface treatment at an appropriate level and painted it. As a result, although it takes some time and effort, I feel that I could somehow make this model by using plastic and brass materials. Anyway, I was able to save the time and effort for the survey and work required to scratch this CROWS model.

Next, I cut the barrel of the M2 machine gun in this kit in order to enable the MG to flicker. After cutting, for the new barrel, a 2.5 mm diameter plastic tube (tapered toward the tip) is used, and two enamell wires with LED chip soldered to the end are inserted in the tube. This is my favorite method, and I think it is a method that can flicker easily and inexpensively without affecting the appearance of fine parts where optical fibers are difficult to insert. However, it is necessary to solder a thin enameled wire to a very small LED chip.

This picture shows the condition that the LED is lit experimentally.

I planned to mount this directly on the rangefinder on the turret, but for a real tank, the CROWS seems to be attached to a dedicated mount. Although the detailed whole shape of the mount can not be seen well only from a real tank photograph, I found a wonderful 3D CG image.
After all, I have no choice but to make this mount with plastic plate etc referring to this image and the real tank photograph. I will do this little by little as part of the detailing up.


kintaroukinji,

I probably bought the same CROWS from Shapeways that you did. I haven't got it yet, but yours does look very nice. The 1/35 Dragon kit I have has the CROWS system on it. I have attached Doghouse mount pics. Sorry they are a little blurry. My camera doesn't do well on small objects. This assembly is mounted over the existing Doghouse. The CROWS mount to it. The hinge allows it to be folded down to the left for storage or clearance during transport.
Attachments
101_0218.JPG
101_0218.JPG (70.83 KiB) Viewed 202 times
101_0220.JPG
101_0220.JPG (86.14 KiB) Viewed 202 times
101_0221.JPG
101_0221.JPG (77.16 KiB) Viewed 202 times
101_0222.JPG
101_0222.JPG (94.35 KiB) Viewed 202 times
101_0223.JPG
The round portion is a spring
101_0223.JPG (82.51 KiB) Viewed 202 times

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm

Postby kintaroukinji » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:44 am

Thank you for your information. I did not know that Dragon had released 1/35 M1A2 with CROWS on the market. I did not know what kind of function the spring-like hinge on the CROWS mount had. Is there any benefit to folding down the mount to the left with the hinge during transport? I wonder if it will be compact by doing so.

kintaroukinji
Private
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:46 am

Postby tankme » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:52 am

I think they fold it down whenever the tank it being transported by rail, air, or ship just so it doesn't hit anything. They also fold down the wind sensor. Both lower the overall height of the tank. I know I've seen pics of a Navy landing ships that had a really low cargo hold ceiling. They fold it down or it won't clear the ceiling. Here is a shot of it folded, but this looks like it might be the newer PROTECTOR low profile CROWs. Once it's folded down it rests on two rubber blocks. Second pic is of the original one folded.
original.jpg

4f63edb82c7007197c1608f1caf59f85.jpg
4f63edb82c7007197c1608f1caf59f85.jpg (40.83 KiB) Viewed 74 times

tankme
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm

Next

Return to Modern Tanks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests