I started this page because some of what I see in these kits simply makes me scratch my head and wonder why and I didn’t want to continually salt the main article with these observations. I want to preface any further remarks with the following disclaimer. I fully understand that most kits have some issues, and that is reasonable. I’m perfectly capable of solving a few problems and building a good kit is easier than scratch building. Finally, I like the Dragon kits. However, what is frustrating about Dragon kits is that you can see the potential, but the execution is sometimes questionable. So I thought I would collect the negatives here and just call them the “Red dragon Mysteries.”
I would have to say one of the first things that come to mind is the instructions. What Dragon provides are several pages of exploded views, which at times contain errors. This would be acceptable if the kit only contained a minimal number of parts, but Dragon Sherman kits contain a large number of parts (some being very similar) and many of them are not used. It would be a great improvement if the instructions also focused on a sequence of assembly which is extremely important with so many subassemblies. Sometimes the order of assembly is not always obvious. Through trial and lot of error, I’ve come up with my own sequences.
A good part of the time Dragon will use three parts when one will do. This is sometimes referred to as over-engineering: When there is no advantage to creating a multipart subassembly. An example can be seen in the new Normandy kit. The kit supplies two rear hull plates, Figs. 1 – 2. The only difference is the area above the doors. The instructions indicate that the rear hull plate in Fig. 2 is to be used. The question that needs to be asked is how often a modeler will want to open these doors (since no engine details are provided) and do the separate doors offer any increase in detail. This plate requires two of the doors shown in Fig. 3. Notice the spruing of the doors in Fig. 3. Each side has a substantial sprue that needs to be removed while trying to keep everything flat and square. Especially problematic is the sprue attachment between the hinges. After cleaning up the doors, the modeler has to neatly cement the doors squarely in place. In the end, the best result will only equal the one piece version in Fig. 1. This is where I have to ask, what is the point?
An issue, evident in the previous example, that is pervasive throughout
the Sherman kits is the poor method of spruing the parts. In an attempt
to minimize ejector pin marks, Dragon uses an excessive amount of accessory
sprues. The placement of these sprues is frequently poor and is a source
of their own problems. If you examine the periscope mounts in Fig. 4,
the sprue attachments marked in red actually infringe on the part itself,
making it extremely difficult to keep the part perfectly round after removal
of the sprues. The attachments marked in black are done properly. Sprue
attachments are also found in the most difficult spots, Fig. 5. Here,
the sprue will cause tear-out to an area that is very difficult to restore.
To me, this sort of problem occurs when non-modelers design a kit.
Dragon has difficulty with its attempts at trying to represent the E8521 late sharp nosed final drive assembly. This is a drawing of the actual final drive. The drawing was supplied courtesy of Kurt Laughlin. The version that appears in most of the kits is pictured in Fig. 6. The drawing of the actual final drive is layed over a profile photograph the Dragon piece, Fig. 6. It is quickly evident how undersized Dragon has made the side covers. The end plates are completely wrong in that they are recessed rather than flush with the front casting. Also note the discrepancies in the position of the bullet splash and bolt strip.
The latest attempt appears to be an economical rework of the original mold. One half of the mold has been altered by increasing the thickness of the side plate, adding a bit of detail to the top as well as the repositioning of the locating holes, Fig 8. The original is on the left. The same undersized side covers are used and now, even more incorrectly angled, Figs. 9, 10. The problems with the bullet splash and bolt strip remain along with the fact that the sides are still not flush with the front casting. Both this and the previous final drive assembly can be improved by making the side plates flush with the front casting and substituting a correctly sized end cover. The position of the bolt strip and bullet splash are unfortunately linked to the hull geometry.
An all new late final drive appeared in the PTO kit, Fig 11. What is puzzling here is that even starting from scratch, Dragon still misses the mark, Fig. 12. The profile matches the drawing much better, but the bolt strip is too narrow and incorrectly angled. The end covers are still slightly undersized and improperly positioned flush with the forward edge of the front casting. This version is actually the closest representation and could be corrected by repositioning the end covers and substituting a wider bolt strip placed at the correct angle. However, the end covers are cast with the side plates and replacing the bolt strip will not work with the hull geometry. Dragon has sort of painted themselves into a corner here. And the issues with the undersized bolt stripes extend to most all their final drive housings so if you are going to build a Dragon Sherman, my suggestion is just live with it.
