Part's and directions not clear.

There are several Challenger 2 kits by Trumpeter representing different variations, which are based on a common core kit but with additional parts for each. Some (such as the Op Telic desertised version) require some mods to the base kit (cutting off the front mudguards) to accommodate new parts.

Which kit are you having difficulties with?

For sure some of the companies,Dragon for one are not clear with their instructions.Thats where our research comes in,whether it be internet or written or asking on the forums.Should it be that way ? Probably not,the manufacturers owe it to us to have good instructions with the prices we have to pay,why should we have to buy additional material to be able to complete a kit ?

That being said,research can be fun,and you do learn a lot about your subject.

All too common!  I don't understand how some companies can spend all that money on nice dies and product development for a new kit, and skimp on the instructions. If it is an Asian company putting out a version with English instructions, why not find an editor who really understands English?  The "translations" from some companies are horrible.  Graphics are frequently not much better.

I once was a Technical Illustrator, back  in the days when we used a pencil and drew them by hand.   I made the exploded drawings of car/truck starter motors for repair manuals.  After the drawings left my bench,we had 2 ppl checking them, then it was off to the "tester ' to actually assemble the product by the drawings to check for errors.

In this computer CAD age, all these jobs are lost but it seems sometimes the model industry might be better off doing things like we used to.   just sayin.

Jay-Jay ;

  I feel your point . I did correctional drawings and other things ( presentation pages ,) for a client .The Big thing was , I had two folks on staff besides myself, who were very proficient in isometric drawing . Even in the seventies and early eighties we had folks who could NOT understand those drawings  !

  Now, these were graduate, practicing architects and engineers !

Not to belabor the point. Most folks however much education they have, cannot , Yes , Cannot ! read a simple drawing on an instruction sheet .!Why ? Well, the tools aren't there anymore to give them the basics i/e shop class !

    Then there's the text . How can we be expected to understand it if the drawings make sense ,when even the translations don't make sense ! Example - I have a TRUMPETER ship ( Well , actually I have a lot of those 1/350 jewels .) They have you build the upper works , THEN put on the ship's bottom plate ( waterline ) or the ship's bottom with ( screws and rudders .)

   This in ship model building is the most asinine thing I ever ran across ! What a way to destroy all that topside work ! I have a plane right now ( a MIRAGE kit) An A-6-E , I want to build to remember my daughter being an aircraft commander on one on the NIMITZ .

  Well, the drawings and some of the text shows Two instrument panels and one light diffuser  shield over the instruments. In three different places and pages apart procedures .Well, gees  you can't put the assembled cockpit in after you put the fuselage together ! That's what the instructions indicate !

   Plus none of the translations make sense .I am glad I have TAMIYA'S and REVELLOGRAM'S kits in 1/48 and 1/72 .With those two company's instructions I was able to proceed . Shouldn't have to do this! Not with what the kit costs !So , Yes I feel the pain .     T.B.

Amen Tanker..  the  point of my comment is, these mfg need to actually build the kits by the instuctions they supply before putting them on the market.

They normally send out test shots to some well known modelers who then construct them and make notes on the instruction sheets. But Trumpeter and Dragon often make basic errors in their sheets and many well known modelers don't follow instruction sheets step by step; if you've been building that long you can often make 75% of the kit without even glancing at the sheets. Errors get missed.

I have been on both sides of the fence.  My first professional job was as a test equipment designer.  This was for internal testing- only company employees would be using it.  We had to write up test procedures for a manual.  Then our writing went to a tech editor for cleanup.  We used to think that guy spoiled our masterful prose.

Now, I can read an instruction manual and identify those written by an engineer without tech editors or others massaging the thing, and beg forgiveness for my transgressions.  I think businesses are trying to save a few bucks by eliminating tech editors. One refrain I continue to hear is, "well, no one reads the manuals anyway."  But that is a self-fulfilling prediction.  They are so bad no one CAN read them.

That's so true Don :

  When I did a stint as new product install contractor for De Villbis ( recognize the name ? ) on these massive water Wall paint booths for industrial use and I hit the same problem .This taught me to feel that the guys that wrote the stuff never built and tested one of these very expensive ( at that time , more so now ) Painting systems  in the field

.Specs were often not to code for the area ( Building Variance required  ) and so on, Not to mention OSHA getting involved too . That's why I stopped doing it .At least that was one reason .  

Hey guys, thanks for the input...sorry i took so long to get some pics...here we go:

There were small post coming out of the upper hull. Each in the same spot. I cut them and then cut small holes in their places.

This is the piece they want me to fit into three holes. And it's insutructions.

Am I missing something?

Looks like a simple add on armor. Just dab cement on the raised posts in the underside of part J2 and drop it into place. That center spot didn't look like you needed to make a hole though; just cut off the post. You may have to fill that hole up if the applique armor doesn't cover it over.

I agree Don. I just started back into the hobby and I can't believe how bad the instructions are.  I find myself doing research on the internet to try and resolve the questions that come up. That is sad. Like you said, they put all that money into it and they can't make a decent instruction sheet? What are kids going to do with things like this.  How frustrating it must be for them.

Today's model kits are not made nor priced for kids. While there are some snap together kits still on the market aimed at younger modelers, these Trumpeter, Dragon, AFV Club, Tasca, kits aren't even aimed at the casual modeler. Parts count, photo etch, etc. are added to entice intermediate to advanced modelers. That's where the modeling money is spent.

When I was first getting into modeling, in the late forties, early fifties, it was the same thing.  The kits I could afford were 25 cent kits.  There were kits as expensive as five bucks, way beyond my means as a grade school kid, not to mention gas powered flying models, stratospheric in price for a kid.

"When I was first getting into modeling, in the late forties, early fifties, it was the same thing.  The kits I could afford were 25 cent kits.  There were kits as expensive as five bucks, way beyond my means as a grade school kid, not to mention gas powered flying models, stratospheric in price for a kid."

Same here Don.  I used to canvass the neighborhood for soda bottles ,cash them in for the deposit and proceed directly to the LHS.  Funny, I do the same thing nowadays with beer cans but the LHS is now online and instead of a wagon load of pop bottles, it takes a van full of aluminum cans.

As a kid in the 70s, I could only afford the bargain priced Aurora tank kits and 1/72 scale Monogram kits. The bigger, more elaborate Renwal kits and 1/35 scale Monogram kits were well out of my price range. I think the majority of my model kits were under $1.