Accuracy of Trumpeter kits.... Replicas or presentations?

Hello!

The question you raise is no problem for many modellers that just like to build, paint and have fun - and who am I to say this is "wrong". Personally it bothers me when something like science fiction happens on my non-science-fiction model - but then I take out more tools and I correct it. Or switch to another kit where there's less to correct - when there is one.

I have also seen many things wrong with Trumpeter kits - like their 1:48 Skywarriors (luckily I don't build 1:48 aircraft) or their 1:72 Beriev Be-6 - where there are no engines to speak of and the interior looks fictional and they have a hard time deciding which version of the aircraft they would like to show - but it's still the best kit of that machine out there and it's worth correcting - so maybe I'll live long enough to do it one day.

So I agree with you here - I hope they do better next time.

Just a tough business decision: keep buying their stuff to keep them alive (and give off a message: you're doing allright!- no need to change) - or stop buying to force higher standards and risk starving them out... Decisions, decisions!

Thanks for reading and have a ncie day

Paweł

Hello Johnny!

So do you say you like Trumpeter models? That's good!

I for myself don't like being called rivet counter if it sounds like it's something bad to be...

You might go so far as to say any piece of aluminium tubing looks like a MiG if you don't really know what a MiG looks like... Yeah, I know I'm being mean and stupid right now but I think you kinda touched a vulnerable spot right here...

Good luck with your models and have a nice day

Paweł

When the shapes are way off I caint get no satisfaction.  I have a bunch of Trumpeter kits and I like the F4F once they redid it, and the F8F looks pretty good to me.  Revell was getting the shapes right in the 50's.  But a lot of people have fun building their kits and there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem with Trumpeter being a Chinese company is they are more concerned with quantity over quality... 

Nathan T

The problem with Trumpeter being a Chinese company is they are more concerned with quantity over quality... 

 

I hate to stereotype but with Chinese products quality is not what it comes to mind. I could never understand why a company would put out a model with glaring error like the MIG 19 PM. Couldn't get passed my head. Dai 

Dai Phan

 

 

Nathan T

The problem with Trumpeter being a Chinese company is they are more concerned with quantity over quality... 

 

 

 

 

I hate to stereotype but ....

 

 

It's one thing to compare two kits of the same subect for relative accuracy. It's another to crit the sole kit of a subject. In that case there's the challenge and challenge of fixing it.

I took the 1/350 CV-8 Hornet, the one with the tanker hull, and fixed it. It was a lot of work, but the end result will be very nice.

GMorrison

 

 

Dai Phan

 

 

Nathan T

The problem with Trumpeter being a Chinese company is they are more concerned with quantity over quality... 

 

 

 

 

I hate to stereotype but ....

 

 

 

 

 

Classic.

 

It's one thing to compare two kits of the same subect for relative accuracy. It's another to crit the sole kit of a subject. In that case there's the challenge and challenge of fixing it.

I took the 1/350 CV-8 Hornet, the one with the tanker hull, and fixed it. It was a lot of work, but the end result will be very nice.

 

In my opinion, with todays' technology one should not have to buy after market parts to correct or scratchbuilt to make a model acceptable. Dai 

I go back to the early plastic kits, in fact some early Monogram kits were part plastic and part balsa wood. The kits had rivets that would be the size of grapefruits in scale and the details, such as the landing gear wells and cockpits, were non exsistant. I get the arguments, that is the modern technology in cutting molds, lazer measuring, etc. should result in super accurate replicas. Again going back to the early days you had to make a lot of corrections and additions to get an accurate replica, BUT you were not paying $50 to $100+ for a 1/48th scale kit. I am grateful for the kit that is the only kit of the wanted subject, but for the big dollar price tag it should be accurate. Thats my $.02 cents worth. 

rangerj

I go back to the early plastic kits, in fact some early Monogram kits were part plastic and part balsa wood. The kits had rivets that would be the size of grapefruits in scale and the details, such as the landing gear wells and cockpits, were non exsistant. I get the arguments, that is the modern technology in cutting molds, lazer measuring, etc. should result in super accurate replicas. Again going back to the early days you had to make a lot of corrections and additions to get an accurate replica, BUT you were not paying $50 to $100+ for a 1/48th scale kit. I am grateful for the kit that is the only kit of the wanted subject, but for the big dollar price tag it should be accurate. Thats my $.02 cents worth. 

 

Nowadays the typical price of a kit runs around 40-65 bucks on a 1/48 subject and to shell out another 30 bucks of AM parts to make the kit acceptable is unacceptable in my view. Dai 

I think every mfg has their great (accurate) kits and some stinkers.  I recenty built a couple of Lindberg kits.  Lindberg certain is not known for accurate scale, but when checking reference material I was shocked at how accurate these two were.  :-)

I have built a large number of Lindberg aircraft models and found them generally accurate to shape and scale, but lacking in detail. The interesting thing to me is that their first models of the A4 Skyhawk, F100, F-8 Crusader, F-104, and a few others were models of the prototype aircraft. The kits were later corrected to represent production aircraft. At least Lindberg and Hawk and a few other were doing kits in a common scale, 1/48th for example.Revell and some others were doingwhat is commonly called "BOX SCALE". 

tempestjohnny

Here's my thoughts. Unless you're building it for a contest who is really going to know. Yes you will, but when it goes into the display case it still looks like a MiG-19, RA-5C, Su-9 for the most part. I'm definitely not a rivet counter 

Amen!

Greetings,

I have built three Trumpeter 1/32 planes and was very satisfied with their overall appearance and don’t consider myself as rivet counter, but I cannot bring myself to even build their F6F Hellcat. It it so off that the airframe from the canopy to the tail is way too round, almost like spine of the F4F Wildcat.  Even the engine cowlinglooks way off. To me, the Hasegawa 1/32 Hellcat is more accurate. How could Trumpeter get it so wrong?

regards,

DavidK

I don't look that close.  I like a good kit that fits well and is nicely engineered.  I've built the pigs in the past and it's not worth my time these days unless I'm really passionate about the subject and there's only the bad kit but that is rare these days.  I've built a few Trumpter/HobbyBoss kits and they go together pretty well.  But then again, I no longer build for contests -just for fun and if it looks like an F84 when I'm done and I don't have to go through fits to put it together... I'm happy.

Fully acknowledge the folks that are looking for spot on accuracy - this is just my opinion.

David Kaneshiro

Greetings,

I have built three Trumpeter 1/32 planes and was very satisfied with their overall appearance and don’t consider myself as rivet counter, but I cannot bring myself to even build their F6F Hellcat. It it so off that the airframe from the canopy to the tail is way too round, almost like spine of the F4F Wildcat.  Even the engine cowlinglooks way off. To me, the Hasegawa 1/32 Hellcat is more accurate. How could Trumpeter get it so wrong?

regards,

DavidK

 

My point exactly. This post is not only for Trumpeter but any new companies to the scene. With today's technology and the high cost of the kit, we expect to buy off the shelves and have a respectable replica. I am a NOT a 70 YO rivet counter or a 7 YO kid either. I now must do research on each T's kit before I build one. Chinese products are not known for their quality and in MOST cases they show. DP  

keavdog

I don't look that close.  I like a good kit that fits well and is nicely engineered.  I've built the pigs in the past and it's not worth my time these days unless I'm really passionate about the subject and there's only the bad kit but that is rare these days.  I've built a few Trumpter/HobbyBoss kits and they go together pretty well.  But then again, I no longer build for contests -just for fun and if it looks like an F84 when I'm done and I don't have to go through fits to put it together... I'm happy.

Fully acknowledge the folks that are looking for spot on accuracy - this is just my opinion.

 

I don't look that close either but I still expect reasonable accurate kit. Remember the AA (Chinese company) model of the 1/48 Mig 19 ? I was so excited when it was released but it was so off that it cannot be even used as a presentation desktop model. That model made Lingberg kits looks like Tamiya's. Look at Japanese kits, accuracy all abound (ofcourse with few exceptions). Dai

Something i have noticed with the new batch of Chinese companies is the lack of attention to detail. It seems to me as though they produce their models simply by looking at photo's without knowing what they are looking at. They don't do any indepth research into the product. I have noticed this on armour kits rather than aircraft, especially with Meng and Takom.

With the Trumpeter armour kits i have bilt it was slightly different. There lack of attention to detail meant engine hatches which had nothing to hold them in place and raised location lines which reminded me of the really old Italeri kits.

But that being said, they are producing some stunning detailed kits and any issues can be over come with a bit of research and some good old fashioned modelling.

Dai Phan

In my opinion, with todays' technology one should not have to buy after market parts to correct or scratchbuilt to make a model acceptable. Dai

Welcome to the world of scale ships--sigh.

There's a reason why Bill felt compelled to cut the entire bottom off a $110 kit and rebuild it from scratch.

Kit manufacturers of ships often just put the sme kit in a new box (and perhaps a token 1/4 sprue of different parts) and call it a different kit.  How different?  Think as bad as a Spitfire boxed as a Hurricane, and as a Dewoitine; or as "good" as an M4A1 boxed as M4A3 and M4A4.

Revell has been bad about this, reboxing Bounty as Beagle which are about as similar as an Me 109 to an 110.  Lindberg also has committed some similar fauxes pas.  The egregious I-19 a recent one.

The Trumpy 1/48 U-Boat is a fascinating example.  This is an $800 kit that builds to four feet long (like 1.3m), and while it has rather a lot of detail for a ship model kit (it's designed to be see-through), they just up and faked a number of items just to fill up the interior spaces.  But, the detail, for 1/48 is surprisingly crude by other 1/48 kit standards.  Builds into a respectible kit out of the box, as long as you squint a bit and know very little about submarines.  (In a now classic bit, they made the starbord (right hand) hull clear, and managed to make the clear part of the conning tower (the bit on top) be on the port (left hand) side--Oops.)

Yet, there are some outstanding kits out there.

Sometimes we just have to squint and just tell oursleves "It's just a model."  Or, we spend endless dollars on AM stuff trying the halve the halves.  (3d printing has made ship modeling both worse and better, as an example.)

Or, at least that's my 2¢

CapnMac82

Revell has been bad about this, reboxing Bounty as Beagle which are about as similar as an Me 109 to an 110...

...to say nothing of the Arizona/Pennsylvania, the North Carolinas, the South Dakotas, the Iowas, the Yorktowns, the Essexes (before and after post-war modernization) the Midways, the Forrestals, the destroyers of various classes, and the Kriegsmarine subjects.  I've probably missed others, especially among the sailing ship kits.

Of course, most of Revell's customers at the time didn't know or care too much, we were kids having fun building the models.  But yours is a point well-taken.

the Baron

 

 

tempestjohnny

Here's my thoughts. Unless you're building it for a contest who is really going to know. Yes you will, but when it goes into the display case it still looks like a MiG-19, RA-5C, Su-9 for the most part. I'm definitely not a rivet counter 

 

 

 

Amen!

 

Me too 

Brad- Cutty Sark became Thermopylae.

Eagle became "Seeadler", although Eagle kit itself was a derivation of another ship, Gorke Fock, not the Horst Wessel which became the real Eagle.

But this was an aircraft question. I'm not a big fan of the Trumoeter kits because I don't build the big scale stuff, and in 1/72 there are a lot of choices.

I do think they deserve credit for a wide range of 1/32 kits that weren't available before.

GMorrison

Brad- Cutty Sark became Thermopylae.

Eagle became "Seeadler", although Eagle kit itself was a derivation of another ship, Gorke Fock, not the Horst Wessel which became the real Eagle.

But this was an aircraft question. I'm not a big fan of the Trumoeter kits because I don't build the big scale stuff, and in 1/72 there are a lot of choices.

I do think they deserve credit for a wide range of 1/32 kits that weren't available before.