Disappointment with new Trumpeter 1/700 ships

I agree with you, Bill.

I tried to add a full hull to the 1/700 Tamiya Bogue.

I'm curious to know how popular both styles are.  Myself, I prefer to finish a ship as a waterline model and put it on a water base.  I'm curious to hear any reply Trumpeter might give you, too, and to hear whether they had any research to support eliminating the full-hull option.

I had bought the Meng HMS Rodney several months ago which has a lower hull. Although the kit is toylike in several respects, I dry-fitted the lower hull to the Trumpeter kit. It is a very close match, so I will be able to graft it onto the Trumpeter kit. But, I am very disappointed in Trumpeter for this sudden, abrubt and unannounced change in their kits.  And, to me, it doesn't really matter whether or not the full hull is less popular than the waterline (if, indeed, it is). What matters is that Trumpeter had a well-established practise that satisfied either group of modelers. They can continue to do so.

Bill

What upsets me the most is that, if I had wanted the Tamiya kit, I could have paid $11.00 for it instead of over $60.00.  For a little more investment I could have purchased a photoetch set of watertight doors and railings, and an Evergreen pack of plastic strip for the armoured bands around the hull, thereby giving me the same ship while saving approximately $35.00.  I paid a premium price expecting a premium product.  I know that Trumpeter will claim that it costs more to manufacture the lower hull, but they have already included that as part of their normal pricing. I feel like they pulled a bait and switch on us!

Bill

Bill,

     You got me started now.  I like FULL HULL  I like it so much that even with my limited experience and ability I am making a best effort to add a lower hull to a Tamiya Scharnhorst, Tamiya Enterprise, and an IMAI Winston Churchill.  For Dioramas a waterline kit is a fine idea in theory but don't you still need a bit of the lower hull if you want to show the ship in a rough sea?

     I was quite disappointed to hear of your HMS Nelson kit. I was equally disenchanted last year when hearing  Trumpeter's releases of Enterprise and Yorktown would be Lower Hull-less. An interesting aspect to this is that the molding on the Yorktown class kits upper hull seems to indicate a possible future Add-on lower hull.  Does your Nelson have a ridge or other molded indication of aligning a lower hull?

( Edit:  I expect to buy a Trumpeter Yorktown and an Academy Enterprise.  I will try aligning the Academy kits Lower hull to the Trumpeter kit or atleast use it as a reference.)

     Merit-Trumpeter-HobbyBoss-PitRoad-Minihobby all seem to be "Trumpeter" related companies whether owned or associated thru leasing molds or copying.  It is disheartening that the new Trumpeter releases will be waterline.  

(Edit: It will be interesting to see if a Hobby Boss future release of the HMS Nelson and others, might include a lower hull.)

     Lately it had seemed that more model ship OEM's were going with Full Hull for 1/700 kits. Dragon-Cyberhobby, Academy, and Arii, are full hull. Many of  newer releases from Aoshima, Hasegawa, Flyhawk, and Fujimi are offered full hull too.   Tamiya held out but Tamiya has not added much to their 1/700 line lately.

     The ModelWarship forums have discussed the new Trumpeter releases but not much discussion (read: Outrage) on loss of full hull.  I suspect many members there are waterline devotees.

You should do a youTube video about this state of affairs. 

Title it  "Keel Bill" Vol III

    Jim.

Hi,

Sorry to hear that.  While I have built both waterline and full hull models in the past for the most part I also prefer fullhull models too.

Pat

warshipguy

...it doesn't really matter whether or not the full hull is less popular than the waterline (if, indeed, it is). What matters is that Trumpeter had a well-established practise that satisfied either group of modelers..

Well, whether it was popular or not, that is, whether it sold well or not, is sort of the point.  If Trumpeter conducted any research that suggested that fewer modelers wanted the full hull, then they could omit it from the production process and reduce the cost of producing the model.  Now, apparently there may be a backlash to that decision, and perhaps they didn't anticipate that.  But it still may have been a decision taken for a reason.

I agree with Brad.  I build only waterline ships on water bases.  This seems to me the most accurate representation of the way we see a ship.  In real life we have no ide what color or shape is the lower hull.

Rick

Rick and Brad,

In real life, sailors see their ship or other ships in drydock frequently. I know that I did, and still do living close to and traveling on an naval base all the time.  My point with my angst is that Trumpeter has always offered the choice in each kit, full hull or waterline. They included parts for both.  If you prefer waterline kits in a diorama, terrific.  If, like me, you prefer full hull models, build that one. Now, you can't do so. Trumpeter made a terrible decision.

Jim and Bill,

The Academy USS Enterprise is an exceptional kit in its own right, but the lower hull might fit a Trumpeter Yorktown and Hornet.  Good luck, my friends!

Pat,

I appreciate your comments!  Thank you!

Bill

Actually, geiven the success of after-market in the ship modeling community, what's a wonder  is that they don't just offer the underwater hull as an accessory kit..  Those who want it will buy it (as will those wanting it as a modifcation basis for other kits).  Trumpy profits, modelers profit, win/win.

Oh, wait, this is ship modeling, what was I thinking?

I built my CV-8 lower hull from foam. Kind of fun.

Bill,

Your Hornet lower hull looks great!  However, I firmly believe that Trumpeter should carry on manufacturing kits in a consistent manner. We shouldn't have to do scratchbuilding when Trumpeter has consistently sold their 1/700 kits with a lower hull option.  As I said earlier, if I had wanted a Tamiya kit I would have paid $11.00 for the one sitting on the shelf at my LHS and saved over $50.00.

Capn,

That would be one option, but Trumpeter is selling their new kits for over $60.00, which is really high dollar for 1/700 scale. We should get that which we pay for and have come to expect. Remember, we had no warning that they were going to change to a purely waterline format.  I bought that kit with the full expectation that I would get that which I have come to expect from the manufacturer, a well-detailed, well-molded model of a ship that I have wanted for years with a full hull option, not a waterline kit.  This, too is ship modeling.

Bill

Thats why theres site like scalemates you read review and you find out about changes if there as been any I read review on every kit I buy no matter who the manufacture is that there' no surpise when I open box.

Bill,

Again yes to your points. I think there’s an underlying problem with Trumpeters approach on this which is it shows a real lack of respect for the customer IMO.

Sort of a ha-ha we got you.

I showed the Hornet to make a point that NO ONE should have to go to that much trouble to correct a $ 95.00 Model.

I didn’t include pictures showing that I was also building Lexington at the same time, idea being to make use of paint set ups etc. 8 took me months to get to same point as 2 in a couple of weeks OOB.

Armor, one note is that I find most “in the box” reviews to me pretty low value.

Hi,

I hope I'm not getting off topic here, but with ship models I believe that seeing the lower hull can potentially add a lot to your understanding of the ship, if done right.  Specifically in the case of the Rodney and Nelson when you see the whole ship displayed to me at least its really amazing just how far back the machinery is, well past the fullest part of the under water hull like on other battleships, like shown below.

(Images from Factory Direct Models and Freetime Models/Pontos respectively)

Similarly, looking at the under hull of the Bismarck really drives home how close her rudders were (and how small rudders on a ship are as well), and how relatively close together the outboard props were.  Which kind of helps show why a torpedo hit aft could be such a big deal.

(Image from AlwaysHobbies)

And there are other similar things too like, shape discontinuities where bulges had been added to older ships, how pronounced the ram bows were on older battleships, and sometimes just how deeply some ships sat in the water.

(Images from Always Hobbies, Hasegawa, and SD Model Makers, respectively)

As such I kind of like being able to display a ship full hull alot of times, because I think it helps give a fuller picture of a ship and can sometimes hiighlight thungs of interest about the ship.

Pat

Jim and Pat,

Very well said! So, it seems that Trumpeter advertised that there would be a lower hull, then pulled a "bait 'n switch".  I am disappointed that they have stooped to such a level.

Also, I fully appreciate their past contributions to our hobby. I am wondering if they have new management that did this to us.

Bill

Trumpeter should have identified the kit as a waterline hull only on the outside of the box.  A little truth in advertising would have avoided upsetting their customer base.  Now their company is not as highly regarded or trusted as they were in the past. 

I like building ships with a full hull as long as the subject is mounted on what is to me a classic look (wood and brass).  However, a properly dome waterline model on a realistic water base is pretty neat, too.  I believe Trumpeter’s 1/700 Liáoníng Jiàn (the PRC’s Type 001 aircraft carrier) comes with a waterline base fitted for the ships hull.  They should include this with all their 1/700 kits.  I also agree Trumpeter is getting very expensive.

VA,

The problem is that Trumpeter has historically offered the modeler a choice, either waterline or full hull in one kit.  They suddenly and without warning stopped doing so, offering only the waterline option.  Yes, I agree that waterline models displayed on a realistic water base looks nice, but that is not how I prefer to display my ships.  Trumpeter's historic pattern was nice. I shall miss it should they prove to be dismissive of the needs of their customer base.

Bill

Marcus McBean

Trumpeter should have identified the kit as a waterline hull only on the outside of the box.  A little truth in advertising would have avoided upsetting their customer base.  Now their company is not as highly regarded or trusted as they were in the past.

My - I think this is where a lot of the emotion on this topic is coming from. NO ONE likes to open the box and then immediately think, WTH, I thought this kit was/had/included (insert missing doo-dad here). I have had that reaction a time or two myself, and it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I am a waterline guy for a few reasons: 1) Space, waterline hulls fit in smaller display cases (all of my builds are in cases, I have cats) and so take up less overall space, and 2) I like building dioramas, so I can tell a little story with every model, or depict a specific moment in time. Doing all the necessary research is part of the fun.

I have heard a lot from modelers who favor waterline models because of the ease of making dioramas.  However, I have rarely seen a ship at sea floating in a flat calm. They pitch and roll in even minor swells, showing portions of their hull below the waterline.  I believe that a full hull model would facilitate the making of more accurate dioramas.

But, Trumpeter has always catered to this dichotomy of preferences by providing for both options in their kits, thereby giving the builder the choice between building a full hull model or a waterline model. To suddenly stop doing so without warning while announcing that the missing lower hulls included in their kits were molded with slide-mold technology makes me angry.  Trumpeter's corporate integrity is at issue here.

Bill

Trumpeter got the waterline wrong on their Liberty ship in 1/350.

Warship, that is a problem I agree with you And personally think 1/700 builders do appreciate the option of either waterline or full hull.

GM,

Yes, they did.  They also infamously got the USS Hornet lines wrong, their 1/500 Nimitz class were basically toys, etc.  But, they did strive to get the modelers that which they wanted, and they got better over time, that is, until this year.  Something must have happened at the corporate level to cause them to make this horrible decision.  It must have been more than the cost of manufacturing the lower hulls for each kit because they have always factored that into their prices.  Could it have been new management at some level?  Whatever the reason, if this practice continues, I am done with Trumpeter kits.

Bill

Bill If you didn't know their 1/700 scale kits are usually Pit-Road kits reboxed as Trumpeter kits.

warshipguy

I had bought the Meng HMS Rodney several months ago which has a lower hull. Although the kit is toylike in several respects, I dry-fitted the lower hull to the Trumpeter kit. It is a very close match, so I will be able to graft it onto the Trumpeter kit. But, I am very disappointed in Trumpeter for this sudden, abrubt and unannounced change in their kits.  And, to me, it doesn't really matter whether or not the full hull is less popular than the waterline (if, indeed, it is). What matters is that Trumpeter had a well-established practise that satisfied either group of modelers. They can continue to do so.

Bill

 

It does rather ring as obtuse as kitting a 1/144 aircraft model with no landing gear.

Especially in a series of kits that all have landing gear.

Nino

 

Best way to send a message, Buy Full hull kits from Fujimi, Aoshima, Dragon/Cyberhobby, Flyhawk, Hasegawa, etc.