German Destroyer comparisons...

The VII D makes a wonderful addition to my /144 submarine collection.  I believe that my LHS still has one; I'll check if you like. 

Also, in my earlier post, I forgot to mention that Aoshima and Tamiya are also contributing with their IJN 1/350 cruisers, as with their battleships. Hasegawa should be mentioned as well, although these companies are ridiculously expensive!

Bill Morrison

warshipguy

Those 1/144 scale Type VII U-Boats by RoG are beautiful kits! I especially like their Type VII D variant as being very unusual. Like I've said before, its wonderful living in the golden age of ship modeling!

Bill Morrison

Those 1/144 scale Type VII U-Boats by RoG are beautiful kits! I especially like their Type VII D variant as being very unusual. Like I've said before, its wonderful living in the golden age of ship modeling!

Bill Morrison

warshipguy

Gentlemen,

I still maintain that it isn't an "either-or" issue . . . I applaud any company that is trying to enrich my enjoyment of the hobby by providing new products.  Like it or not, Dragon offers far more complex and detailed kits than any other company.  Trumpeter offers nice kits as well, with neither offering precisely the same ships.  There is room for both.  Revell of Germany is doing great as well.  Yet, there is no such thing as the perfect company.

Therefore, let's relax and enjoy the ride!

Bill Morrison

P.S.  Marry a ship if you like . . . I prefer women! 

And why choose?---I'll marry a ship and a woman.  After all, I've got the blood of a tiger and I'm winning...duh...

I'd put my money on a dragon. I mean what's the trumpeter gonna do? throw his instrument at the dragon?

Gentlemen,

I still maintain that it isn't an "either-or" issue . . . I applaud any company that is trying to enrich my enjoyment of the hobby by providing new products.  Like it or not, Dragon offers far more complex and detailed kits than any other company.  Trumpeter offers nice kits as well, with neither offering precisely the same ships.  There is room for both.  Revell of Germany is doing great as well.  Yet, there is no such thing as the perfect company.

Therefore, let's relax and enjoy the ride!

Bill Morrison

P.S.  Marry a ship if you like . . . I prefer women! 

cerberusjf

I haven’t seen Dragon ever try to tap the knowledge base of forum members.  I haven’t heard them answer any of the criticisms made about their products either, for that matter.

Have you seen Trumpeter, for that matter?

There are a group of us who are helping Dragon, the others have just chosen not to get involved in the publicity war. Besides Tim and myself, I can think of ten other modelers off the top of my head who post on MULTIPLE forums (I.E. while the group is based on ModelWarships, these are people that many of you know from multiple places) who are involved in giving input.

I know Trumpeter had one well-publicized model, the F4F in 1/32nd scale, that test shots caused such a stink about that they went back and re-did the molds, but otherwise I haven't seen any attempt on their part to seek input. I actually tried to volunteer myself on their Essex project and never heard back from them (this was before my involvement with Dragon).

When Trumpeter has help (Their 1/350th Hood comes to mind) they can release a decent product in terms of accuracy (fidelity of detail is another matter). Dragon's first iteration of the CVL needed a LOOOOT of help; we essentially had them scrap their entire first CAD and start over. That is one thing that won me over, the fact that they were willing to do that.. it wasn't an inconsequential cost. It took us two and a half years to get the CVL corrected and out. That wasn't an inconsequential cost.

jpk

Well I suppose Edsel's had their supporters too. If anyone can say Trumpy's level of attention to quality of mold finish and mold detail is anywhere close to what Dragon has produced is really living in a state of denial

 

Wasn’t the Edsel a car that failed to live up to the hype?  That reminds me more of Dragon than Trumpeter.  The quality of the molding of Dragon’s KM 20mm guns was poor and overscale, resulting in a very poor rendition of the gun.  They had paid attention to the detail but not to what the final result would be.  If assembling all those tiny parts gave a better result than the much simpler one-piece molding from Trumpeter, then I would applaud it.  (Narvik class destroyers had 20mm guns, so I am not off-topic)

jpk

Look at the people that were involved in the Dragon research for their kits, several that not only post here but at ship specific sites with a deeper interest than this site. I have never heard of Trumpy even trying to tap the knowlege base that frequents these websites to make their kits. I know Tracy White must feel like he has to hold his tongue when he hears some of the stuff thrown around here.

I haven’t seen Dragon ever try to tap the knowledge base of forum members.  I haven’t heard them answer any of the criticisms made about their products either, for that matter. 

jpk

Well I suppose Edsel's had their supporters too. If anyone can say Trumpy's level of attention to quality of mold finish and mold detail is anywhere close to what Dragon has produced is really living in a state of denial

 

Wasn’t the Edsel a car that failed to live up to the hype?  That reminds me more of Dragon than Trumpeter.  The quality of the molding of Dragon’s KM 20mm guns was poor and overscale, resulting in a very poor rendition of the gun.  They had paid attention to the detail but not to what the final result would be.  If assembling all those tiny parts gave a better result than the much simpler one-piece molding from Trumpeter, then I would applaud it.  (Narvik class destroyers had 20mm guns, so I am not off-topic)

jpk

Look at the people that were involved in the Dragon research for their kits, several that not only post here but at ship specific sites with a deeper interest than this site. I have never heard of Trumpy even trying to tap the knowlege base that frequents these websites to make their kits. I know Tracy White must feel like he has to hold his tongue when he hears some of the stuff thrown around here.

I haven’t seen Dragon ever try to tap the knowledge base of forum members.  I haven’t heard them answer any of the criticisms made about their products either, for that matter. 

jpk

 Don't get me wrong, I woulf love it if Trumpy put out some great quality kits but unforunately many of their kits have some serious flaws.    

...by the way, Dragon should really work on their instructions, especially since they take their sweet time in releasing, so as not to rush "perfection"...I'm still trying to decode the instruction sheet from the last kit of theirs I built...

Well I suppose Edsel's had their supporters too. If anyone can say Trumpy's level of attention to quality of mold finish and mold detail is anywhere close to what Dragon has produced is really living in a state of denial. The one thing Dragon doen't seem to have is the finacial backing that Trumpy seems to have to release so many kits in so may scales in so many different genre's and unlike Trumpy in their rush to release kits, have so many problems. Don't get me wrong, I woulf love it if Trumpy put out some great quality kits but unforunately many of their kits have some serious flaws.    

I really dont want to start a Trumpy vs Dragon war here. All I'm saying is from my purchases, the Dragon kits are far and away better engineered, more accurate and better researched kits than the Trumpy kits. That's all and that's where my money goes when it matters.

jpk

Don't know. To be frank, I don't care.

You know,  I not only own a few Trumpy ship kits but also a few of their aircraft kits. I don't own any Dragon AC kits because they focus mainly on WWII German AC which I don't have an interest in. The trumpy kits almost universally have a major issue irregardless of scale. Their attention to just the basics leaves a lot to be desired.  Bluntly, they just don't do the research. They don't seem to send people out to measure and photograph actual items. They copy other's molds. For me, if Trumpy wants to compete on a level playing field they really need to upgrade their research and their mold cutting and finish work. Both of which are really not anywhere near as well executed as Dragon. In fact, I would say Tamiya and Hasegawa have to catch up to Dragon as well although not as much as Trumpy.

Don't know. To be frank, I don't care. If I had a choice, sight unseen, review unread, between a comparable Trumpy ship and a Dragon ship, based on my previous purchases, I would take the Dragon kit, ahhhh, everytime. I have no interest in a German DD. I'm basing my opinion on previous purchases of Trumpy vs Dragon kits. Now, if there's not a Dragon kit of a specific ship and there's a Trumpy ship I would probably get the Trumpy kit. I'm just saying, if there was a choice ,of a same ship class, Dragon wins.    

jpk

Another quick observation. I would pay more gladly for a kit that is accurate than a kit that suffers from poor research. Look at the people that were involved in the Dragon research for their kits, several that not only post here but at ship specific sites with a deeper interest than this site. I have never heard of Trumpy even trying to tap the knowlege base that frequents these websites to make their kits. I know Tracy White must feel like he has to hold his tongue when he hears some of the stuff thrown around here. Just for comparison, the Trumpy Sullivans vs the Dragon Gearing. Is there any comparison? I'm using some Trumpy parts to use on my Tamiya Fletcher to make a late war square bridge. What does that say about their Fletcher vs the Tamiya kit. Actually I'll be blunt, Trumpy's ships can't hold a candle to the Dragon kits.

Another quick observation. I would pay more gladly for a kit that is accurate than a kit that suffers from poor research. Look at the people that were involved in the Dragon research for their kits, several that not only post here but at ship specific sites with a deeper interest than this site. I have never heard of Trumpy even trying to tap the knowlege base that frequents these websites to make their kits. I know Tracy White must feel like he has to hold his tongue when he hears some of the stuff thrown around here. Just for comparison, the Trumpy Sullivans vs the Dragon Gearing. Is there any comparison? I'm using some Trumpy parts to use on my Tamiya Fletcher to make a late war square bridge. What does that say about their Fletcher vs the Tamiya kit. Actually I'll be blunt, Trumpy's ships can't hold a candle to the Dragon kits.

jpk

Just an aside, I own a few Dragon DD's and a couple Trumpeter kits, a DD and DE and I will take a Dragon kit over a trumpy kit any time, any where. Not that Trumpy kits are bad but Dragon's kits are the state. The quality shows in the precision of the molds, the attention to detail, the obvious want to try to get things right. Trumpy......not so much. Just get it out and as long as it's close so what. Ignore the comments. I suppose it's the difference between a team that wants to produce a quality product and one that just wants to get by.

Just an aside, I own a few Dragon DD's and a couple Trumpeter kits, a DD and DE and I will take a Dragon kit over a trumpy kit any time, any where. Not that Trumpy kits are bad but Dragon's kits are the state. The quality shows in the precision of the molds, the attention to detail, the obvious want to try to get things right. Trumpy......not so much. Just get it out and as long as it's close so what. Ignore the comments. I suppose it's the difference between a team that wants to produce a quality product and one that just wants to get by.

Wow--what is the Trump kit going for there?

Dragon's Z39 is now listed by one UK retailer for £52.50 - that's just over 85USD to you Colonials!

At that price they can keep it.

I'm not going to defend Trumpeter for putting the join in the wrong place, fortunately they did the hull in one piece for the destroyer kit.  The Dragon kit looks as if it is split accurately at the bottom of the boot topping.  I have read somewhere that this is where Dragon prefers to split their hulls, a very good choice imho.  I prefer full hull most of all, but for waterline I would choose the look of a ship riding high which would be very difficult to do with some kits. 

But to really compare them we would need to see a build up of the Dragon kit.   Their other KM kit had issues with the small calibre guns, hopefully these have been fixed on this kit?

cerberusjf

The problem is I don't really see the join matching either the upper or lower edge of the boot topping.  The boot topping should be 2m thick according to Olaf  (5.7mm in 1/350).   I still don't have a clear idea where the boot topping should actually be in her last configuration.

I would be annoyed if they didn't break it at the "correct' point on the hull; Trumpeter did this (I.E. wrong) with their initial 1/350th Arizona release. If you're going to market it as a waterline kit, it should be able to be "waterline" without extra work (in deference to ModelWarships' Tim, I'll add "regardless if it's Scharnhorst or a zerstorer" so we're on topic )

Trumpeter Z25 - Nice completed build here -

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=64867

Initial build notes here -

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=64051&pid=706700&st=0&#entry706700

other than a few attempts to lighten the "mood",, this thread seems to me , to be still on topic.. IMHO...

Isn't this thread supposed to be a comparison of the DD's? How about at least trying to stay on topic?

Tracy White

 If someone put a boot-topping line edge at the joint it would be hard to make out sans putty until close in, I think.

The problem is I don't really see the join matching either the upper or lower edge of the boot topping.  The boot topping should be 2m thick according to Olaf  (5.7mm in 1/350).   I still don't have a clear idea where the boot topping should actually be in her last configuration. 

I understand that fitting a deck and hull halves will always require filling and would look better than trying to hide it with the boot topping (it would still show) .   I have to say I was a bit shocked by the amount of filler Tracy had to use even allowing for the upper hull problem.  Perhaps my expectations were too high after the rave reviews and (sorry to mention it again) rather high price tag in the U.K.   Fot the asking price here I would expect it to be better, but I am learning that the price here puts it in a different bracket to the US.

The length issue must be a tricky one for Dragon, what are they going to do with Gneisenau?  Make it a bit short to match Scharnohorst or make it the correct length and make it relatively larger than Scharnhorst?

Gentlemen,

My Scharnhorst had no fit problems with either the deck or the hull.  If it did, I would have dealt with it as any modeler would . . . by correcting it by whatever means necessary.

Bill Morrison

My Scharnhorst's fit wasn't perfect but it was as good as I've seen. If someone put a boot-topping line edge at the joint it would be hard to make out sans putty until close in, I think.

Tracy White

Not you; ... the subtlety was lost in text.

After Tim’s warning, the subtleties of your message were lost on me, especially when it started with “Caution”.    I still have an open mind about the fit of the upper and lower hull because I haven’t seen any images of how well they fit unaltered or read any comments about it.   When I do, then I’ll know for sure.  I do take your point about the alterations you did to the upper hull.