I have built a few of the Trumpeter kits in 1/48 scale. I admire the company to put out subjects that are often ignored by other companies (Mig 19, Su-9/11, Mig 21 F). However the research leaves lots to be desired. Although they are built into nice looking subjects, comparision of the kits and 3 views just don’t jive. A perfect example is the nose of the Mig 19 PM which is way way off to the point of being fictional. Mig 21F is the same. 3 views and actual kits don’t jive and there was a brutal complain on this kit accuracy on an IPMS site (British I believe). I do love the Trumpeter kits but I do hope they do better on their research and execution. Dai
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!
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
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…
I ain’t no rivet counter but with TODAY’S standard, I expect a bit more from Trumpeter. Eduard got reamed for having the Mig-21BIS nose a tiny bit ( I mean just a hair BIT) off and we know we can get pretty picky (a bit too picky) sometimes. But really, Trumpeter needs to step up because some of the errors are just way evident. I think with today technology companies should make convincing kits. I look at the Mig 21F canopy outline and it is pretty much off from the 3 views. Dai
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.
No offense meant to anyone. Pawel I dont mean to that extreme. But you always hear of the ones that go overboard with the nitpicking of a kit. I do believe that Trumpeter has failed on some but not all. But think about what we were building in the 70’s and 80’s the details weren’t even close.
Hi all, Thank you for all the thoughtful replies. Nobody expects everything to be perfect (it simply can’t be) but the kits should not have glaring errors with today’s technology. An example is the Mig 19 PM nose which so off scale that the only way is to get correction part which adds another 20 USD. I think after market kits/parts are to enhance not to correct. I am no rivet counter but I do expect more from Trumpeter. Their kits built into beautiful model but when you compare with 3 views, you will see what I mean. A perfect example is the KP/OEZ/Revell/Eduard/ESCI Su-7 in 1/48. The builds seen on the Net incredible but when compared to 3 views, I am sure you would not want to start a build. Dai
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
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.
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”.
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?
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.
