Trumpy P_51B

[Hacker]

The curved floor in fact is still there in the Merlin engined mustangs. They are a throw back from the Allison engined days. The so called curved floor is actually the top of the wing that runs through the cockpit. When they redesigned the mustang for the Merlin there were some changes to the fuselage the required the floor to be raised l think an inch so to compensate North American put in plywood floors and that where the flat floor came in. If Hobbycraft puts in a flat floor in their Allison engined Mustangs l will be upset as there was no flat floor only the curved one

 

If l am not mistaken was there not someone making laser cut flooring for the Dragon kit? Would it not also work with the Trumpeter kit? As for the rest there is not much you can do other then complain enough trumpeter hears you like they did with other mistakes they made or wait for after market parts to come along to solve the problem. Most of you guys buy this stuff anyways to enhance a kit so why complain??

 

My two cents worth ( there will probably be a contract put out on me now lol)

[tourist]

Matt,

even though English is my 3rd language, I don't think the quotes you put in your last post constitute an insult to anyone, telling someone did a poor or sloppy job when you have a list to demonstrate it doesn't fit the bill.

An insult is something altogether different.

 

My conclusion about their sloppiness is simply based on what I see and on logic ( they proved they're able do a great job + not the case here + it's not technical but wrong choices = sloppy ), you have a different opinion, cool.

We could continue trying to guess at Trumpeter's motivations but the real issue here is that the kit is flawed and falls way short of their best efforts.

I don't see you or anyone else arguing the inaccuracies I listed and that's what's it's all about.

I have praised Trumpeter in the past when their work deserved it, but when it's not the case I think people should have the right to know about shortcomings before they commit to buy, and quite frankly a lot of reviewers fall short of doing that.

 

Could we change things by letting Trumpeter know we expect a better job?

Honestly I don't know, but it's happened before (think Wildcat).

Here's what I know; if no one says anything then it's a certainty; nothing changes.

 

 

Hacker,

you're right, the curved wing surface is still below the plywood, the problem is that if you try to add a new floor on top of the existing one (as in reality) nothing will fit in the cockpit.

Oh, and I called off the hitman, I like it when people have different opinions.

[KOTR]

Doesn't it get a bit boring having the same discussion over and over again?

 

If anyone's asking for me, I'm on my hobby desk, building a model plane...

[Hacker]

Doesn't it get a bit boring having the same discussion over and over again?

 

If anyone's asking for me, I'm on my hobby desk, building a model plane...

 

You too?? See someone is build and not complaining but you are right KOTR we seem to be going on about the same old subject about Mustangs over and over again. Why its enough to drive a man to drink.......hey wait l am drinking a beer as we speak lol there you go prove is in the pudding

 

 

later l have to finish this beer now

[KOTR]

Cheers, mate!

[Texas]

HI I believe I will just keep the old $$ in my pocket for awhile. I hauled off and bought the Dragon P-51D sight unseen and was disappointed with what I got for my money. So now I am in the wait and see mode. Yes if they want to sell one to me then there going to have to show me it's worth the $$ they expect me to shell out for it.

 

Texas

[Ridge Runner]

I think Christian has initiated an intelligent and interesting discussion here; the kits we all enjoy are engineered products, created by engineers. I find that most engineers are rather passionate about accuracy and seldom sloppy; the problem is that most of them have to work in environments run by accountants. The most beautiful kits I have seen in our scale have come from the masters Paul Fisher and Radu, who pursue accuracy in every facet, and what a joy these kits are! Then we have the poor chaps working for the big companies, they have to focus on arriving at the best compromise between accuracy and allocated budget, each extra kit component part adding $£’s to the production costs. Sometimes they have funding to travel to do research, sometimes they do not! Occasionally they have generous funding for the tooling, often they do not.

 

I have experienced the phenomena at first hand when supporting the research work of major manufacturers, during which times I have felt the frustration of the engineer who due to the various pressures cannot realise the full potential of the subject. On occasions the test shots they have passed to me are less accurate than the pattern we had all felt so excited about.

 

Trumpeter should get the P51 right, it is a very important aircraft about which considerable information is readily available, the tools for the kit will generate income for them over several decades; they have shown significant talent with the P47 and indeed other kits, with the Mustang and future kits they should strive to maintain that standard. As for us, the LSP modellers, we should care about this and discus it openly on the forum, if accuracy does not matter to us, then what is most of the chat on these pages really about? After all, the old Revell P51 kit is on sale today and at a much lower price than Trumpeters. However, the new kit is trading on our collective desire for greater accuracy. Perhaps we should also remember that not every modeller has the skills to make the corrections required for accuracy and need something which falls out of the box into a shake and bake model, nor should the members of this forum be made to feel that they have no voice with the manufacturers, every customers opinion matters to the marketing men at the manufacturers, some of them really do read this and other such sites……… Mmmm, come to think of it Trumpeter, please make us a host of Spitfires…!

[Juggernut]

My biggest complaint about Trumpeter in general is that they seem to run hot and cold with respect to accuracy. In general, their Mig's are really good, as are the TBM, SBD and the Me262(s). Yet the P-47D bubbletop, P-38 Lightning, F4U-1 and -4, F6F-5N and others suffer from shape and accuracy issues (some minor and some major, the P-47D bubbletop windscreen error and the incorrect panel lines on the lightning along with some iffy landing gear struts...and lets not forget the hunchback of Trumpeter, the F6F-5N...). Personally, I hold my money until I get a reasonably sound review of the kit and only then will I take the plunge. To my way of thinking, it seems almost ciminal to charge upwards of $100 U.S. for a kit that suffers from gross inaccuracies. Budget or not, some of these issues are mistakes that can and should be avoided. The main reason I offer for this might be that the schedule of releases may be too enthusiastic for the model makers in the company. Consequently, they cut corners and omit details to get the kit tooled and into production. This wouldn't be the fault of the accounting people, it's the project managers and the senior management that have set the deadlines and put the marketing folks into gear. They're the ones who have to answer to the board (or whatever the equivalent would be in China...maybe even the party itself) and explain why their projects are not on time and/or are over budget.

 

Tamiya puts huge efforts into creating the best kit for the money they charge. Their A6M series are about the best quality kits that can be had in this day and age. Their older jets suffer from some poor research and faulty assumptions but they're generally pretty good and can be made into very acceptable models with very little effort (with the exception of the F-15C which will take a little more than a small amount of effort to correct). In the end, the kit's they release are as close to accurate as they can possibly make them given the information available to them. Oversights and errors do happen (the rear panel line error on the F-16CJ for one and the wrong dihedral on the F-4's outer wings) but they're relatively minor. Tamiya charges the big dollars for their kits but you're rarely disappointed with what comes in the box (save a few who'll never be happy with anything). I buy Tamiya kits I like w/out reservation because I know the quality of the engineering, tooling and research is about the best that can be had in the industry.

 

Academy puts out some very good 1/35 scale helicopters and equally good 1/32 F-18's. Hasegawa puts out very accurate kits at reasonable prices but on occasion does make small errors in research and development. These too are easily fixed.

 

Not all companies have the resources that Tamiya does. They are the preeminant model maker in the world today. That is not the only product they produce so their profits come from a diverse range of products for different types of hobbyists. It's called diversity. Hasegawa is a distant #2 (IIRC) and I think Dragon is at #3.(I'm not sure on Dragon).

 

I don't know what I'm really trying to say here other than expressing my opinion on the Trumpeter issue. I do like the P-51 and the Me262B1a/U1 even more. (Gordon is out of the 262's at the moment). I took a look at the sprues for the Mustang on the Cybermodler website and I can't tell if the floor is curved or not. To me, it looks flat but I've not seen any pictures with an oblique view, just straight up and down shots. I can't comment on the accuracy of the cockpit w/out brushing up on the details in my books. In the end, it seems like a P-51B and the prop doesn't seem bad at all. It's light years ahead of the Dragon Mustang. I think I'll pick one up after someone does a nice objective review of the kit with both pros and cons equitably portrayed.

 

FWIW

 

Tim

[ironwolf80]

I am a big supprter of Trumpeter and I do not get too agrivated on inaccuracy like too long, too short ect. BUT when they make parts from thin air and make them up, like the P-47 wind screen that goes too far. Note to any model company... if you do not know what it generaly looks like DON'T make it up! Look it up!

[stevegallacci]

I wonder if the Chinese have a problem in their basic management style that is getting in the way? From what I understand, it tends to be very top down and process oriented. Useful feedback is discouraged and constructive criticism is right out (seen as insubordination at minimum, and serious face-losing attack at worst). That even the kit instructions are not proof read, for example, hints at a situation in which the quality of the product is secondary to maintaining face within the organization. And in the case of proof reading, they could also be simply cheap and or don't really care about that level of product detail.

Basic kit accuracy issues likely stem from limited source material/limited research, and by extension, resorting to simply guessing/faking it when gaps in the data crop up.

I can imagine an engineer trying to lay out a kit and running up on a glitch in the data and is then stuck trying to work around it as it is likely he can't go back and request more data or challenge the quality of the data already presented.

I also suspect they are not all that ready to accept outside comment or criticism. They may very politely listen to suggestions, even encourageing words from outsiders but in the end, will do what they have already decided upon regardless.

The Wildcat rework was likely more to do with practical bottom line sales potential than any real concern for accuracy for its own sake.

 

Per the P-51B, I'll bet if you look around hard enough you'll find some slipshod source material that they likely picked up, along with looking at other kits (replicating the persistantly funky wheel wells) rather than the original subject to engineer the thing.

And regarding the wheel wells, there is no good reason for any manufacturer to pooch those nowadays. Look at the elaborate wells on any rescent kit of the Me262. I'd bet that, once any one does the Mustang's wells correctly, all subsequent tools will get that right as well.

[zerosystem]

actually steve i don't think its just a chineese thing...the company i work for seems to be the same way. case in point i'm at the bottom of the totem pole where i work but i see where most of the errors can be fixed because of that, try and point those up to higher and higher ups but it just gets dismissed, even if i mention how i can save money in the short and long run...

seems to be just a big cooperation type of mentality...which is sad.

i'm sure you're right though that there are the materials lying around their research dept that have either just been edited out or just came in too late for when the dyes were cast....

[CharlesMetz]

Note to any model company... if you do not know what it generaly looks like DON'T make it up! Look it up!

My thoughts exactly. Moreover, this rule of thumb is so clear-cut, easy to follow and — frankly — downright obvious that I'm amazed it isn't followed more widely.

 

Charles Metz

[stevegallacci]

My thought about the Chinese situation is that those actually tasked with the job are relatively isolated and likely have no outside information or interest in the subject. And in an authoritarian environment, you do what you are told to do with the data given, and, of course the data Must be good, because the authorities said so.

And as it is likely that the key decisions as to subject choice and material to use were made well up the chain of command, there would not be the opportunity for back and forth between the engineers and toolers and the senior managers and researchers.

[toadwbg]

i'm sure you're right though that there are the materials lying around their research dept that have either just been edited out or just came in too late for when the dyes were cast....

 

Dies not cast- most likely CNC machined.

[bdthoresen]

Why are everyone's panties in a twist? It might be plagued with problems, but it is a new kit in our chosen scale- and it will be light years ahead of the previous option.

 

Fix it or do not buy it. Simple!

 

Being a mechanic on aircraft- I can honestly tell you that it is physically impossible for anyone to add every detail to an aircraft model- you cannot do it- period. (Unless you are Radu, of course) Major errors aside, I think it is good that a company atleast takes the risk in trying to market new kits. I will concede that some errors are just plain ludicrous!

 

Bottom line- If you get this stressed about a PLASTIC MODEL AIRPLANE'S innacuracies, might be time to get a new hobby. Not worth the rise in blood pressure.

 

Now- everyone grab a brew, and get building!

 

THOR