Trumpeter 1/32 P-40F Soon to be Released??

Kagemusha · November 27, 2018

10 hours ago, PhilB said:

I agree.

To me it looks like it's scared !

Looks drunk to me! :beer4:

Plasto · November 27, 2018

1 hour ago, VMA131Marine said:

I don't ask for perfection. I just don't want to pay Tamiya money for Starfix level accuracy.

Pricing surely is down to the local distributor and the margins they and the retailer set. But we know that as it’s well discussed all across model forum land for a variety of manufacturers.

Tamiya is expensive here Trumpeter expensive there. Airfix costly north Eduard costly south ad infinitum...

So do a possible tactic would be to complain to the distributor for a given market that the kits ‘accuracy’ is not worth the price being set. If it was cheap would the accuracy level be more acceptable??

LSP_K2 · November 27, 2018

9 hours ago, ade rowlands said:

Their inconsistency is what is baffling. They have a real penchant for getting canopies wrong from what I read. Some kits are great, some are not so great, some are best just left alone. Me, I quite like their 1/24 Hurricanes and 109’s and have the A6M2 on the way and if that’s good I’ll get the Rufe too.

The 1:24 Rufe is fine as far as I am concerned, though not without some minor problems. Now that I think about it, my buddy has what I believe is a pristine copy of the kit, so while the A6M2 has been reviewed, but the Rufe has not been, I may just borrow his kit for a review here.

Plasto · November 27, 2018

Yes Jennings you are 100% correct in everything you say. I am completely wrong.

MikeMaben · November 28, 2018

2 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said:

I've read every single post in this thread, and I don't see anyone "hating" anyone. You really need to look up the definition of "hate", because it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

That's funny , I read it as a facetious comment. :shrug:

MikeMaben · November 28, 2018

6 hours ago, Plasto said:

I have no doubt the ire of modellers worldwide is earned. We’re a demanding bunch and expect perfection in everything released.

We're definitely not most modellers.

6 hours ago, Plasto said:

They have some really good kits a lot of average kits and some not so good kits. Where they differ is they release a lot of kits.

One thing is for sure. Forum posts generally don’t influence Trumpeter.

As long as people keep buying them , they'll keep making them.

But you're right , it seems to be a quantity over quality approach.

:shrug:

1to1scale · November 28, 2018

10 hours ago, KUROK said:

I am a true P-40 afficiando.

I can see from the photos of the sprues that this this Trumpeter kit is rubbish. What a disappointment!

It appears the canopy is elliptical in cross section but the real plane has flat sides. WTF?

The top of the real "F" nose is very nearly straight with only a slight curvature. I can see they got this wrong.

As a picky P-40 guy, I will continue to hoard the wonderful Hasegawa kits and if I want an "F" I'll use the Grey Matter resin upgrade.

Trumpeter can kick rocks....

I am also a P-40 lover, but they are not collecting dust in my stash, i am making sanding dust with seven of them right now.

Seriously, how can you say the Grey Matter conversion is better than the Trumpeter? I havebuilt a GM and P-40M, guess what, it has it’s own problems. The GM nose is twisted, as in the left is not symmetrical to the right, the plug is narrower than the fuselage, so you have to cut, glue, and sand the fuselage, nose, and windshield. The GM nose is also undersize around the spinner, I had to chuck it up in a drill and sand away. The carb intake is incorrectly placed in the opening. The rear supercharger duct is so wrong in shape, that you cant sand it it correct, it would be easier to build a new one. My resin nose has surface casting flaws all over it, the lower cowl was shaped differently than the upper, so joining them required filler. It’s also my belief that the GM nose is not perfect in shape either, it looks too “chin” heavy, sort of like the Jay Leno of airplanes. At the time, it was the only way of getting an F/L, however, now we have a second option.

You are basing assumption on photos of sprues, please wait until you see one in person. We can all make observations, but you can’t judge until you have one on the bench.

Second, before you dismiss the Trumpy, have you built a Hasegawa? I will easily call the P-40 as a “B” team kit, the tail plus just plain fits like crap, there profile differences between the fuselage and plug, and there are many fictitious panel lines that need filling all over the model. The wings don’t join well at the front, as well as a few more things. I still remember how well my P-40B fit and went together, so much better than the Hasegawa, the few inaccuracies if present in the production kit can be corrected.

Edited November 28, 2018 by 1to1scale

Bill M. · November 28, 2018

Sorry “1to1scale”, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of the GM F/L conversion. Right now, it’s the most accurate 1/32 P-40F/L available. I was in communication with Derek Bradshaw when he designed the kit and provided much of the research material. As to the rear supercharger duct being so out of shape, I know Derek had several photos and plans of an original P-40F when he designed this area. I don’t feel it is wrong at all.

I agree with you that we should see what actually turns up in the Trumpeter box before passing judgment, but photos of the sprues give us reason to be initially skeptical. My greatest concern comes from the fuselage side view, particularly in front of the cockpit. While the F’s and L’s seem similar to the Allison-powered P-40’s at first glance, they are in fact very different in almost every dimension. For instance, if you look at the contour of the top of the nose on theTrumpeter kit, it would seem that they just removed the carburetor intake and left the curve in place— when in fact it is very different. Compare this to photos of a real P-40F and then look at Tom Cleavers review of the GM conversion set in a 325th FG P-40L. Link here—

https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/cleaver/us/tmc40l.htm

Look at the side view compared to a real P-40F/L and you will see that Derek Bradshaw got it right for the most part. You can also see why many of us are concerned about the Trumpeter kit.

I don’t know about the flaws and build issues you had with the GM conversion. Of course some filling and fitting is necessary with such a conversion. I didn’t notice the other flaws you mentioned on my two sets, but mine were from the first ones cast.

So in the end, I’ll reserve final judgment on the Trumpeter kit until it actually comes onto the market. I hope they get it right in the end. But I am not optimistic having seen the pre-production photos.

Bill M.

1to1scale · November 28, 2018

Bill, I stand by my assessment, perhaps some of the issues are due to the age of the molds, but the shape issues are still there, the duct almost looks upside down, I have several books and some good photos. It also does not excuse the undersize area at the back and front. As far as the shape, l am looking at ww2 photos, not restored warbirds, I think the top looks good, but the chin does not look perfect. There is definately a lopsided to the whole nose. But that being said, completed, installed on the model, it looks OK. I am happy with the finished product, but would not do it again as I suspect their molds are only getting older. It was a hard fought battle with Hasegawa and Grey Matter, but I eventually beat them into submission.

Also, What I am saying, is that without the lower wing installed, you can’t poosibly judge the shape of the Trumpeter F.