Dave Williams Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Unless someone who works for Trumpeter comes here and explains their process for each kit, we’ll never know why they do this or don’t do that. It’s all just speculation, and ultimately has little to no effect on the kits that we end up getting. They will make the kits they want to make using whatever process they choose, and in the end people will buy their kit or they won’t. Asking how or why they got something wrong after the kit is already out seems of little value as nothing changes, including the frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Colvin Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Great stuff..........so where do you cut it for the fix? Andrea Ferrari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark P Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 First, we have to determine if Trumpeter "screwed the pooch" on the 24th scale kit. Until we do, by cross referencing to plans (or the 24th scale Airfix kit which has not rcvd critique, though it too could be faulty), we have no idea where, or if, a cut is needed... Mark Proulx nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrea Ferrari Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 16 minutes ago, Rob Colvin said: Great stuff..........so where do you cut it for the fix? That was the basic reason why I started this thread, as I'm going to start the tank-busting G-2 soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrea Ferrari Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Mark P said: First, we have to determine if Trumpeter "screwed the pooch" on the 24th scale kit. Until we do, by cross referencing to plans (or the 24th scale Airfix kit which has not rcvd critique, though it too could be faulty), we have no idea where, or if, a cut is needed... Mark Proulx If I am not mistaken the Airfix kit has always been hailed as one of their best old 1:24 kits, together with the Hurricane (the Bf109, the P51D and the Spitfire have always been found lacking in several respects), plus it looks spot on when compared to plans and profiles...and it's 46cm long. The Trumpeter kit is a whopping 55cm long (about 3,5 inches more than the Airfix one). As I have already written, it compares well in all other areas with the Airfix kit when put side by side (you'll have to take my word for it until somebody else in this forum can make a direct comparison between the two kits), so there must be something wrong with it regarding length, and the only area where the two greatly differ is the rear fuselage, ie between the rear edge of the wing and the rudder area. I may be 61 years old but I'm not too dumb yet, and I've been building hundreds of kits throughout all my life, so you can trust me on this! If you don't believe me, then please can someone kindly explain to me where that difference in total length comes from, and how it can be justified? Love to all D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markjames1968 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Cheetah11 said: Well if the model is 22 inches long and most published references agree it should be 18.9 inches long, how much proof do you need? And per chance all other models in other scales all scale out within millimeters of the published dimensions except the one in question. Because some people misunderstand things or mis measure things and its quite the best approach to take everyones opinion with a pinch of salt until i can see visual proof for myself, im aware of what a stuka should measure lengthwise, both a b model and d/g model etc but there have already been misunderstanding here with nose length which isnt in question, in my earlier post on this thread i made a feature of saying im happy to beshown ive missed something and that the op may well be correct but want to see vidual,proof, not someonene throwing dimensions around who initially thought thekit was scaled wrong and didnt suffer a dimensional error... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark P Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Well, by looking at the side view photo and making a judgment solely on that (that is all I have at the moment), the Trumpeter kit does look to be "off". In my opinion, the stretch of the rear fuselage in error (again, based on visual sighting only and not measurement). However, I would like to compare it to plans for 100% confirmation. The "looks wrong" critique doesn't conclude the issue for me. There is too much of that on the 'net. So, at this time I am leaning towards agreeing with Andrea, but not 100% certain...yet... I wonder how the Trumpeter 32nd scale Stukas match up to Revell and Hasegawa? Mark Proulx nmayhew and Andrea Ferrari 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah11 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Markjames1968 said: Because some people misunderstand things or mis measure things and its quite the best approach to take everyones opinion with a pinch of salt until i can see visual proof for myself, im aware of what a stuka should measure lengthwise, both a b model and d/g model etc but there have already been misunderstanding here with nose length which isnt in question, in my earlier post on this thread i made a feature of saying im happy to beshown ive missed something and that the op may well be correct but want to see vidual,proof, not someonene throwing dimensions around who initially thought thekit was scaled wrong and didnt suffer a dimensional error... Well Mark if you call quoting commonly used modeling references such as SS 'throwing dimensions around', then I suggest the only reference you will not take with a pinch of salt is the real aircraft. You said you have access to both the Airfix and Trumpeter kits, so to solve the dilemma measure both and then ask someone close to Hendon to measure the same points on the real aircraft. In the mean time I agree with Anrdea's observation and if I were to build the kit I will cut it in front of the kink on the rear fuselage. Nick Andrea Ferrari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark P Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Actually, I never said I had access to both kits, because I don't. Otherwise I would do so... But I am eagerly waiting for someone to do so! Mark Proulx nmayhew and LSP_K2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah11 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Sorry for the confusion Mark P, the answer was for Markjames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark P Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Ok. I assumed it meant for me as you posted immediately after me.. Too many Marks I guess Mark Proulx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Howie Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 For years the Monogram F-105, was hailed as a great kit..well until the blowtorch got turned on HobbyBoss and in the comparisons the Monogram kit was found to be off in many places. NONE of the kits mentioned have had the blowtorch turned on them like EVERY Trumpeter kit is. Old kits have not endured any of the scrutiny of new ones its all word of mouth spread by the that looks like a 190 to me for years and years. Nice kits for the time but nobody has looked at them and they have been found wanting in many cases. Dont assume an old kit is correct it probably isnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrea Ferrari Posted February 5, 2019 Author Share Posted February 5, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Darren Howie said: For years the Monogram F-105, was hailed as a great kit..well until the blowtorch got turned on HobbyBoss and in the comparisons the Monogram kit was found to be off in many places. NONE of the kits mentioned have had the blowtorch turned on them like EVERY Trumpeter kit is. Old kits have not endured any of the scrutiny of new ones its all word of mouth spread by the that looks like a 190 to me for years and years. Nice kits for the time but nobody has looked at them and they have been found wanting in many cases. Dont assume an old kit is correct it probably isnt... The Ju87 information and profile sources in my library (I do not have direct access to the few real surviving airplanes in museums) include Shigeru Nohara's Ju87 D/G AERO DETAIL, Eddie Creek's Junkers Ju87 From Dive Bomber to Tank Buster 1935-1945 (Classic Publications), Haynes Owner's Workshop Manual Junkers Ju87 Stuka, Nick Beale's Ghost Bombers, the Squadron Signal booklet plus a handful of unit histories, not to mention several Japanes books on camouflage etc. All seem to indicate (to me at least) that the old Airfix kit is reasonably correct (I admit not being a rivet counter however, and not one to worry too much in very slight discrepancies)...If these sources are not considered reliable, what else can one do besides walking around, above and under a surviving WWII warplane measuring every inch of it? Edited February 5, 2019 by Andrea Ferrari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Colvin Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Quick question.....does the 1/24th Ju 87 A have this issue? It would seem the same fuselage would be used in both kits (maybe not)? I have not heard this issue raised in regard to the Anton. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Williams Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 39 minutes ago, Rob Colvin said: Quick question.....does the 1/24th Ju 87 A have this issue? It would seem the same fuselage would be used in both kits (maybe not)? I have not heard this issue raised in regard to the Anton. Rob Different fuselages in the D and A kits, because the canopy is quite different between the two. Since the 1/24 kit should be a simple scaleup of the 1/32 kit, I wonder how the fuselage of the 1/32 D and G kits compare with the 1/32 Hasegawa kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now