1/32 Douglas TBD-1 Devastator by Trumpeter - TBD-1A in October 2023!

[Dave Williams]

Not sure how many different ways there would be to efficiently break down a model of a TBD, but would it really be a surprise to anyone if the Trumpeter kit is reminiscent of another kit?  Plus, aren’t there exactly zero surviving TBDs available to measure (not that Trumpeter ever seemed to do that anyway)?

[denders]

You're correct Dave, there are NO surviving examples of the TBD. The only information available would be factory drawings (I haven't gone looking) and photographs.

[Hans]

For me, I am glad it finally surfaced...

[Hans]

And not that expensive, just under 90Euros..

[dennismcc]

Got mine on order at Hannants, looking forward to building it.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[ChuckD]

A 7 part wing... That oughta be fun to join and sand.  Bring it on though.  There is a shortage of Devastators in the world these days.

[ivanmoe]

Paint guide for the prewar version is wrong. Tail surfaces should be lemon yellow, but wings should be orange-yellow, rather than what's depicted (or cited in the paint table).

[Dave Williams]

I wonder if that photo of the fuselage sprue is distorted.  The rear fuselage looks too short and too fat.

[CRAZY IVAN5]

25 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

I wonder if that photo of the fuselage sprue is distorted.  The rear fuselage looks too short and too fat.

Yeah, kind of doesn't look right by the photos but we better wait and see with the kit first , photos can and do distort things for a variety of reasons. I'm not too hot on the 7 piece wing, not with that corrugated surface, I can see issues with that.

[coogrfan]

Mildly surprised to see that Trumpeter didn't see fit to include Midway markings. 

[CRAZY IVAN5]

3 minutes ago, coogrfan said:

Mildly surprised to see that Trumpeter didn't see fit to include Midway markings. 

Considering their history[Trumpeter's] that doesn't surprise me at all, we should be able to source out the markings ourselves [though we shouldn't have had to] , oh well. 

[ivanmoe]

4 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

I wonder if that photo of the fuselage sprue is distorted.  The rear fuselage looks too short and too fat.

 

I superimposed an image of the fuselage from the Trumpeter kit (opacity set to 30%) over that from the GWH kit. Note that the camera that captured the Trumpy-pic didn't appear to be directly over the part:

 

 

Certainly doesn't look too bad in terms of proportions.

 

Credit a gentleman with the handle "Shar2" from BritModeller for the GWH pic.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by ivanmoe

[CRAZY IVAN5]

1 hour ago, ivanmoe said:

 

I superimposed an image of the fuselage from the Trumpeter kit (opacity set to 30%) over that from the GWH kit. Note that the camera that captured the Trumpy-pic didn't appear to be directly over the part:

 

 

Certainly doesn't look too bad in terms of proportions.

 

Credit a gentleman with the handle "Shar2" from BritModeller for the GWH pic.

 

 

Actually it really doesn't look that bad , depending on how accurate the GWH kit is , we'll have to see, the only thing we have to work with is some drawings. 

[Theo]

I think it looks good and I take one, one of my favourite planes

[DeanKB]

It's Trumpy, releasing a kit that's SO bad - even by their standards - that they've left it 2 decades before finally releasing the bloody thing.

 

This'll sadly be the kit the infamous Trumpy C & D development teams have cut their teeth on over the years, and even they haven't had the balls to call it done & release it.

 

€90?! I'll pass and smugly await the inevitable "the shapes all wrong" reviews. 

 

If the shapes not all wrong, and the reviews reveal a passable attempt, I'll buy one.

 

But I'm not holding my breath.