Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
General Aircraft
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
NEWS
Latest Trumpeter model kits.
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 12:00 AM UTC
Trumpeter, the Chinese producer, have published on their official website many photographs puting some light on their latest releases which are F-117A and A-4M in 1/32 scale and a Spiteful in 1/48 scale.
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Emeritus
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
AeroScale: 1,564 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:57 AM UTC
That Spiteful sure looks interesting. I've always liked its combination of aggressive and graceful lines.
Seems like the folks at Trumpeter followed AZ Model's curious example of including hypothetical Finnish markings. Nothing wrong with that, it's always nice to see FAF markings in a kit, but that still strikes me as somewhat implausible, considering the extremely limited post-war budgets imposed on the Air Force - for example, wartime Bf 109s were operated way up to the mid-fifties. But hey, isn't that the fun of what-if models anyway?
Seems like the folks at Trumpeter followed AZ Model's curious example of including hypothetical Finnish markings. Nothing wrong with that, it's always nice to see FAF markings in a kit, but that still strikes me as somewhat implausible, considering the extremely limited post-war budgets imposed on the Air Force - for example, wartime Bf 109s were operated way up to the mid-fifties. But hey, isn't that the fun of what-if models anyway?
Merlin
Senior Editor
#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 09:02 AM UTC
Hi there
At the risk of sounding like somebody else, I was really looking forward to the Spiteful, but something looks very odd about the undercarriage. It just doesn't match any of the reference shots I've got...
All the best
Gas..
Rowan 
At the risk of sounding like somebody else, I was really looking forward to the Spiteful, but something looks very odd about the undercarriage. It just doesn't match any of the reference shots I've got...
All the best
Gas..
Rowan 
Jessie_C
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 09:41 AM UTC
It's just Trumpeter doing their part to encourage the aftermarket parts industry. After all, Trumpeter do have a reputation to live down to.
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2012 - 08:50 PM UTC
Trumpeter were sent illustrations of the u/c oleos, taken from the A.P. in the National Archives, so should have got it right. I'll wait until I see the kit, before commenting, but the bottom part of the leg curved round the wheel; it was not completely straight, as with the Spitfire.
I note that they have corrected their original test shots, in which the fuselage had an incorrect "scooped-out" area behind the pilot's headrest.
Edgar
I note that they have corrected their original test shots, in which the fuselage had an incorrect "scooped-out" area behind the pilot's headrest.
Edgar
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Friday, March 09, 2012 - 08:17 AM UTC
Hi Edgar
Quite true, but the way Trumpeter seem to have tackled the legs looks so exaggerated, the end result looks quite bizarre - at least from what can be seen in Steffen's photos from the Nürnberg Toy Fair such as this one:
http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2012/Bilder_VH/slides/Trumperter_11.html
Hopefully it's partly down to a hastily constructed test shot, but the views of the sprues here don't look very encouraging...
All the best
Rowan
Quite true, but the way Trumpeter seem to have tackled the legs looks so exaggerated, the end result looks quite bizarre - at least from what can be seen in Steffen's photos from the Nürnberg Toy Fair such as this one:
http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/Ausstellungen/Nuernberg2012/Bilder_VH/slides/Trumperter_11.html
Hopefully it's partly down to a hastily constructed test shot, but the views of the sprues here don't look very encouraging...
All the best
Rowan
thegirl
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Posted: Friday, March 09, 2012 - 02:28 PM UTC
Okay , I blame you guy's for striking up that interest on the landing gear legs on the spit . Had no idea what the hell you were talking about ...hey it's not a biplane after all ! So I went online to have peek and you guy's seem to be right on how " funny " looking the under carriage is . What I find weird is how small the main landing wheels are ! .........
Terri
Terri
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 04:45 AM UTC
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 05:14 AM UTC
Hi Edgar
Sadly, that just doesn't look like the legs they've come up with, does it...
All the best
Rowan
Sadly, that just doesn't look like the legs they've come up with, does it...
All the best
Rowan
Jessie_C
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 06:54 AM UTC
It looks as though they got the wheels too fat, and then overcompensated on the curvature of the strut around the wheel. A piece of brass strip bent to shape and radically thinned down wheels should do the trick.
But of course by the time I did that, the aftermarket industry would have come up with brand new struts, wouldn't it?
But of course by the time I did that, the aftermarket industry would have come up with brand new struts, wouldn't it?
EdgarBrooks
Joined: June 03, 2006
KitMaker: 397 posts
AeroScale: 384 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 07:13 PM UTC
One big problem, which will be overlooked on the more virulent anti-China lobbies, is that the only sets of drawings, that I know of, show a completely wrong leg, as well. As so often, a company, with no access to the real thing, are let down by published information.
Edgar
Edgar
AussieReg
Associate Editor#007
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 07:48 PM UTC
I might be barking up the wrong tree here (as is often the case), but in the toy fair pics linked by Rowan the card actually labels the aircraft as a Seafang HERE , not a Spiteful. I was just wondering if that may be the cause of the differences in u/c ?
Personally, I'd never even heard of a SEAFANG .
Ok, I'm off to find the correct tree to be barking up !
Cheers, D
Personally, I'd never even heard of a SEAFANG .
Ok, I'm off to find the correct tree to be barking up !
Cheers, D
29Foxtrot
Joined: September 19, 2003
KitMaker: 708 posts
AeroScale: 674 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 11:30 PM UTC
I attended the 2012 Melbourne Toy and Hobby Fair and on the Australian Agents stand was a assembled test kit in 48 scale of the Trumpeter SEAFANG and in speaking to the {Australian Agents} National Sales Manager in relation to the SPITFULL his reply 'was it's comming soon'
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012 - 09:22 PM UTC
Hi Damian
Sorry - I should have made it clear that I was linking to Steffen's pic of the Seafang test-shot. Judging by the sprue shots in the News item, the two kits share the same parts for the undercarriage.
As far as I know, the Spiteful, Seafang and Attacker all used basically the same landing gear, but I'll obviously defer to Edgar on whether they were strictly 100% identical.
All the best
Rowan
Sorry - I should have made it clear that I was linking to Steffen's pic of the Seafang test-shot. Judging by the sprue shots in the News item, the two kits share the same parts for the undercarriage.
As far as I know, the Spiteful, Seafang and Attacker all used basically the same landing gear, but I'll obviously defer to Edgar on whether they were strictly 100% identical.
All the best
Rowan
vanize
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 01:43 AM UTC
While I agree that the wheels are a little too wide (but not grossly so), I think their biggest error in this landing strut "scoop out" is the fact that they have the main strut positioned over the in-board part of the wheel, while on the real deal, the strut is over the out-board side of the wheel (the model has the scoop covering 2/3rd or 3/4ths the wheel width, while it should really be more or less centered over the outer edge of the wheel).
here is the main gear for a supermarine attacker, which i *believe* had the same wing and landing gear (from a walk around on primeportal):
compaired to (from IPMS Deutschland):
Would it really be so hard to cut off the offending curving part of the landing gear, cut off some of it to reduce the 'scoopage', and pin and glue it back in place (after, of course, sanding some thickness off the wheel halves)? I suppose we'd have to eliminate the fictitious arms that hold the strut well fairings way out as well and straighten out those bent extenders, but that would also be trivial. I think that is something most of us can handle, providing the shape of the model holds up well otherwise...
here is the main gear for a supermarine attacker, which i *believe* had the same wing and landing gear (from a walk around on primeportal):
compaired to (from IPMS Deutschland):
Would it really be so hard to cut off the offending curving part of the landing gear, cut off some of it to reduce the 'scoopage', and pin and glue it back in place (after, of course, sanding some thickness off the wheel halves)? I suppose we'd have to eliminate the fictitious arms that hold the strut well fairings way out as well and straighten out those bent extenders, but that would also be trivial. I think that is something most of us can handle, providing the shape of the model holds up well otherwise...
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 02:08 AM UTC
I really like discussions about accuracy of the kits which are not released yet, very educative and amusing - all in one. 
vanize
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 02:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I really like discussions about accuracy of the kits which are not released yet, very educative and amusing - all in one.
perhaps it gives the manufacturer a chance to straighten things out too...
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 03:06 AM UTC
Come on Vance, don't tell me really believe that companies like Trumpeter or Hobby Boss reads forums like that and after "good advices" they got here will stop production lines to improve some parts in landing gear. Sorry, I don't buy that. However this is still an usefull information for anybody who will buy the kit and try to make a more-less correct replica.
vanize
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 04:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Come on Vance, don't tell me really believe that companies like Trumpeter or Hobby Boss reads forums like that and after "good advices" they got here will stop production lines to improve some parts in landing gear. Sorry, I don't buy that. However this is still an usefull information for anybody who will buy the kit and try to make a more-less correct replica.
not the production lines they have now, but eventual corrections have been seen from major manufactures in the past based off feedback from the consumers - e.g., the tamiya 1/48 Bf 109E and its cowling.
and generally no, for a single kit i doubt even that much, but the manufactures can learn the art of the quality assurance process (I happen to be a QA engineer myself) so they don't do such things in the future. The Chinese firms are hit and miss because they have not established a strong quality assurance tradition, but if we keep pointing out their mistakes, they might decide to change this.
Jessie_C
Joined: September 03, 2009
KitMaker: 6,965 posts
AeroScale: 6,247 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 09:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Come on Vance, don't tell me really believe that companies like Trumpeter or Hobby Boss reads forums like that and after "good advices" they got here will stop production lines to improve some parts in landing gear. Sorry, I don't buy that. However this is still an usefull information for anybody who will buy the kit and try to make a more-less correct replica.
Ttrupmeter has been known to correct kits based on the feedback from modellers who viewed test shots. The most well-known one was the 1/32 Wildcat, which had to have its fuselage retooled. I don't know what it cost them, but fix it they did.
Who knows, maybe the horse will sing?
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 09:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Who knows, maybe the horse will sing?
Maybe he already did?
russamotto
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
AeroScale: 375 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 - 01:17 PM UTC
I like the Skyhawk, but the price is going to be out of my range. I had a snap tite kit of a Skyhawk when I was 6 or 7. Always wanted to do one again.
vanize
Joined: January 30, 2006
KitMaker: 1,954 posts
AeroScale: 1,163 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 04:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Come on Vance, don't tell me really believe that companies like Trumpeter or Hobby Boss reads forums like that and after "good advices" they got here will stop production lines to improve some parts in landing gear. Sorry, I don't buy that. However this is still an usefull information for anybody who will buy the kit and try to make a more-less correct replica.
case in point:
https://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/news/11119
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - 07:43 AM UTC
Yes, I'm really impressed by the GWH attitude.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.