So we've got a fair share of various model companies out there.

[David Hingtgen]

Trumpeter doesn't make an Enterprise. But they do have the Nimitz. I'd be impressed if Tamiya could make the case that it's such a close copy that it infringes upon their rights, while simultaneously being a completely different ship.

[Maxtype]

That's what I meant about their accuracy---the quality of the actual plastic/moldings is undisputably good, but the raw shape of the parts and how they go together...

And everybody has a Trumpeter kit that looks amazingly like another kit they own, just in a different scale or something. Still, they are filling a niche in a lot of things.

"Hey, there's a great Hasegawa kit of the whatever in 1/48, and we've been waiting 10 years for a 1/72". Well, Trumpeter will basically copy that 1/48 kit in 1/72 like everyone wanted Hase themselves to do, change the raised panel lines to recessed, and sell a zillion. Any errors will be copied as well. But people want it, and Hase never made the 1/72 version of their own kit, so Trumpeter is happy to do it and make the money.

IMHO, Trumpeter's shape accuracies are easy to explain:

They will find the best 3-view drawing and treat is as gospel. And no drawing is perfect. And 3-views don't translate into 3D well. Trumpeter's P-51 is a great example. The pure side silhouette matches drawings very well. But all the curves and things you see at various angles--that's where it's really messed up. Also looks good from directly above. But I mean--a square sheet of paper and a cube and a skyscraper all look identical from directly above---just because it's right from one angle doesn't mean you got the 3D shape anywhere close.

Basically---they're trying to make models of things that they don't REALLY know what they look like and their research is no more than a copy of the Squadron Signal book on the subject---nice drawings, and a few gear well detail photos. They get a good 3 view, and make a 3D model from that. And the thing is---90% of reviewers and purchasers are only going to compare to those same drawings! But anyone who's actually spent some time at an airshow walking around a real P-51, and knows the full 3D shape or simply has photos at various angles---will spot the areas that are totally wrong.

Still---many "high end" manufacturers are no better. Hasegawa's new 1/48 is EXACTLY from the Squadron Signal book. Error for error. And so the Trumpeter 1/72 copy of that kit is the same. Even Tamiya's new 1/32 F-16 has flaws that are immediately visible when compared to any photo, despite them having full access to several F-16's for research and they photographed every inch.

PS--most everything above can be said for Academy, too. Their 1/32 Hornet is the greatest kit I've ever owned (not built yet, will be a while) but anyone who knows will recognize it is simply the Hasegawa 1/48 scaled up, and with additional detail. Same flaws/errors/shapes...

I agree about Trumpeter-have you noticed the cockpits in some of their WWII fighters?They are so shallow they look ready for a Formula I driver! David,canyou recommend a good reference to accurize the Tamiya 1/32 F-16?

Edited September 21, 2006 by Maxtype

[David Hingtgen]

Not much. There's *a* wrong panel line, and the missing vents in the cockpit instrument coaming. The DACO "Uncovering the F-16" book is the ultimate reference. I'll get a link later.

[Maxtype]

Not much. There's *a* wrong panel line, and the missing vents in the cockpit instrument coaming. The DACO "Uncovering the F-16" book is the ultimate reference. I'll get a link later.

That's cool,David.I found that book in the Squadron Catalog-thanks for pointing me towards it!The F-18 book from DACO must be good as well then,huh?I think I'll order them both.Thanks!

[honneamise]

Trumpeter doesn't make an Enterprise. But they do have the Nimitz. I'd be impressed if Tamiya could make the case that it's such a close copy that it infringes upon their rights, while simultaneously being a completely different ship.

In a way, they DO have an Enterprise, or even 4 of them.

Not Trumpeter itself but their pirate branches C.C.Lee and MHM. They all belong to a mother Company called Wasan. Trumpeter has obviously been established as a separate branch to be recognizable as a company that does their own original molds (well, as stated, that is only partially true...) while MHM is nothing but a pirating company that makes low-quality copies of other kits and sells them for a far lower price. They have bootlegged most of Tamiya´s 1/350 line and their 1/72 patrol boats. They have even tried to backdate the Enterprise to the early configuration with the beehive bridge but did a lousy job on that. They also do things like pantographing Tauro´s 1/400 Italian cruisers to 1/350 (less quality in bigger scale of course). They rearrange the parts on the sprues to pretend they have made a new mold but the bootlegging is too obvious.

The other bootleg branch, C.C.Lee , has made copies of the OTAKI/now ARII Enterprises in 1/400. These have always been 2 separate kits with the different bridgedesigns. The Originals are top-notch and rival the Tamiya version. Without knowing what I get I have bought a Lee Enterprise some years ago: the details are only slightly softer but the planes are way off!

So that makes 4 bootlegged CVN-65 Enterprises that help getting money for Trumpeters efforts while taking money from the companies that spent a great deal of research/manpower/money to create those kits.

Meanwhile, over here in Europe companies like Heller and Airfix are on the edge of bancrupcy... of course you can get still get a bootleg of Heller´s "Graf Spee" battleship for 6bucks from Lee! Globalization, chinese style...

[David Hingtgen]

Interesting, I didn't know they had links to Trumpeter. I'm well aware of the copies of most every 1/350 and 1/400 large warship kit out there---they're everywhere nowadays. Can't blame them TOO much though---Tamiya keeps jacking up the price on theirs, even though the molds etc have been unchanged (paid off) for 20 years. No new costs, yet 20 bucks more now than 2 years ago? Little different than how Hasegawa's 1/72 F-18C costs $26 now, when it used to cost $8 WAY back in 2003. Same kit, new decals=triple the price.

Constantly increasing the price of "the same old molds" won't help convince people to buy the real thing. (nor does the rationale of increasing the price to recover from lost sales) Maybe if Tamiya retooled the guns, and included say options to model the Iowa from the Missouri kit, then that'd be nice amd worth buying. Tamiya's new 1/700 Iowa is a perfect *Iowa* (I know the ship well) so they certainly have the research drawings---just make a new "USS Iowa" sprue and toss it in the Missouri kit, and sell it as the Iowa. And they could easily make a small sprue update to the New Jersey kit, to allow all 4 to be done in the modern config. A slight change to the air defense level, a few details for some radars, and a new bow gun tub.

And the Tirpitz REALLY needs updating. With all the pics and info found over the years--the kit gets an "F-" in accuracy nowadays. There's massive amounts of brass out there, you need to replace almost half the superstructure to make it right. And I'm not talking small super-detailing, we're talking "not enough decks" level of errors.

The sheer quality of fit of those kits is still top-notch, but they really offer little incentive to buy nowadays, compared to Trumpeter's newest ships. This kind of goes against what was said earlier---but with how much reference is out there now, a "3 view drawing" based modern warship is more accurate than 30-year-old Tamiya. (Though Trumpeter F'd up big time on their 1/700 Iowa, and I swear I'm the only one who notices---the entire forecastle has stuff over 1/2 inch off position-wise---and on a 10inch ship, that's a lot) Plus they tried to make all 4 ships--and ended up making none of them actually, despite 3 different sprues.

[ghostryder]

Dave,

I had the olf Monogram 1/48 F-15C as a kid. Is the Revell reissue the same as the Monogram kit? From what I memember, all the Monogram kits I had raised panel lines vs recessed, which sucked. I do agree that the accuracy of that 1/48 Eagle kicked ass, even better than the original Revell 1/32 F-15 & ASAT kit.

[David Hingtgen]

As in the "$10 at Wal-Mart" one? Then yes.

[ghostryder]

Oh fark, I just read your post. I hate to say it, this was one of the most inaccurate Tomcat kits I've seen. The nose section is way too short and doesn't have the right profile, and the engine exhaust pipes were merely adapted from a F-14A TF-30 mold (which made the exhaust section way too short). On the bright side, unlike the Hase 1/72 kits, you can play with the swing wings.

Oh well, at the price you paid, its' not a big loss, and the finished model is nice and big.

At any rate, I managed to spot a F-14D (you can stop rolling your eyes now) from Revell. It's a 1/48 kit and was selling for $20, so why not pick it up? Valk.

Edited September 23, 2006 by ghostryder

[armentage]

Let me chime in --- As far as teh detail thing goes -- Bandai makes some amazing kits, but the surfaces details are so lacking. The fit is beyond compare, but the pieces are just so bland - totally smooth surfaces with very little etched or raised detail.

[honneamise]

Let me chime in --- As far as teh detail thing goes -- Bandai makes some amazing kits, but the surfaces details are so lacking. The fit is beyond compare, but the pieces are just so bland - totally smooth surfaces with very little etched or raised detail.

I know what you mean. All my more recent Bandai kits are very well engineered, but panel lines or other surface details are so sparse they seem to be the most painful work for the people at Bandai so they avoid them where they can.

The funny thing is, look at their 1982/3 Xabungle kits - loaded with detail, panel lines all around, rivets, cockpit interiors, even jerrycans and cables for the outsides! OK Xabungle had a more "down-to earth"-design philosophy but the reason why they look so great is another: Bandai used to have lots of very detailed tank kits in the 70s and 80s, and I bet the Xabungle masters were made by the same guys who were just used to detail all their parts to the extreme.

The Gundam kits were all so bland in comparison, and even after they started the MG/PG series, the engineers still seem to look at those kits from the "toy" side, perfect fit, many articulated points etc. but they seem to have yet to discover the long lost secret of well detailed surfaces.

Hasegawa seems to be like the opposite: Those guys are used to incorporate many details because they usually make excellent plane kits so their Valk kits (which were in a way just plane kits in the beginning) had all the rivets and access hatches that you could ever expect. On the other hand, they did not have a lucky hand when it came to some of the moving parts of their Battroid kits (hip joints etc.) . But I have the feeling that the Hasegawa engineers caught up with this very quickly while the Bandai people will still need ages to get their surfaces more detailed. It has to be noted, though, that the usual lineart drawings of the Gundams do not contain that many panel lines so you could argue that they just stick to what is shown there. On the other hand, the lineart is a guide for animation which is limited in detail ... but a model of a massive machine should really show a lot more small detail than shown on the screen. The way they are, a person with NO knowledge of Gundam probably cannot tell if that MG kit is supposed to represent a machine that is 20m, 7m or 3m tall unless you open the cockpit or place a csale figure next to it.

[Maxtype]

I know what you mean. All my more recent Bandai kits are very well engineered, but panel lines or other surface details are so sparse they seem to be the most painful work for the people at Bandai so they avoid them where they can.

The funny thing is, look at their 1982/3 Xabungle kits - loaded with detail, panel lines all around, rivets, cockpit interiors, even jerrycans and cables for the outsides! OK Xabungle had a more "down-to earth"-design philosophy but the reason why they look so great is another: Bandai used to have lots of very detailed tank kits in the 70s and 80s, and I bet the Xabungle masters were made by the same guys who were just used to detail all their parts to the extreme.

The Gundam kits were all so bland in comparison, and even after they started the MG/PG series, the engineers still seem to look at those kits from the "toy" side, perfect fit, many articulated points etc. but they seem to have yet to discover the long lost secret of well detailed surfaces.

Hasegawa seems to be like the opposite: Those guys are used to incorporate many details because they usually make excellent plane kits so their Valk kits (which were in a way just plane kits in the beginning) had all the rivets and access hatches that you could ever expect. On the other hand, they did not have a lucky hand when it came to some of the moving parts of their Battroid kits (hip joints etc.) . But I have the feeling that the Hasegawa engineers caught up with this very quickly while the Bandai people will still need ages to get their surfaces more detailed. It has to be noted, though, that the usual lineart drawings of the Gundams do not contain that many panel lines so you could argue that they just stick to what is shown there. On the other hand, the lineart is a guide for animation which is limited in detail ... but a model of a massive machine should really show a lot more small detail than shown on the screen. The way they are, a person with NO knowledge of Gundam probably cannot tell if that MG kit is supposed to represent a machine that is 20m, 7m or 3m tall unless you open the cockpit or place a csale figure next to it.

I agree.On my MG kits,I'm incorporating more detail(scribing)weathering,and diorama/vinyette-style bases.Weathering is quite an improvment,especially on the red,white,and blue RX-78 style Gundams.

[Salamander]

The Gundam kits were all so bland in comparison, and even after they started the MG/PG series, the engineers still seem to look at those kits from the "toy" side, perfect fit, many articulated points etc. but they seem to have yet to discover the long lost secret of well detailed surfaces.

Hasegawa seems to be like the opposite: Those guys are used to incorporate many details because they usually make excellent plane kits so their Valk kits (which were in a way just plane kits in the beginning) had all the rivets and access hatches that you could ever expect. On the other hand, they did not have a lucky hand when it came to some of the moving parts of their Battroid kits (hip joints etc.) . But I have the feeling that the Hasegawa engineers caught up with this very quickly while the Bandai people will still need ages to get their surfaces more detailed. It has to be noted, though, that the usual lineart drawings of the Gundams do not contain that many panel lines so you could argue that they just stick to what is shown there. On the other hand, the lineart is a guide for animation which is limited in detail ... but a model of a massive machine should really show a lot more small detail than shown on the screen. The way they are, a person with NO knowledge of Gundam probably cannot tell if that MG kit is supposed to represent a machine that is 20m, 7m or 3m tall unless you open the cockpit or place a csale figure next to it.

Having just received the Real Robot Revolution SPT Layzner kit from Bandai, it seems that they are learning. The thing has *tons* of internal detailing, much better than the MG Patlabors (which are pretty bad at detail, sadly). Some soft vinyl tubing, too.

The only thing I'm really annoyed at is that Bandai included a decal sheet for some parts, but the remaining markings are just stickers...

[Maxtype]

I hate those frakin' stickers too.

[HWR MKII]

Too bad Trumpeter couldnt get in on the Mecha scene. Imagine PG grade Mecha kits with all the options Trumpeter likes to throw into their large scale kits. MMMMM detail goodness.

Now if trumpeter would just make a 1/35 scale Tunguska A/A vehicle i would be happy too.

[David Hingtgen]

Have you seen their 1/32 F-100? OMG. That thing is insane. Now if they could only do an F-8 like that. (They really should---the F-8 is the F-100's counterpart, same engine, same intake style, same style of "remove the whole back end for engine service", etc)

[HWR MKII]

I thought the F-8 Crusader was more akin to the A-7 CorsairII

[David Hingtgen]

Counterpart, not "identical twin".

As in, F-14 vs F-15. F-16 vs F-18. YF-22 vs YF-23. And F-100 vs F-8.

The F-8 is often cited as being the first time a "compromised" carrier-based plane was superior to its land-based counterpart. The F-100 and F-8 were designed at the same time, to fill the same role, and to use the same engine. But the F-100 was expected to be better, since the F-8 would be hampered by the excess structural weight and equipment needed to operate from a carrier. But the F-8 turned out to be way better in every way.

[Maxtype]

Counterpart, not "identical twin".

As in, F-14 vs F-15. F-16 vs F-18. YF-22 vs YF-23. And F-100 vs F-8.

The F-8 is often cited as being the first time a "compromised" carrier-based plane was superior to its land-based counterpart. The F-100 and F-8 were designed at the same time, to fill the same role, and to use the same engine. But the F-100 was expected to be better, since the F-8 would be hampered by the excess structural weight and equipment needed to operate from a carrier. But the F-8 turned out to be way better in every way.

A 1/32 scale F-8 would kick serious @$$!Have you read Barret Tillman's "MIG Master".Probably the best reference on the F-8 in US Navy and Marine Corps service.Anyway the F-8 is about 3rd on my list of all time favorite airplanes.That sleek ,mean shape.The marking options would be awesome as well-having served in a VERY colorful period of Carrier Aviation.

Supposedly,there was an international meeting between several Air Forces and when the USAF pilots asked Soviet pilots which American plane they most respected,the Air Force guys were offended when the Russians said,all of them "the F-8,of course"