Trumpeter new tool Avro Vulcan

[Robert]

Wonder if it has been 3D printed as there appears to be lines on the jet pipes when the picture is blown up and this would account for the not to clear details.

 

Robert

[Vulcanicity]

Definitely looks like the Airfix to me. Fit issues around the rear fuselage insert,  bomb bay etc all look very familiar, and the gear bays are carbon copies.

Mixed feelings if this turns out to be a new 1:72nd Vulcan from Trumpeter. Yes, we've needed one for ever, but name me a 1:72nd (or 1/48th!) Trumpeter kit of a British aircraft that hasn't had one or several major errors?

If it does turn out OK, fair play to them. If it stimulates Airfix to do the decent thing, then halleluja.

I just hope it won't both be duff and clear up the market for a better one....

[Max Headroom]

11 minutes ago, Vulcanicity said:

but name me a 1:72nd (or 1/48th!) Trumpeter kit of a British aircraft that hasn't had one or several major errors?

I believe their Seahawk and Wyvern kits are well regarded and if you up a scale, the 1/24 Hurricanes are best in scale.

 

Apart from those........

 

Trevor

[Vulcanicity]

Ah I'd forgotten the Sea Hawk - marketed under HobbyBoss! I've built it and would agree. Not done the Wyvern.

1/24 is very much out of my ken!

[Val]

This does look very similar to the Airfix to me too, not that I'm that familiar with it. Wonder if anyone here is clever enough to scale the photo from the thickness of the plastic on the undercarriage doors?

[SleeperService]

56 minutes ago, Vulcanicity said:

but name me a 1:72nd (or 1/48th!) Trumpeter kit of a British aircraft that hasn't had one or several major errors?

I don't think there's much wrong with the 48th Wellington either. Sure the fabric effect is a little overdone but filler primer and a few minutes with IPA deals with that. Then the 48th Supermarine Attacker doesn't seem bad. A bit of a mix of details between the marks on one airframe but nothing major.

I seriously wonder why they don't get the 'B' Team to do Luftwaffe '46, cancelled projects, egg craft and other such stuff. Would still sell and get them a much better reputation very quickly.

 

BOT pulling a stunt like this is a dangerous game when you have a shaky reputation. If it doesn't happen at all everyone will be wee weed. If it does then that makes one group happy and the rest wee weed off. If it's wrong...well let's not go there.

 

[Graham T]

looks 1/144 to me

[Dave Batt]

I would hope that if it is 1/48 we could regard this as Trumpeter's contribution to re-cycle the plastic of the Maldives?

[Heraldcoupe]

5 hours ago, SleeperService said:

I don't think there's much wrong with the 48th Wellington either. Sure the fabric effect is a little overdone but filler primer and a few minutes with IPA deals with that.

The undercarriage and nacelles are too narrow and poorly shaped, this affects both 1/48th and 1/72nd Wellingtons. 

Nevertheless, they're still streets ahead of anyone else's attempt at a Wellington (so far),

 

Cheers,

Bill.

[SleeperService]

3 minutes ago, Heraldcoupe said:

The undercarriage and nacelles are too narrow and poorly shaped, this affects both 1/48th and 1/72nd Wellingtons. 

Nevertheless, they're still streets ahead of anyone else's attempt at a Wellington (so far),

 

Cheers,

Bill.

Thanks Bill I sit corrected. I brought an incomplete one from Creative(?) with the intention of building a Mk VI. I was wondering about the nacelle fitting the Merlin power egg rather better than it did on the real thing. I live about 5 miles from where one came down with loss of all on board.

[exdraken]

1/48 or simply not interested!

I have the GWH one....

 

 

[Meatbox8]

On 4/19/2018 at 8:01 PM, sofiane1718 said:

Hope they'll make the Valiant in 1/144, it's missing by Great Wall hobby

Don't Mikro Mir do a 144th Valiant?

[Albeback52]

2 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

Don't Mikro Mir do a 144th Valiant?

They do. With the Airfix kit being well nigh unobtainable at anything remotely resembling a  sensible price it really is your only option now if you want a Valiant.

 

Allan

[Meatbox8]

8 minutes ago, Albeback52 said:

They do. With the Airfix kit being well nigh unobtainable at anything remotely resembling a  sensible price it really is your only option now if you want a Valiant.

 

Allan

There is the Mach 2 kit.  If you're brave, that is.  I've had it in the stash for at least a decade.  I will DEFINITELY build it, one day, maybe, probably.  

[gingerbob]

21 hours ago, SleeperService said:

Then the 48th Supermarine Attacker doesn't seem bad. A bit of a mix of details between the marks on one airframe but nothing major.

 

Tailplane too high (if I remember right) on the tailcone, wing geometry not as screwed up as the Spiteful/Seafang, but still not right- in some respects "over-corrected".  Probably the main reason that the Attacker is regarded as reasonably good is that few people know the Attacker that well, and fewer people care.  And, yes, it isn't AS impressionistic as some of the other efforts [sic].

[SleeperService]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

 

Tailplane too high (if I remember right) on the tailcone, wing geometry not as screwed up as the Spiteful/Seafang, but still not right- in some respects "over-corrected".  Probably the main reason that the Attacker is regarded as reasonably good is that few people know the Attacker that well, and fewer people care.  And, yes, it isn't AS impressionistic as some of the other efforts [sic].

Two out of two wrong. I'll give up trying to cheerlead for them now

[The Tomohawk Kid]

You have got to give it to Trumpeter, its a masterclass in how to seed social media.

 

Thomo.

[Albeback52]

20 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

There is the Mach 2 kit.  If you're brave, that is.  I've had it in the stash for at least a decade.  I will DEFINITELY build it, one day, maybe, probably.  

 No!, No!, NOT the MACH 2 kit".Nobody deserves such punishment!! Believe me, I tried!! Took me a long time to recover! I don't like 1/144  but, I'd happily build the Mikro Mir kits rather than the Mach 2 kit ANY DAY.

 

Allan

[Albeback52]

18 hours ago, gingerbob said:

 

Tailplane too high (if I remember right) on the tailcone, wing geometry not as screwed up as the Spiteful/Seafang, but still not right- in some respects "over-corrected".  Probably the main reason that the Attacker is regarded as reasonably good is that few people know the Attacker that well, and fewer people care.  And, yes, it isn't AS impressionistic as some of the other efforts [sic].

Well, I think that is the nub of the matter.You see, I agree that customers generally don't bother so, I respectfully suggest that rather renders the term "impressionistic" irrelevant? I think Trumpeter has actually judged its market well. OK, so a few people will moan about "accuracy" but, I'd bet that for every one of them there are 10 others who don't care, can't tell one way or the other and, aren't bothered anyway. Why should they? They have a nice new shiny box containing a kit of a subject that they like.

 

I don't believe for a minute that Trumpeter goes out of its way to make errors but, they know full well that if they get it (say) 90% right then that will do. Let's face it, (1)they are still in business, (2)people are clearly buying the kits in more than sufficient numbers,(3)they have a fairly prolific output which seems to indicate (4) they are making a healthy profit.So they can afford not to be too worried about a handful of purists on internet sites getting their knickers in a twist over one thing or another.

 

I do not condemn or condone this approach (if indeed I am right) but, based on my own experience with Trumpeter kits, they are in the main well detailed, well engineered and, build (if not totally painlessly) with relatively little fuss. That's all I ask for and, I suspect this is a view widely held. The only thing that puts me off is high UK prices.

A lot of the comments here are a bit predictable but, you know what? Regardless of all the negative comments about a kit that does not yet even exist, I'd bet it actually does quite well for no other reason than it is a brand new Vulcan. And, to most customers that will be the only thing that counts..

 

Allan

Edited April 22, 2018 by Albeback52

[Scarlet]

On 19/04/2018 at 9:09 PM, WV908 said:

The bit of a Vulcan that rots away first 

 

On a serious note (actually that last line was serious haha) it’s the engine exhausts, which look a bit rounder and beefier than the Airfix offering 

 

Cheers,

  WV908

They were called Jet Pipes in my day.....

[thepureness]

9 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

Well, I think that is the nub of the matter.You see, I agree that customers generally don't bother so, I respectfully suggest that rather renders the term "impressionistic" irrelevant? I think Trumpeter has actually judged its market well. OK, so a few people will moan about "accuracy" but, I'd bet that for every one of them there are 10 others who don't care, can't tell one way or the other and, aren't bothered anyway. Why should they? They have a nice new shiny box containing a kit of a subject that they like.

 

I don't believe for a minute that Trumpeter goes out of its way to make errors but, they know full well that if they get it (say) 90% right then that will do. Let's face it, (1)they are still in business, (2)people are clearly buying the kits in more than sufficient numbers,(3)they have a fairly prolific output which seems to indicate (4) they are making a healthy profit.So they can afford not to be too worried about a handful of purists on internet sites getting their knickers in a twist over one thing or another.

 

I do not condemn or condone this approach (if indeed I am right) but, based on my own experience with Trumpeter kits, they are in the main well detailed, well engineered and, build (if not totally painlessly) with relatively little fuss. That's all I ask for and, I suspect this is a view widely held. The only thing that puts me off is high UK prices.

A lot of the comments here are a bit predictable but, you know what? Regardless of all the negative comments about a kit that does not yet even exist, I'd bet it actually does quite well for no other reason than it is a brand new Vulcan. And, to most customers that will be the only thing that counts..

 

Allan

completely agree here with you Allan

 

The other thing is they tool kits in scales some mainstream brands wouldn't even touch (1/32 A-10A A-7E) for example.

I've built trumpeter kits for ages, and when they first issued their 1/32 A-7E I bought and built it as soon as it arrived in the post. I built it 10 years ago and I was chuffed to have a big A-7E Corsair on my shelf. Only once i got online 6 years later I found people going on about the shape of the nose, didn't bother me that much.

 

British subjects do get torn to pieces here often, but we are britmodeller and we are bound to judge British subjects more. With the amount of modern tooling around these days I can't justify spending £35 plus on on a kit tooled in the year I was born (1983 when the Airfix Vulcan was issued.) The Trumpeter Wyvern and Sea hawks in 1/48 and 1/72 scale we greatly received, the wellingtons were the best on the market in 1/72 and the only brand daring enough to produce the kit in 1/48. I built the 1/48 welly and that was one of my favourite builds when it was first issued. 

 

I've wanted to built a well detailed Vulcan and this kit, provided it is 1/72 is high on my list, would love a 1/48 kit, but I have no where to store the finished model

 

[Max Headroom]

Thank you Trumpeter for your subjects, but would it hurt to ask for and take advice from those who know about a subject? Tweaking CADS from information willingly given, would not cost anything and would generate goodwill. It makes the difference from ‘it’s close’ to ‘bang on’.

 

Or is that too simple?

 

Can I have a 1/48 Balliol please?

 

Trevor

[Laurent]

29 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Thank you Trumpeter for your subjects, but would it hurt to ask for and take advice from those who know about a subject? Tweaking CADS from information willingly given, would not cost anything and would generate goodwill. It makes the difference from ‘it’s close’ to ‘bang on’.

 

Or is that too simple?

It's not simple:
- CAD validation cannot be done internally because the employees are supposed to get the model out, not delay its release... also they'd be the judge and jury, a fresh eye is required
- proper CAD validation has to be done externally by sending a CAD export to several people but it would present a risk of leak that the producer may not be willing to take
- there's what I call the "craftman's bias": a person who produces a kit or even a CAD model is often somewhat proud of his work, it's his project, his baby... what's good for him will be good for the customer, he doesn't ask himself "what did I do wrong ?"

 

[charlie_c67]

Yet there are multiple examples of companies asking the customer base for info to get the accuracy we desire. The most famous case that sticks in the memory is Dapol and their Class 52 Western, the CADs were posted on RMWeb and the experts who'd spent hours/days/longer on the subject were able to help the company produce an item which, aesthetically at least, is a highly accurate model that avoids the pitfalls in shape that befell all those that went before it.

 

If it were me, I'd take more pride in producing something which I knew was as accurate as I could make it and drew on the collective knowledge of those who've probably seen these in real life rather than just from a photo/plans.

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

Thank you Trumpeter for your subjects, but would it hurt to ask for and take advice from those who know about a subject? Tweaking CADS from information willingly given, would not cost anything and would generate goodwill. It makes the difference from ‘it’s close’ to ‘bang on’.

 

 

5 minutes ago, charlie_c67 said:

Yet there are multiple examples of companies asking the customer base for info to get the accuracy we desire. The most famous case that sticks in the memory is Dapol and their Class 52 Western, the CADs were posted on RMWeb and the experts who'd spent hours/days/longer on the subject were able to help the company produce an item which, aesthetically at least, is a highly accurate model that avoids the pitfalls in shape that befell all those that went before it.

 

and , way back in 2010...

A chap from Trumpeter did ask

 

received many replies, had honest critique of observed problems,  was sent information by the late Edgar Brooks etc etc.... end result for all this.

Nothing,  kit made matched initial CAD shots, no corrections made.

 

Now, I read somewhere that Song left Trumpeter and now works for another company,  and I don't know if this was a case that Song was ignored by the higher ups running the sausage factory,  but it is certainly possible for the company to get information,   and it would not take someone long to track down subject matter experts (HK Models did this with their 1/32nd B-17)

http://www.modelingmadness.com/spl/hk17.htm

Quote

          Last year, Neil Yan at H-K Models decided to take the “1/32 B-17 joke” seriously, and announced an injection-molded 1/32 B-17G.  Over the time since that announcement, modelers have seen some of the CAD drawings released for publicity, and there have been more than a few negative comments about shape accuracy and other details as revealed in the drawings and snide comments about “another Trumpeter project.”

          Allow me to reassure you.  Having created a working relationship last year with Neil over the controversy that attached to the release of the 1/32 B-25J, I suggested to him that a kit like this, which would be gone over by the Very Serious Modelers Indeed Brigade with a fine-tooth comb, would benefit from the assistance of Subject Matter Experts among the modeling community during the design phase, who could review the design while it was still in the computer and easy to revise before cutting any metal.  Neil quickly agreed with this idea and asked me to put together such a group, which I did.  (No, Wumm, I’m not getting a percentage of the profits for doing this; I’m getting an accurate B-17 model, just like you.)  The team of SMEs included Jennings Heilig; the detail-obsessive ChukW; Lynn Ritger; Modeling Madness’ own Steve Towle; Ray Ferriss and Mike Kellner, who are involved in the restoration of an actual B-17; Geoffrey Hays, who has been involved with “Shoo Shoo Baby” at the Air Force Museum; Matt Swann; Chris Bucholtz; and Terry Dean.  Additional assistance was provided by Guillermo Rojas Bazan, whose incredible all-metal 1/15 scale B-17G has amazed everyone who has ever seen it.  We were able to provide detail photos from several existing B-17s, as well as accurate drawings.

          Perhaps the most important thing the group accomplished was to discover that H-K had used the Aero Detail drawings for their initial design.  These drawings may look wonderful, but they are far from accurate; the only set of drawings that show the wildly-inaccurate Hasegawa 1/48 Spitfire IX to be “correct” are those found in the Aero Detail book on the Spitfire.  With accurate drawings, the CAD design was rescued without further problem.

 

When Trumpeter get the right information, they have made accurate kits,  but in the famed good British subjects section (Sea Hawk, Wyvern, 1/24 Hurricane)  the research was external to the company.

We don't now who does Trumpys design work,  there was a thread recently about who did a load of Revell design work, and it was an external CAD company, OK here

which is this company

http://www.brazmodels.com/3d-design-01.html

 

so they are responsible for the mistakes on the Revell Lanc, B-17,  1/48th  Mosquito.

 

I have read comments on Hyperscale by Lynn Ritgter, who helped with the revell 1/32nd Bf109G,  and how a couple of errors got missed, and how being involved had taught him a lot about the whole design process.

 

Trumpeter would really benefit from even reading forums,  as then they might have had the sense to a Defiant Mk.II (as opposed to another Mk.I) and a different version of the Sea Vixen to Airfix, but who knows who makes the decisions.

 

Just meant to add some observations about kit research, and how different companies approach it which I hope maybe of use in the general discussion.