Trumpeter Vampire FB9

[Jon Bryon]

The man behind it is Mr Song ex trumpeter so I would bet on HK not Taiwan.

Julien

OK. Didn't know Trumpeter had an HK connection; I always assumed everyone involved was from Guangdong.

[AnonymousAA72]

It's hardly fair to any kit maker to claim that because a previous model was flawed, that it's next release is bound to be " fatally flawed ". Let's all wait and see what this Vampire kit is like in the plastic before condemning it.

Andrew

I'm just looking to see where i used the words..'fatally' and 'flawed'....hhmmm, no I can't see that.......must be going doo-lally in me old age!

For reference here's my earlier post.....

"For us modellers where accuracy is a bit more important than 'looks' (rivet couners rool ok!) , my impression on this kit is that the canopy and windscreen is too small and a bit too far back maybe? That could be making the nose shape look off. Its difficult assessing these faults by the photo's, but the nose shape (and tanks - and they weren't always used ) can be easily changed - the biggest issue will be the wing plan and booms! Lets hope Trumpy make a good job of it eh?"

My reply was to 'Tigger331's observations.....

"As long as the basics are there, it should form the basis of a good replica and there does not appear to be much that a little bit of plastic fettling could put right but the proof will be in the pudding, on release. I do agree about the drop tanks though....they do look a little 'inflated'. Bottom line....let's applaud Trumpeter for, yet again, producing a kit that is unlikely to be top of any other manufacturers 'to do' list"

I used the Lightning(s) as an example to illustrate my point. Other modellers can insert their own Trumpeter model here!

I'll add......Lets NOT applaud Trumpeter for issuing a kit until we see it in the plastic. Lets NOT applaud the fact that because Trumpeter have issued error ridden kits in the past - other manufacturer's may not bother issuing an accurate version of that kit. But I'll repeat...lets hope that they get it right (you never know - they might!) .

At the end of the day accuracy shouldn't be that difficult to attain. Not 20 years after the Hobbycrap Vampires. Still, they'll be selling cheap on E-Bay I expect, and they do look(a little bit anyway!) like Vampires!!

[viscount806x]

I just wondered what the reaction to trumpeter kits would have been back in 1970 also would the opinions have been as aggressive or just ' I can sort that with a bit of balsa and filler'?

I think we have been spoiled for choice hence the need for threads like this. I have nothing against it in the slightest as it makes for a good discussion.

That is fair comment but kits were at more affordable prices then. But, I did used to be agog at Alan Hall advocating buying a kit for its wheels or props for example. Now, you wouldn't buy a Trumpy 1/32 Lightning for its ejector seat or wheels would you? The point is that many modern kits come in at telephone number price tags and having to take a razor saw, scalpel and tub (yes I did mean TUB) of filler to a £100+ kit like the Lightning seems a bit of an unfair thing to have to do. Hey but that's modelling!

Well said otherwise.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

That is fair comment but kits were at more affordable prices then. But, I did used to be agog at Alan Hall advocating buying a kit for its wheels or props for example. Now, you wouldn't buy a Trumpy 1/32 Lightning for its ejector seat or wheels would you? The point is that many modern kits come in at telephone number price tags and having to take a razor saw, scalpel and tub (yes I did mean TUB) of filler to a £100+ kit like the Lightning seems a bit of an unfair thing to have to do. Hey but that's modelling!

Well said otherwise.

The thing is its increasingly becoming "hey thats not modelling".

We are lucky to live in an age where most models will fall together without anything more than a skim of a surface filler to hide a join ( and that may not even be that important for a lot of modellers) CAD/CAM mould design means models do tend to fit like gloves nowadays, and allow for all recessed panel line glory, slide mould undercuts and general jewel like quality that we expect; and which to be fair most mainstream manufacturers deliver to a certain degree or other.

So its all good? Yeh?

No - because IMHO, when we have this standard of technical moulding ability, we should also expect a certain level of dimensional accuracy - I think its a fairly basic precept that a kit of a Vampire should look like a Vampire for instance.

The thing is - its easy & inexpensive to get a CAD operator to do recessed panel lines, sharp trailing edges etc, but its hard to get the R&D team to pick up those subtle nuances of shape and contour that give each aircraft its character and shape, unless your R&D team know what they are looking for and have the backing ( ie cash) to do the research. Otherwise what we get is exquisitely engineered, finely detailed turds ( forgive me for the word, but its apt).

If you throw some pics of a Vampire at a CAD guy and say, "make that for me as a model", you'll get something resembling a Vampire - but without the investment in someone going to see & measure said ex-spidercrab, thats all it will be; a passing resemblance.

But this, of course, costs money, which makes the models more expensive ( ever wonder why Tamiyas 1/32nd scale aircraft are pricey - its not all tooling cost): And it requires someone at the company to actually care enough to stand up and say its a "good thing to do". Plainly it seems no-one at Trumpeter actually cares enough anymore to do this, because if someone did you wouldn't see these shape errors happening.

To me thats seems to be an insult to the customer, a case of blind them with moulding detail. I think we should not stop telling ANY manufacturer that thinks they can get away with this arrogant approach, to stop doing it, until they get the message.

We, the customer deserve better than that, but we need to realise we might have to pay for it too.

Jonners

[Doug Rogers]

I think that's a good point. For me the frustration with regard to Trumpeter ( regardless of where they come from!) is that they clearly have the technology to make a nice kit, they pick subjects that are close to our hearts, and they then seem to get...well...lazy or something, and make schoolboy errors which could have been relatively easily avoided with a bit more attention to detail and just a little bit more homework.

[Andrew Jones]

The thing is its increasingly becoming "hey thats not modelling".

We are lucky to live in an age where most models will fall together without anything more than a skim of a surface filler to hide a join ( and that may not even be that important for a lot of modellers) CAD/CAM mould design means models do tend to fit like gloves nowadays, and allow for all recessed panel line glory, slide mould undercuts and general jewel like quality that we expect; and which to be fair most mainstream manufacturers deliver to a certain degree or other.

So its all good? Yeh?

No - because IMHO, when we have this standard of technical moulding ability, we should also expect a certain level of dimensional accuracy - I think its a fairly basic precept that a kit of a Vampire should look like a Vampire for instance.

The thing is - its easy & inexpensive to get a CAD operator to do recessed panel lines, sharp trailing edges etc, but its hard to get the R&D team to pick up those subtle nuances of shape and contour that give each aircraft its character and shape, unless your R&D team know what they are looking for and have the backing ( ie cash) to do the research. Otherwise what we get is exquisitely engineered, finely detailed turds ( forgive me for the word, but its apt).

If you throw some pics of a Vampire at a CAD guy and say, "make that for me as a model", you'll get something resembling a Vampire - but without the investment in someone going to see & measure said ex-spidercrab, thats all it will be; a passing resemblance.

But this, of course, costs money, which makes the models more expensive ( ever wonder why Tamiyas 1/32nd scale aircraft are pricey - its not all tooling cost): And it requires someone at the company to actually care enough to stand up and say its a "good thing to do". Plainly it seems no-one at Trumpeter actually cares enough anymore to do this, because if someone did you wouldn't see these shape errors happening.

To me thats seems to be an insult to the customer, a case of blind them with moulding detail. I think we should not stop telling ANY manufacturer that thinks they can get away with this arrogant approach, to stop doing it, until they get the message.

We, the customer deserve better than that, but we need to realise we might have to pay for it too.

Jonners

But can it really be that expensive, compared to all the costs of tooling, set up , etc ,to send someone with a good camera and a tape measure to check the basic shapes and dimensions of a subject before starting ?.

Andrew

[Seahawk]

I just wondered what the reaction to trumpeter kits would have been back in 1970 also would the opinions have been as aggressive or just ' I can sort that with a bit of balsa and filler'?

I think we have been spoiled for choice hence the need for threads like this. I have nothing against it in the slightest as it makes for a good discussion.

Well, yes. We have a lot to thank 40 years of human progress for: I am glad no-one is trying to sell me Morris Marinas today either. But in modelling that progress has not been uniform. While finesse, fit of parts and levels of detail have improved beyond measure (see what you get in the new Airfix Mustang kit for just £5.99), concern for outline accuracy has not always kept up: how often do we hear "the shape of the 60-year-old Airfix xx is actually very good"? The Far Eastern concerns deserve praise for their energy and their choice of subjects (Dragon's preoccupation with the FAA being particularly welcome) but I do wish their R&D people would occasionally check that their kits look more than vaguely like the subject.

No horse in this particular race, BTW. 1/48? What's that?

[Seahawk]

The only 'media' I recall from my early days are Airfix Magazine, Scale Models and Military Modelling, Back then there wasn't much (if any) discussion of a models merits outside of a club evening with other members, the magazines didn't carry much more than a single page of readers letters and those had to be written and posted in a letter-box!!!

My word, how did we ever survive such deprivations?

Well, I actually built models I was happy with. Nowadays I get distracted by blizzards of photos, drawings and opinions - and demoralised by the exquisite creations of others.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Seahawk

[venomvixen]

One theory put foward was Trumpeter wouldnt send anyone out into the decadent hell that is western capitalism as those sent forth

may discover the Maoist paradise is actually a load of old cobblers and would thus steadfastly refuse to return to the aforementioned paradise.

Personally I think thats a bit simplistic and typical of the land it came from. My take on it? Trumpeter couldn't really give a flying fig

about it. Despite the howls of protest about the latest sin in plastic they will still sells lots of them and make lots and lots of filthy lucre

in the process. Like everything else these days its all about the cash.

Edited October 23, 2012 by venomvixen

[Procopius]

Personally I think thats a bit simplistic and typical of the land it came from.

...Texas?

[Daryl J.]

For those of you with Facebook access, the Evergreen Avation Museum in McMinnville, OR (home of the Spruce Goose) just posted a photo of their Vampire that shows the nose contour in question very well.

[Procopius]

[Daryl J.]

That's it. Thanks for posting it here.

[Procopius]

Happy to be of service!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

But can it really be that expensive, compared to all the costs of tooling, set up , etc ,to send someone with a good camera and a tape measure to check the basic shapes and dimensions of a subject before starting ?.

Andrew

Trumpeter couldn't really give a flying fig about it. Despite the howls of protest about the latest sin in plastic they will still sells lots of them and make lots and lots of filthy lucre in the process. Like everything else these days its all about the cash.

And there is the question and answer.

Jonners

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[Trubbie]

With all the reference material around you would think that any kit manufacturer would be quick to access it.

Perhaps if they let the Trumpeter R&D team out of China to seek out this information, they wouldn't come back?

Trubbie.

[Laurent]

I've sent the following message to Trumpeter via FB since it's the only way to contact them.

Many Western customers complain about the shape accuracy of many aircraft kits you have produced. I believe that at least in the West, many if not most of the customers are adult modelers that expect a model kit to be at first a pretty accurate in shape representation of a real subject, then an easy to build and detailed kit. How come many of your kit are inaccurate ? perhaps because you don't have enough time to do the research or perhaps because your designers don't have access to the real subject to take measurements. It is known that using 2D drawings for designing a 3D model is not easy. Also the CAD designer is a human being so he may do errors. Once that the molds have been tooled it's too late to make corrections. I suggest that you submit each CAD model to a person or a small group of person so that they "debug" the CAD model before the tooling is made. Some manufacturers like Kinetic do this so that the CAD model doesn't have easily noticeable errors. Since molds are an investment that will last for years and that correcting them is very difficult, I think that implementing CAD model revision by non-Trumpeter staff would be a good idea. Example of CAD model "constructive critique" for Kitty Hawk models:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234926621&st=40#entry1134213

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234926121&st=60#entry1137034

Providing the CAD model (in the eASM format for example) to a single person for troubleshooting the model would make the process even more efficient.

I'm pretty sure that Trumpeter won't even read the message (because of the language barrier and because I doubt they care). Still Great Wall Hobby is about to release a technically very impressive kit AND accurate 1/48 MiG-29 and perhaps this will make Trumpeter realize that there's the word "model" is the "model kit" expression.

Laurent

[Jon Bryon]

Perhaps if they let the Trumpeter R&D team out of China to seek out this information, they wouldn't come back?

I don't get all this 'let them out and they won't come back' nonsense. It's not the 1970s anymore; China is not a prison. People are free to come and go. The issue is not getting out, but finding another country to let you in. Western governments are very picky about who they grant visas too. If you're not with a tour party or going to study, it's pretty hard for your average Chinese mainlander to get into the UK.

I suspect the answer is that the modelling public is generally pretty satisfied with what Trumpeter produce.

[Giorgio N]

Wonder if the accuracy issues seen on recent kits mean that also research teams from germany or the UK can't leave their countries.. and some can't even leave their hometown to go to a museum in the same country !

Jokes apart, one thing I've been told for sure is that the language barrier sometime has prevented chinese companies to access information that would have helped them in providing a better product. On the other hand, I've also been told of how in some cases accuracy was simply not considered a big issue. It must be said that I've been told the same about some western europe companies, and unfortunately the results can be seen.

Regarding the anti-trumpeter feelings, I've seen plenty elsewhere but not on this forum, fortunately.

[JasonC]

I suspect the answer is that the modelling public is generally pretty satisfied with what Trumpeter produce.

QFT. A distinction needs to be made between 'most modellers' and 'most modellers on this board'. The former will be perfectly happy with the general shape of a kit and I suspect are in the large majority, notwithstanding Laurent's assertions above.

I'm reminded of the recent post on ARC where the OP said he had an Azur Walrus which he was very happy with..until he compared it to plans. He was then disconsolate. If you can't see a problem without laying the kit against plans (which are of course not necessarily accurate), then why create grief for yourself?

cheers,

Jason

Edited October 23, 2012 by JasonC

[Ed Russell]

I'm reminded of the recent post on ARC where the OP said he had an Azur Walrus which he was very happy with..until he compared it to plans. He was then disconsolate. If you can't see a problem without laying the kit against plans (which are of course not necessarily accurate), then why create grief for yourself?

If you mean this post - http://s362974870.on...howtopic=224762

it is discussed here - http://www.britmodel...topic=234927838

My conclusion is the the worst set of plans function better than what passes for logic in the mind of that poster. I would think that he is what is best described a a "troll".

Incidentally, if that is the post you mean (Sea Otter not Walrus) he didn't even look at plans, just a few photos to confirm the 1mm and 3mm "inaccuracies" in the kit.

[Laurent]

If you can't see a problem without laying the kit against plans (which are of course not necessarily accurate), then why create grief for yourself?

I believe that plans should be used only if the eye catches something and in any case the plans should be validated first. I'm a MiG-21 fan and I'm impressed how even modern drawings have inaccuracies when comparing them to photographs. Plans and drawing are like models: an interpretation of a real object.

I think that you can provide the CAD designer all possible measurements and photographs, he may still do errors. Try imagining beeing one: you have spent hours and hours modelizing an aircraft from scratch. You're getting tired, you have to hand out the model to the workshop in a week, you may not even know how an aircraft is designed (you did boats, cars, washing machine parts, etc) and especially you've never seen the Bristol Fruitbat you've been asked to modelize. Even if the designer understands the shapes and curves of a certain aircraft, even if he does his best, he will make errors. That's why I think its a good idea to give the model to another person (a single one to avoid leaks) so that this person can comment on the model. Errors will probably remain but the most glaring ones may not.

[Rizzo]

I believe that plans should be used only if the eye catches something and in any case the plans should be validated first. I'm a MiG-21 fan and I'm impressed how even modern drawings have inaccuracies when comparing them to photographs. Plans and drawing are like models: an interpretation of a real object.

I think that you can provide the CAD designer all possible measurements and photographs, he may still do errors. Try imagining beeing one: you have spent hours and hours modelizing an aircraft from scratch. You're getting tired, you have to hand out the model to the workshop in a week, you may not even know how an aircraft is designed (you did boats, cars, washing machine parts, etc) and especially you've never seen the Bristol Fruitbat you've been asked to modelize. Even if the designer understands the shapes and curves of a certain aircraft, even if he does his best, he will make errors. That's why I think its a good idea to give the model to another person (a single one to avoid leaks) so that this person can comment on the model. Errors will probably remain but the most glaring ones may not.

I'm a CAD designer (well, 3d artist is the more usual job title in my work, but it's what's meant here), and my take on it is it's simply down to lack of investment in the product. A single artist needs to be capable of checking his own work for accuracy, but the final quality of the work depends on their ability (and better artists demand higher wages of course) and the time they're given to complete the job. I'd bet a company like Tamiya spends much more than twice the man hours on a new project.

And simply going from the usual published plans as a guide isn't ever a good idea... they're usually more a hinderance than a help (it's a bit like copying music from a dodgy old cassette recording instead of the original cd). But I get the impression that's what a lot of these companies do.

But maybe the result of this is also that Trumpeter is able to afford to make the less popular aircaft... I'm certainly grateful to get a new tool Attacker

[Seahawk]

Wonder if the accuracy issues seen on recent kits mean that also research teams from germany or the UK can't leave their countries.. and some can't even leave their hometown to go to a museum in the same country !

Excellent point! Let's remember that the Revell Halifax can give the Dragon Sea Vixen/Sea King/Sea Venom and Trumpeter Lightning a good run for their money in the gross inaccuracy stakes.

[JasonC]

If you mean this post - http://s362974870.on...howtopic=224762

it is discussed here - http://www.britmodel...topic=234927838

My conclusion is the the worst set of plans function better than what passes for logic in the mind of that poster. I would think that he is what is best described a a "troll".

Incidentally, if that is the post you mean (Sea Otter not Walrus) he didn't even look at plans, just a few photos to confirm the 1mm and 3mm "inaccuracies" in the kit.

That was the post I was referring to, thanks for the correction.