JOAN Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Hello, Can anyone point me the good direction to a big strong review of the ol' 1/48 C-47 Monogram ? ( nose problem ? anything else ? ) Many thanks for your help. olivier Edited May 29, 2014 by JOAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I'm not aware of a lot of reviews of 36-year old model kits. Aside from the slightly askew proboscis, its raised panel lines, burlap control surfaces, and pre-war DC-3 style pointy tipped prop blades, there's very little wrong with it. It has typical 1970s Monogram fit issues, but it's *light years* better than the Trumpeter fiasco. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 There was an article in an issue of Scale Models, but it'll need some digging to find which issue. Edgar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 The most recent release (the gunship version) has the paddle-blade props. If you can manage French, there's an article in Replic 121 that you might find useful. PM me your email if you'd like a copy. I agree with the learned Mr Heilig about the Trumpeter abomination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydel Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 So what's wrong with the Trumpeter? Is it just the fact that "Trumpeter" is on the box? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I got reboxed by Revell try searching for that one here http://www.swannysmodels.com/C47.html build here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/78201-revellmonogram-148-ac-47/ the main issue raised in Scale Models IIRC is the nose is too down turned, as can be seen here. adjusting this could be tricky with the raised detail....it could lead to to a rescribe.... It might just require blunting, it may make it a little short, but less visually off? I'd have a search on Hyperscale for more info HTH T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 So what's wrong with the Trumpeter? Is it just the fact that "Trumpeter" is on the box? It's more a question of what's *not* wrong with it. Working from the ground up: landing gear is wrong, basic shapes of the airframe are wrong, etc, etc, etc. Typical Trumpeter C team hash job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 So what's wrong with the Trumpeter? Is it just the fact that "Trumpeter" is on the box? Did you try to answer yourself first? in short, price and engraved rivets, short landing gear, Possibly based on the Soviet license built copy, the Lisunov Li-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2 Kits compared http://www.modelingmadness.com/review/allies/previews/2828.htm hyperscale http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1323625945/Trumpeter+C-47+1-48+scale http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1280885615/Has+anyone+done+a+side-by-side+comparison+of+the+Trumpeter++v-+Monogram+C-47%27s- Sure, some people snipe at Trumpeter,especially it seems on Hyperscale, but they have a few very good kits, [1/48th Sea hawk and Wyvern, 1/24th hurricane for example] and unfortunately more which have 'issues' of varying degrees...1/48th Vampire, Sea Fury and Spitfeful for example This leads to trepidation when Trumpeter announce a new kit. The other factor, if trumpy do a new kit, and botch it, it still dents the market for a new accurate model of that subject especially if more esoteric subject has been chosen.... HTH T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacificmustang Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 So what's wrong with the Trumpeter? Is it just the fact that "Trumpeter" is on the box? IMO, pretty much so I am building the trumpeter one at the moment http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234959800-trumpeter-148-c47-dakota/ and whilst it does have its problems, I certain;ly do not think the monogram one is "light years" ahead of trumpeter I like the rivet detail, it looks good on a model this size, the surface needs to look busy on a model this size, and raised lines, contrary to popular belief look nothing like lapped panels Also contrary to all the rot posted on diaperscale the trumpeter undercarriage is not short, it is exactly the same length as the monogram ones, but attach deeper in the cowling as unlike the monogram kit, the trumpy kit gives you correctly detailed wheelwells. The fit, detail and interior are 'light years' ahead of the monogram kit in comparison. Yes it does have problems,that need correcting, so does the monogram kit but, to say it is an abomination compared to the monogram kit is simply IMO untrue. I am quite happy to defend it,probably because I am one of the few to actually build it Bruce 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I quite like mine I want to get a Trumpy one as well, the built ones I've seen look Dakish enough for my needs. Edit: I know she needs new props, I haven't found replacements yet. Edited May 30, 2014 by venomvixen 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacificmustang Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 thats a fine build Danni. I need to work out a way to graft a sea venom nose on my other trumpeter one some day Regards props, vector and ultracast both make suitable Hamilton standard blades Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 It's more a question of what's *not* wrong with it. Working from the ground up: landing gear is wrong, basic shapes of the airframe are wrong, etc, etc, etc. Typical Trumpeter C team hash job. Its not sufficient to come out with grand or lavish statements like this without some real proof. We have several Dakota experts in our local club which is affiliated with a museum and these guys have worked on the real thing. It is acknowledged that the Trumpeter kit has some issues but to come out with the rather repetitive opinion that any US Made kit from 30 years ago with its own inherent problems And is considered superior is getting a little tiresome and claims need to be substantiated. If you really want to do something about it you need to start lobbying your own model manufacturing companies to actually come out with some new kits (not re-issues with the odd new part) and have them stop resting (along with yourself) on the laurels of old moulds that are in many cases well past their sell by date and certainly cannot be described as "light years ahead" just because the other kit comes from the "Axis of Inaccuracy" that is China, The Czech Republic and Japan. Monovell need to start taking a leaf out of the Airfix book, my friend ! And you need to start lobbying 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 IMO, pretty much so I am building the trumpeter one at the moment http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234959800-trumpeter-148-c47-dakota/ and whilst it does have its problems, I certain;ly do not think the monogram one is "light years" ahead of trumpeter I like the rivet detail, it looks good on a model this size, the surface needs to look busy on a model this size, and raised lines, contrary to popular belief look nothing like lapped panels Also contrary to all the rot posted on diaperscale the trumpeter undercarriage is not short, it is exactly the same length as the monogram ones, but attach deeper in the cowling as unlike the monogram kit, the trumpy kit gives you correctly detailed wheelwells. The fit, detail and interior are 'light years' ahead of the monogram kit in comparison. Yes it does have problems,that need correcting, so does the monogram kit but, to say it is an abomination compared to the monogram kit is simply IMO untrue. I am quite happy to defend it,probably because I am one of the few to actually build it Bruce Well said Bruce.......Im in the middle of a similar project and can mirror your views.....gave up on the Monogram kit with all the fit issues and others....the Trumpeter kit is not perfect (according to our experts over in the local museum) but the issues are not serious enough to warrant the predictable comments from across the pond, just because the kit comes from China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydel Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 IMO, pretty much so I am building the trumpeter one at the moment http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234959800-trumpeter-148-c47-dakota/ and whilst it does have its problems, I certain;ly do not think the monogram one is "light years" ahead of trumpeter I like the rivet detail, it looks good on a model this size, the surface needs to look busy on a model this size, and raised lines, contrary to popular belief look nothing like lapped panels Also contrary to all the rot posted on diaperscale the trumpeter undercarriage is not short, it is exactly the same length as the monogram ones, but attach deeper in the cowling as unlike the monogram kit, the trumpy kit gives you correctly detailed wheelwells. The fit, detail and interior are 'light years' ahead of the monogram kit in comparison. Yes it does have problems,that need correcting, so does the monogram kit but, to say it is an abomination compared to the monogram kit is simply IMO untrue. I am quite happy to defend it,probably because I am one of the few to actually build it Bruce Thanks for the assessment. My question was somewhat tongue in cheek but I am interested in how the kit goes together. If you've been around forums long enough you know as well as I do that some people's hobby actually isn't building models...it's trashing ever kit that comes out. You likely know who the usual suspects are too. I just think it's funny that I never actually see builds out of any of these people either. Lol 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 thats a fine build Danni. I need to work out a way to graft a sea venom nose on my other trumpeter one some day Regards props, vector and ultracast both make suitable Hamilton standard blades Bruce Bruce you need to talk to my Dad. He got the "Long nosed Goon" running again at the museum and knows a heap about the conversion done to it. Besides the new nose it had a Gannet radome in the belly and a pile of other mods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOAN Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 many thanks guys for your useful replies. I have several old monogram kits and found that many are more than correct in accuracy. ( the P-40 for instance...)...something to do with... I have the C-47 since the first release and love it. I have found a great build here ( ok it's stunning but I havn't half of the required space or even the taste to sleep with epoxy smell / dreams... ) : http://master194.com/maquettes/madman/dc3/trainetroues.htm Many thanks again ! olivier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 If the rivets and fabric don't look like they do here... (Link to some DC-3 closeups) http://s20.photobucket.com/user/DDonSS3/library/DC-3 And the fabric: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyC Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well, Troy very kindly referenced my AC-47 build from way back - a kit I'm still quite proud of (even if it is a dust monster at the moment). I still think that the Monogram kit builds well and with a minimum of fuss. Bearing in mind the price differential - do I consider the Trumpeter kit to be £20-30 better than the Monogram? IMHO, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Podmore Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I've recently built the Trumpeter kit, and with a bit of love and attention I think it ends up looking pretty darn good, admittedly it is a C-47B, not a C-47A, and the rivets aren't brilliant, but it is certainly not 'unbuildable' or a 'hash job' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Sorry, but I opened the Trumpeter box and what I saw at a glance was enough to convince me not to waste my money. When we support mediocre products, all we get is more mediocre products. I *never* said (and I've gone back to check) that by definition a 30+ year old Monogram kit was better than a new Trumpeter kit. Didn't even imply that. But in this case, the Trumpeter C-47 is such a comedy of (easily avoided) errors, that ****** IN MY OPINION ****** it isn't worth wasting ****** MY ****** money on. I never said it (nor any other kit) was "unbuildable". If you disagree, that's wonderful for you. If you find others' opinions "tiring", then bully for you. Don't read them. Sorry, but I'm tired of people defending crap products from crap companies and then getting on their little high horses when people call them out for it. Sometimes the emperor really IS wearing no clothes, like it or not. Edited May 30, 2014 by Jennings Heilig 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I do wish those that crow from the other side of the pond would actually expend more effort on lobbying their own hobby industry to produce some decent kits than decry others for doing so. No kit is 100% perfect and for many that is the "challenge" they enjoy….It is, IMHO, after all, what modelling should be about….Far more satisfaction is gleaned from having to put some effort in to producing your own interpretation of a subject than merely pumping out 'shake and bake' clones. At least the prolific manufacturers from China, The Czech Republic, Japan, the UK and others are doing just that and producing some great kits. Some are better than others, that is not disputed, but to constantly complain and bemoan practically every kit that is now produced is tiring and not particularly constructive. Sorry, but I opened the Trumpeter box and what I saw at a glance was enough to convince me not to waste my money. When we support mediocre products, all we get is more mediocre products. I *never* said (and I've gone back to check) that by definition a 30+ year old Monogram kit was better than a new Trumpeter kit. Didn't even imply that. But in this case, the Trumpeter C-47 is such a comedy of (easily avoided) errors, that ****** IN MY OPINION ****** it isn't worth wasting ****** MY ****** money on. I never said it (nor any other kit) was "unbuildable". If you disagree, that's wonderful for you. If you find others' opinions "tiring", then bully for you. Don't read them. Sorry, but I'm tired of people defending crap products from crap companies and then getting on their little high horses when people call them out for it. Sometimes the emperor really IS wearing no clothes, like it or not. Simple question, if I may…..just how many of these kits have you actually built ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOAN Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 back to constructive mindset....what documentation is for you a must have ? I would like to make a cargo. I am really surprised about the poor quantity of dedicated books on the subject. many thanks again olivier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Sorry, but I opened the Trumpeter box and what I saw at a glance was enough to convince me not to waste my money. When we support mediocre products, all we get is more mediocre products. I *never* said (and I've gone back to check) that by definition a 30+ year old Monogram kit was better than a new Trumpeter kit. Didn't even imply that. But in this case, the Trumpeter C-47 is such a comedy of (easily avoided) errors, that ****** IN MY OPINION ****** it isn't worth wasting ****** MY ****** money on. I never said it (nor any other kit) was "unbuildable". If you disagree, that's wonderful for you. If you find others' opinions "tiring", then bully for you. Don't read them. Sorry, but I'm tired of people defending crap products from crap companies and then getting on their little high horses when people call them out for it. Sometimes the emperor really IS wearing no clothes, like it or not. Unbunch your panties and remember your manners Jennings - should I really have to be reminding a grown man that's been on this forum for some years? These kinds of hissy fits really aren't doing you any favours. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 back to constructive mindset....what documentation is for you a must have ? I would like to make a cargo. I am really surprised about the poor quantity of dedicated books on the subject. many thanks again olivier Olivier, Totally agree with you on lack of good reference material....given the historic significance and importance of this particular aircraft type it is quite incredible that there are not better references out there. I will see what I can find in our museum archives and if there is anything of use will either point you in the right direction or provide scans. Its a type for which I hold a deep affection. I can just about remember some fairly hairy trips in the back of Imperial Iranian Air Force examples with my Mum and Dad in the mid 60s travelling between Tabriz and Tehran.....my Dad was seconded to the USAF back then.....and Ive been a fair few others in and around the Far and Middle East since.....happy days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Regarding reference material, the Maircraft plans are generally acknowledged to be the most accurate available by those with an intimate knowledge of the subject. Strangely enough, and perhaps embarrassingly for some, the Trumpeter kit compares more favourably than the Monogram kit when these are reproduced to 1/48th scale. Whilst accepting that there are some niggles with both kits, it would appear that the issues with the Trumpeter kit are more easily corrected than those of the Monogram offering. A point raised on more than one occasion by some well respected modellers that have actually built the kits in question. Aftermarket products are available to correct the engine cowls and rudder of the Trumpeter kit however, the incorrect nose profile of the Monogram kit will require filler, sanding sticks and a little elbow grease to put right. In my opinion the old Monogram kit has had it's day. Time now to make way for the new kid on the block. Chris. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts