Trumpeter/HB boss kits that are actually good?

[charley420]

The trumpeter 32 scale intruder is a beauty, as is the hobbyboss f14 in 48 scale. Although both suffer from lack of decals or in the case of the intruder every single stencil seemed to be misspelled. The hb hornet series in 48 are nice kits considering how much cheaper than the hasegawa kit they are.

[Antoine]

Very interresting topic!

my MiG-17 had no fit issues, but very tight fit instead! nose construction is a bit complicated,...

Hello Werner,

Quite strange, as I've (tried to) build one, the F IIRC, and the fit was just horrible.

I threw it to the bin, there was no other solution.

[alex]

I built the sea hawk (1:72) from Hobby Boss, and was quite pleased with the result (however, don't stick to the painting instruction... no serials on the wing upper side!). The sea fury from Trumpeter was a bit disappointing regarding fitting. They do have some nice ships and submarines in 1:700, I like especially the Airleigh-Burke-class. Oh sorry, that's the aircraft forum!

Alex

[Skyhunter66]

Trumpeter 1:48 F100 Super Sabre's are great kits - built two have two more in the stash.

Some great suggestions on here as well - will have to check on some of the suggestions myself!

chris

[Max Headroom]

From my building experience I would say that the 1/48 Trumpeter MiG 3 is a joy to put together. It looks like the real thing but have not put a ruler against it.

The Hobbyboss F-86F-30 in 1/72 is also nice. One of their simplified kits, that also went together well. I've heard that it is 'inspired' by either Fujimi or Academy.

The only other one was the 1/72 Hobbyboss Hurricane IIc. Awful. Accuracy wise, the nose is very thin when compared to either Airfix or Revell. It has a one piece wing with a ventral fillet that goes all the way to the tailwheel. No matter what I did, the ruddy thing would not stick down at all and now serves as a paint mule for my experiments.

Trevor

[Alan P]

I've no experience of Hobby Boss, but have built quite a few Trumpeter kits in 1/32 (planes) and 1/350 (ships). The only duff one to build was the MiG-17, but it came out ok in the end.

The 1/32 F-100D and MiG-21 were two of the best kits I've ever built in terms of fit and ease of building. Likewise the 1/350 USS Independence and Fletcher-class destroyer, although detail on the latter was a bit patchy (superstructure detail was good, armament not so good).

No, it's not Tamiya, but the subject matter more than makes up for it.

[SleeperService]

Douglas A-3 Skywarrior series.

There are several detail errors on these kits with features from different marks on the one airframe.Go HERE to Tailspin Turtle's site and do a search for the full story. No real show stoppers though.

AFAIK the Wellington kits are meant to be pretty good as well.

[Radleigh]

I can only speak for those I have built.....

The Hobby Boss 1/72 scale Mi-8/17 kits are the only ones in that scale to accurately depict the prolific Hip.

The Trumpeter 1/72 scale Flanker series has some minor issues - but are the best out there (apart from the awesome Zvezda Su-27SM - but that is only a single version).

The Trumpeter 1/72 scale Russian bombers (Tu-160, Tu-22M2/3, Tu-95MS, Tu-16) all have minor problems but are the best available.

Ken

I've got a Hip on the go at the moment, quite like it. No issues with fit, it's flying together. Quite looking forward to that Mil-14 conversion though to fit to one!

[Ghostbase]

I have built three 1/48th kits - the D.H. Vampire, G.D. F-111A and an LTV A-7A Corsair - and they were 'actually good' as kits to put together.

The much maligned Vampire went together quickly and fitted well, nice quick build. I finished it in the markings of a Vampire which my dad flew in RAF service, popped it in a biscuit tin and sent it to my sister in Australia for Christmas. She was delighted with it and she has it on display in a cabinet. Shape issues? Like she cares!

The F-111A was a bit of a challenge but that was more around the instructions and my own ignorance, it did go together well and required very little filler, it now looks very impressive in a display cabinet.

I have the 1/48th A-6A Intruder and it looks very good in the box and I am looking forward to starting it soon.

Michael

[rayprit]

In answer to your question "Trumpeter/HB boss kits that are actually good?" yes they are

[Smiffy]

I have the Trumpy 32nd Tomcat and with the help of the Zacto resin intakes, imho it is the best F-14 in this scale (having previously owned both Tamiya and Revell kits). I seem to remember their 32nd MiG-21 was another good one.

As mentioned, the ME262's are fantastic, as is the Swordfish. I also rather like the 48th HB F-105, as another good'un.

I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the mo.

[Caerbannog]

AFAIK the Hobby Boss A-10 in 1:48 is pretty good too.

Maybe some of the bashing results from the discrepancy between very good engineering of the kits which is flawed by shoddy research. I guess people would care less about the flawed accuracy (or simply the "mad riveter") if these kits were horrible to be build anyway. But the way some of the Trumpyboss kits are one gets the feeling of being betrayed of an excellent kit - well me anyway.

I only wish they would invest as much interest in research as in engineering.

Oh and concerining the Me 262 - what annoys me is that they did not take the opportunity to provide flaps and slats, which were deployed on the ground. Btw.: I bash Tamiya for this very same mistake.

And one more thing: I do not think the Trumpyboss bashing is because they are Chinese. There are other Chinese companies who get no bashing because they either deliver a well researched kit in the first step - or (see Great Wall) they listen to the customers and correct their molds for later releases!!! (three exclamation marks are appropriate in this case).

Rene

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

The variety of replies in this thread does, I think, highlight the issue that we modellers face in how we judge Trumpeter/ HobbyBoss.

For a very large section of the modelling community, accuracy is not a "major issue" when it comes to making a purchasing decision, so a model that's well detailed, with nicely engineered parts, and that fits well, will always be a very positive thing - and that is something that in general HB or Trumpy do pretty well.

The time honoured phrase of, "Well it looks like a xxxx to me" works well in this case, as a lot of their models do indeed resemble the original.

My problem is one of trust:

For instance- I know the 1/48th Vampire is horribly inaccurate, because i know a bit about them, ditto for the 1/48th Tornado IDS ( and the F3 in fact), plus the DH Hornet, and the 1/48th scale Bearcat. Now I know very little about Wellingtons or A3 Skywarriors, but the fact this manufacturer has duffed up models of aircraft I have some understanding off, makes me suspicious that they may also have allowed similar errors of accuracy to occur in other kits. Ergo - I'm a bit reluctant to buy them until i get some third party assessment of their worth.

Thats why I value assessments on here, as I get a warts and all picture. Printed magazines are starting to get back in the habit of doing this too; but for too long over the past few years there was a habit in print of ignoring accuracy issues or glossing over them, because many articles seemed to want to concentrate on fancy finishing to the exclusion of accuracy, and editorials cast anyone who dared question this orthodoxy as shabby nit pickers intent on ruining the hobby.

My own view now is to wait and see with these companies' kit releases. There is enough expertise out there to normally give a pretty quick assessment of a model's merits accuracy wise.

Cheers

Jonners

[moaning dolphin]

I've built up the HB hip and Hound, as kits they went together nicely and as far as I am concerned are nice builds. I know very little about each subject but to me they look fine.

The detail is nicely refined and the internal detail is sufficient for most in the relevent scale. I also like trumpeter kits and am well aware of certain issues, again the ones I have built have been decent enough for my needs.

Was there not an issue a few years ago with a 1:32 Wildcat? Did they not withdraw that one and start again?

Cheers now

Bob

[Seahawk]

The Trumpeter 1/72 Wyvern is excellent, not least because it was, ahem, heavily inspired by another manufacturer's product. Only 1/72 kit I can think of to have the maker's name in raised letters on the tyres - oh, just a minute, that's Dunlap - fatal flaw!

The Trumpeter 1/72 Wellingtons are still the best on the market, despite being let down principally by too narrow engine nacelles resulting in mainwheels more suited to a racing bike than a medium bomber.

The Hobbyboss quickbuild 1/72 F4U-4 is the best (only) one on the market, again heavily inspired by the Tamiya F4U-1s but with necessary changes made. Add seatbelts and replace the stores and it's hard to tell from a Tamiya product.

The Hobbyboss 1/72 Seahawk looks fine to me. Less keen on the Sea Fury.

Overall though, I agree with Jon K-T: their record on accuracy (sometimes gross matters of accuracy) is so patchy that it is best to look before one leaps: reading the views of experts on here is a good start. But, yes, every now and again they get it right.

Widening the net a little, I am even less inclined to be charitable about Cyberhobby: their recent record of crimes against Fleet Air Arm subjects (and I mean kits that just look wrong) is such they are in my book guilty until proven innocent.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Seahawk

[moaning dolphin]

Widening the net a little, I am even less inclined to be charitable about Cyberhobby: their recent record of crimes against Fleet Air Arm subjects (and I mean kits that just look wrong) is such they are in my book guilty until proven innocent.

Totally agre with that one, they should be hung, drawn and quartered!

[Stephen]

The 1/72 Wellington kits are lovely , I've built the 1/48 F/A-18A and had no real problems with that likewise the A-7K although the canopy is slightly squashed.

[Troy Smith]

The Tamiya 1/48 Spitfire Mk.I and Vb are slightly underscale (about 1/50th) and the wing planform is not quite right. The 1/48 Fw190D has the same enclosed wheel well as their Fw190A and F kits. Tamiya does not have a perfect record by any stretch of the imagination, but they seem to try harder to get things right (how many stories have there been about Tamiya staff visiting a museum to measure a particular aircraft, of which the 1/32 Mosquito is the most recent) while Trumpeter seems content to work off plans and photographs without regard to provenance when there is no China based example of the full sized article.

The 1/48th Tamiya Spitfires are not underscale, that's the '1/48' Hasegawa Spitfire V IIRC

The Tamiya Spitfire is a bit short, and fat, with small wing planform error

see here for fuselage problems and fix

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968337-two-148-mkvb-spitfires-tamiya-and-airfix-new-spitfire-collection-expansion-project-photo-update-110515/page-3

Trumpeter /Hobby Boss, I was told by a reliable source that they occupy the same factory building, Trumpeter on one floor, HB on the next.

My impression is that it's all done at a schedule and price, and that's why the research is hit and miss.

Given that this is Britmodeller, Trumpeter in particular have taken some British classics in 1/48, handled them very badly, and in the process made the chances of another kit unlikely, in particular, Sea Fury, Vampire, DH Hornet, Westland Whirlwind.

I don't Airfix doing any of these soon now....

Some readers will remember the odd incident when an employee of Trumpeter joined, and posted CAD shots of their Spiteful/Seafang, and asked for comments

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/55621-spiteful-seafang-master/

we are just finish the Seaful family master, share his photo to here, please lend your eyes to check it . and give me more opinions before it get into metal mould making process.

read the thread, help and information was then supplied, and none of it used.

I read that Song then left Trumpeter

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234931418-supermarine-attacker-f1-148-trumpeter/#entry1217068

and now works for Kittyhawk IIRC.

Anyway, point is had Trumpeter taken on board the information supplied, and carried on making use of the 'hive mind' here and elsewhere, they could have benefitted from the Subject Matter Experts. Other companies have had the sense to do this, Airfix now do, and HK Models did

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

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.

as for 'every kit has mistakes'

Yes, there are simplifications for moulding, and errors, but this is not black/white, it all about if you like percentage of error, and then 'fixability' of error.

The Trumpeter Sea Fury can be fixed with some work and new parts, the Trumpeter Vampire is only fixable with essentially a new fuselage pod and inner wing

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234933298-alleycat-vs-trumpeter-dh-vampire-fb9-build-off-calling-bloodsucker-fans-now-with-added-trumpeter-ness/

In particular the photos here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234933298-alleycat-vs-trumpeter-dh-vampire-fb9-build-off-calling-bloodsucker-fans-now-with-added-trumpeter-ness/#entry1249841

It's not just Trumpeter, Italeri regularly make spectacular mistakes, and Revell as well, and then there was the Eduard Bf109G debacle.

This is why I read the opinions of folks who know about the subject. It is a double edged sword, especially if the subject is something you fancy but is not pet project.

What I really like is reasoned and documented criticism, and ideas for workable fixes, which is the middle ground between 'it's fatallly flawed' and 'be grateful for what you get' neither of which is useful.

[Alan P]

My problem is one of trust:

...

Thats why I value assessments on here, as I get a warts and all picture.

...

My own view now is to wait and see with these companies' kit releases. There is enough expertise out there to normally give a pretty quick assessment of a model's merits accuracy wise.

Cheers

Jonners

I have a trust problem with many of the reviews that you eagerly await with every new release. As the original post suggests, there is a mountain for every new release to climb as the assessment is prejudiced toward the expected inaccuracy of the manufacturer's products.

I also notice that when Chinese manufacturers release kits that are as relatively accurate in comparison to any other manufacturer, they are not accorded the same approval as that attributed to other manufacturers.

I think that there is no such thing as a truly accurate model kit (in the aeroplane world, at least) and the best we can hope for is a reasonably close rendering of the subject.

I fear that an undue weight of quality assessment depends on the accuracy of a kit, which is the preserve of relatively few modellers by comparison; an unfavourable bandwagon of online trashing based on CAD drawings alone may discourage future releases of subjects which most modellers of the subject would otherwise be only too happy to build in its produced state.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Brokenedge

[VMA131Marine]

The 1/48th Tamiya Spitfires are not underscale, that's the '1/48' Hasegawa Spitfire V IIRC

The Tamiya Spitfire is a bit short, and fat, with small wing planform error

see here for fuselage problems and fix

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968337-two-148-mkvb-spitfires-tamiya-and-airfix-new-spitfire-collection-expansion-project-photo-update-110515/page-3

Well, I have both the Tamiya and Hasegawa Spit Mk.Vb kits and the fuselages are the same length, which scales out to around 1/50th. The Tamiya wings may have the correct span, I haven't checked, but they do have the planform error. Of course, this is all moot now that the new Airfix Mk.I/II/Vb is available.

Edited May 11, 2015 by VMA131Marine

[VMA131Marine]

The Trumpeter Sea Fury can be fixed with some work and new parts, the Trumpeter Vampire is only fixable with essentially a new fuselage pod and inner wing

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234933298-alleycat-vs-trumpeter-dh-vampire-fb9-build-off-calling-bloodsucker-fans-now-with-added-trumpeter-ness/

The Vampire needs a new horizontal tail as well because the kit part is nearly 50% wider in chord than it should be.

[Graham Boak]

I agree with Brokenedge's third paragraph, in that there's no such thing as a perfect model, but equally there's little room for doubt that, on the whole, models are getting more accurate, more detailed, and better fitting. (Yes, there are some obvious exceptions - though not so often on all counts.) This is a trend that should be welcomed, indeed has been, and it is only fair to point out those which fall short.

Nowadays most mainstream releases do not appear into a near-vacuum but have to compete against a number of equivalent releases of the same subject. So it should be no surprise that quality assessment rates highly, though it's a fairly rare kit that doesn't have an at-least equal tally of uncritical acclaim. Why should anyone buy this kit if it is no better than its predecessors and contemporaries? I don't see that a description of errors in a kit are necessarily a "pillory" unless perhaps the list is truly long and the errors awful, in which case it is deserved. I see it as a list of "things to do" to improve the model, for those who wish to do so. If some don't wish to do so, why should it bother them when others do?

Judging the accuracy of a kit has never been restricted to a closed circle of the chosen few. It is entirely open to every modeller. All he has to do is look at the original: in reality or in published documentation. And think about it a little.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Graham Boak

[sniperUK]

HB Lynx, just burn them all, rubbish shape, rotor pylon too tall by about a scale foot, Airfix even though based on early drawings is much better.

[Alan P]

Judging the accuracy of a kit has never been restricted to a closed circle of the chosen few. It is entirely open to every modeller. All he has to do is look at the original: in reality or in published documentation. And think about it a little.

That's fair enough! Fairer than my original statements anyway.

I hope the original poster is satisfied that there are many good Trumpeter and Hobby Boss kits out there to choose from. It's worth looking at the many built up examples on the various model sites before buying if accuracy is your thing, though.

[charlie_c67]

One for the HB easy kit MS406. To me it looks like the subject, goes together easily and has a few minor detailing points (see MitchK's)