Trumpeter/HB boss kits that are actually good?

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

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.

There is a very easy way to remove that "mountain" if you are a manufacturer, and that's to show your customers some respect and produce the most accurate model you can.

If you release a pile of trash accuracy-wise - like the Vampire - then, in my book, you can expect your next release to be picked over (especially if it's another aircraft from the same period and airforce).

And let's face it Trumpy-boss have not exactly let us down with the DH Hornet have they!

Moreover when your rep is bad like Trumpy-boss, then you perhaps inadvertently place a higher level of awareness of expected errors onto other manufacturers from the same country.

cheers

Jonners

PS The 1/48th Wildcats are very nice models, and accurate, as is the Seahawk.

[Smiffy]

Jonners sums it up pretty well, I think. Through past experience, I tend to wait and see what the general opinion of those "in the know" are on any new kit release, before I'll make a purchase now.

Generally, I don't mind if a kit has a couple of minor issues, or something that can be fixed without to much hacking about. The Tornado or the Vampire are examples of kits I would avoid though.

However, it isn't only Trumpeter or Hobbyboss I would say this about. For instance, I'm finding Revell are just as hit and miss and feel that they have taken a big step backwards regarding their quality/accuracy, compared to maybe 10 years ago (or so). I tend to wait for reviews of their new products as well, before making a purchase, now.

[AaCee26]

Now I know trumpy and hobbyboss get tons of stick from modelers for being incorrect shape or big errors, but what are their best kits?, I've heard good things about their Dauntless and me 262 kits, but would love to heard from you all?

Hi all,

As already many times said the accuracy varies a lot. I comment only 1/72 scale which I'm familiar and only kits I have studied. Early ones can be both challenging to built and not so accurate like Il-28. Decals looks usually nice but not always correct.

Trumpeteer: J-8 and J-10 OK but simpler than 1/48, K-8 OK, JF-17/FC-1 looks really nice, Sea Fury some accuracy issues but easy to built. JH-7A proportions questionable. WS-10 looks fine. J-15 wing span issue if it matters, Ken already commented other Su-27s and derivates, Mi-4 looks nice but KP is more accurate. Mi-8 is in fact Mi-17 - needs new or heavily modified engine compartment. As Mi-17 it is fine.

Hobbyboss: MiG-3 likely best in scale, Il-2 good but Tamiya better (except wheels), P-2 and Tu-2 fine unless non-existing interior is an issue, Me 110 pretty nice but it has two seats with stick after each other Can be detailed with extra parts left over if you have an Edu Profi-pack, Tomahawk was OK when new but Airfix and Trumpy better detailed, Morane and Me 109s not so bad for budget, La-7, Gladiator, Buffalo, Warhawk and Ju 88 awful, Me 262 wing sweep less than Hasey and Revell (which one is correct?) MiG-15 decent unless one cares the fin sweep, F-84 nice.

What I have read Macchi and Claude are reported to have accuracy problems, Zero, He 162 and Me 163 should be decent.

Cheers,

AaCee

[Skids]

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.

There is a very easy way to remove that "mountain" if you are a manufacturer, and that's to show your customers some respect and produce the most accurate model you can.

There are some really great points here and comparisons which is turning into a great read but it does point out one thing to me, some modellers will NEVER be happy. Lets face it we want the perfect kit because we are lazy.

Jonners/Brokenedge if only it was that simple. Whereas some would be happy for the most accurate model the manufacturer can produce , others will count those rivets - get the scale drawings and rulers out to check if its 0.02mm to small at 1/72 scale etc. There will always be someone who will complain no matter how good the kit is. Some people are only happy when they can complain.

I dont really mind some errors and am happy to either leave it be or try to correct it, for example I am collecting stuff for a Su-22 build in 48th. The kit is not completely accurate and I have spent a lot of money on AM because I want to have a go at building a great looking kit, but thats the point. I want to try, and hopefully have a good time on the journey.

I know some kits are really bad so send a message to the manufacturers and dont buy it, (I know that doesn't work as we will still buy it if its the only game in town, the HB YF-23 is one example that I got because I wanted it).

Apart from that great thread and some great comments.

[Alan P]

But this is my point Skids. The Trumpeter Typhoon (FGR version) is streets ahead of the Revell version in production quality, detail, fit - all the things that people who build models like. But it suffers from shape and detail inaccuracies by comparison to the Revell kit.

By contrast, the Revell kit is weak on detail, has barely two parts that fit together properly, is riddled with sink marks, flash, mould lines and ejector pin marks. Surface detail is inconsistent and generally weak and the build ends up with more filler than plastic and will try the patience of even the most ardent supporter.

Guess which one is regarded as the best kit of the subject? Accuracy is always considered to be the superior position - regardless. But that's neither correct nor fair.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Brokenedge

[Giorgio N]

It's true that modellers will likely never be happy, however we should keep in mind that the accuracy errors for which kits are generally criticised are always major ones, not a couple mm length over a 1/72 Vulcan length kit. All kits that have been heavily debated for accuracy, had errors that were visible without using a ruler. Nobody in this world can expect perfection, but something that compares well with a picture found on the internet would be a good start and some Trumpeter/HB kits failed even this simple test.

Some, not all fortunately, as they have made some good kits as seen in these pages. Most are also good kits to build and as such will appeal to those modellers who are not bothered to compare their model with pictures of the real thing.

A few more comments:

Brokenedge wrote "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"

Fair point, however I think we worry too much: manufacturing companies usually respond to criticism in one of two ways:

1) they improve the product. Airfix did exactly this, their first Hornby era kits were little more than toys, they were rightly criticised for this and look where they are now!

2) They don't care.

In the end sales are what matters, if current Trumpeter/HB kits sell enough why should they stop making them ? In the end they are in the market for the money, not to read nice things on the web. Clearly making customers happier is in the interest of any company, but it's not necessary as long as someone keeps buying.

The 1/32 Tomcat: yes, the intakes can be corrected, however here we're saying that an inaccurate detailed kit is better than an accurate one because the inaccurate parts can be replaced with aftermarket. Well, I could reply that an accurate but little detailed kit can be improved in the same way using aftermarket parts. In any case, in a 21st century designed kit of that price, I'd expect that a decent level of accuracy and detail should be available using only parts from the box. The same applies to the 1/48 HB kit. I'm happy to excuse accuracy issues with the easy-kits, that are afterall aimed at a younger and less demanding crowd, but when speaking of the 1/32 flagships I'm not.

[Flankerman]

Mi-8 is in fact Mi-17 - needs new or heavily modified engine compartment. As Mi-17 it is fine.

AaCee

Not quite AaCee.......

The Mi-8 and M-17 are one and the same thing - Mi-17 is merely the export designation.

The HB kit represents a second-generation Mi-8MT straight from the box - what you cannot make is a first-generation Mi-8T - you need the Pavla conversion set......

So, strictly speaking it is wildly inaccurate as you cannot make a Mi-8T 'Hip-C' as supplied......

Both boxings (the Mi-8T Hip-C and Mi-8MT / Mi-17 Hip-H) are exactly the same - HB think that just swapping the tail rotor from port to starboard makes the first generation Hip-C - but it is more complicated than that.

See my builds of both (and others) here.

Ken

[Skids]

Brokenedge - Unfortunately thats the world we live in, what matters is are YOU happy with the Trumpy one? If you are then don't worry about what others say. If you enjoyed building it then it should not matter. That is the point of this hobby - enjoyment - if you are not happy with shapes, details dont build it go and get a more accurate kit of something else

Giorgio N - What I was trying to say is that if the companies fixed the "major' issues but there were a few "minor" issues someone would make an issue of it because we like to complain!

I agree with whats being said, big mistakes and laziness is not a good excuse (see Ken point above - laziness for cash), but SOME of these companies are in it to make money not to make you or me happy. If that were the case then they would most likely go out of business.

I hate the mistakes on kits but I like building them and I correct them if I want too and don't if I don't. Its so easy to complain, but not so easy to produce a nice kit. I know what I would rather do

[Smiffy]

Regarding the big Tomcat, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Trumpy kit offers the much better starting point, then.

(Unless you really enjoy rescribing and/or lots of filling and sanding ).

[Troy Smith]

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.

The Tamiya kit is too short, Not 1/50th. The basic length maybe '1/50th', but the rest is 1/48th. Did you look at the link, as it has an extensive post of the Tamiya vs Airfix, as well as discussion on the basis for the Airfix kit etc etc.

Moot if you want to buy a new kit, if you have stashed Tamiya it can be fixed reasonably easily. See link.

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

The Hase kit is reported as being 1/50th, so if it's overall smaller, it is 1/50th. I don't have the Hase kit because sources who know say it's 1/50th.

If I found one really cheap maybe. I have the Tamiya because I got that cheap, and it was before I knew it's faults.

As kits goes, I suggest there are 3 types of error.

Minor - small faults, correctable with some basic modelling skill, or after market, or not serious enough to worry about.

Major - the 1/48th Tamiya Spitfire is an example, bit short, bit fat, wing planform, but has some very good fine panel lines. Can be fixed with some surgery and modelling ability.

The Trumpeter Sea Fury is in this category

'Fatal flaw' - dimensional errors that are unfixable without very major surgery or entire replacement, eg Trumpeter Vampire.

I've not seen a build which corrects the kit.

this thread also has the 'no kit is perfect' line again and again, this is a flaw in reasoning, It's like saying there is no such thing as black or white paint, which is technically correct, but in the real world, we have balck and white that are 'good enough' for all practical purposes..

What we have is a graded scale, so a kit that's +90% accurate is going to satisfy most, but where does, say the Trumpy Vampire score on this?

And, then as had been pointed out, some folks are never happy.

I've seen people have problems with the new tool Airfix kits that are so well fitting the less diligent modeller can mess them up by not paying attention to how accurate the fit it, and then moan about it.

So, be thankful for the people who do know the subject, and are prepared to share their knowledge for free. I've learnt an mazing amount from here and Hyperscale over the years, and also who are reliable sources as well.

[AaCee26]

Not quite AaCee.......

The Mi-8 and M-17 are one and the same thing - Mi-17 is merely the export designation.

<clip>

The HB kit represents a second-generation Mi-8MT straight from the box - what you cannot make is a first-generation Mi-8T - you need the Pavla conversion set......

Both boxings (the Mi-8T Hip-C and Mi-8MT / Mi-17 Hip-H) are exactly the same - HB think that just swapping the tail rotor from port to starboard makes the first generation Hip-C - but it is more complicated than that.

See my builds of both (and others) here.

Ken

Thank you, Ken, pointing this out! As my interest has been export operators I had missed this. Anyway - I stand corrected!

If I recall correct I have a Ciro engine compartment and replacement fuel tanks. I didn't mention this as they are no longer available if I'm correct.

I have read your article earlier but it was good to re-read it. It is a lovely kit as a late Mi-8 or Mi-17. Though one thing disturbing me a bit is the cockpit sliding side windows. They look a bit too small, or the frames too wide, for me.

I use also this opportunity to ask if you have found an easy fix for the Tu-16/H-6 cockpit canopy? I have been playing with idea to sand the frames away, polish it and re-paint them so that the upper side view would be higher in the front.

Cheers,

AaCee

[Adam Maas]

It's worth noting that all the Hobby Boss F4U's have major problems. The -5 and -7 use the -4's wing, which is totally wrong. The -4 itself has a bunged fuselage (too wide at the cockpit, a problem shared with the Academy and the cowl is misshapen, the latter of course fixable via aftermarket. Call it acceptable as the only modern mold, but hard to swallow at almost twice the cost of Tamiya's excellent F4U-1 in 1/48).

[Troy Smith]

It's worth noting that all the Hobby Boss F4U's have major problems. The -5 and -7 use the -4's wing, which is totally wrong. The -4 itself has a bunged fuselage (too wide at the cockpit, a problem shared with the Academy and the cowl is misshapen, the latter of course fixable via aftermarket. Call it acceptable as the only modern mold, but hard to swallow at almost twice the cost of Tamiya's excellent F4U-1 in 1/48).

Interesting Adam.

First I have heard that the HB is too wide. I know the Academy is, about 2mm, around the cockpit and rear fuselage compared to the Tamiya -1.

Any idea how out the HB kit is? What proof? No mention of this on quick search on Hyperscale, be interested to know more.

I know there was a very good thread on Hyperscale on the F4U-4 cowlings in 1/48

OK, here

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1350062835

L-R , HB, Academy, Hasegawa.

real thing

And the Academy seems best cowling!

Hmm, might have to take the belt sander to the Academy fuselage then and see if I can slim it down enough....

cheers

T

[Seahawk]

It's worth noting that all the Hobby Boss F4U's have major problems.

Suggest you are referring only to their 1/48 offerings there. The 1/72 one has clearly been heavily influenced by the Tamiya kit.

[Adam Maas]

Suggest you are referring only to their 1/48 offerings there. The 1/72 one has clearly been heavily influenced by the Tamiya kit.

No, I'm referring to all of them.

The 1/72 offerings are overall better than the 1/48, but have the following issues:

1. ridiculous and wildly wrong ZL rocket rails

2. cutaways in the lower wing in front of the flaps that aren't present on any other F4U kit (or the real thing)

3. Missing cutout step in starboard wing flap which was present on many -1D and -4's

4. inaccurate metal panels below the ammo bays (fabric on the -1's)

5. 4 sets of ammo bays per wing rather than 3 plus a half-length spacer aft of the spar.

6. Missing the stall-inducing wedge on the outer starboard wing leading edge

6. Overly long cowl flaps

Additionally they're missing Tamiya's big oops (common to all Tamiya -1D's in all three scales and all of their -1A's, although it is technically accurate for an early -1A), the lower wing landing light and the panel lines are significantly different (different locations, different detail) and they have the aileron & aileron trim tab actuators which are missing on the Tamiya kit and they have the correct metal skinned outer flaps which were on all rocket-armed -1D's, while the Tamiya has the earlier fabric-skinned outer flaps (incorrect for any -1D with rocket rails, which are included in the Tamiya kit). If they're a copy of anything, it's certainly not the Tamiya kit.

Additionally their -4 has the same cowl problem as the 1/48 kit while the -1 has a wildly over-extended exhaust flap on the lower fuselage and spurious aerial of some sort on the lower rear fuselage, also the rear aerial is too offset, it should be only slightly off centre. Some of this comes from too much mold commonality between the -4 and -1, it's clear that they're using the same core mold design for both wing & fuselage with inserts for the different nose & lower fuselage sections. the only parts truly unique to each variant are the cowl & prop. Tamiya suffers from the same problem in the other direction, their issue is excessive commonality between the 1-, -1A and -1D.

They're by far the best Corsairs of their respective types in 1/72 other than the Tamiya, but that's really not saying all that much. There's only one proper -4 (the HB) and their -1D really only has Revell's recent lousy offering as competition for the #2 spot after Tamiya. Any real similarities come down to both kits getting something right.

Note I'm not dinging the HB kits for the crude engine, cockpit and simplified landing gear, they're Easy Kits and thus are going to simplify some areas.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Adam Maas

[Jon Bryon]

These both have their fair share of errors which are obvious to those interested in these aircraft, the Mig-23 MLD nose for instance, but the Mig-21 isthe worse of the two. I'm still trying to gather details on the Su-9, I can say however that the cockpit is woeful and it needs new mainwheels. Also it is based on an early version so be careful about what markings you use.

HTH

Andy

Just out of interest, do you have a summary of what's wrong with the MiG-21F-13? I know lots of complaints were raised, but aside from some issues with (IIRC) the tail or rudder, I haven't seen a thorough analysis.

Thanks

Jon

[Troy Smith]

Just out of interest, do you have a summary of what's wrong with the MiG-21F-13? I know lots of complaints were raised, but aside from some issues with (IIRC) the tail or rudder, I haven't seen a thorough analysis.

Thanks

Jon

I think the guy who going to do a through analysis just gave up...

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=257354&st=80

Ahoj Tom,

I dont have any developments for the simple reason that I dont think there is any point in spending time on this Trump kit. Sorry about this. I had made a lot of measurements and got to the same conclusion as Floggerman, everything is there on the kit, but almost everything is wrong either in shape or size. On the previous page I had a photo taken in March from overhead of the wing (just as I did for about every square centimeter of the real aircraft) with my friend Pali we had measured the wings and everything is wrong on it, the proportions, the size, the shape of the aileron, the flaps. I think they have taken some kind of general drawing and used it in the design of the kit saying a few centimeters here and there would not make a change. This is sad, but its the way some of the kits designed today. I say SOME as there are a few manufacturers who care about proper research.

It would be possible to carry on with page after page of comparison photos, showing the kit and the original, giving dimensional data, but I dont see any point in this. It would be perfect for a future kit manufacture, aftermarket manufacturers, but I dont intend to do all the research instead of them. Also based on most of the replies to this and other topics where such inaccuracies are pointed out, most people simply dont care about them and say that the kit is good for them as it is. So why do any of the work on photo comparisons, measurements???????????? I only get bad press at the end.

the ARC thread linked has details of the rear fuselage problem, and the size of the wheel wells.

It's probably a 'Where's Wally' kind of kit, where the more look, and the more you know, the more errors you find.... bit like the Italeri Hurricanes...

It's undoubtedly better than the AA Models J-7 kit http://www.scale-models.co.uk/threads/aa-models-1-48-chengdu-j-7-e.28717/

[Norman]

Interesting thread this, the variety of views is also !! great to read, but we are a funny and diverse lot that make up this wonderful hobby, I cant say i have ditched or thrown out a HB/Trumpeter kit or even not purchased one due to reading negative press as i really don't trust anything i read verbatim , i guess it comes from a life working in the media !! but i do feel negative reviews could be altered to have a more positive outlook i.e 'The nose shape of this kit is incorrect when laid against builders plans but can be reshaped easily' rather than 'Typical HB wrong wrong wrong, dont buy death to all i'm off the hang myself' i hope you get what i'm trying to say,

I stayed away from the 'Kits to avoid' thread as it looked like imploding early on, wars have been started for less !

However if i may make an observation one thing i have found absolutely astonishing is the way 'a modeller' ( on ANY forum not just BM) will build what 'they' say is an inaccurate Hobby Boss/Trumpeter kit and publish a thread on how they have 'fixed' the many shape issues, with lovely photo's and much cutting n milliput and people post replies like, oooh ahhhh, and wow your fantastic,

But when you REALLY look at what they have done and quickly notice they have completed all that work and missed or left off an item/s that is VITAL and as plain as the nose on one's face as it were and no-one says anything, i find this very amusing , but that's the way we are i guess, and its always better to be polite rather than aggressive which is why some threads get locked !

In 'my' mind any kit is buildable to me and depending on one's own standards in regards to accuracy of shape and one's ability to correct you can build quite a collection these days where as in the sixties things were not quite so easy which is why Alan W Hall (R.I.P and bless him ) taught us to use talcum powder and dope on balsa wood for conversions, i for one am happy Airfix are back producing great kits, i am also very happy with all Asian newcomers to me its a veritable Smörgåsbord of kits that keeps me fully occupied if somewhat broke !

But to each their own !

[Giorgio N]

Interesting thread this, the variety of views is also !! great to read, but we are a funny and diverse lot that make up this wonderful hobby, I cant say i have ditched or thrown out a HB/Trumpeter kit or even not purchased one due to reading negative press as i really don't trust anything i read verbatim , i guess it comes from a life working in the media !! but i do feel negative reviews could be altered to have a more positive outlook i.e 'The nose shape of this kit is incorrect when laid against builders plans but can be reshaped easily' rather than 'Typical HB wrong wrong wrong, dont buy death to all i'm off the hang myself' i hope you get what i'm trying to say,

I stayed away from the 'Kits to avoid' thread as it looked like imploding early on, wars have been started for less !

However if i may make an observation one thing i have found absolutely astonishing is the way 'a modeller' ( on ANY forum not just BM) will build what 'they' say is an inaccurate Hobby Boss/Trumpeter kit and publish a thread on how they have 'fixed' the many shape issues, with lovely photo's and much cutting n milliput and people post replies like, oooh ahhhh, and wow your fantastic,

But when you REALLY look at what they have done and quickly notice they have completed all that work and missed or left off an item/s that is VITAL and as plain as the nose on one's face as it were and no-one says anything, i find this very amusing , but that's the way we are i guess, and its always better to be polite rather than aggressive which is why some threads get locked !

In 'my' mind any kit is buildable to me and depending on one's own standards in regards to accuracy of shape and one's ability to correct you can build quite a collection these days where as in the sixties things were not quite so easy which is why Alan W Hall (R.I.P and bless him ) taught us to use talcum powder and dope on balsa wood for conversions, i for one am happy Airfix are back producing great kits, i am also very happy with all Asian newcomers to me its a veritable Smörgåsbord of kits that keeps me fully occupied if somewhat broke !

But to each their own !

The problem in giving such a more positive outlook is that stating that a part can be reshaped easily may or may not correspond to reality !

As an example, I have the Trumpeter 1/72 F-100C. Should I write a review and point out accuracy issues I should write something like "the intake is not the right shape. It can't be reshaped easily, the best solution would be to replace with an intake from the 30 year old Esci kit. The tail is inaccurate, can be left as is but modellers wanting to improve this area are advised to scratchbuid their own as the part can't be reshaped and there's no aftermarket in this scale".

I also have the HB F-5E, of which I could write "the windscreen does not conform to plans or pictures of the real part, being several mm too short, something that completely changes the proportion of the part. It can't be reshaped because making a clear part longer is practically impossible. A replacement must be found from another kit, as no aftermarket exists"

Now such reviews would sound very polite and avoids any aggressive overtone, but the fact remains that the parts mentioned would need replacement.

[Otakar]

I think the Hobby Boss Corsair series is one of the most mis-shaped Corsairs out there. I used the one kit I bought to make a detail kit out of. There is very little that actually IS right with it. The best way to make an accurate F4U-4 is to use the old Hasegawa with the Academy cowling. That combination will give you a good outline F4U-4. Than use the Trumpeter cockpit to give the interior some detail. I don't find anything else on the Trumpeter Corsair of any use. Both the Fuse and the wing is completely wrong.

[IanHx]

Trumpy F107 was the best injection ultra sabre I could find to build.

It was also the only F107 injection ultra sabre I could find to build !

In terms of quality, seemed similar to the usual Italeri / Revell fare .

Would very happily build a Trumpy F108 if they ever made one !

[Tiger331]

I reckon all the criticism is a load of bulldust for the most part. Is amazing how a Trumpeter kit gets criticised for one thing, a Tamiya kit comes out a few years later with exactly the same effect and it isn't even mentioned.

Their 1/32 Mig-21UM is awesome to build, as is their 1/32 F-100.. and also their 1/32 P-38.

Warren,

One simply has to understand that there is a rather large and vociferous community out there, largely from a country not renowned for its prolific production of new model aircraft kits, that believes that practically anything that is produced by the 'Axis of Inaccuracy' (China/Czech Republic/Italy) is not going to be any good, even before it is actually released. If it does turn out to be a half decent (or dare I say very good) kit, the criticism is then normally leveled at the decal sheet, instruction manual, lack of photo-etch, box art, quality of the inner packaging, lack of outer cellophane wrapping……etc etc

[Tiger331]

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

Rene,

Totally agree with most of what you say apart from possibly the last sentence…...

You obviously don't frequent some of the other modelling websites, where even Great Wall Hobby get a bashing and NO recognition for their stellar efforts in correcting kits in double/quick time.

[TGA]

The HobbyBoss P-61 is a very nice kit. Nicely detailed, great instructions. The only problem is that it's highly inaccurate. It is sold as a P-61B but it is neither a true A or B. It has details of both aircraft. This is, in this case, not necessarily a bad thing because with a number of adjustments you can make it either an A or B series aircraft. The overall results of people building this kit are generally very good.

[Otakar]

I thought that the 1/48 P-61 was a Great Wall Product? That company is completely separate from the other two mentioned companies.