Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So as a plastic injection mould maker with a 5 year apprenticeship and 35 years in engineering, I do find fault in everything!  looking at my first Dragon kit 1/48 (Messer Me262A-1a/Jabo) and having built a few Tamiya and have Ebbro kits in my stash, the engineering & fit design is dreadful.

I've got as far as part 3, dry fitting the machine guns, and the location points (which don't match the guns) are nowhere near correct for the barrels to be concentric to the port holes in the b/head,

As I have invested in p/e for the cockpit I will persevere as I never give in but I am taking the dog for a walk now before I throw the kit in the bin and order the Tamiya version!!

But sorry Dragon, this is the last one.

Posting this has also served as therapy to calm me down!!

Happy days.

 

Christian

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, some of the Dragon stuff was sadly I’ll-fitting.

I had a bad experience with their He 162, and Ar 234, both of which looked brilliant and we’re well moulded, but lacked precision when it came to glueing pieces together.

 

 I think the Me 262 moulds might be a similar vintage and suffer from the same problems.

 

Having said that - it could just have been me and my ‘skillz’...

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Blimpyboy said:

it could just have been me and my ‘skillz’...

Nope- it is all DML and their half-a---- engineering! You do know that DML stood for "Do me later!" (If you really want to test your modeling skills and sanity, try their P-38 or P-61! :angry:

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not Dragon's engineering. It was originally a Trimaster kit, it's been subsequently issued by Dragon, Hasegawa, Revell and Italeri. The moulds are 31 years old and it was an over-engineered nightmare when it was new. 

All Trimaster kits that I've seen have similar problems. Best avoided. I actually do recommend walking away and getting a Tamiya one instead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trimaster kit and end of 80 ... were something new and I didn't have a problem at that time. I made quite a few ... Me-262a, he-162A, Fw-190A, Fw-190D.

They were a high quality short run from Japan. when they were taken over by the dragon the quality dropped probably the molds were already bothered.

 

 

Now I have very little time, due to work I am reaching for new Eduard and Tamiya kits.

 

P.k

Edited by politicni komisar
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

All Trimaster kits that I've seen have similar problems. Best avoided. I actually do recommend walking away and getting a Tamiya one instead.

I feel I have to gently disagree with you here. 

I haven't built the Trimaster 262 (although I have several in the stash) but I have built their Fw190F-8 which had a terrible on-line reputation for the cowl pieces being problematic. I couldn't see the issue - a little MEK, some patience, and a great result.  

Can't disagree with your point about the Tamiya equivalents to Trimaster fitting well (their He 162 is just beautiful), it's just sometimes that sometimes I feel there's an on-line tendency to knock some manufacturers in a rather generalised way about fit.

But then there's Mach 2... :tmi:

Their reputation for fit issues does appear to be justified...

 

Just my 2c

 

SD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SafetyDad said:

But then there's Mach 2... :tmi:

Their reputation for fit issues does appear to be justified

It's not all bad. They're a bit... rural. Vacform in IM. 

But the general shapes are there.

 

 

You get a fuselage, and wings, and tail. What more do you need?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never built a Trimaster kit and so I cannot comment first hand (subjects never appealed to me) although I had acquitances who despaired of them. 

I do sometimes feel that kit designers get carried a bit with the way they engineer kits and do not always think through the practical aspects of actually building the kit. I am thinking of my recent experience with the MPM Hudson. 

Having recently built a MACH2 York, it was not easy, but the sense of achievement in completing it boosted my modelling morale no end. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trimaster wasn't terrible, at least compared to some others of that time.

MACH2 on the other hand had no place to go but up.

I had a go at their Savoia Marchetti S.55 kit some years back and was forced to give it up.

Nothing fit. Even the right and left  hull shapes were completely different.

I have heard of a few hardy souls who actually finished it, but it was beyond my patience.

Parts bin...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've built the Dragon Fw 190 and Me 262 when I was 15 (so around 20 years ago) and while the Me 262 was a tricky build indeed, the Fw 190 went fine. The fit of the cowl is said to be really bad but it went together without any problems, no gaps and all. But you know, this was before reading magazines and forums which educate one about "well known" problems. So I built in blissful ignorance and simply skipped them :D

 

These kits were thrown out long ago, mainly because they suffered from many duster raids of my mom and my skills couldn't do them justice at this time. As I still like the detail level of their Me 262s (and for nostalgic reasons) I've purchased 2 Dragon boxings again last year.

 

Cheers

Markus

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren’t Trimaster among the first “super-kits” - many fine injected molded parts and some photoetch included?  I have their Fw 190D somewhere in the stash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I built there FW190 years ago and it was fine for that time. Actually better than fine... superseded now though by several generations. Also I wonder if some fit Problems are from pushing the molds further than intended... 
Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Matthew1974 said:

Weren’t Trimaster among the first “super-kits” - many fine injected molded parts and some photoetch included?

Yep, the original Trimaster kits featured finely engraved plastic parts and amazing detail for its time. In addition they supplied such exotic items like photoetch, white metal parts and brass/metal rods. When DML/Dragon got the moulds and re-released these kits the white metal parts and metal rods were replaced with injected ones. And when Revell/Italeri re-released them they redid some components originally supplied as photoetch in plastic.

 

I guess the tricky fit of some kits is the result of the moulds being now over 30 years old (Trimaster entered the stage in the late 80s) and who knows if they were always treated with due diligence.

 

Cheers

Markus

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shorty84 said:

Yep, the original Trimaster kits featured finely engraved plastic parts and amazing detail for its time. In addition they supplied such exotic items like photoetch, white metal parts and brass/metal rods. When DML/Dragon got the moulds and re-released these kits the white metal parts and metal rods were replaced with injected ones. And when Revell/Italeri re-released them they redid some components originally supplied as photoetch in plastic.

As Markus said, Trimaster were ground breaking but they were expensive at the time, I still have some unmade kits of theirs in the stash, Fw190F-8, Me163, Ta152 and He162.  Here is the Fw190D-9 I did get around to building.

IMG_0991

The photo etch that Trimaster supplied was thick and hard, very difficult to use, luckily there are Eduard seat belts to use now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...