Trumpeter models... why so much $$???

Errr....
We go to China to "cut costs" but really what they're doing is increasing profits by getting "western" suckers to pay PVP (perceived value pricing). Crappy kits can only be discouraged by NOT buying them. Appropriately priced kits for such low labo(u)r costs will only be had by not paying HIGH prices for what is at best a mediocre effort. The Trumpeter shills are not doing the modelling community any favo(u)rs. Nice 1/32 kits are not being created by Trumpeter, whether you won't to pay $120-$150 for them is your business.
No MBA required! (u)'s added for non USA readers
Reply to
Blondeguy
Loading thread data ...
I happen to think the Trumpeter carriers are excellent kits and are competitively priced for new molds (don't even try the Tamiya 1/350 BB kits are cheaper argument, those molds are long since amortized, if cut today as new molds bet on $150 for those Tamiya BB kits). The only Trumpeter aircraft I've built was the A-10 on commission and I found it a decent kit with few major problems (the cockpit sucks but the customer was happy with it).....I used less filler on this than ANY Monogram kit I ever built. I also used less filler on both the Hornet AND Essex I built on commission (includes full airwings for both plus the B-25's for the Hornet) than either the Tamiya Bismark or New Jersey.
Bl>
Reply to
Ron
Ron wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@rcn.com:
Actually I can sort of see it for the 1/350 carriers, I still don't hink I'll be putting one on my stash anytime soon. Hell I have representatives of most of the players on the the 3rd and 5th Fleets in 1/700and I don't know where I'll display those!
Reply to
Gray Ghost
I agree the Carriers are excellent and the pricing does seem cheap compared to Tamiya at the original release time of the Tamiya BBs. However I think we may be missing something here. All the original reviews on the carriers compared them to Mike Bishop's Blue Water Navy releases in resin. Things like the bow has the same error as the BWN kit.The imediate conclusion is they used the BWN kits as their model to copy - big savings in original design , and and absence of any significant mistakes like on the wildcat. Compare these to the inconsistensies (within a single kit like nobody talks to each other and they don't hold design reviews) in Trumpeter's 1/32 aircraft. Also ask yourself the following:
The photoetch hinges add nothing but cost and cokmplications - why are they included???
The K5 is in 1/35th, the rail wheels are in 1/32nd - why?? now I can't put it on a track with all the other 1/35th rail stuff.
Have they ever actually built one of their kits and wondered why the whole landing gear bay wasn't included???
Seems to me if they had some good 1/32 aircraft to copy from those kits would be a lot better too.
Val Kraut
...
less filler on both the Hornet AND Essex I
Reply to
Val Kraut
"Val Kraut" wrote
Can you provide specifics (gauge, diameter?) about this (or a source)? All I have seen rates the Trumpeter K5 as slightly better overall than the DML version.
KL
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
It was in several reviews and RMS posts. I selected the Trumpeter kit since overall it got better comments/review and I still only had the positve experiences with the Carriers at that point. I'll probably show it alone - so no big deal. The review speculated that there's a standard railroad scale that comes out to be 1/32 and thus they selected to make the wheel spacing 1/32 to make it also marketable in that arena. Some folks posted they wanted to show the units being moved as part of a train or being moved by a diesel engine. Apparently getting the wheels spaced for 1/35th isn't trivial. Ironsides is marketing part of their original K5 as a fix. The Ironworks units are in resins - so Trumpeter has essentially priced their unit off the market and they're grabbing what they can.
I guess I have the same feeling with the photo etched control surface hinges. If you want sacle and detail and end up seezing the surfaces in place with the fixed control rods - why go thru the bother. Unless they also have some idea that you can leave out the rods and have a "toy" with moving parts. Not that I'm sure they're structurally sound as a "play with it toy".
Val Kraut
Reply to
Val Kraut
Not having display space is a valid reason to not buy the kits. I don't buy planes over 1/48 for similar reasons, where would I put them?
Gray Ghost wrote:
Reply to
Ron
I forget what site it was that did a side by side comparison with the BWN Hornet, the Trumpeter kit vas too many differences in critical areas and actually got some things like the island, stren and flight deck closer to correct than BWN.....in short it was not a copy (that's not saying they didn't have a BWN to look at but it wasn't copied outright either).
Val Kraut wrote: > > I agree the Carriers are excellent and the pricing does seem cheap compared > to Tamiya at the original release time of the Tamiya BBs. However I think we > may be missing something here. All the original reviews on the carriers > compared them to Mike Bishop's Blue Water Navy releases in resin. Things > like the bow has the same error as the BWN kit.The imediate conclusion is > they used the BWN kits as their model to copy - big savings in original > design , and and absence of any significant mistakes like on the wildcat.
Reply to
Ron
Is it possible that either the rest of the 1/35 railroad based models or the Trumpeter K5 could have the wheel trucks slightly off scale to match some model railroad scale?
Kurt Laughl>
Reply to
Ron
"Val Kraut" wrote
Hearsay, in other words. Have you measured the track on your kit?
I wonder. I'll bet half the people don't even know what the correct European gauge is, or how it is measured. Given the correct gauge as a reference, why are people looking at the wheel sets anyway - these can vary depending on wheel diameter, rating, and so forth. Finally, my experience has been that most people can't measure model parts accurately closer than about 1/8 inch. . .
KL
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
Well if it's under 2" total I can measure to 0.0001" and if it's under 6" total I can measure to 0.001" but for most of my modeling that's way too anal....also assuming the part geometry will allow normal outside mics and calipers to fit. Also can measure tubing walls to 0.0001" if the tube ID is 0.10" or greater and the wall isn't thicker than 1".
Kurt Laughl> Hearsay, in other words. Have you measured the track on your kit? >
Reply to
Ron
Why thanks Kurt.
Now if I could just find the time to learn how to use the minilathe downstairs.
Kurt Laughl>
Reply to
Ron
i don't know how true the inelasticity thing is--in my case, the price I'm willing to pay varies upon perceived kit quality and desirability of subject. Even so, I am very reluctant to go over $50--the Mach 2 DC-4 is a case in point. Yes, it will probably be pretty primitive, but I might be willing to pay $50 even so, having dealt with Mach 2's material before. $85 is way too much, even for a very desirable subject in 1/72. Would I pay $85 for anyting in 1/72, even assuming it was offered by Tamiya? A Sunderland, probably, but that's about it.
Mark Schynert
Reply to
Mark Schynert
Hey, a Tu-95 in 1/72 is a lot of plastic now, bigger than a Sunderland :) How about an Ekranoplan in 1/72?
Reply to
a0002604
ooo baby, i would sell my....ummm, well, whatever for that bird. next spare change is going for the revell kit.
Reply to
e

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.