Unpacking the Trumpeter Tomcat

[Alpagueur]

The nose looks too short and does not look to be the right shape, it looks odd.

Actually, it looks a bit strange :huh:

Edited December 14, 2009 by Alpagueur

[JasonB]

All of these are starting to remind me of something. What is it??? Oh yeah, now I remember. John Madden...

Edited December 14, 2009 by JasonB

[Anders_Isaksson]

The nose looks too short and does not look to be the right shape, it looks odd.

...

And yet that nosecone is an exact copy of the Tamiya and the forward fuselages have the same height.

...

Actually, it looks a bit strange

Interesting observations!

I'm pretty sure the Trumpeter nosecone is keyed in order to attach to the forward fuselage in a certain position, but from looking at those pics I would think the cone is attached upside down.

I don't remember exactly but I believe this issue was discussed when the first pics of a built up example began showing up... not sure about this though.

Cheers,

Anders

[Dave Williams]

I'm not sure that comparison is fully valid. The model forward fuselage section is sitting on a flat surface, and the intakes aren't installed, so it isn't at the same angle as in the drawing.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Dave Williams

[Space Tiger Hobbes]

Based on the side views, the Trump nose profile looks a little flat on top. Much easier aftermarket correction than rescribing a Tamiya kit, then stuffing in another $100 worth of aftermarket products. But I'll wait for a build-up.

[Av8fan]

*IF* the nose is wrong:

Paging Zactoman..

Paging Zactoman.

Please answer the White Courtesy resin casting hotline...

[chuck540z3]

Thanks Guys, I just bought another Tamiya kit. With all the problems it has, it's still the only kit that looks like a real Tomcat up front, which is where your eye goes first. I really like what Trumpeter has tried to do here, but this looks like a double rather than a home run. IMHO, of course.

[loftycomfort]

I just got my copy during the weekend. Here are my observations that others have not yet mentioned:

- The instrument panels are solid pieces of plastic instead of the usual clear bezel film behind plastic. Why?

- The pitot tube is plastic instead of metal.

I'm wrapping up my current build. In a couple of days, I will start putting glue on plastic for the Trumpy Tomcat. Surely, I will share some build progress pics.

Cheers,

Terry

[JasonB]

Just to play along, I overlaid the drawing onto the photo. First, the drawing and the photo are not exactly aligned, the drawing has to be rotated back just a little to line up better. The nose is slightly flat on top, but only hear the tip, perhaps 1/4 inch back from the point. It needs to be sanded down to more of a curve from that point going forward. The bottom angles up a little too much as well. Its not as much as needs to be sanded from the top, and its closer to the point. A bit of putty and some sanding will fix that easy enough. Basic modeling stuff, or as some folks might require, a $15 after market item.

Heres my best quickie comparison The blue line is a rough outline of the Trump nose. And that drawing really sucks. the glare on top of the kit parts does make it look worse IMHO than it really is

Edited December 14, 2009 by JasonB

[Cunumdrum61]

I may be wrong but could it be the reflection of light on the top surface on the nose on the trump kit that makes it look worse than what it is? Just a thought.

[Admiral T. Jurisdiction]

I'm not an expert by any means, but what diagrams are people using to compare the kit to?

I've got this old Squadron Signal F-14 Tomcat In Action book (#105) that has some nice diagrams showing the side, plan, bottom, front and rear views. Are those tech diagrams considered accurate?

I get the impression that those plans were used as the basis for all of those full-color profile illustrations showing the prominent squadron tail markings.

[Dave Williams]

We seem to be going far past rivet counting on this kit. If it looks OK to you, buy it. If not, don't. I wouldn't trust drawings in some model publication anyway, no matter how nice they were drawn. The only thing that matters is comparison to the real thing.

[pablo189]

The nose looks too short and does not look to be the right shape, it looks odd.

Reddog

Actually, it looks a bit strange :huh:

The Trumpy windscreen is too long in comparison with that drawing. That's what makes the nose look to short.I don't know how to do the photoshop thing but if you lay a ruler down the screen you can see the difference. The Trumpy nose also looks like its too flat from the windscreen to the tip beacause the depth from the point of the nose to the bottom of the fuselage is too deep...the tip of the nose needs to be shifted down a bit, that will relax the curve under the nose and increase it on top of the nose. The question is ....is that drawing correct...can somebody lay the shape of the kit over a side profile photo of the real thing?

Edited December 14, 2009 by pablo189

[Cunumdrum61]

What you have to remember is the forward windshield on the trumpy kit has the framing and part on the fuselage sides and front on it. The drawing does not show this so it will look out of whack regardless. Now if the trumpy windshield was painted it might look ok.

[aviationpic]

Have just seen that a long and a short front undercarriage is included in the kit and the short one is with catapult-bar down Finally one can build Felix sitting on the cat :huh:

Edited December 14, 2009 by aviationpic

[pablo189]

What you have to remember is the forward windshield on the trumpy kit has the framing and part on the fuselage sides and front on it. The drawing does not show this so it will look out of whack regardless. Now if the trumpy windshield was painted it might look ok.

OK....Figured out the paintbrush thingy ...look at the blue lines, shows where the windscreen terminates and the relative depths of the lower half of the fuselage

[Admiral T. Jurisdiction]

We seem to be going far past rivet counting on this kit. If it looks OK to you, buy it. If not, don't. I wouldn't trust drawings in some model publication anyway, no matter how nice they were drawn. The only thing that matters is comparison to the real thing.

Some of us enjoy the "rivet-counting" and study aspect almost as much as the modeling; those who see it as superfluous or unnecessary are free to refrain from participating. Personally, if I'm going to plunk-down $200+ bucks for a kit, I want to know what that $200+ will get me, for better or worse.

As for comparing the model to the real thing, while that sounds good, it's often more frustrating than using diagrams. You have to consider that photos of the real aircraft will have varying amounts of perspective distortion depending on the lenses used and the angles it's photographed at. Also, considering Trumpeter's "hit or miss" history, I prefer to do my own homework and make sure that this F-14 isn't another SU-27.

Do I expect it to be perfect? Nope, but for what they charge, I expect it to be more in the "close enough" ballpark, and not in the "gross negligence" ballpark.

[Cunumdrum61]

I agree it does look out somewhat, but I do not trust the drawing either. I guess we won’t really know until we see one built up and look at the contours then. The problem with drawings is that most are not 32 scale and once they are enlarged the lines become pixilated and you are no better off I think. I think the only way would be to compare the kit and it shape against the Hasegawa and Tamiya kit. Have the Tamiya and Hasegawa kit been compared to scale drawings before?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Cunumdrum61

[JasonB]

Some of us enjoy the "rivet-counting" and study aspect almost as much as the modeling; those who see it as superfluous or unnecessary are free to refrain from participating. Personally, if I'm going to plunk-down $200+ bucks for a kit, I want to know what that $200+ will get me, for better or worse.

As for comparing the model to the real thing, while that sounds good, it's often more frustrating than using diagrams. You have to consider that photos of the real aircraft will have varying amounts of perspective distortion depending on the lenses used and the angles it's photographed at. Also, considering Trumpeter's "hit or miss" history, I prefer to do my own homework and make sure that this F-14 isn't another SU-27.

Do I expect it to be perfect? Nope, but for what they charge, I expect it to be more in the "close enough" ballpark, and not in the "gross negligence" ballpark.

You're new, you don't know Dave. If you did, you would realize A)Dave would be considered a rivet counter by most definitions of the word B)Dave will have this kit, if he doesn't already and C)Dave holds Trumps feet to the fire as much as anyone.

Daves just making the point that the drawing thats being used looks like a blown up drawing from a Squadron "In Action" book, which are not meant to be exact scale drawings, are usually very small, and the larger they are blown up, the greater the distortion. Unless you can get a dead on side picture of both the real thing and the kit, at the exact same angle, etc...then you are never going to have an exact comparison. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to stop a lot of people of making comparisons between faulty drawings, poorly lit photos from different angles, and photos of the kit parts.Or worse yet, comparing kit parts to parts from other kits, making the assumption that another kits parts aren't any more or less "off".

Edited December 14, 2009 by JasonB

[Ghostkiller]

A good profile that I found on the net here

I am more concerned about the air intakes position that I pointed before.... can not wait to see a photo from the top

[Brian P: Fightertown Decals]

Here's a thought - if you guys are going to put this much effort to comparing it to BAD drawings....

get a good set of drawings if that's your thing, then compare the parts put together with the pitot tube part since the forward part of the nose cone is molded into in. Light the picture decently and make sure it's straight on.

ITMT, nothing compared with that picture and those drawings is going to be close to accurate...

But like I said before - have fun

-brian

[Alpagueur]

OK....Figured out the paintbrush thingy ...look at the blue lines, shows where the windscreen terminates and the relative depths of the lower half of the fuselage

Trumpy windscreen seems to be correct. The above windscreen profile length is not correct (drawing is from airwar.ru) but if you look at the Willy Peeters correct drawings (Daco book) the music is always the same (indeed, the fwd fuselage height is bigger)

[Av8fan]

Brian,

Well, It's cold out -50C in spots (would it be possible to get stuck to a model kit at those temps?), the snow is falling in places.

The polar bears are starting to move down into the Northern suburbs of Toronto(j/k)

So sitting beside the light of our home computers and speculating on inaccuracies of a kit keeps the blood warm.

I Like what I see so far.

The fact that it has no wing SWEEP mechanism allows me to model that famous F-14 shot with one wing swept and the other extended.

Anyone care to post that?

Now where is that legal disclaimer that Waco wrote a few days back.. Hmmm

Edit for mixing my terms. Had a supplier drop off a box of cookies at work. Too much sugar

Edited December 14, 2009 by Av8fan

[THX1138]

Since I'm not building it just yet, getting more shots and compare the shape is my way on spending time on it and have more excuses to open the box once more

Here goes. Didn't spend too much time on getting the lighting right. Guess I really need to pick up a 12 feet photographers background. First is Hasegawa 1/48, second is Trumpy.

Without using math or any fancy overlay, I'd say they're pretty much the same. Better than the earlier side shot which looked like it had the nose curving up too early on the bottom. But like many have said already, who's to say the drawing was exact, and here the same can be said for the Hasegawa nose.

Edited December 14, 2009 by THX1138

[Zactoman]

*IF* the nose is wrong:

Paging Zactoman..

Paging Zactoman.

Please answer the White Courtesy resin casting hotline...

No time to do a real valid comparison plus I lack good reference (coul;dn't find a near perfect side or top view of the real thing and as mentioned in numerous previous threads, drawings are not neccessarily accurate.), but,,, At a glance, it looks like the canopy extends too far back on the Trump kit.

I'd like to see more pics comparing the real thing to the kit.

I'd also like to see better pics of the rest of the kit, including the fuselage sides/stabilator intersection as viewed from above...