Unpacking the Trumpeter Tomcat

[Matt Roberts]

Wonder if we'll get AIM-9Ps to do that sweet looking Ali-Cat....

I wonder how big of a problem that is when you have an aircraft with a long operational history. At what point do you mold the ordnance....retirement....initial operational capacity.....mid-life

[zerosystem]

going back i think that drawing isn't the best comparison, aside from generally looking wrong its not on the same angle as kit photo (as stated before) that and the lighting are throwing off alot of the edges. i was thumbing through some hasegawa instructions and the profiles for decals look more like the trumpeter kit than those posted (not saying those are correct either)

the canopy in the drawing looks like its too curved, look at the windscreen and then the forward section above the pilot, just doesn't appear correct.

i'd just like to see the kit, fully glued (no steps from tape, or placed fit) and painted to get a better overall impression, and for all sake get the pitot on the nose already its driving me nuts

[Ghostkiller]

THKS THX1138 ;)

OK looks like the canopy is not correct

this error looks too obvious for me and it will not be in my wish list

hope that another company will release a D version :pray

Unless zactoman adds this bird to its plans : he is pretty used to trumpeter

Edited December 15, 2009 by Ghostkiller

[Dave Williams]

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)

But are Willy's drawings 100% accurate? I like his work and no offense to him, but the only really accurate F-14 drawings are done by Grumman.

Jason's right, I'm somewhat of a rivet counter, but my point is that drawings can notoriously inaccurate. People seems to take a drawing in their favorite book and assume that it's right, but people have different favorites, so what's right to someone is wrong to another. Photos can help, but then you have to contend with different angles, lens distortions, and so on. Don't get me wrong, photos can point out gross errors like A-7 squashed intakes and canopies, but in this case, the errors (if they exist) seem to be slight, and therefore subject to small variations in photos and drawings. I just think for the magnitude of errors we seem to be taking about, about the only way to be sure is to get Grumman engineering drawings or measure a real F-14.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Dave Williams

[Marcel111]

Here's a pic of a "D" I took a few months ago showing the nose profile. I'll be heading back to the Charlotte aerospace museum to get some profile pics, I took about a hundred pics when I went there but I was focused on detail and weathering, not shape.

As said above, Trumpeter's nose does look a little off to me, thought so when I first saw the test shots. Looks a little "Aardvark" to me

Marcel

[niart17]

i think i can help make this point about comparing photos to schematics to models. here i have taken the pic Marcel just posted (i hope you don't mind) and overlaid it on another photo that Sig posted in research thread (again hope you don't mind for this experiment)

i have lined up the nose shapes to where they match up pretty darn close. but if you look, the guns don't line up at all. the front of the windscreen is slightly off too. so which is correct? lining up the outline of the nose or lining up the details such as edge of windscreen and gun outline? see where i'm going here. we KNOW that both tomcats are correct, they are the real thing after all. but they don't match up. hmmm....how could that be? see, even a slight (very slight difference of angles will make a huge difference. not even mentioning perspective, focal length, forshortening etc...etc..etc...

so i think that other than checking gross misshaped parts and perhaps panel line placement, it's pretty hard to find concrete evidence when you are talking about minor shape discrepencies. i'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a very tricky thing to do.

just my 2 cents.

Bill

[niart17]

taking this experiment a little further, i overlaid the profile of the model posted here. and i actually was able to line it up with the first tomcat more accurately than the second real tomcat. so i guess judging by that, the trumpeter kit is more accurate than a real f-14...who'd thunk it?

Bill

[Admiral T. Jurisdiction]

taking this experiment a little further, i overlaid the profile of the model posted here. and i actually was able to line it up with the first tomcat more accurately than the second real tomcat. so i guess judging by that, the trumpeter kit is more accurate than a real f-14...who'd thunk it?

Bill

Everyone knows that the Grumman Tomcats are notoriously inaccurate

[JasonB]

taking this experiment a little further, i overlaid the profile of the model posted here. and i actually was able to line it up with the first tomcat more accurately than the second real tomcat. so i guess judging by that, the trumpeter kit is more accurate than a real f-14...who'd thunk it?

Bill

The gray Tomcat is pointing toward the camera slightly (notice you can see into the muzzle a little, and the inside of the opposite nose gear door can be seen as well) which is going to throw things off, and one reason why you couldn't get the 2 pics of the real birds to line up.

Edited December 15, 2009 by JasonB

[niart17]

The gray Tomcat is pointing toward the camera slightly (notice you can see into the muzzle a little, and the inside of the opposite nose gear door can be seen as well) which is going to throw things off, and one reason why you couldn't get the 2 pics of the real birds to line up.

that's my point. you can't gaurantee you're lined up in the same angle, the same distance and everything. it would take an extremely accurate set up to scale of where you are shooting the real thing and where you are shooting the model. it's going to have flaws. but as i've said, the second picture is the model over the real in flight tomcat. to me, the shape is pretty close to being dead on. of course, it really doesn't mean it is. it just happens to line up pretty close to that pic.

Bill

[Zactoman]

i think i can help make this point about comparing photos to schematics to models... difference of angles will make a huge difference. not even mentioning perspective, focal length, forshortening etc...etc..etc...

so i think that other than checking gross misshaped parts and perhaps panel line placement, it's pretty hard to find concrete evidence when you are talking about minor shape discrepencies. i'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a very tricky thing to do.

I agree, it is tricky, but given some known dimensions, by studying pictures and determining angles, perspective, focal length, etc., you can come up with some pretty accurate results.

In this case, as I previously mentioned, I don't have the proper reference. I also don't have the kit.

Using the picture of the kit that was posted and comparing to a few pictures I did find on the net, I do see a problem.

Not having the kit in hand (or more thorough photos of the kit with major assemblies attached) or references I can't say exactly what is wrong but as I previously mentioned it looks like the canopy goes too far back on the fuselage. It also looks like the nose may well 'Aardvark' up a bit underneath.

Here I did a couple of quick overlays using photos that have a more similar focal length than the close-up profile posted by Marcel.

(The transparent red is from the kit picture posted earlier. I filled in the missing nose part as well as removed the masking tape from the picture)

#1 and 2 - I lined up both the front and rear edges of the canopy. Note where the kit intake ends up, much too far forward. Also note the nose.

#3 and 4 - I lined up the front of the canopy as well as the front of the intake. Note how far back this puts the rear of the canopy.

In doing this layout I had to enlarge the kit profile which ended up making the kit nose more closely match the photos lengths. This leads me to believe that this scenario might be more the case than the first two pictures.

It may well be a little of both, that the canopy extends too far back and the intakes end too far forward.

Also note that in all cases the canopy looks a bit flat, but again, too hard to determine without more info.

I can't say for certain what it is, but something looks off a bit...

As does the top view CAD drawing on Trumps site, which is also why I was asking about the rear fuselage/stab intersection.

It looks way too straight then curves in drastically in that CAD drawing. The exhaust intersection looks odd in the CAD as well.

Let me also add for the record: It does look like a pretty nice kit if the shapes turn out to be not too far off!

[C-130CrewChief]

"Everyone knows that the Grumman Tomcats are notoriously inaccurate"

Now that made me LOL...

Curt

[JasonB]

that's my point. you can't gaurantee you're lined up in the same angle, the same distance and everything. it would take an extremely accurate set up to scale of where you are shooting the real thing and where you are shooting the model. it's going to have flaws. but as i've said, the second picture is the model over the real in flight tomcat. to me, the shape is pretty close to being dead on. of course, it really doesn't mean it is. it just happens to line up pretty close to that pic.

Bill

True

If I may, looking closer at the comparison pic that you posted, it seems to me that there is a bit of a difference between the kit outline and the picture. I may be seeing something thats not there, but it appears that the dark gray curved line above the kit part is actually the outline of the real bird. The piece of tape is actually hiding a bit of the flatness and the actual shape behind it. I took the liberty of outlining it in red, long with the Trump part in blue. Am I seeing things?

I personally do see a bit of "Ardvark"in there, but I'm not likely to get the kit and it means little to me, other than an academic exercise in digital photo manipulation. I see another comparison has been posted as well. which seems to point out this F-111'ish shape

Edited December 15, 2009 by JasonB

[THX1138]

BTW if you decide to model the Cat with the radome in the open position, showing off the micro-wave, you will absolutely not see the aardvarkish nose.

And I'm having 2nd thoughts about waiting to start with the build. I can do 2 things at once can I ?

[neu]

I was looking at the first test shots of this kit, and it was obvious that something is wrong with the whole nose. Well, what I think is that the Canopy is a little too high at the front frame, the windshield goes more forward than it should be (which obviously results in wrong angle as well). Also there is a serious shape issue with the nose cone as well. The Tomcat really has a unique look nose, and all the Tomcat funs can spot if something is wrong - maybe they just cannot describe what. When we've made our Tomcat profile artworks we played around a lot with the nose. I'm not saying our ones is accurate at all, but at least feels more accurate than the Trumpy kit. Once I'll have my kit at hand, I'll make a comparison and will try to detail where the differences are, though it's pretty much covered here already.

It's not as wrong as the ancient Revell release, but I agree that for this price we could expect more accuracy. An aftermarket nosecone could help a lot (Zactoman could address this issue nicely), but the canopy also should be replaced to get better results. Other than this it seems to be a nice kit!

Greetings, neu

Edited December 15, 2009 by neu

[Cunumdrum61]

So if the kit needs a new nose cone and canopy I can live with that. It still would be a better start than the Tamiya F-14. Now if Zactoman can work his magic when he gets time I would be a happy camper. If we can keep him in business all the better as his resin is the best.His Su-27 parts are stll light years ahead of what Trumpy copied of his work also.

Hey zactoman remember Trumpy are doing the F-14D, B, and the A so there would be a good market for the resin!

P.S. I even send you the Trump F-14 parts needed if you want?

[Av8fan]

Thanks everyone for the input.

If the intakes are too far forward, I am not sure how that could be fixed. Spacer in the join between the fuselage and rear cockpit sections?

I like the kit.

[niart17]

True

If I may, looking closer at the comparison pic that you posted, it seems to me that there is a bit of a difference between the kit outline and the picture. I may be seeing something thats not there, but it appears that the dark gray curved line above the kit part is actually the outline of the real bird. The piece of tape is actually hiding a bit of the flatness and the actual shape behind it. I took the liberty of outlining it in red, long with the Trump part in blue. Am I seeing things?

well, yes and no. the blue line you've drawn is closer to where the shadow line is on the kit part and not the outline of it (which makes it hard to get an accurate outline with such a strong highlight in the photo). it's actually much closer to the red outline you've drawn. it does "dip" down slightly around that taped up area where the cone meets the fuse. i would say with some careful putty work and rescribe, you'd have that shape right on. another area that looks a little suspicious and may add to the "wrongness" is the angles of the windscreen and canopy divider area. on the kit they seems to be too vertical. i think both of those frames should be angle out just slightly more from where they are. i don't have the ability to post pics here at work but i'll try to do that later. just for funsies.

Bill

[Dave Williams]

The question I have is, how does the Tamiya kit fare in this nose photo/drawing comparison? In the end, I think that's really what most people are interested in, not so much whether it's 100% accurate to photos. Is it more accurate than Tamiya? If not, do the other benefits of the kit outweigh the inaccuracies? And what of the rest of the kit? Is the nose section the only questionable area?

Edited December 15, 2009 by Dave Williams

[Marcel111]

i think i can help make this point about comparing photos to schematics to models. here i have taken the pic Marcel just posted (i hope you don't mind) and overlaid it on another photo that Sig posted in research thread (again hope you don't mind for this experiment)

i have lined up the nose shapes to where they match up pretty darn close. but if you look, the guns don't line up at all. the front of the windscreen is slightly off too. so which is correct? lining up the outline of the nose or lining up the details such as edge of windscreen and gun outline? see where i'm going here. we KNOW that both tomcats are correct, they are the real thing after all. but they don't match up. hmmm....how could that be? see, even a slight (very slight difference of angles will make a huge difference. not even mentioning perspective, focal length, forshortening etc...etc..etc...

so i think that other than checking gross misshaped parts and perhaps panel line placement, it's pretty hard to find concrete evidence when you are talking about minor shape discrepencies. i'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a very tricky thing to do.

just my 2 cents.

Bill

It just depends on how the pics are taken. I was very close to the aircraft to take that pic, since I was interested in color variations / weathering. That will result in a distorted image, although the basic shape, especially the increased conical angle on the upper side of the front of the nose (vs. the Trumpeter nose), is pretty visible. If the pic is taken from 30' away, hardly any distortion will occur--I'll make sure to get suitabel pics next time I'm out there. I work with an engineering team, we often times take pics of objects that get mated onto our product, we scan in the pic, convert to drawing and then get a pretty accurate footprint of the other product onto ours.

Marcel

[Admiral T. Jurisdiction]

The question I have is, how does the Tamiya kit fare in this nose photo/drawing comparison? In the end, I think that's really what most people are interested in, not so much whether it's 100% accurate to photos. Is it more accurate than Tamiya? If not, do the other benefits of the kit outweigh the inaccuracies? And what of the rest of the kit? Is the nose section the only questionable area?

Tamiya has a few issues too, but with regards to the nose, I've compared the Tam 1/32 to a really good pic in Tony Holmes' F-14 Tomcat book... It's on page 126-127.

In a totally unscientific comparison, The Tamiya nose looks a bit too short, but that could be due to the missing pitot, though the angle, overall curvature and ratio looks alright. The canopy also looks more accurate in terms of overall length and the rear slant angle than Trumpeter's, which is too reclined. The location of the central canopy hoop-spar on the Tam looks more like the photo, and the positioning of the LEX seems to line up well with the overall length of the nose and the canopy spar. The positioning of the folding steps and ladder look almost (if not) bang-on with the kit also; the RIO-s boarding step being almost perfectly aligned with the canopy's center hoop-spar (as it should be.)

I can't really tell if the canopy is too high on the Tam kit, but I can tell you that the resin F-14D Teknics ejection seats sit a little bit too low in the cockpit, so these will need to be raised slightly to look more accurate. Overall, while the Tamiya kit may not be perfect, there's nothing on it that really jumps-out at me as being flagrantly incorrect/inaccurate; they are mostly just little things, like the louvered vents on the upper LEX, and the bracing atop the V-tails.

With the Trumpeter kit, on the other hand, there's something about the forward fuselage that just looks... Wonky. Granted, they did make some nice improvements in a few places, it looks to me (so far) like one would simply be trading one set of inaccuracies for another.

[Firecaptain]

Man my head hurts.........mine came today......now I'm scared to open the box.....lol

Did open up the Super Bug though.......

[richter111]

Send it to me, save yourself the pain...

[Av8fan]

Firecaptain,

Open it, you know you want too.

Let us know what you think when you do.

[Firecaptain]

WOW......it's NICE.........now I am by no stretch of the imagination a rivet counter, or even close.....but I think this will build up into

a nice rendition of a Tomcat and look much more like a Tomcat than a chain saw..........

I think the Superbug will build faster and easier......(and since there's a WIP of a SH now on LSP, I think I'll start the Hornet first).

So.......someone.....anyone.......please get to building this thing so I (we) can all get a heads up of the construction pitfalls and any hints, tips etc that may help in asembly.

Thanks