Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
BillS

Trumpeter F-106 Quick Review

Recommended Posts

Such stubbornness from Trumpeter/HobbyBoss towards delivering a quality product and listening to customers is frankly astonishing. (but not in any way surprising)

Thanks for the pictures Shark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as people keep buying their (fecal matter), they have no incentive to improve their quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennings,

Good point. I do agree with you.

Trumpeter & Co., grossing on lower researching costs are pushing out of the market other producers. Last 1/48 Hasegawa kit is already four years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an avid modeler, historian, and (oh yeah) F-106 pilot:

**************

  • Throw away the AIM-4s and Genie
  • the intakes are much too square and the upper lip comes too far forward - at least you can cut that back - not sure there is enough plastic to round the edges enough though and PLEASE thin down those thick lips.....
  • Piano hinges on the weapons doors appear far too large, weapons bay door panel lines are incorrect / fake.
  • Cutouts in the wing for the elevon hinges are going to be a pain to fill in and I suspect that you will be using a fair amount of putty on the kit...
  • they give you the insert for the aerial refueling receptacle, but not the one for the pre-A/R heat exhaust vent....

From the box you can only accurately model a c.1971-1980 jet which is a shame. They did not include the previously mentioned early spine vent, early canopy, early external fuel tanks, early main wheels or give the option for the later gun mods - HUD & yaw sensor in particular, much less the pod.

Well, I do appreciate the tweaks list. I will need to check to see how much of it is true about difficulties in correcting the contours for the intakes. Panel lines aren't really an issue as only weathered aircraft (as I posted above) would have them so defined. As for fit, so far most of the kits I have been building from Trumpeter (armor and aircraft from 2012 on) have had very good to excellent fit. So, I will see if the above prediction of putty work will come to fruition. Last, omissions aren't errors.

Most important for me is that, while I truly appreciate the tweaks lists and observations, I do NOT appreciate anyone calling the item I spent my hard earned money fecal matter! I am sure you can proclaim your opinion, to which you have every right, without having to insult those that have already bought the kit. If someone won't or can't make corrections, that is their issue. I have never expected a perfect kit and if I ever do come across one, I will probably be extremely disappointed as I truly enjoy making the additions and modifications to make the model my own work, not simply assembling someone else's puzzle parts. I don't have anything against those that build out of the box, just stating that I am not one of them since adding details and making changes is how I enjoy this hobby.

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why complain at all? folks seem to know the deal with trumpeter and hobby boss. if you don't like their products then so be it. stop complaining over something you didn't purchase. I'm not a large fan of their aircraft line but I don't go around bashing them. seems childish to go around complaining because they don't fit your needs. yes, i admit I've done it once or twice but we get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure you can proclaim your opinion, ... without having to insult those that have already bought the kit.

That's really kind of a paranoid stretch, isn't it? :woot.gif:/>

The Jennings sometimes does present his opinions strongly, but as you said, he has that prerogative ... and MOST of the time, he really does contribute ... a lot! I for one, appreciate his posts (MOST of the time).

Gene K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jennings sometimes does present his opinions strongly, but as you said, he has that prerogative ... and MOST of the time, he really does contribute ... a lot! I for one, appreciate his posts (MOST of the time).

I think Jennings knows (if he doesn't, he knows now) I appreciate his and anyone else's commentary when it involves how to improve the kit. My point is, I like to fix issues within my skill level so I need to know what to fix. However, there is no need to make me feel like a fool that parted with his money because someone won't or can't make the corrections and/or detail additions.

Regards,

Edited by sharkmouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall be happy to listen to all the critics - once they provide some kind of proof other than just hot air.

This statement in particular made me chuckle:

....I suspect that you will be using a fair amount of putty on the kit...

Well, if that is not a substantiated statement, I don't know what is!!! (Oh, and BTW; that was sarcasm!!)

Still looks like a Six to me and I will almost bet you a beer that it will go together much better than the crappy Revell/Monogram 102, which I have been working on lately. Now, there is a putty monster!!

Bjarne

- building for FUN

Edited by Phantom726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an avid modeler, historian, and (oh yeah) F-106 pilot:**************Typical Chinese kit. Lots of incorrect shapes, fake panel lines, etc,etc. Throw away the AIM-4s and Genie, the intakes are much too square andthe upper lip comes too far forward - at least you can cut that back - notsure there is enough plastic to round the edges enough though and PLEASEthin down those thick lips..... Piano hinges on the weapons doors appearfar too large, weapons bay door panel lines are incorrect / fake. Cutoutsin the wing for the elevon hinges are going to be a pain to fill in and Isuspect that you will be using a fair amount of putty on the kit....Pretty much the same parts breakdown as the Monogram kit except for thefuselage - which means they give you the insert for the aerial refuelingreceptacle, but not the one for the pre-A/R heat exhaust vent.... From thebox you can only accurately model a c.1971-1980 jet which is a shame. Theydid not include the previously mentioned early spine vent, early canopy,early external fuel tanks, early main wheels or give the option for the later gunmods - HUD & yaw sensor in particular, much less the pod.

F-106B%252C+57-2517%252C+186th+FIS%252C+Montana+ANG%252C+July+1984%252C+M+Morgan.jpg

53402559201312192122111377737890393_005.jpg

When I first saw the test shot I thought the fuselage looked too shallow top to bottom. If you look at the amount of fuselage between the bottom of the intake and the weapons bay you can see where it's missing. It makes the underside of the fuselage appear too flat towards the nose which in turn makes the nose all droopy. If you were to put the correct curve on the underside of the nose then it would finish up being too short.

The opening to the intake is way too big. The intake itself should basically be a rectangular box but the top and bottom sides seem to diverge.

The hub to the nosewheel is undersized/tyre is oversized.

The wing seems to have a distinct upwards curve to it...

I appreciate the above is only a test shot prototype thing but all the sprue shots look much the same. It's a shame because after the HB Intruder I was looking forward to this but I don't think I shall be investing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was happy when Trumpeter announced the 2 seater. I have been waiting years for one. I don't have the C&H Aero conversion so an injection one was welcome. I am thinking that if I get the 2 seater from Trumpeter I can cross kit with one of the several Monogram kits I have in my stash.

Having built the Monogram kit I was most pleased with how it came out, well except the landing gear fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I recall building the Monogram kit when it first came out. I recall using filler but it may have been my fault. Also, I remember not being happy at having to build it with the weapons bay opened since it destroyed the esthetics of this aircraft. So, to be sure my memory isn't failing me, I have my eyes on some Revell/Monogram Delta Darts over on eBay. If I get one at the price I want to pay, I will post comparison photographs. It won't be a waste as my son has a spot on the ceiling for this kit.

I already bought Expert's Choice decals for the scheme I posted above. Over on eBay, I searched for either the Aeromaster or Expert's Choice decal and only found the latter from a seller asking for $18USD plus shipping. Instead of buying it, I went to Bare Metal Foil's web shop and bought the same sheet, plus one for my Kitty Hawk F-94, and paid $18USD including shipping! It pays to shop around.

:rolleyes:/>

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an avid modeler, historian, and (oh yeah) F-106 pilot:

**************

Typical Chinese kit. Lots of incorrect shapes, fake panel lines, etc,

etc. Throw away the AIM-4s and Genie, the intakes are much too square and

the upper lip comes too far forward - at least you can cut that back - not

sure there is enough plastic to round the edges enough though and PLEASE

thin down those thick lips..... Piano hinges on the weapons doors appear

far too large, weapons bay door panel lines are incorrect / fake. Cutouts

in the wing for the elevon hinges are going to be a pain to fill in and I

suspect that you will be using a fair amount of putty on the kit....

Pretty much the same parts breakdown as the Monogram kit except for the

fuselage - which means they give you the insert for the aerial refueling

receptacle, but not the one for the pre-A/R heat exhaust vent.... From the

box you can only accurately model a c.1971-1980 jet which is a shame. They

did not include the previously mentioned early spine vent, early canopy,

early external fuel tanks, early main wheels or give the option for the later gun

mods - HUD & yaw sensor in particular, much less the pod.

So in short having written several paragraphs in one to paraphrase all that could be found was.

1. Some incorrect panel lines on the weapons bay doors.

2. Slightly oversize hinges

3. intake shape

4. Filler required?

5 a whole bunch of whining about being unable to do an early 106.

Well given from the images of the actual kit the shapes look fine except the intakes.

I think anyone who has built any Trumpeter kit from the last ten years knows you will be using a pile less filler than any monogram kit particularly the 106 that i built many years ago.

Sorry but a whole bunch of writing and whining about some panel lines and hinges?

Given the Monogram kits intakes are not stellar themselves maybe you should start describing the ill fitting softly detailed Monogram kit as "fecal" matter and deserving of the circular file applying "your" standards to it as well?

Or would that not be fair to apply the same standards to all kits only Chinese ones?

I am more than happy to give you a rundown on the now over priced ill fitting softly detailed raised panel line and poorly fitting Monogram F-106 if you like?

Your continual ranting about kits that are by any normal Modellers standards perfectly acceptable(hey you love the Monogram F-106)is just showing up you blatant anti anything in the world built in China.

Tiresome.

Protecting the halo you have for your Monogram beauties by denigrating the competition with barrages of anti Trumpeter propaganda to appease your clear one eyed opinions does little other than show up an agenda.

If you cant get a decent kit out of the new Trumpeter 106 god help you with the Monogram one..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the need for buckets of putty.....I find one of the cruel ironies of Trumpeter kits is that, despite their often questionable accuracy - they fit great!

kc

Edited by Kevin Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May we get back to the subject please? I really don't want this to be about 'beating someone' for posting their opinions other than stating it can be done constructively.

Later tonight, after running a wash through the panel lines, I plan to tape the parts and try to take photos from as similar an angle to a photograph of the real aircraft that I can. This should help see if there are any contour issues.

Again, I don't want anyone silencing others who bring information on how this kit could be better. All I ask is that they consider some have spent a bit of money already and shouldn't be made to feel foolish.

Regards and see you all later,

Edited by sharkmouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the "blown" canopy is on a separate sprue from the other clear parts. That indicates to me that an earlier "framed" canopy is planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People must remember that this kit was never intended nor marketed as an Early F-106. Hence, the blown canopy isn't incorrect. I for one suspect that an early F-106 will come soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a comparison of the intake parts.

Left: Trumpeter Right: Monogram

106intakes1.jpg

Top: Trumpeter Bottom: Monogram

106intakes2.jpg

I have to say that I like the kit as is, and the intakes and other alleged shortcomings of the kit do not bother me. But if the shape of the intakes is an issue for you, note that the parts are connected at the exact same panel line on both kits. Transplanting the Monogram intakes to the Trumpeter kit should not be difficult at all. I put the parts together - there is a difference in the curvature, but nothing that could not be fixed. You would probably have used the same amount of time and putty there if you built the Monogram kit as is. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just picked up the kit at the lhs and should look pretty good on the shelf once completed. I am sure my wife and daughters won't criticize the minute discrepancies of a small plastic airplane that sits in its long term storage area after hopefully an enjoyable build. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks KursadA. This kind of post helps the reader to decide what he'll do (buy/not buy, fix/not fix).

Real thing front view

f-106-EC97-43932-8.jpg

Source: http://fas.org/nuke/...irdef/f-106.htm

The sagging intake bottom thing is weird.

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Kursad! Those are the two photos everyone has been waiting for somebody to post.

Looks like vigorous application of these can fix it:

212639_front500.jpg

2205391.jpg

Seriously, perhaps emailing the proprietors of DMold or XMM might get some positive results.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, perhaps emailing the proprietors of DMold or XMM might get some positive results.

Well, it seems KursadA's idea of grafting Monogram's (or Revell's) piece onto the Trumpeter kit is the way for me since I plan to have the intake covers added. I won't argue about needing filler as I don't know how different the contours are between the brands until I try.

Contacting DMold or XMM may be a good idea anyway since Trumpeter didn't include the intake tunnels (the reason I plan to use the covers).

:thumbsup:/>

Edit - I forgot to thank KursadA for the comparison photographs!

Regards,

Edited by sharkmouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Enough already. Buy it or don't buy it. Thanks Saul for posting the sprue photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...