Trumpy's North Carolina screwups....
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ron Smith - 04 Jan 2006 04:01 GMT OK, a mix of accuracy and flat out stupid engineering:
Hull-
Forefoot not quite bulbous enough, odd contour to stem. Armor belt poorly defined at ends, upper and lower ends do not line up. Bilge keels half the depth they should be. No docking keels. Outboard shaft exits not correct (nobody has ever gotten them correct) there should be a recess in the hull the shaft enters, the hard abgle at the rear of the housing is incorrect. Inboard prop skegs slightly too thin, prop shaft housings only molded on the outboard face, hull/skeg joint too sharp should be faired more. Inner end of skef tunnel needs filling and fairing into hull for smoother transition. Rudder attachment points very weak, requires extreme care to get the rudders mounted straight and plumb. Bilge vents aft or armor belt not consistently molded. Angled widget above armor belt near turret #3 (garbage chutes in fact) not quite right. Hawse pipe exits at bow less than half the correct size and too sharply molded. Paravane "eyes" on extreme bow lack "eyebrows", no paravane attachement point on forefoot. All cocks (open or closed) have significant mold seam, not consistent chock to chock, all chocks too square. Upper to lower hull fit ppor to fair, need to cut stiffeners in upper hull, line up and glue a side, let dry, repeat for other side, install new styrene bar stiffeners then putty and sand.....losing even more definition at the ends of the armor belt.
Main deck- Deck joints have Trumpeter's typical problem, the alignment tabs INCREASE the gap, you have to cut them off and file the edges with a slight back cut then reinforce with heavy styrene strip after tacking together (I will give them credit where it's due, the planking will cross the seam aligned *IF* you do it right). Hawse pipes are shallow depressions with no surrounding lip, they should have a heavy lip above the deck and be yawning holes leading into the actual hawse pipe, prominent windlass drum missing outer aft end of hawsepipes. Some anchor chain scuff plates missing, gaps between existing plates too large. Anchor chain entry into chain locker too small and too square to base. No anchor chain holdbacks. Joke of a molded on anchor chain, waste of machining time. Between breakwater and hawse pipes all hatches molded too proud off the deck, the two large companionways next to the capstans far too high and should have watertight doors. Hatch next to #2 turret stbd side not high enough off deck. Hatch coamings on maindeck at aft end of superstructure see comment about forward companionways. Aft deck hatches and plates suffer from being too high or too low, compaionway just behind turret 3# need WT door. Director tubs molded into deck, draft angle visible, separate parts would be better. All vents noticeably out of round with heavy mold seams. Vents used outboard of capstans should be windlass drums. All 40MM gun tubs have ejector pin marks inside the tubs, they belong on the other side or on the sprue just off the tubs. All 20mm and 40mm splinter shields approx. .020" too low (twenty thousandths doesn't sound like much but it's 20% of the existing height). 20mm RSA (Ready Storage Ammo)lockers inconsistent for latch detail "heaviness", separate parts do not match RSA's molded in place.
01 level- Latch detail on Upright RSA's and storage lockers too heavy. Sidewalls nice touch, fit at ends poor. Entire 01 level approx. .060" too high. Deck overlay nice touch since it hides the sidewall seam, fit so-so (they should have carried this over to all assemblies with sidewalls). Four opneings in 01 level deck are open companionways and should have coamings (sidewalls should NOT have TW doors molded where the lower ends of the stairs are, they should be openings, they never had doors....it would of course be nice had the doors they did mold lie up with the actual stair ends....note I do not rag the "aztec stairs" here since you can't tell once the sidewalls are in place). Previous comments re: splinter shields and tubs still applies.
Forward superstructure assembly- Armored conning tower has machining marks that would be a nice and extremely accurate touch........had they not been perpendicular to the casting bands on the real thing. Gaps behind conning tower need to be filled after mounting. Pin marks again on wrong wide of parts or should have been moved to areas covered by toher assemblies. Prominent spray shield missing stbd side WT door lowest level middle of structure. Fag bags should have been separate parts, bottom should be close and top open (they got that backwards) with a bar across the middle of the top. Mold seams to clean up inside many of the spray shields. Tower assembly too sqaure, they corners of the very top (C1 & C2) have the correct curve and that should have been carried down along the corners of C12, C13, C19 & C33.....ladder run diagonally instead of vertically. Fit so-so for all parts.
Stacks- Not even close to correct cross-section, about 20-30% too "svelte"....cannot be easily corrected with kit parts and if corrected will cause other problems later. Extremely poor design of parts breakdown, crappy fit. Exhaust openings too small by 20-25%. Tops of stacks represented as flat plane, this is NOT correct.
Mddle superstructure- Previous comments for RSA's, doors, splinter shields and tubs apply. Odd circular depression molded into 40mm mounting areas. Doors on director towers so poorly molded they might as well not be there, replace with PE. Crappy fit all over assembly. If corrected stack is to be fitted you need to carve away some deck for it to fit in place.
After superstructure- Previous comments for RSA's, doors, splinter shields and tubs apply. RSA's upper level "anemic", compare to all other RSA's. Corrected stack will look odd on supplied base. Shallow door like depressions just behind stack base should be open archways, this would look really stupid if you open them up since the molded a box right behind them....either the doors or the box is in the wrong place.
Main turrets- 3 of 5 barrles on each sprue have visibly off center muzzle holes. 4 of 5 barrels on each sprue have visibly our of round muzzles. All barrels have a soft rib machined into the mold opposite the sprue attachment point. Rube Goldberg barrel mounting. Turret has nice detail.....of course you'll end up sanding a good bit of the rivet detail off the top fixing the large seam from the sidewalls....see comment for 01 level deck....OOPS, this one issue is probably the single stupidest engineering error on this kit. Turret #3 missing 40mm director tub and director. 40mm tub has pinmarks inside, also too shallow.
5" turrets- Rube Goldberg assembly, excellent fit would make this merely finicky, poor to fair fit makes it a major PITA. All turrets missing a sight hood on their port side, prominent and obvious to all but the blind. Hatches on rear 1/3 too wide. Barrels have odd shape, should be straight taper.
40mm's not as nice as previous efforts. No mount shields or rails, this doesn't bother me much since I use PE for these but for some it is considered a ripoff.
20mm's might as well be trashed. Overly simplified, barrels fatter than 40mm's in kit and about 75% the diameter of the 5" barrels. No gun shields, this doesn't bother me much since I use PE for these but for some it is considered a ripoff.
I haven't gotten to the cranes, catapults, masts or boats yet and I normally replace of them with PE or brass rod for the masts so I never really look at the kit parts. There are no sips' bells....there should be two. Props are so-so. Anchors flat out suck. The radars supplied look bad but then again I use PE. The kit can only be built after her June 1944 refit in Ms32/18d (the later pattern and no deck pattern) or Ms22....unless you wan to perform varying level of surgery.
To get something built that doesn't resemble a 1960's era Revell kit you need at the least to replace the radars, cranes, catapults, anchors, main turrets, secondary turrets and 20mm's....you can get away with the kit 40mm's if you use the Lion Roar PE set. Otherwise Yankee Modelworks for mains and secondaries, L'Arsenal for secondaries, 40mm's and 20mm's. WEM PE is the best overall quality and provides radars for her entire service life, Lion Roar PE is a close second in quality and gives you lots of other goodies but only for her last fit, Yankee's PE gives you 98% of what you need, it lacks SG radars and funnel catwalks, I have not seen GMM's PE.
I can tell you WEM, Yankee and Lion Roar all worked from original source documents because I know exactly who's hard drive they got the scans from and he got the scans directly from the original documents at NARA and NHC. You might wonder how I know that, simple the hard drive is mine.
Stephen Tontoni - 04 Jan 2006 08:11 GMT Hi Ron; thanks for the article. If I were a ship modeler, this would be invaluable information. Even though I'm not one, I appreciate the level of detail that you've put in this.
> OK, a mix of accuracy and flat out stupid engineering: > [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > from and he got the scans directly from the original documents at NARA > and NHC. You might wonder how I know that, simple the hard drive is mine. Ron Smith - 04 Jan 2006 09:35 GMT > Hi Ron; thanks for the article. If I were a ship modeler, this would be > invaluable information. Even though I'm not one, I appreciate the level > of detail that you've put in this. You're welcome Steve. All that's just off the top of my head and the kit has sat for a few weeks due to holiday insanity, building a new computer and getting everything reloaded in something approaching logical order...so I probably missed a few things. I also had to wait a bit for replacement parts. If you really want a laugh the only money I've spent on this beast was glue, putty and Evergreen stock....the kit, 4 PE sets and resin gun & turret replacements were all part of the payments for information on various subjects.
What really torques me on this kit is the sheer number of engineering errors which is probably 85-90% of what I listed (most of the accuracy errors are due to stupid engineering). If I were an advanced junior or an adult deciding to try ships for the first time this kit would turn me off completely. This is quite possibly the worst engineered kit I've built in the last 20 years and that includes hundreds of 1/48 aircraft and just over 100 1/35 AFV's (the old Trimaster/DML Me-262 looks like a Tamiya shake & bake compared to this thing and I built 6 of the things....plus one Tamiya that needed no filler anywhere).
You'll have to pardon my typos, I have a C4-C5 nerve pinch that's flaring up and a couple fingers are slightly numb. Plays hell with attempting to type.
Peter W. - 05 Jan 2006 06:22 GMT I'm neither a ship modeler or a historical researcher. Nor am I a die maker. But I found this thread interesting.
But it begs one question: how many of those inaccuracies are simple engineering mistakes or lack of research and how many are due to the limitations of plastic injection molding process.
I know that many plastic kits have certain inaccuracies or simplifications caused by inability (or phohibitive cost) of being able to make a very complex mold which would render the required shapes.
Commercially made injection molded kits will never be as accurate as a scratch-built model. It is just not possible or economically feasible.
Are we expecting too much?
Peteski
Ron Smith - 05 Jan 2006 06:51 GMT > But it begs one question: how many of those inaccuracies are simple > engineering mistakes or lack of research and how many are due to the > limitations of plastic injection molding process. One, the bilge keels are limited by the injection process if molded into the hull. Everything else is due to piss poor engineering with the exception of the incorrect watertight doors at the bottoms of the "aztec stairs". The 20mm barrel diameter in not possible in scale but have it larger than the 40mm diameter is inexcusable. I will say an anchor chain molded to the deck in scale is impossible but the joke they did mold was just a waste of machining time, better to have left it off and thrown in 6" of cheap brass chain.
> I know that many plastic kits have certain inaccuracies or > simplifications caused by inability (or phohibitive cost) of being able > to make a very complex mold which would render the required shapes. Lack of thought and common sense are 99% caused the problems with this kit.
> Are we expecting too much? In this case no. Airfix managed at least this level of quality back in the 1970's with their 1/600 line of ships, Tamiya beat this level by far 20 years ago with their 1/350 BB's. Even Revell's ancient 1/426 Arizona could compete with this kit for engineering and quality.
tomcervo - 05 Jan 2006 13:33 GMT "In this case no. Airfix managed at least this level of quality back in the 1970's with their 1/600 line of ships,"
They went out with a bang--I think their Repulse was the best ship kit they ever produced, and pretty good even by today's standards. That NC you describe makes me want to built the Renwal kit instead.
Chris Hughes - 05 Jan 2006 19:29 GMT ...and yet some of their AFV kits are superb! I'm just building the KV-2 and the injection moulded tracks (as an option to the vinyl set ) with their built-in sag are pretty good - even though each link seems to have 2 ejector pin marks! The rest of the kit has been thoughtfully moulded and - if anything - over-engineered.
Chris
Ron Smith - 05 Jan 2006 21:00 GMT > ...and yet some of their AFV kits are superb! I'm just building the KV-2 > and the injection moulded tracks (as an option to the vinyl set ) with their > built-in sag are pretty good - even though each link seems to have 2 ejector > pin marks! The rest of the kit has been thoughtfully moulded and - if > anything - over-engineered. Their Sturer Emil is gorgeous, maybe different desing teams?
Ron Smith - 05 Jan 2006 20:59 GMT > "In this case no. Airfix managed at least this level of quality back in > the 1970's with their 1/600 line of ships," > > They went out with a bang--I think their Repulse was the best ship kit > they ever produced, and pretty good even by today's standards. That NC > you describe makes me want to built the Renwal kit instead. That Repluse was a very nice kit. Don't build the Renwal, sell it on ebay to some collector and buy the Trumpy with all the aftermarket stuff to fix it with the profit.
Peter W. - 06 Jan 2006 23:39 GMT Ron, thanks for the explanation.
Since you are a historical ship researcher who is for hire and you seem to have some inside info about Trumpeter's research (or laco of it) on this ship, do you know who did their research? And why didn't they hire a "real expert" like you? Was it about the money?
Peteski
PaPaPeng - 05 Jan 2006 20:01 GMT >I can tell you WEM, Yankee and Lion Roar all worked from original source >documents because I know exactly who's hard drive they got the scans >from and he got the scans directly from the original documents at NARA >and NHC. You might wonder how I know that, simple the hard drive is mine. Woohoo. A fixer upper's, detailer's, rivet counter's, after market resin and photoetch whatever's dreamboat. To correct all the fixes will take years in the basement and several hundred bucks. Where can you buy so much effort for so few bucks and the whole exercise can be done at your desk too.
That aside, I doubt Trumpeter has any in-house expert on US ships. They commission some US expert to do the research and make the drawings. Trumpeter then translates the drawings into a manufacturable and saleable product. Salelable in that no matter how accurate and detailed a $300 BB kit won't sell enough to recover the investment. I was going to say $200 but kits are edging towards that price now. Be happy there is something that caught your attention and may be just worth your while to buy one and fix.
Ron Smith - 06 Jan 2006 02:45 GMT Try it again from the top but this time try to make sense.
> Woohoo. A fixer upper's, detailer's, rivet counter's, after market > resin and photoetch whatever's dreamboat. To correct all the fixes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > price now. Be happy there is something that caught your attention and > may be just worth your while to buy one and fix. PaPaPeng - 06 Jan 2006 04:09 GMT >Try it again from the top but this time try to make sense. Ron. This is a hobby to be enjoyed by ordinary people quite happy to build out of the box. The majority of us don't know half of the mistakes, make that all the mistakes, you are describing or care.
If you want the level of detail listed by you wouldn't it have been a lot easier and more satisfying for you to scratch build the model? Its a lot easier than trying to correct someone else's mistakes. No one twisted your arm to buy the trumpy.
Ron Smith - 06 Jan 2006 06:23 GMT > Ron. This is a hobby to be enjoyed by ordinary people quite happy to > build out of the box. The majority of us don't know half of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Its a lot easier than trying to correct someone else's mistakes. No > one twisted your arm to buy the trumpy. Then the point completely sailed over your head......ALL but two of errors are due to stupid engineering that is inexcusable on a $100+ kit (one of those errors, while accuracy related, also shows a very poor grasp of doors lining up at the end of stairs and while stupid engineering is not the root cause it does play a part). Only one of the errors, which is also one of the two just mentioned, is due to limitations of injection molding.
HELLO..........engineering this poor would be acceptable on a kit with an MSRP of $30, not on a kit with an MSRP of $130. However, if you're happy paying Mercedes prices and getting a Yugo, far be it from me to point that fact out.
WmB - 06 Jan 2006 19:12 GMT >> Ron. This is a hobby to be enjoyed by ordinary people quite happy to >> build out of the box. The majority of us don't know half of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > paying Mercedes prices and getting a Yugo, far be it from me to point that > fact out. Damn the torpedos - keep up the reviews. I'd rather have one expert tell me what's wrong with something than a den of psychoanalysts trying to tell me why I needn't bother to do things well. To borrow and paraphrase someone else's catch phrase...
... "You report, I'll decide".
WmB
Ron Smith - 07 Jan 2006 00:59 GMT > Damn the torpedos - keep up the reviews. I'd rather have one expert tell me > what's wrong with something than a den of psychoanalysts trying to tell me > why I needn't bother to do things well. To borrow and paraphrase someone > else's catch phrase... > > ... "You report, I'll decide". Thanks William. You'd think I was beating the guy's kid or something. Hopefully Trumpy will learn and not perpetrate the same level of garbage engineering on the soon to be released South Dakota and Alabama.....I'm not holding my breath there because the same crappy weapons sprues would be common to those kits as well.
e - 07 Jan 2006 01:20 GMT >> Damn the torpedos - keep up the reviews. I'd rather have one expert tell me >> what's wrong with something than a den of psychoanalysts trying to tell me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >not holding my breath there because the same crappy weapons sprues would >be common to those kits as well. "if history is not accurate, it's fiction." and why spend $100 on a fictional ship? also, if it's worth doing, why not do it right?
PaPaPeng - 07 Jan 2006 20:23 GMT >Thanks William. You'd think I was beating the guy's kid or something. >Hopefully Trumpy will learn and not perpetrate the same level of garbage >engineering on the soon to be released South Dakota and Alabama.....I'm >not holding my breath there because the same crappy weapons sprues would >be common to those kits as well. Okay, the thread got astray.
In my original post I said that its some US based BB enthusiast-naval expert that trumpy employed to provide the ship's details. There are no in-house USN experts and its certainly not possible to send a trumpy team with tape measures to do things from scratch. Trumpy then has to translate this into a manufacturable kit. Due to mold extraction limitations there may be some engineering vs detail fidelity compromises but not that much. If trumpy's expert consultant got many details wrong, as per your list, there's little trumpy can do after the fact. Until a better expert like yourself points that out they'll try to do better next time. It costs the same to produce and market an inaccurate kit as a good one. There is no incentive for trumpy to be sloppy. I agree that for $130 one should expect better. If the feedback stinks trumpy will have to engage another expert for its next kit issue.
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT I'm going to top post here....see if this simple fact gets through.....the North Carolina was a failure from the engineering side of things....that's parts breakdown, seam placement, poor mold machining. That covers 95% of the errors in the kit. Unlike the Lexington this one had little to do with poor research. One, count it ONE error was due to injection molding limitations.
No amount of research material would fix it. Trumpeter pulling its head out of its a.s and thinking before applying Rube Goldberg's design principles would fix it.
Will it fix the problems with all the weapons for SoDak and Alabama? I seriously doubt they'll bother to cut new molds for those spruess since both classes of ship use the same set of main, secondary and AA armament. SoDak does have one less pair of 5" mounts but there are already extra parts on the sprues.
> In my original post I said that its some US based BB enthusiast-naval > expert that trumpy employed to provide the ship's details. There are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If the feedback stinks trumpy will have to engage another expert for > its next kit issue. Mad Modeller - 08 Jan 2006 05:39 GMT They did react to the feedback on the lousy chrome of the '60 Pontiac kit and the F4F. Maybe they'll hear about this and do better next time. Maybe not. I still think most of their kits are overpriced.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Al Superczynski - 08 Jan 2006 04:13 GMT >They did react to the feedback on the lousy chrome of the '60 Pontiac >kit and the F4F. But not to the criticisms of their 1/24 scale Zero and P-51D. :(
>Maybe they'll hear about this and do better next time. Let's wait and see what the nose of their upcoming 1/24 scale P-51B looks like...
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Francis X. Kranick, Jr. - 08 Jan 2006 04:13 GMT (snip)
> Let's wait and see what the nose of their upcoming 1/24 scale > P-51B looks like... Being the recipient of one (purchased) and another (won in an online contest) of the -D's, and being a bigger fan of the P-51B/C, I'm also very curious about the new Mustang. I hope they got the corrections down as there was no reason for them to be there in the first place. I'd even accept errata parts to scab on since no one seems to be stepping up to offer correction sets... I even went so far as to get CAM P-51B decals in 1/24th scale in anticipation of the new release. I hope it's better than the -D. I hope...
Frank Kranick
Al Superczynski - 08 Jan 2006 04:48 GMT >I'd even accept errata parts to scab on since no one seems to be >stepping up to offer correction sets... Just think. If the B is right maybe you could buy another one just to correct your D... ;-p
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 05:02 GMT > Just think. If the B is right maybe you could buy another one > just to correct your D... ;-p Kinda like buying alomst $100 worth of resin parts to fix the NC? Not to mention PE.....
Al Superczynski - 08 Jan 2006 05:20 GMT >> Just think. If the B is right maybe you could buy another one >> just to correct your D... ;-p > >Kinda like buying alomst $100 worth of resin parts to fix the NC? Yep...
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 07:02 GMT >>> Just think. If the B is right maybe you could buy another one >>>just to correct your D... ;-p >> >>Kinda like buying alomst $100 worth of resin parts to fix the NC? > > Yep... And they wonder why I rant when they think I should be on my knees kissing Trumpeter's rear end...........
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 05:01 GMT > Let's wait and see what the nose of their upcoming 1/24 scale > P-51B looks like... I the nose integral with the fuselage?
Al Superczynski - 08 Jan 2006 05:36 GMT >> Let's wait and see what the nose of their upcoming 1/24 scale >> P-51B looks like... > >I the nose integral with the fuselage? Sort of - the lower cowling is integral with the fuselage halves and there are two large removable upper cowling sections. Come to think of it the upper cowling comes as either normal gray parts or optional transparent pieces. If the B is engineered the same way but with a corrected outline...
 Signature Al Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email.
Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time."
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 07:03 GMT >>I the nose integral with the fuselage? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > optional transparent pieces. If the B is engineered the same way but > with a corrected outline... There's a slight chance they'll redo it then.
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 05:05 GMT > They did react to the feedback on the lousy chrome of the '60 Pontiac > kit and the F4F. Maybe they'll hear about this and do better next time. > Maybe not. I still think most of their kits are overpriced. Regardless of how criticisms of their ships have been worded or sent, they won't fix them if it means cutting an entirely new mold. The only fix they have done is the round downs at the ends of the Essex flight deck but that was just more machining to the same mold.
Kurt Laughlin - 08 Jan 2006 05:39 GMT Well they do pretty durn good with their tanks and they're good values as well. I wonder why that they got that aspect right but have problems with planes and ships?
KL
Ron Smith - 08 Jan 2006 07:10 GMT > Well they do pretty durn good with their tanks and they're good values as > well. I wonder why that they got that aspect right but have problems with > planes and ships? I know their tanks are mostly good since I have a few. I think it may be different design and mold cutting teams. Another facet may be they're aping DML and AFV Club when engineering the tanks and I'd expect the result to be good since both of them are on the cutting edge and have been for a few years. While there really have been almost no new 1/350 ship kits since the 80's when Tamiya did their BB's, the Tamiya Fletcher is a 90's product but you can't mimic the engineering of a DD on a CV or BB. The NC's 5" turrets do show Tamiya's design influenece from the Iowa class 5" turrets but Trumpeter didn't do it half as well.
|
|
|