Trumpeter

[PR19_Kit]

Maybe this "1/72 doesn't sell"-shtick (which may apply to some markets) is slowly turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

It's only self fulfilling because the money men are in charge.

For exactly the same amount of time and money spent on 'research' (if any in some cases....) and a slightly larger amount spent on the moulds and a minute more spent on the raw materials they feel justified in pricing a 1/48 kit at least twice, if not more, as much as a 1/72 scale one.

[Sauragnmon]

Wook, I'm gonna point out something for you.  You say there are no existing Hornets intact to check out... Might I direct you to the squadrons of the RCAF, which are still operating our CF-188 / F/A-18 Legacy Hornets?  We might be the last operators, though...

[Thorvic]

Wook, I'm gonna point out something for you.  You say there are no existing Hornets intact to check out... Might I direct you to the squadrons of the RCAF, which are still operating our CF-188 / F/A-18 Legacy Hornets?  We might be the last operators, though...

De Havilland Hornet 1940s not the F-18 Hornet 1980's, i know the RCAF is a bit dated but not that dated !!!!

[Aircav]

I'm still waiting for a 1/48 Su-34 or even a 1/32 at a push. 

[The Wooksta!]

Wook, I'm gonna point out something for you.  You say there are no existing Hornets intact to check out... Might I direct you to the squadrons of the RCAF, which are still operating our CF-188 / F/A-18 Legacy Hornets?  We might be the last operators, though...

0


The F18 is an overgrown hairdrier not worthy of the name Hornet.  Another modern grey and exceedingly dull aircraft.

[kitnut617]

Wook, I'm gonna point out something for you.  You say there are no existing Hornets intact to check out... Might I direct you to the squadrons of the RCAF, which are still operating our CF-188 / F/A-18 Legacy Hornets?  We might be the last operators, though...

wrong Hornet Sauragnmon

[kitnut617]

The problem is that all the drawings are wrong and there isn't an existing airframe to examine.  Bits, yes but no complete Hornet.  Mind, there were plenty of Vampires but the dudes at Trumpeter couldn't be arsed to go and measure a real one so produced the abortion that is their Vampire kit. 

HpH have a 32nd Hornet that's riddled with errors.  Some guy on Britmodeller bought one and is reworking it with input from John Adams and David Collins (what he doesn't know about Hornets isn't worth knowing).

I've always wondered, if there's no drawings and no existing airframe, how do they know it's wrong --- 

[NARSES2]

The problem is that all the drawings are wrong and there isn't an existing airframe to examine.  Bits, yes but no complete Hornet.  Mind, there were plenty of Vampires but the dudes at Trumpeter couldn't be arsed to go and measure a real one so produced the abortion that is their Vampire kit. 

HpH have a 32nd Hornet that's riddled with errors.  Some guy on Britmodeller bought one and is reworking it with input from John Adams and David Collins (what he doesn't know about Hornets isn't worth knowing).

I've always wondered, if there's no drawings and no existing airframe, how do they know it's wrong --- 

Beat me to it mate. How the hell can you tell ? As far as I'm concerned "if it looks right"

The problem with having experts around and no hard information to fall back on for checking purposes is that the expert becomes more and more the only source. Not saying the guy doesn't know but without corroboration it's difficult.

[Librarian]

The Classic Airframes Hornet and Whirlwind kits look right. That's certainly good enough for me. Maybe they'll just copy them (and being on their side of the legal curtain they probably will). I just can't be bothered anymore with limited run etc or vacuform canopies. As I get older I just want to sit down and build a kit with as little fuss as possible. It's why I'm getting worried about mainstream kits with too much etch etc. It's a different matter when I scratch build a whiff....then I go looking for trouble .

[pyro-manic]

Wook, I'm gonna point out something for you.  You say there are no existing Hornets intact to check out... Might I direct you to the squadrons of the RCAF, which are still operating our CF-188 / F/A-18 Legacy Hornets?  We might be the last operators, though...

Fairly certain the RCAF aren't flying any of these....



Given Trumpeter's less than stellar track record, I won't be holding my breath. Wrong scale, in any case...

[Captain Canada]

The Dragonfly will be nice to see. I've always wanted to super-detail the Hobbycraft 48th scale Tutor into an operational type, adding the tip tanks and stores etc.

[kitnut617]

Fairly certain the RCAF aren't flying any of these....

Although one Sea Hornet (TT193) was operated by the RCAF in 1948 while at CEPE (Canadian Experimental and Proving Establishment) in Edmonton.  After being declared 'Surplus to Requirement', it was purchased by Spartan Air who had a fleet of Mosquitos too.

[Spey_Phantom]

the 1/144 Flankers (Su-27UB, Su30MK and J-11) look nice, but i really have my eyes on the 1/72 J-15 and Su-27KUB.

[The Wooksta!]

The Classic Airframes Hornet and Whirlwind kits look right. That's certainly good enough for me. Maybe they'll just copy them (and being on their side of the legal curtain they probably will). I just can't be bothered anymore with limited run etc or vacuform canopies. As I get older I just want to sit down and build a kit with as little fuss as possible. It's why I'm getting worried about mainstream kits with too much etch etc. It's a different matter when I scratch build a whiff....then I go looking for trouble .

Off the top of me head, the CA Hornet is also a pile of bobbins.  The u/c is too tall, the nose iffy, canopy completely the wrong shape and it's covered in fictional panel lines.  None of the reviewers mentioned the problems, they were too busy fellating the guy who owned CA.  Reviewers who pointed out the less than stellar nature of his kits were threatened with a knifing.  Neil Robinson certainly was and he's done more for the hobby than that Bringueir character ever could.

Jonner's build of the CA Hornet on Britmodeller, showing how much work he had to do to put it right:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234923967-the-dehavilland-sea-hornet-nf21-classic-airframes-148th-model-with-a-few-embellishments/

Another in build thread with the HpH kit.  
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234950214-hph-de-havilland-hornet-sea-hornet-f-mk22-tt202/

[Librarian]

I'm so glad you brought this up. I've never trusted many of the reviewers and I had come to the conclusion that negative reviews probably embargo their supply of free kits. There were several kits appearing at one point riddled with build problems and inaccuracies but I was surprised that none of the major reviewers were pointing them out. The Hobbyboss 1/48 Wildcats being an example. I read "built OOB", "No issues" "fell together" etc. I can tell you that after a couple of builds this kit needs serious test fitting and meticulous prep to put together properly.

I also read that the Hornet u/c was too long and was surprised that it received much positive reviews whilst fellow modellers were hammering it. I say it looks right because I very rarely examine panel lines etc. If I was that bothered I'd have quit long ago. I think I mentioned on an earlier thread that either the Airfix 1/48 Spitfire XII is too fat or the Airfix 1/48 Spitfire XIX is far too thin. You don't really notice it until you start to kitbash and then it becomes very evident. That said, the Airfix 1/48 Spitfire 22 can be kitbashed very easily with the Academy 1/48 Spitfire XIVe to produce a very nice model (with a little cutting, filling and sanding ).