Posted by Ralph Wood on November 17, 2020, 3:23:25, in reply to "Hulls"
Yeah, I know. Not one 1/700 shot. The image with the 30 cm tape laid out next to it isn't 1/700 scale. That was faked by the seller to comply with the poor kit review so that nobody will want to buy these kits. The seller isn't actually trying to sell this, he's just doing his part to maintain the facade. If he doesn't, then the Iranian hackers Tim keeps on payroll will take over his site, and post images of women with uncovered faces, and no hair wraps, instantly generating impure thoughts in the viewer's head which condemn him straight to hell. Ruthless! Pretty daring of you to be exposing all this.
Ok more pictures of the Trumpeter 1/350 kit . Academy, Tomís, we continue on the long march of comparisons, points, designs, features and opinions with not one shot of the 1/700 Hornet kit as real comparison to confirm yours thoughts and Timís boo-boo review in showing a 1/350 hull. Hmmm.
Now we all bow down to Academy and their accurate hull but then Hornet is wrong in 1/700 because itís not Academy but we will compare the Trumpeter 1/700 hull to all others including that of the 1/350 Trumpeter hull and saying this is the Trumpeter hull in 1/700 even though in reality because it is 1/700 it is none of them. Ok I got it.
I am not the least bit embarrassed. Nor am I wrong. It is as plain as day from the photos of the 1/700 kit that the lower hull is the same as the 1/350 lower, and is wrong. I have provided photos from 3 different sources...2 vendors and one kit review. I did stick to the subject. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, so when multiple independent sources are showing me the same thing, I do tend to conclude it is true. As opposed to you telling me they are the same, but different, and you don't even know or care about the waterline, etc. You go all over the map and contradict yourself, and make outlandish unsupported claims, then get upset when I can't/won't agree to them, but go with pretty clear photos from multiple more reliable appearing sources. Sorry this upsets you.
You have stated you don't care, and insist you are right. I also don't care. I have posted the photos, and folks can judge for themselves, and we can both disagree, and the world will go merrily along. And I can still wish you all the best for the future. Have a Happy Thanksgiving if we don't cross paths before then!
I did re-examine the hull on Academy and I stand corrected. I still believe it under scale which then makes the Trumpeter kits Yorktown and Enterprise same. Then Tomís and Trumpeter 1/700 Hornet over scale? Do not know.
But you were wrong about the Trumpeter lower hull in 1/700. So end it. Once again you believe every link as fact, as advertised as fact. I could care less about other comparisons. Stick to the subject. Not one kit is perfect nor is Academy, HP, Trumpeters, BWN or Tomís so what now we stop modeling because you have to be right? Bolt counting to the extreme donít you think? Tim put the wrong picture up gave an inaccurate review of the true kit.
I admit when wrong you travel down different roads and arguments to continue proving you are right but still wrong. How many times on this board you dash off some historical comment only to be proven wrong. Remember the deck markings? Or how about no deck tractors on early WW2 carriers? Opps!
Forget it we all make mistakes. When your comments are proven wrong you do not feel the need to amend.
Both of you should buy the 1/700 Trumpeter Hornet kit and then comment not before.
Over and out.
This is a review by Jeff Herne. It compares the 1/350 Trumpeter and BWN kits. Of note for this discussion is that he also provides photos of the old Revell 1/480-ish lower hull when discusing the 1/350 Trumpeter lower hull:
Whatever the 1/700 Trumpeter lower hull looks like, the Academy Enterprise lower hull is pretty accurate, where you are claiming it is not. So, it becomes hard to accept a claim that the Trumpeter 1/700 lower is correct when you claim the Academy one is not. First off, you imply there is a difference. Second, as the Academy is clearly accurate, any Trumpeter hull which is different is then likely to be not as accurate.
Multiple reviewers and multiple forums have discussed this topic ad nauseum, and it is plain enough that both the Trumpeter Hornet upper and lower hulls in both scales, are not accurate. The Academy 1/700 Enterprise has a more accurate hull shape, both upper and lower. While other upper hull options are available for corrections, only the Academy lower hull is useable in 1/700 if one is seeking correct lower hull form.
So, if the 1/700 Hornet's hull is,a good as you claim, why was a Tom's replacement made for it in the first place?
Here is another review, by a different reviewer comparing photographically the Tom's with the Trumpeter. He put them bow-to-bow to show the contrast:
Took a second look at lower hull of the 1/700 Trumpeter Hornet. I compared it to online review photo courtesy of Ralph on thread below. Online review of 1/700 Hornet depicts pictures of the 1/350 lower hull not that of the 1/700 Trumpeter Hornet lower hull. The 1/700 lower Trumpeter Hornet hull was far improved and gave better appearance to bow flare.
Documented the 1/350 Trumpeter Hornet bow/hull had major issues and appearance of 1/700 Trumpeter Hornet is made worse when you mistakenly put the wrong scale hull bottom in your reviews and say it is 1/700 and create a mess of fact.
All I can say is Wow! What a misinformed mess for 1/700 collectors and those who do full hull 1/700. Bigger mess for Trumpeter. Wonít even discuss the 1/700 reviews. Anybody got a buck to pass....