Worst model quality?

[MilneBay]

As someone who built his first plastic kit well over 60 years ago and has probably had a go at almost every limited run kit that offered something that wasn't available in the mainstream line I have struck some downright awful models in my time, but then I have also struck some downright awful models from the mainstream manufacturers as well. Frankly if a kit's overall general dimensions are reasonably OK then with a bit, or a lot, of work a presentable model usually results even if there is a bit, or a lot, of scratchbuilding involved. But there have been kits that nothing can be done with, or I haven't been able to do anything with, while there are others which while written off by the majority as unbuildable have turned out OK with a little effort. But that's modelling, and it depends on the modeller and their skills not the kit.

 

People can stuff up a state of the art shake'n'bake if they lack modelling skill while a modeller with skill can take a Mach 2, Merlin or Beechnut kit and produce an acceptable result.

 

True there are really bad kits from the point of view of accuracy - the infamous Revell P51 the Millie P, Airfix's first and second goes at a Spitfire, the more recent Revell Halifax etc. But as I said if the maker gets the overall dimensions pretty right then there is nothing to stop a competent modeller from producing a little work of art. Speaking of kit dimensions, one that was obscure but was a glaring example of poor quality control was a limited run 1/72 kit of the P59 I built some years back (mid 90s?). This had a basic overall shape accuracy totally undone by the fact that one wing was twice as thick as the other. That took some correction but never quite worked as the airfoils still stubbornly refused to match.          

[JPuente54]

Wow! This thread and topic sure got the replies coming fast and furious! As for some of the Testors kits, many of these, such as their Heinkel He 111-Z, and Me 321/323 Gigant, are re-boxings of the Italeri kits. Whether they were molded here in the USA, or Italy; I can't say without referring to the particular box(it does indicate the origin of the parts). That doesn't mean that those kits don't have their problems(what ever they may be).

[Smithy]

On 1/4/2018 at 12:34 PM, Gorby said:

Steady on there, if you mention 'lovely' in relation to 'Lindberg', the plastic police will show up at your house and beat you around the head with end-opening boxes.

 

The 1/48 Lindberg Hawker Fury is a lovely kit. I have one on the go and the rib fabric effect is excellent, better than Airfix's IMHO and the shape looks to my eyes better too. Decals need some touching up as there weren't made for the kit but a fun build thus far...

 

 

And yes the Roden Heinkel is complete cow dung.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Smithy

[bentwaters81tfw]

29 minutes ago, MilneBay said:

As someone who built his first plastic kit well over 60 years ago and has probably had a go at almost every limited run kit that offered something that wasn't available in the mainstream line I have struck some downright awful models in my time, but then I have also struck some downright awful models from the mainstream manufacturers as well. Frankly if a kit's overall general dimensions are reasonably OK then with a bit, or a lot, of work a presentable model usually results even if there is a bit, or a lot, of scratchbuilding involved. But there have been kits that nothing can be done with, or I haven't been able to do anything with, while there are others which while written off by the majority as unbuildable have turned out OK with a little effort. But that's modelling, and it depends on the modeller and their skills not the kit.

 

People can stuff up a state of the art shake'n'bake if they lack modelling skill while a modeller with skill can take a Mach 2, Merlin or Beechnut kit and produce an acceptable result.

 

        

And there you have it. I have almost as much modelling of time under my belt. I think I have one Tamiya kit under my belt, and maybe 5 Hasegawa to date. Time, effort and patience usually pay off.

Testors 1/32 YF-22:

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/344123/2013-05-27-13-42-20

Mach 2 1/72 Valiant:

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/344124/val

Mach 2 1/72 B-45:

http://village.photos/images/user/98f6b132-de76-46aa-adf6-3164f1b40a83/1a33ff69-0d14-4640-b6a1-3ae318a4705e.JPG

Nichimo/Lindberg 1/48 Hunter:

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/344126/IMGP0208

[Chillidragon]

And the three nominations for kits which most failed to deliver (for me) are:

 

Airfix: Centurion Mk. 8

 

Well, it's not a mk.8 to begin with.  Nevertheless, I bought a few of them, intending to produce a handful of Mk.5s: AVRE, AOP, and three upgraded MBTs.

To the plans and references and... Oh. My. Life. 

 

Airfix copy, by some company in Poland: SR 53

 

What a beautiful aircraft this is.  Despite it being in the Airfix catalogue for the whole of my childhood, this was never to be found in any of our local stockists. Some of us looked further afield and yet...  Nothing.  This was the one that all of us wanted.  I finally got this alleged copy. It was terrible.

 

Matchbox: Flower Class Corvette.

 

This was just a detail issue, as in not much of.  At all.  And some Imagineering issues.  The Revell 144th kit looks better.

I wanted one of these to civilianise, letting the reissue sit in its box until I had enough references to start, deciding on a research vessel inspired (very much) by the Sackville, as part of my railway layout which I doubt will ever happen. 

 

And the winner:  The so-called Centurion!

 

This wins because I felt that I could expect better.

 

The corvette at least, I intend to finish.

 

I did get my pukka SR 53 in the end; it's almost as bad as the copy, but good enough to build.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Chillidragon

[Chuck1945]

I too started buikding plastic kits some 60+ years ago and did build a couple of the 1/72 Revell Fw 190A-8 kits (what started this topic)when they were initially released in the 90s. Everything fit then and flash was minimal. I actually liked them better than the Hasegawa version in-spite of the gawd-awful canopy because they had a main gear bay that at least looked as though the gear might at least start to fit compared to Hasegawa's that were a scale 6" deep! FWIW however, even back in the 60s I couldn't bring myself to try Revell's then current Fw 190 and P-51D. The worst fitting kits I can remember actually completing have been the Pavla Ar-2 and AMT B-52G. At least one Merlin kit made in into the stash long ago since, as has been said several times, they were only option at the time.

 

Regarding the infamous Roden He 111 kits I have them, there was a multi-page WIP on ARC several years ago that addressed and overcame all the fit issues. I did did save the entire article as a PDF and will use it extensively should I ever actually attempt one.

 

Not sure which bothers me more, a poor fitting kit or one where any resemblance to the real thing is coincidental (such as the previously cited Heller P-47N). I do think however, that if the subject is one you really want in the collection, it can be built.

22 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

...

Mach 2 1/72 B-45:

http://village.photos/images/user/98f6b132-de76-46aa-adf6-3164f1b40a83/1a33ff69-0d14-4640-b6a1-3ae318a4705e.JPG

...

Very nice B-45. I passed on the Mach 2 kit but will have a go with the Valom version

[bentwaters81tfw]

^ Tell me which is which?

[MilneBay]

33 minutes ago, Chillidragon said:

 

Airfix copy, by some company in Poland: SR 53

 

What a beautiful aircraft this is.  Despite it being in the Airfix catalogue for the whole of my childhood, this was never to be found in any of our local stockists. Some of us looked further afield and yet...  Nothing.  This was the one that all of us wanted.  I finally got this alleged copy. It was terrible.

 

 

The other thing that added to the cock up was that, in my example at least, the horizontal stabiliser was moulded in black plastic. A poor choice for an all white aircraft and something that took more than several coats of paint to cover. But with its faults the copy was not all that different to the Airfix original which, let's face it. came from their very early days.

 

When Academy first entered the 1/72 market they didn't have much to offer so they obviously hired some cheap moulds from other makers. Two kits that stand out for general cruddiness was their first attempt at the Grumman Hellcat (not the later kit which resembles the Hasegawa). This kit combined poor fit, a half cylinder engine mounted on a flat piece of plastic, a cockpit that offered moulded pilot and seat that plugged into the back and wheels that looked like buttons. Come to think of it perhaps they were. The problem was that it came in a lovely box that completely disguised the bare disaster that was within. Then there was their first attempt at issuing a FW190A. Dunno where they borrowed the mould from but this kit made the FW190's fuselage resemble a shoe box. And who can forget their much hyped Vampire. 

       

[Troy Smith]

16 minutes ago, Chuck1945 said:

Regarding the infamous Roden He 111 kits I have them, there was a multi-page WIP on ARC several years ago that addressed and overcame all the fit issues. I did did save the entire article as a PDF and will use it extensively should I ever actually attempt one.

 

here

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/157281-building-the-rodent-he111e-or-other-early-models/

well worth a read for the reasoning  and problem solving involved.

1 hour ago, Smithy said:

The 1/48 Lindberg Hawker Fury is a lovely kit. I have one on the go and the rib fabric effect is excellent, better than Airfix's IMHO and the shape looks to my eyes better too.

not originally a Lindberg kit,  but by originally by Inpact, then Pyro, then Lifelike, and then Lindberg.

 

shape,  see post below.

see

 

Quote

Recently I managed to get hold of a full set of the Westburg drawings for the Hawker Fury. These are without doubt the best Fury drawings around and originally drawn to 1:10th scale from Hawker originals. I did a comparison with the Pyro/Likelike Fury and the Airfix Fury with these drawings and suprisingly the Airfix one comes out as the most accurate (or the one with the fewest faults. I have done some correction surgrey on both. Here is a photo of the two fuselages.

 

more in link.  

 

crappy models personally?

 

1/48th AMT Tempest,   was a big dissapointment in 1980,  I had the Heller 72nd kit,  which was considerably more detailed and accurate.

 

1/48 Modelcraft F-82

 

1/48th Italeri Hurricanes,   impressive how many  details you can get  wrong,  while including a refernce booklet in one issues

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234935596-sea-hurricane-148-italeri/&do=findComment&comment=1390213

and to add insult  to injury,  have  drawings on the box and paint instructions which are correct (spinners,  Mk.I ejector slots)

 

1/48 Italeri Re2002 - adds gross shape errors to list above, and has a booklet showing much detail ....must check the box and paint drawings to see if they are more accurate.

 

1/72 Airfix JE-J  Spitfire IX,  was always everywhere a child, and they never even had the decency to add  in another decal scheme...  I  have a part done one which I was being done with the daughter andit was still crap.  

It even seemed crud next to some of the other Airfix clunkers I built as child.  (eg Hurricane IV and the original Mustang)

 

 

[Chillidragon]

Bits of my Polish SR 53 were also black, the fuselage was a different shape, and the wing details were mismatched - i.e. the control surface engravings didn't match each other, let alone drawings.

 

[Supersandaas]

I think the worst kit I've come across is a Kopro Skoda D.1 in 1/72 scale.

The 4 struts of the parasoll-wing where all of different lenght and width, you had to wittle something resembling a propeller from a lump of plastic, and the large decals turned instantly into a jigsaw-puzzle when introduced to water...

I persevered though, and the end result was ok, at least as it's an unusual maschine in an unudual scheme.

(There is a few more pictures on my blog, the text are in Norwegian though https://polarcoordinate.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/ferdigbygget-skoda-d-1-kopro-172/)

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Supersandaas

[wyverns4]

One to add.

 

The Pavla Henschel 129 A. Limited-run, OK. In the box I had the wings and tailplanes were differing thicknesses, the fuselage halves differing lengths and the cannon troughs, either side of the cockpit at differing heights and lengths along the fuselage sides. IIRC the canopy was a vacform that came out of the box yellowed and refused to adhere with any known adhesive and the decals had already cracked up on the sheet.

No, this was not brought some time after release, but picked off the Colingdale Hannant's, (original), as soon as Gary had moved out of the way after placing them on the shelf. It was eventually finished after much hacking, filing and filling, but succumbed to the 'sensitive' ministrations of the ex-from-hell MK.II.

 

Christian, exiled to africa with an odd hankering for that &%$@# model...

[MilneBay]

9 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

 

Mach 2 1/72 B-45:

http://village.photos/images/user/98f6b132-de76-46aa-adf6-3164f1b40a83/1a33ff69-0d14-4640-b6a1-3ae318a4705e.JPG

 

Not a bad job on that. I also beat one of those into shape. It's only attraction was, at the time, it was highly unlikely that anyone else appeared willing to issue another kit of what was a pretty obscure type anyway.

 

Some disasters just seem to draw spectators, or modellers. 

[Paul Thompson]

18 hours ago, alancmlaird said:

I'm on the final stages of detailing a Merlin DH5 and I must defend this wee model. Yes, its shy on detail and I had to discard the strut material and some of the supplied white metal parts, but it was a very easy kit to get right and flattered my skill level. Everything fitted and was undistorted with not much flash. I had to replace the aged transfers though.

There are some pics on last years DH group build, and I'll be placing some more on the WiP sometime.
Maybe I'm just easily pleased , I honestly can't think of a really hateful kit.....oh wait - a vacform Westland/Sikorsky Dragonfly with an impossible to glue canopy in two halves and no interior detail or info to scratch-build any in the kit instructions. Went in the bin when I moved house. I do now have a Mach Dragonfly still in the box - I'll let you know if I still have a smile on my face when I get round to building it

 

In Merlin's defence (shaky ground, I know), the first 14 releases where fine, and some such as the DH5 aren't that bad even now. Then something happened and subsequent releases started to deviate ever more from the laws of this universe in every measurable respect. (The worst kit I have in my stash is a Merlin DH.10, a true candidate for throwing everything away except the air the fuselage parts encompass).

 

Paul.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Paul Thompson
Duplication.

[John Masters]

The Azur kits were pretty good, but definitely designed for the experienced modeller...very little detail, and good resin bits, as I recall.  The frustrating thing about them was that the instruction sheet rarely helped one with correct strut placement and such things.  I guess it nudged me to do more research, take some educated risks and push on.  I remember the finished build looking pretty good.  Interesting selection of aircraft, too.

 

Regarding Merlin...I have one in the stash, a Pfalz triplane.  From a quick glance, it looks ok, but will take a fair amount of cleaning up (especially the white metal bits) and some digging around in the spares box for bits and bobs.  In a way, those poorly made kits are not so much 'bad kits' as they are a challenge ready to be overcome.  Maybe I'll build the Pfalz as part of the 11th Hour GB...?

 

 

[cngaero]

A couple of nominations from me.

1, the Unicraft Trent Meteor resin conversion kit and

2, the Andy Pack Beechcraft Super King Air vacform.

Both are models in the most loose sense of the word and both display their designer's devilish sense of humour.

There may be others that, with professional help, may be coaxed out to emerge from the dark recesses of my mind, but these two really shine out and not in a good way.

[MDriskill]

On 1/3/2018 at 1:05 PM, Adam Maas said:

If you've not experienced Merlin Models, they have to be seen to be believed. Very early short-run models that don't fit even where they touch. Effectively you get a selection of vaguely airplane shaped lumps of plastic in a box with bad decals and some oddly nice white metal castings.

The kit that sticks out in my mind as the all-time worst was the Merlin Fulmar. Paid over $20 for it, back when that was worth something, but ended up giving it away (rather cruel to the recipient in retrospect). In addition to the faults described above, the fuselage halves were so badly warped, and of such thick plastic, that their correction was obviously well above my pay grade.

[Pin]

Airfix 1/72 Concorde

EVERYTHING is wrong in EVERY aspect

 

[John Masters]

3 minutes ago, Pin said:

EVERYTHING is wrong in EVERY aspect

They got the spelling right...

[wyverns4]

Oh, Andy Pack, shudder, I had forgotten about them. How many vacs did thy release?

 

The only one I had was the DH 10 and that was enough. I have built vacforms and sometimes enjoy the experience. Not this one. Crude blobby extrusions that ruined a perfectly good sheet of plasticard.

 

Christian, exiled to africa

[cngaero]

2 hours ago, wyverns4 said:

Oh, Andy Pack, shudder, I had forgotten about them. How many vacs did thy release?

 

The only one I had was the DH 10 and that was enough. I have built vacforms and sometimes enjoy the experience. Not this one. Crude blobby extrusions that ruined a perfectly good sheet of plasticard.

 

Christian, exiled to africa

If they did produce any more, they should have been shot....... and not necessarily with bullets!!!! 

[cossack52]

for years i thought the AMT DH4 was the absolute rock bottom in mainstream kits;then i discovered the 2 glencoe 48 albatros(???)kits.different size fuselage halves,mismoulded parts,its only resemblance to an albatros was that it included 2 wings

[Head in the clouds.]

Ah, now that you ask, I have just finished a UniCraft Supermarine TOR 4040 that is currently on display in the museum of 'What-ifs' on this forum, in the end I just wanted it finished but no two items within the kit were the same size and that was just the start of it. I posted a few shots of what greeted me when I opened the box.

If you value your sanity get a Mach2 kit....

[alancmlaird]

Oh dear! If anyone has noticed my own personal group build 'Painting by Numbers' a (very) occassional serial build of 1/72 DH-1 to 10, I rashly promised a DH10 with the thought of acquiring a vac or Merlin kit!
Plan B now seems like a better idea - scratch-buid/kit bash from some donor mainstream kits. Better than paying fleabay prices for the the drek mentioned above.

Britmodellers know everything!

[Smithy]

20 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

not originally a Lindberg kit,  but by originally by Inpact, then Pyro, then Lifelike, and then Lindberg.

 

That's absolutely true but it's still a boxed as a Lindberg so you can argue that it's a good Lindberg kit! 

 

20 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

shape,  see post below.

 

I'd still argue that the Lindberg has a major advantage over the Airfix and that's the fabric and rib effect both of which are highly overdone on the Airfix offering. Plus the shape certainly is not horrendously out of whack by any means when comparing it to the Caruana drawings.

 

Actually Troy you and I seem to have similar tastes in aircraft (at least from the interwar and WWII periods) so I wanted to have a look at some of your builds. However when I went to your profile I couldn't find any of your aviation builds either in "Works in Progress" or "Ready for Inspection" - there was one by your daughter but the pics suffer from the Photobucket debacle. Where's your modelling photos?!

Edited January 6, 2018 by Smithy