Worst model quality?

[Artie]

22 hours ago, Smithy said:

he 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...

Can't say nothing but "agree 100%"........the old Lindberg (Inpact, Pyro) biplanes are lovely.....both the Fury, Gladiator and Flycatcher.....

I prefer the Inpat Gladiator over the Roden one....of course it's a very old kit with nexto to zero cockpit detail, lots of sink and ejector marks, but still (IMHO) a better kit.....and those old boxes....those old boxes add a lot of "nostalgia" to our builds. Maybe younger modellers don't give a damm to that factor, but it's very important for me....they remind me of those days of yore when my dad took my brother and me to our local hobby shops, and we got them for pocket money.....maybe the same kind of feelling that you experience when driving a classic MGB....

And there's one thing that keeps me somehow confused......When you talk about the "worst kit", do you talk about the kit's quality, or about the kit's accuracy...???? I think they're quite different things, and not necessarily going hand in hand....

Edited January 6, 2018 by Artie

[Smithy]

16 minutes ago, Artie said:

Can't say nothing but "agree 100%"........the old Lindberg (Inpact, Pyro) biplanes are lovely.....both the Fury, Gladiator and Flycatcher.....

I prefer the Inpat Gladiator over the Roden one....of course it's a very old kit with nexto to zero cockpit detail, lots of sink and ejector marks, but still (IMHO) a better kit.....and those old boxes....those old boxes add a lot of "nostalgia" to our builds. Maybe younger modellers don't give a damm to that factor, but it's very important for me....they remind me of those days of yore when my dad took my brother and me to our local hobby shops, and we got them for pocket money.....maybe the same kind of feelling that you experience when driving a classic MGB....

 

I couldn't agree more with you Artie!

 

I scratched a little bit on mine for the interior, nothing more than using some plastic tubing and plastic sheet, and made a rear bulkhead for behind the seat which you can see in my photo. It really is a lovely little kit and the rib effect is as good as you see on the best today, not overdone in the slighest.

 

And couldn't agree more about cars either, as soon as the nippers are bigger I'll be buying a bigger classic "model" once again to play with in the garage!

Edited January 6, 2018 by Smithy
My spelling is atrocious!

[TonyW]

I think the Roden He111 is a contender for top place in this thread.

 

Mine drove me to tears. The annoying thing is that I've wanted to build an early version of the plane since I was a kid and really thought I had won the lottery when the Roden kit showed up. Gullible, me? Never! 

 

First disappointment was when I realised that all my careful detailing of the bomb racks would vanish from sight forever once the fuselage was joined together. That was the second disappointment. Fit was somewhat off!

I very nearly took a lump hammer to it when I tried fitting the nacelles, engines and undercarriage. Trying got me nowhere. In sheer desperation to salvage something from the wreckage, I had the brainwave to really wreck it and  make a crash diorama out of it. All the wonky fitting bits were buried in filler and scenic materials and I though myself very clever.

 

 

It was not to be though, my Mojo was gone, the bloody kit had beaten me. The final straw was the unbelievably bad fit of the canopy! I lost all interest in it and moved on to other kits.

Edited January 6, 2018 by TonyW

[Smithy]

5 minutes ago, TonyW said:

I think the Roden He111 is a contender for top place in this thread.

 

Mine drove me to tears. The annoying thing is that I've wanted to build an early version of the plane since I was a kid and really thought I had won the lottery when the Roden kit showed up. Gullible, me? Never! 

 

First disappointment was when I realised that all my careful detailing of the bomb racks would vanish from sight forever once the fuselage was joined together. That was the second disappointment. Fit was somewhat off!

I very nearly took a lump hammer to it when I tried fitting the nacelles, engines and undercarriage. Trying got me nowhere. In sheer desperation to salvage something from the wreckage, I had the brainwave to really wreck it and  make a crash diorama out of it. All the wonky fitting bits were buried in filler and scenic materials and I though myself very clever.

 

 

It was not to be though, my Mojo was gone, the bloody kit had beaten me. The final straw was the unbelievably bad fit of the canopy! I lost all interest in it and moved on to other kits.

 

That kit as I mentioned above is the absolute brown stuff. You did well, better than most!

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, TonyW said:

I think the Roden He111 is a contender for top place in this thread.

 

Mine drove me to tears. The annoying thing is that I've wanted to build an early version of the plane since I was a kid and really thought I had won the lottery when the Roden kit showed up. Gullible, me? Never! 

 

First disappointment was when I realised that all my careful detailing of the bomb racks would vanish from sight forever once the fuselage was joined together. That was the second disappointment. Fit was somewhat off!

I very nearly took a lump hammer to it when I tried fitting the nacelles, engines and undercarriage. Trying got me nowhere. In sheer desperation to salvage something from the wreckage, I had the brainwave to really wreck it and  make a crash diorama out of it. All the wonky fitting bits were buried in filler and scenic materials and I though myself very clever.

 

 

 

It was not to be though, my Mojo was gone, the bloody kit had beaten me. The final straw was the unbelievably bad fit of the canopy! I lost all interest in it and moved on to other kits.

 

1 hour ago, Smithy said:

 

That kit as I mentioned above is the absolute brown stuff. You did well, better than most!

 

 

and, as it seems to be  have been lost in my post,   and  for  anyone else,  

recipe for dealing  with the Roden He111

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.

 

Of course,  this  kind of problem solving  is not what is  expected from a model kit,   but as this is one keeps being mentioned requently as crud,   method of dealing with those problems is worth highlighting.

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Artie said:

Can't say nothing but "agree 100%"........the old Lindberg (Inpact, Pyro) biplanes are lovely.....both the Fury, Gladiator and Flycatcher.....

 

didn't realise you started this one Artie

 

just for this 'what-if'

On 29/06/2010 at 11:25, Edgar said:

It won't make you feel any better, but I once met, at the ME Exhibition, the man who did the masters for the Inpact range, and he said that he'd prepared masters for all of the between-wars biplanes, and they were still sitting, unwanted, in his attic.

Edgar

 

 

[bentwaters81tfw]

What a wasted opportunity that was. I bet they've all been binned by now.

[TonyW]

11 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

 

and, as it seems to be  have been lost in my post,   and  for  anyone else,  

recipe for dealing  with the Roden He111

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.

 

Of course,  this  kind of problem solving  is not what is  expected from a model kit,   but as this is one keeps being mentioned requently as crud,   method of dealing with those problems is worth highlighting.

 

 

I did read through your post on correcting the flaws and can only admire your dedication to beating the kit! I really could have done with seeing your corrections before I started the thing.

 

 I got suckered in by the apparent fine detailing that turned out to be lipstick on a pig. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by TonyW

[Neil.C]

18 hours ago, TonyW said:

I think the Roden He111 is a contender for top place in this thread.

 

Mine drove me to tears. The annoying thing is that I've wanted to build an early version of the plane since I was a kid and really thought I had won the lottery when the Roden kit showed up. Gullible, me? Never! 

 

First disappointment was when I realised that all my careful detailing of the bomb racks would vanish from sight forever once the fuselage was joined together. That was the second disappointment. Fit was somewhat off!

I very nearly took a lump hammer to it when I tried fitting the nacelles, engines and undercarriage. Trying got me nowhere. In sheer desperation to salvage something from the wreckage, I had the brainwave to really wreck it and  make a crash diorama out of it. All the wonky fitting bits were buried in filler and scenic materials and I though myself very clever.

 

 

It was not to be though, my Mojo was gone, the bloody kit had beaten me. The final straw was the unbelievably bad fit of the canopy! I lost all interest in it and moved on to other kits.

A great idea - better than the bin!

[Artie]

Long time ago, I tried to build the Classic Airframes' SM79 Sparviero.....It turned out to be an absolute rubbish...I wish to think it was my kit, wich was warped and full of deformed and mismatching parts.

Some time later, a Flashback reboxing came to my hands, and none of the previous problems were found. Finally, I kept the resins and engine nacelles, decals, etc...with the spurious idea of upgrading the Trumpeter kit.

So my question is "when we talk about bad kits, do we talk about bad quality, or badly unaccurate shape..?"......

Best regards......

[Chris Jephcott]

Once at a car boot sale, I found a little Cyrillic box with a picture of an F-16 on the front - and although my knowledge of cryptic isn’t good, it did indeed say F-16.

 

upon opening the box, the pieces were there and looked correct according to the instructions. But it certainly wasn’t an F-16. In fact, I have no idea what it was. And I’ve never found another one anywhere. So to me, the mystery of this kit continues. 

 

I’ve got all the Rosen He111s to do. They keep on winking at me...

 

Chris

 

[Giorgio N]

10 hours ago, Artie said:

Long time ago, I tried to build the Classic Airframes' SM79 Sparviero.....It turned out to be an absolute rubbish...I wish to think it was my kit, wich was warped and full of deformed and mismatching parts.

Some time later, a Flashback reboxing came to my hands, and none of the previous problems were found. Finally, I kept the resins and engine nacelles, decals, etc...with the spurious idea of upgrading the Trumpeter kit.

So my question is "when we talk about bad kits, do we talk about bad quality, or badly unaccurate shape..?"......

Best regards......

 

Good point ! Sure the importance of one or the other aspect depends on what each modeller rate as most important and we've seen both sides of the matter here,

Among the kits mentioned I've found the Revell Halifax, that received a lot of criticism here for the many inaccuracies, yet I'm sure that for someone with little interest in accuracy it's going to be a nice kit, or at least nicer than many others discussed. I often bring the Academy 1/72 Spit XIV as an example, it's a caricature of a Spitfire, so it's bad for me but really it's a nicely moulded, well detailed and sweet fitting kit, so much that from these aspects it's still one of the best 1/72 Spitfire kits around... is it a bad one or a good one ?

Then there's the matter of what should we expect from certain kits: I don't expect perfect fit from a short run, it's in the nature of the technology that fit on these kits is going to require more care (although some short run kits I've built have been better than some mainstream ones...). Maybe at the same time I should not expect accuracy from a simplified kit aimed at beginners. The Matchbox Tomcat is awful accuracywise (it's also bad fitting, one of the worst MB kits ever), but should I expect accuracy from a product that was at the lower end of the market when first appeared ? Maybe it's not right.

 

[elger]

For me the question is relative - if you buy Starfix you know you're going to get something awful, but they don't promise anything else. That's why the Roden 111 is probably known as one of the worst kits, because it's not advertised as such.

 

But what about this: Although I'm weirdly fond of them, how about pre-Hornby, early 2000s Airfix gems like their Spitfire Vc and Mosquito XVI? Trenches for panel lines, and for the Mosquito truly awful fitting wings.

[Seahawk]

I'm sorry: this thread is drifting off worst model quality and into the mildly disagreeable.  Those of you not voting for an Andy Pack vacform have obviously been fortunate enough never to have seen one: a sheet of plastic with a few vague bumps in it, rather reminiscent of those LIDAR images of Roman forts uncovered during the recent Environment agency survey of the UK.  The crude amateur water-colour boxtop illustration was merely a hint to the horrors within.  Not to be mentioned in the same breath as other vacforms from the early pioneering days like Rareplane, Contrail or even Formaplane.

[wyverns4]

59 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

I'm sorry: this thread is drifting off worst model quality and into the mildly disagreeable.  Those of you not voting for an Andy Pack vacform have obviously been fortunate enough never to have seen one: a sheet of plastic with a few vague bumps in it, rather reminiscent of those LIDAR images of Roman forts uncovered during the recent Environment agency survey of the UK.  The crude amateur water-colour boxtop illustration was merely a hint to the horrors within.  Not to be mentioned in the same breath as other vacforms from the early pioneering days like Rareplane, Contrail or even Formaplane.

So true, so true.

 

But a little unfair to a new and developing technology that is remotely detecting structures over 4, 000 years old, though descriptively accurate 

 

Christian, previous owner of an Andy Pack DH 10.....

Edited January 9, 2018 by wyverns4
10 thumbs

[Ologist]

An RPM 1/72 Beriev Be-4 bought for about the price of a pint had me thinking sadly about the pint I could have bought instead.

 

Jon

Edited January 9, 2018 by Ologist
grammar error

[John Masters]

 

11 minutes ago, Ologist said:

An RPM 1/72 Beriev Be-4 bought for about the price of a pint

I think Jockney made one of those for the Floatplane GB...the plane, not the pint.

[Artie]

36 minutes ago, Ologist said:

bought for about the price of a pint

Well......everytime I've had to choose between a kit and a pint......how could I say it........I've saved a lot filler and sanding

 

As that famous writer once said..."Two beers or not two beers...that is the question"....

[John Thompson]

5 hours ago, Ologist said:

An RPM 1/72 Beriev Be-4 bought for about the price of a pint had me thinking sadly about the pint I could have bought instead.

 

Jon

 

Yeah, I struggled with that kit for much too long, too - pretty much nothing in the box was accurately shaped, and in the course of reworking the hull to try to improve it, I discovered a black inclusion in the plastic which, when exposed, contaminated the immediate surface area with some kind of nasty, greasy substance. Perhaps they were trying out used crankcase oil as a mold release agent. It's packed away unfinished; it'll take more than a pint to get that one to the paint stage!

 

John

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I'm developing stronger views on this subject as I get older and (hopefully) more skilled.

 

I can forgive engineering shortcomings in a kit; well, from smaller manufacturers at least. I find major accuracy failures unforgiveable from any manufacturer.

 

You don't need a multi-million pound budget to be able to compare an object to available references. If references simply aren't available that's one thing, but to just make things up because you're too lazy or stupid to compare to references is appalling.

 

 

When I was a teenager I decided I'd like to try making a vacuum formed kit of the Comet 1. It was never going to work because I couldn't cast white metal etc but I wasn't going to let that stop me. I made my masters using plans and an Airfix Comet 4B to begin with. Looking back, I could have successfully completed a home-made Comet 1 conversion as a one-off. I realised I simply wasn't good enough to make masters that were good enough to pull vacuum formed parts from. I did the decent thing and scrapped it.

 

It seems though that there are plenty manufacturers who still have the lack of skill I had as a teenager but let that be no barrier to them carrying on and producing a kit from their junk masters.

 

Coming back to the beginning, one can understand that sometimes limited run kits need (a lot of) extra work to fit the parts together. Where the end result is actually a good representation of the original (e.g. Aeroclub or Dynavector kits) that, in my book, is ok. On the other hand when the parts, even if they fitted easily, would still give a badly flawed result then it isn't a kit at all - it's simply overpriced raw materials stripped of their initial value by forming them into useless shapes.

 

For example, I could spend a lot of time and effort putting this kit together, but what's the point? It would still be an assymetric misshapen turd. I'd be quicker and easier scratchbuilding it to arrive at a Sunderland shaped object and had I done that I'd be £60odd better off to begin with. I feel robbed. These "masters" should have gone in the bin, not used.

 

Assymetric tail fin and rudder halves: New fin and rudder needs to be scratchbuilt

 

"Pitched roof" fuselage - the real one is round - new fuselage halves need to be scratchbuilt

 

Aerofoil sections substantially different on left and right wings - new wings need to be scratchbuilt

[Ed Russell]

1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

a Sunderland shaped object

 

You are right - I'd rather have this one

 

http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/323237

[FAAMAN]

I've never binned a kit, well, except for un-repairablly damaged kits caused by me during a build (sorry Airfix Spookey, Airfix F-111E and Frog Victor) and I can safely say I've experienced some real horrors

Every Aurora kit I ever built (for "paying friends", never me) was pure torture, followed by some Lindberg kits, Nichimo (10inch dia. rivets), LS, Tamiya ( 1/100 scale kits look like a plane I know but not quite), Entex (the kings of FLASH), Eldon "Match kits", Aoshima kits in general but their ships come in for "special" mention, Crown (the car and aircraft kits especially, NEVER go near the Honda Z I could go on but space precludes rambling.

 

Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies made an interesting statement: "I can forgive engineering shortcomings in a kit; well, from smaller manufacturers at least. I find major accuracy failures unforgiveable from any manufacturer.

You don't need a multi-million pound budget to be able to compare an object to available references. If references simply aren't available that's one thing, but to just make things up because you're too lazy or stupid to compare to references is appalling."

 

These are some of the worst, and yes I've built them no matter how bad, So are these Mfr's lazy or stupid or both?

Revell 1/144 scale Lockheed F-117A Stealth Fighter, kit 04037,

DSC07154 50. 56200s by Neil, on Flickr

Revell 1/72 scale Supermarine Spitfire, kit H-77,

DSC02380s by Neil, on Flickr

Revell 1/72 scale N.A. P-51D Mustang, kit H-47,

DSC09506cropS by Neil, on Flickr

Dragon 1/144 scale Sukhoi Su-27K Naval Flanker, kit DML4542,

DSC04445s by Neil, on Flickr

MPM 1/72 scale Focke Wulf Fw 190V-18, kit 72033, still building it, started 05Oct2015, only a passing resemblance to the real "Kangaru"

0001. TheBox by Neil, on Flickr

Edited January 11, 2018 by FAAMAN

[Tempestwulf]

Italeri can have some dodgy fitting kits, with their F4U-4B wing-fuselage join being sketchy. At a high stress period 6 years back I sent one flying after the wing popped off...for the 4th time. Fortunately I managed to build one a year later when my stress levels were less and it's one of my favourites now. Their Me 410 is a dogs breakfast which takes patience & a lot of filling/sanding, couldn't stomach it so binned (shame on me).

[Mr T]

Reading this thread, I reckon part of the issue around model quality comes down to how much you want a model of a particular subject and much time and energy you are prepared to expend on it. I am currently building the Magna Marathon and it has a couple of issues, one of which is of my own making and built a few more Magna kits, none of them have been easy, but they have generally turned out OK. There are some kits that seem to be past redemption, eg the Andy Pack Beech and the Veeday Scimitar. I thought the Airfix Yak 9 and Il2 were pretty horrible kits from an accuracy and fit point of view when I built them around  1980

[Neil.C]

As I started this thread I thought I'd add another.

 

I've just started a old Novo Hawker tempest, talk about fits where it touches!