matchbox kits?

[NAVY870]

I quite like this one.

[The wooksta V2.0]

Rather you than me! I still have nightmares after building that in 1990. It put me off 32nd scale for life...

[Deanflyer]

Nothing wrong with the good old Matchbox 1/32 aircraft:

...especially if you fettle them a bit.

And with the old three colour kits, you can have a bit of fun if you have two of them and they're moulded in different coloured plastics in each example:

I like Matchbox.

Dean

[John Aero]

The key to the unusual choice of many subjects in the Matchbox range was due to Maurice Landi, who I was privileged to know. Matchbox were essentially a toy company hence the choice of coloured plastic and heavy line detail. However the clever choice of subjects made for a wider buying public and many of the subjects still stand as unique. I remember Maurice telling me that the Heinkel 70 came about as a result of the great author William Green saying that was one of his favorite aircraft. Several of the other more esoteric German subjects I believe were of Greens suggestion.

Maurice was always very approachable to a conversion and he would happily supply me with early test shots of stuff such as the Meteor Night Fighters. I still have my copy of the original Matchbox large multi view drawings which are intriguingly shown as 1:48 scale.

The Matchbox biplanes are still an interesting selection.

John

[Giorgio N]

I'm a really big fan of Matchbox, these kits are always fun to put together and always turn out looking nice. Sometimes I am forced into buying kits from manufacturers like Azur when there is nothing else available, what a load of absolute crud these kits are compared to Matchbox, rubbish vacuum canopies, rubbish resin parts, annoying and rubbish photo-etched parts, diabolical instructions, badly fitting parts, bland surface detail and four times the price of an old Matchbox kit.

Interested in a swap ? I can send you some Matchbox kits for the Azur ones...

I'm happy enough with rubbush vacform canopies since these are much more realistic than the 2 mm thick ones Matchbox used in many kits

I'm also happy with the resin parts, as they can provide great detail where Matchbox kits usually had no detail at all...

I'm of course happy with PE parts as these can reproduce a number of feature with much more realism. Matchbox usually would offer either crude representations or nothing at all

Last but not least, the surface detail on Azur kits is to me 100 times more realistic than the trenches seen on most Matchbox kits.

As for the badly fitting parts, I can live with these, as can anyone who's ever built certain airfix kits of the good old days

[keefr22]

Nothing wrong with the good old Matchbox 1/32 aircraft:

Dean, that 109 & Tiggie are simply superb - & the pic of the 109 is brilliant...!!

Keith

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

It's not one of their better ones.

These are the native-tool Matchbox kits which from personal knowledge I am still prepared to pick up at the right price (and have done!).

All the 1/32 cars.

All the AFVs as far as I know, which is not very far because I know three-fifths of very little about armour. But theyare small and cute and come with lovely little diorama settings (in some boxings at least).

All the biplanes, and that's a lot of kits!

Lysander - way better than the Airfix one which has upside-down wings

FW190A - it's very simple - but was the first basically shape-accurate 190A kit

Strikemaster

Tempest II/VI

T-2C Buckeye

Percival Provost (the piston-engined one)

LTV Corsair (the jet)

Beaufighter - funny cowls, but fixable

Buccaneer

Ju 188

Me 410

Hunter

F9F Panther

Meteor night-fighter

Norseman

He 115

Wellington

Twin Otter

Spey Phantom

English Electric Lightning

Do 18

1/32 Sea Venom (not easy to build)

1/32 Lysander (not easy to build)

1/32 Bf 109E

H-P Victor

Privateer / Liberator VI

Halifax

1/48 AD-5 Skyraider

1/48 FJ-4B Fury

Through slightly clenched teeth, the 1/32 Spitfire 22/24 - there is no modern replacement for this but it's a bear to build and the windscreen is glaringly wrong, but I really ought to just man up and crash-mould a new one.

Ones that have been superseded but may still be worth building if you have them already:

Gnat

Lancaster - useful for the bulged bomb bay, otherwise go with the recently superseded Airfix kit which is often available cheap in bagged shots

Ones I would avoid because the have accuracy issues which annoy me or there are better low-cost kits available (note especially that for some reason I have never understood, Hasegawa kits in old boxes are vastly cheaper second-hand than the same plastic in new boxes):

Spitfire IX/XVI - buy Heller for the XVI, new Airfix for the IX

Hurricane IIc - buy Heller instead

Mustang IV - buy an old Hasegawa kit instead

Hellcat - buy an old Hasegawa kit instead

Bf 109E - buy new Airfix

Me 262 - buy Revell

P-38 - buy old Hasegawa

P-47 - buy Revell or Academy or old Hasegawa

Brewster Buffalo - buy Revell or possibly Airfix

Bf 110 - buy Fujimi or Revell-Monogram

B-17 - buy old Hasegawa

The many kits not mentioned either way are ones where I don't know enough the kit to say, or don't know enough about the subject to say, or both.

Just a quick nitpick about the bottom list kits to avoid because of cheap newer/better low cost kits. Define low cost, you can get Eduard Hellcats and Bf110s, which are the best available of those a/c types in 1/72 for less than a tenner. Given the kit quality, I'd much rather have an Eduard Hellcat/Bf110 even if it did cost a £1 or 2 more. In fact sometimes you can get the Eduard Bf110 weekends for less than the inferior Airfix Bf110's.

Spitfire IX - some AZ boxings of their Spitfire IX are under a tenner and infinitely better than the toy like new Airfix kit.

Hurricane IIc - my choice is the Revell kit, which is cheap and easily available

Mustang IV - if you want a cheap Mustang, the new Airfix kit is your best bet

Hellcat - Eduard weekend if you want cheap but the Profipacks are worth spending the extra on. Any other Hellcat might as well be bin fodder compared to Eduard's, there's no sane reason to buy a different Hellcat kit.

Bf109E - agree Airfix if you want really cheap but get Tamiya kit if you see it for a bargain price - the Tamiya kit is such a lovely kit to build.

Me262 - Revell wins on price and availability but Hasegawa's and Academy's are worth buying if found at a bargain price. Even the Hobby Boss easy build 262 isn't too bad.

P-38 - If you can find the Academy kit cheap buy it over anything else.

P-47 - I prefer the Academy P-47 over the Hasegawa kit, I think it looks better when built. The Revell P-47 just isn't quite right, I think it's had too much beer as it's belly looks too big and the landing gear is to short. You can't fit the flat 150 gal drop tank under the Revell kit because of it's faults. Tamiya is well and truly the best P-47 but you have to pay for the quality.

Buffalo - I don't have any recommendations other than possibly the Hasegawa kit for the right price.

Bf110 - Eduard kits all the way, don't even consider anything else. Weekend editions are cheap enough but the profipacks are well worth the extra spend.

B-17 - Is the Revell or Academy kits not cheap enough? You can find both under £20, which isn't bad for the size of a/c. I've got the Academy B-17F Memphis Belle boxing in my stash.

thanks

Mike

[Darby]

Matchbox were often the only kit I could get in the 70's. 35p for the two colour then 45p for the three colour etc. Great fun and the nostalgia has a calming effect when trying to restore the plastic mojo. (stand fast Stranraer and Heyford). And, the best thing about some of the tank kits was the cow's skull for the mini diorama! And all the fuss nowadays over accurate theatre markings in 'dogfight doubles' was never even thought of when a Siskin was lining up a deflection shot on a Ju188 from the bedroom ceiling

[modelldoc]

Fortunately some kits available until todayby Revell.

My favourite is the Twotter.

The Canberra is in the shops and the Victor comes again.

modelldoc

Edited December 30, 2014 by modelldoc

[Darby]

Many still available on Kingkit website

[hgbn]

Its always a trip down memory lane when I open a Matchbox kit. Grew up with these kits in the 70's and early 80's and enjoyed them very much at the time. A lot of them builds into very decent models given their age. Especially their twin seat Meteors are invaluable and still available as Xtrakit

[JamesP]

And, the best thing about some of the tank kits was the cow's skull for the mini diorama!

that'll this one

...Panzer III Ausf-L

It has probably been already mentioned but MB fans should check out http://www.matchboxkits.org

[dr_gn]

Re. the Hellcat Eduard Weekend Edition - I picked up the Profi Pack version from Telford for £10. There were two on the stall, and I wish I'd bought them both. I was looking at it in the box yesterday; it must be one of the best 1:72 kits made to date

The reason that many of the larger Matchbox kits were made in multiple sections (Spitfire, B-17 etc.) was that the injection moulding machines they had available were too small to make the larger parts in one-piece. I've got the Walrus and the Sea Venom in the stash. Can't wait to build them, Matchbox kits always went together well, and these days they make a perfect canvas for scratch-building and detailling. Sure, the panel lines were deep, but we're talking 1970's budget manufacturing. Airfix still haven't managed it on a consistent basis today, so there's hardly grounds for major complaint there.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Re. the Hellcat Eduard Weekend Edition - I picked up the Profi Pack version from Telford for £10. There were two on the stall, and I wish I'd bought them both. I was looking at it in the box yesterday; it must be one of the best 1:72 kits made to date

The reason that many of the larger Matchbox kits were made in multiple sections (Spitfire, B-17 etc.) was that the injection moulding machines they had available were too small to make the larger parts in one-piece. I've got the Walrus and the Sea Venom in the stash. Can't wait to build them, Matchbox kits always went together well, and these days they make a perfect canvas for scratch-building and detailling. Sure, the panel lines were deep, but we're talking 1970's budget manufacturing. Airfix still haven't managed it on a consistent basis today, so there's hardly grounds for major complaint there.

I'm a bit mad for buying WW2 fighter kits in multiple. I have 6 Eduard Hellcats, which is all the Profipacks and a Weekend. I've made a Hellcat Mk I and a Hellcat Mk II NF, need to build a Mk II and then 3 Yank Hellcats. £10 is a good price for a Profipack and the etch isn't too tasking in the Hellcat.

thanks

Mike

[old thumper]

Interested in a swap ? I can send you some Matchbox kits for the Azur ones...

I'm happy enough with rubbush vacform canopies since these are much more realistic than the 2 mm thick ones Matchbox used in many kits

I'm also happy with the resin parts, as they can provide great detail where Matchbox kits usually had no detail at all...

I'm of course happy with PE parts as these can reproduce a number of feature with much more realism. Matchbox usually would offer either crude representations or nothing at all

Last but not least, the surface detail on Azur kits is to me 100 times more realistic than the trenches seen on most Matchbox kits.

As for the badly fitting parts, I can live with these, as can anyone who's ever built certain airfix kits of the good old days

I only have one more Azur kit left to build in my stash and that is a Italian Ro 37 which Matchbox never made, if by any chance you do have a Matchbox kit of the Ro 37 I would feel relieved to swap my Azur kit for it.

The thing with the Matchbox canopies is that once they are glued in place it is impossible to judge the thickness of them, also when they are dipped in klear they resemble glass much more closely than the bits of recycled blister pack used by Azur. I don't mind buying pens and tubes of glue packed in that stuff but it will never look like glass.

Take for example the Azur Potez 633AB2, this kit has its undercarriage, engines and props amongst other parts made from resin. The props, undercarriage and rear facing machine gun are all unusable. The fuselage halfs do not match up and there are no male / female joints for any of the parts to fit into. This kit is a headache from start to finish and to add to this there are certain easily noticed inaccuracies such the lack of a fuselage blister window. If I found all these things in a 1960's Frog kit I could live with all this but I do not expect this quality from something so expensive and so new.

I don't really see the point in spending hours fitting photo etched parts into the interior of a model when once it is completed they can't be seen, so these parts are of no interest to me.

Surface detail on the old Matchbox kits can be removed, added or modified quite easily so no bother there either. So long as the basic carcass of the kit is ok I am happy.

[keefr22]

The thing with the Matchbox canopies is that once they are glued in place it is impossible to judge the thickness of them, also when they are dipped in klear they resemble glass much more closely than the bits of recycled blister pack used by Azur. I don't mind buying pens and tubes of glue packed in that stuff but it will never look like glass.

Glass? Hmmm, don't know of many aircraft with glass canopies! Materially they are far closer to that blister packaging!

And, this from Wiki on full size canopies;

"Most modern acrylic canopies are vacuum formed. A sheet of acrylic is secured to a female mould, then the entire assembly is heated in an oven until the acrylic is pliable. The air is then removed from the mould and the acrylic sheet is drawn into it, forming the shape of the canopy."

Sound familiar....?!

Keith

[old thumper]

Glass? Hmmm, don't know of many aircraft with glass canopies! Materially they are far closer to that blister packaging!

And, this from Wiki on full size canopies;

"Most modern acrylic canopies are vacuum formed. A sheet of acrylic is secured to a female mould, then the entire assembly is heated in an oven until the acrylic is pliable. The air is then removed from the mould and the acrylic sheet is drawn into it, forming the shape of the canopy."

Sound familiar....?!

Keith

Earlier canopies had frames and used glass, unlike for example a P51 bubble canopy. Neither vacuum formed canopies or injection formed canopies are made of the same stuff as used in real aircraft. Most plastics can be formed into a shape by softening them with heat and then being held in place by a mould or some other method. Blister pack style vacuum formed canopies look like cheap packing material to me.

[keefr22]

Earlier canopies had frames and used glass, unlike for example a P51 bubble canopy.

Well, it's been 30+ years since I did my Materials Engineering paper on aircraft canopies, so I won't argue as I can't really remember 30 days ago, but I struggle to recall any, even flat panelled ones that weren't 'plastic'. Doesn't matter anyway, as I like both Matchbox & Azur kits!

ATB

Keith

[Graham Boak]

I made a lot of the Matchbox range when I was younger, but some of them were below the standard of the time, let alone now. In that I'd include some examples from the list above, especially the Ju188. The Privateer was another terrible disappointment, and remains unmade to this day. I also have and like many of the Azur range, mainly still unfinished but that's the way I do things nowadays. (Isn't the Romeo strictly an MPM/Special Hobby boxing? Maybe not - same tooling people, anyway.) Generally I like them, and they don't need a lot more work than an equivalent kit from harder tools - less so than a Matchbox Spitfire, for example, which needed the nose padding, the tail cutting off and replacing, moving the tailplanes in the process to (potentially) free the rudder for movement, and a thicker wing. I found the Frog Mk.VIII at much the same time had too thick a wing, so the two could be hybridised. Then you have the trenches to fill and a replacement canopy desired - not that such were as readily available then as now.

Given that many people seem to find vacform canopies an improvement on injection moulded one, enough so to support much aftermarket over the years, it must strike them (as it does me) that thick canopies do look thick even after being glued into place. The quality of such do vary, of course, but my main complaint about those from the MPM factory is their yellowing, not their shape or (initial) appearance.

[keefr22]

The quality of such do vary, of course, but my main complaint about those from the MPM factory is their yellowing,

Ah yes, that reminds me, must get some PET-G to mould replacement canopies for my CMR Buccaneer & CA Battle. Either that or pretend the crews were fairly heavy smokers...!!

[old thumper]

Given that many people seem to find vacform canopies an improvement on injection moulded one, enough so to support much aftermarket over the years, it must strike them (as it does me) that thick canopies do look thick even after being glued into place. The quality of such do vary, of course, but my main complaint about those from the MPM factory is their yellowing, not their shape or (initial) appearance.

True, but then again wouldn't high end manufacturers include vacuum formed canopies within their kits if the majority preferred them? And similarly wouldn't other manufacturers include them as they are presumably cheaper to make than injection mouldings?

[keefr22]

True, but then again wouldn't high end manufacturers include vacuum formed canopies within their kits if the majority preferred them? And similarly wouldn't other manufacturers include them as they are presumably cheaper to make than injection mouldings?

I have to admit that with the problems Airfix have had with the clear parts in many of their recent kits, I'd be very happy if they included an alternative vacform canopy in them!

[dr_gn]

True, but then again wouldn't high end manufacturers include vacuum formed canopies within their kits if the majority preferred them? And similarly wouldn't other manufacturers include them as they are presumably cheaper to make than injection mouldings?

I doubt vacform windscreens will ever be mainstream because they are so difficult to trim and fit properly. Vacform canopies are usually much easier, since they are invariably used in the open position, where a thick injection moulded part would not fit, and the trimming of the vacform isn't as critical.

Wherever I can, I use a standard windscreen, and a vacform canopy if I really have to. Re. the Special Hobby/Azur/MPM/CMR etc kits: The resin and p/e cockpits are excellent and can usually be clearly seen if you have an open canopy.

[NAVY870]

I find vac canopies to be very unrealistic especially in the larger scales, they are far too thin.

Most aircraft I have worked on have a thumping great bullet proof windscreen (the Sea Venom's is 50+mm thick)

and the canopy maitereal and structure is usually quite hefty. Vac canopies portray none of this and look flimsy.

I prefer the way trumpeter and Tamiya do canopies of late and if another kit has clarity issues its out with

the micro mesh.

Edited April 13, 2016 by NAVY870

[Giorgio N]

Really, comparing Matchbox and Azur/MPM kits makes no sense at all!

As much as we can like Matchbox kit, these were aimed at beginners and a such were designed with very little attention to detail. Sure, some were quite nice, some have not been reproduced by others, but the bulk of Matchbox's production was made of kits already considered basic in the late '70s that can't compete with can be achieved today. Just look at what Hobbyboss is doing with their line of beginners aimed easy kits, they are miles better than anything ever made from Matchbox in terms of moulding.

Kits like those sold by Azur/MPM or Sword are aimed at more advanced modellers and supply a good level of detail through media that may not be the easiest to use. They may be more difficult to build compared to mainstream products, but this is usually not a problem for the kind of modeller who chooses these. Want to go back to Matchbox heydays ? Back then a Ro.37 would have only been available as a vacform, something much more difficult to build than a short run. Now this is the kind of products we should compare Azur with, vacforms and the early short runs... I'm pretty sure things are better today.

We can look at Matchbox kits with the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, we can enjoy building them as we used to when kids, but if a company issued today something like the Matchbox Hunter (to name one) it would be riduculed all over the modelling community.

Of course we can choose to live in the past and dream of the good old days when Matchbox kits were found for little money in most shops, daddy used to drive a Ford Granada diesel and the family watched the telly in black and white, but the fact remains that the Granada diesel was one of the worst car around, that TV set was awful to watch and those kits I loved were basic to the extreme. And even worse, even if I try to live in that world, I'm still 34 year older than I was back then...

Edited December 31, 2014 by Giorgio N