Jump to content

Awful model kits to avoid unless you have zero choice !


kolibri282

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Just how many of you out there steer well clear

of certain model makes because they are so

terrible in every way. Airfix and Mach 2 are pretty

dreadful, but there has to be a lot more out there.

Airfix need to do something about the molds they

use or stop producing rubbish. I've had two Mach 2

kits and they were appalling. Resin kit wise

Unicraft.

Personally I can't think of any kit manufacturers to steer clear of. From what I've seen brands like Airfix, Revell, Hasegawa, Tamiya etc are capable of producing good model kits. Sometimes one of them makes a better kit than the others. It's generally commented Tamiya makes the best 1/72 P-51D Mustang but it doesn't mean to say I would avoid building Airfix or Hasegawa because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hold with the idea that modellers can identify the problems in a manufacturer's catalogue using the internet. Buyers shouldn't have to do this. They should be able to walk into a shop and be able to trust the brand to deliver a good product. If they can't then the brand value has gone out of the window.

Perhaps so, but I can only really say that about aftermarket companies (including your own); even Tamiya makes inaccurate kits (Their Spitfires and 109s in 1/72), and Hasegawa, Revell and Italeri are no better than Airfix for reboxing old, old, olllld kits. Perhaps in the larger scales this isn't true, but they're only for godless degenerates anyway.

As a fellow Yankee running dog, Kolibri may not feel the same sentimental attachment to Airfix that many (including myself) here do, and it's certainly true that all their kits of the more esoteric "Nazi Superscience"-esque stuff are quite old, and often, let's face it, pretty awful. Conversely, if one were to build a Revell kit of an aircraft that actually existed, one might come away wondering if they'd ever seen an airplane before, let alone the one in question.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I do find a little disappointing is that, when you voice any criticisms of Airfix you seem to be labelled an Airfix hater, that is the sentiment that I sense levelled at myself in this discussion.

I have my gripes which I think are reasonable but when voiced the replies seem to imply that those gripes are not fair and it must be my ineptitude as a modeller that is to blame. I like the new output from Airfix and in no way want to see them cease to exist rather I only want them to go from strength to strength and continue to IMPROVE though I do think (if any Airfix/Hornby execs are reading) there is a shortage of 1/48 kits in the modern line-up (of any period) and this is my chosen scale. I currently have a 48 Airfix Mustang and the Eduard re-pop of the Lightning F.1a amongst my builds on the table and a 1/24 BF109 and Mk.1 Hurri hanging from my roof. I am waiting on a 1/48 scale Mk.I spit, Mk.I hurri and Albion refueller arriving and have 48th scale Sea Vixen, Stuka, and 3 Hawker Fury's in the stash.

I am of the belief (maybe I'm mistaken) that improvement requires fair criticism to be taken on board and products should be of a fair quality so as not to disappoint as it is customer disappointment that damages return sales.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I do find a little disappointing is that, when you voice any criticisms of Airfix you seem to be labelled an Airfix hater, that is the sentiment that I sense levelled at myself in this discussion...

Beardie, you are mistaken, however you are clearly an educated man and as such understand the power of words; to imply that 'lots' of kits are defective or flawed is simply incorrect and in a thread that opens with the idea that Airfix kits are rubbish with rubbish moulds those remarks will be interpreted through that filter. It is irritating that opinions are constantly being passed off as facts, if your kit is truly defective or flawed you have the right to replacement and Airfix do offer a very good replacement parts service. However in most cases what is meant that the kit is not state of the art and produces a result less impressive than expected - this is not flawed or defective, just old tech mouldings which can, as I said, still turn out a lovely model.

Airfix do have form for using their old moulds, same as all the other manufacturers and in some cases Airifx have merited particular criticism: the old Defiant and Tiger Moth moulds had deteriorated to the extent of being unbuildable as I understand it, but the He177 referred to by the OP has been out of production for some years now and I doubt it will ever be re-issued. I don't object to people criticising Airfix as I do that myself where I see it pertinent, what does annoy me is the exaggeration and hyperbole in some of this criticism and particularly when, as in the case of the OP, no other outcome could really be expected than that the thread descends into rancour and argument and creating this state seems to be the point of the thread.

If I were to sign up with an American Modelling Forum and started a post claiming that those Monogram kits really were rubbish weren't they LOL... what sort of response would you reckon on me getting? Or later, when it transpired that when I said "all those Monogram kits" I actually only meant one of them which had been first produced 50 years ago?

Cheers,

Stew

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I remember my first post on here which asked why so many spitfires in all scales and all marks. I got shot down pretty quickly also then I learnt.

1 ask a relevant question

2 you are new don't be ccontroversial, be polite

3 everyone is entitled to their opinion.

As soon as I saw airfix are rubbish I thought oh oh. And had visions of John Cleese saying don't mention the war.

Airfix do have really old kits in the catalogue as do just about everyone else but at least they aren't trying to push them out at new tool prices like a certain Japanese manufacturer I could mention.

Remember tamiya have some really old stuff they are still trying to sell some of which is not particularly good. The sea harrier and panther spring to mind and I also remember reading rave reviews of the eduard airacobra so went out and bought the yak 3 as a second kit oops not ready for that one.

My advice would be here look at what people are building and work out what is best for you I personally built tamiyas beaufighter it fell together and thought is that it then I built the pegasus xp40q and spent ages on it fighting flash etc and loved it

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that does make me chuckle about this type of discussion is imagine if say Merit re popped their old moulds with raised lines where the "transfers" go or a Frog mould with the half a pilots head sitting on each side of the fuselage half!!! Now that would cause apoplexy in some quarters

Trouble is us old fuds remember those days and it was about all you could get. Airfix was better giving at least a "Frogman" style pilot and a peg to glue him on

And when you tell that to kids today they don't believe you. Cue mill owner accent

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm well I would like to welcome Kolibri to Britmodeller. Airfix is a very sensitive subject to say the least and I guess that, as a newbie he maybe didn't realise this. Airfix like all others do have good and bad and I do personally have a gripe with them asking "todays" prices for what are very much "yesterdays" molds. In an ideal world I would love to see them re-work their entire back catalogue and bring them into the modern world or reduce the price for kits from the old molds. It doesn't do the company image any good to those who didn't grow up with the brand as a pillar of their modelling world and these "newbies" are bound to feel ripped off if they buy, for example, a superbly fitting Eduard Weekend edition Fokker DR.1 complete with fancy stick on fabric seat belts for less than £10 delivered and then buy an airfix Hawker fury for £14.

Personally i'd settle for a clear distinction in terms of packaging between the new tooled stuff, which i think are excellent in terms of quality, value etc and the reboxings of kits that even 20 years when i built them as a kid were clearly crap.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that does make me chuckle about this type of discussion is imagine if say Merit re popped their old moulds with raised lines where the "transfers" go or a Frog mould with the half a pilots head sitting on each side of the fuselage half!!! Now that would cause apoplexy in some quarters

Trouble is us old fuds remember those days and it was about all you could get. Airfix was better giving at least a "Frogman" style pilot and a peg to glue him on

And when you tell that to kids today they don't believe you. Cue mill owner accent

Oh, Airfix did that as well, their original Gladiator and DH 88 Comet are two that I still recall. Frog's speciality seemed to be lack of any wheel wells, examples being the Fw 190 and Gannet.

But many of us cut our teeth on those, and still remember them with affection, however below today's standards they may have been.

And nope, they don't believe you.

Edited by MikeC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the case for many Airfix kits, but I note that the recent boxing of the Dakota has the year of the the design/tooling marked separately on the side of the box, together with the year of the boxing/boxart design etc....

17452767973_1b43efd4f3_b.jpg

P1000276 by Caution Wake Turbulence, on Flickr

Maybe Airfix have been listening to us?

Andrew

Edit: just had a look at some of my other recent(ish) Airfix releases (eg Spit Vb) and can't see any equivalent of this, so it must be a recent innovation.

Edited by Caution Wake Turbulence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching this thread from a Moderator's perspective now for 5 pages, and apart from some blanket statements that were unfair from Op, I've not yet seen anything that would merit the label "row". I've seen a few guys disagree, and can see all point of view being expressed in a fairly sensible and erudite manner. There have been a few posts complaining about other posts, but those don't really seem warranted when read in a neutral tone. It's a credit to all that this hasn't yet developed into a bunfight, and I'd urge you all to keep up the reasonable discussion.

I would say that dismissing any manufacturer (other than Starfix and a couple of other reliably poor plastic murderers) will just mark you out as either a troll, or an xxxx basher. Neither of whom are particularly welcome here, as they just peddle untruths and misleading twaddle. I refer anyone that's interested to the most reasonable posters who freely state that all manufacturers have older kits, and less-than-good ones. Anything else is bias, and not quite true ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frog's speciality seemed to be lack of any wheel wells, examples being the Fw 190 and Gannet

And nope, they don't believe you.

Oh God Mike I had forgotten that!!! Aye just a raised panel line to show the outline of wheel doors on the wing underside and a hole for the undercarriage leg. Did we really build that stuff? Chuckle

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh God Mike I had forgotten that!!! Aye just a raised panel line to show the outline of wheel doors on the wing underside and a hole for the undercarriage leg. Did we really build that stuff? Chuckle

Eh lad we did! And we were damn grateful as well with the the Master letting us build these new fangled plastic kits instead of shaping a Spitfire out of a twig we found in the woods using nowt more than a flint pebble and our teeth. Tell that to these young modellers with their fancy airbrushes and paint that actually might be near the right shade. (anyone fancy writing the a 'four Yorkshire modellers sketch, might have a go myself for Christmas but would need some ideas.)

I am not poking fun at older modellers as i consider myself one, but i am a bit disheartened by complaints about kits fom long ago that are not 'as good as' a modern kit or that requires work on it. i am building a Magna HP Marathon at the minute and it is turning into an engineering job with solid resin wings that butt joint to the fuselage. Thank god for brass rod!

Edited by Martin T
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh God Mike I had forgotten that!!! Aye just a raised panel line to show the outline of wheel doors on the wing underside and a hole for the undercarriage leg. Did we really build that stuff? Chuckle

Some of us still do. It depends on the motivation! A modeller might wish to build a Frog Gannet as an example of, er, a Frog Gannet, warts and all. Side by side builds can be an interesting way to appreciate how far kits have come, e.g. a first issue Frog Typhoon next to the latest Airfix Typhoon. Sometimes the differences in appearance are not as stark or as obvious as might be expected. I think it depends on whether the primary interest is in the kit as an art form in its own right or in replicating the original aircraft as accurately as possible.

Some Frog kits still make very nice desk models too. And there is a lot of nostalgia to be had. I know that I have enjoyed building some "terrible old" Frog kits more than some modern kits with a huge number of tiny parts, concessions to multiple variants and exquisite encrusted details.

It is contextual as well. For example the original Airfix Dauntless was considered a very good kit when it first appeared (like the Academy Spitfire XIV) and can't really be judged fairly against, say, the more recent Hasegawa kit. The question of whether older moulds should continue to be used and old kits marketed in new boxes is another matter, not least because engineering and fit of parts degrade over time.

Nick

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find myself wondering if, had the OP used the name of any other manufacturer (Revell, Italeri, Starfix, Roden), would it have incurred such a response?

It does seem to me that Airfix to a lot of people is more than just one of the brands available. It is the home manufacturer for britmodellers and has a place in the inner child's heart as the original go to model kit maker.

I am all for seeing Airfix go from strength to strength but I do believe that, as a lot of the short run makers do, if a kit requires real modelling skills to put together then there should be a disclaimer to this effect.

I suspect if it was a kit of flat-pack furniture we were buying and it had comparable warps, imperfections and gaps between parts we would be less than impressed and the fact that the equipment used to manufacture it was 50 years old would not be accepted as justification.

Frankly I don't buy the mindless pro-Airfix bias (aka "Airfix fan-boy") line. Or, if it does exist, I am not part of it. What I will say, and where I suspect many BM posters are coming from, is that I see Airfix producing kits of subjects I am interested in at quality which improves steadily year over year at prices I am prepared to tolerate and at a rate of release I would not have believed just a few years ago. On that basis I cut them a bit of slack and/or may be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. That does NOT rpt NOT mean I am going to fawn over poor models, whoever produces them.

And in that spirit I would not say much in defence of even the early Hornby era releases which were generally well received when they first appeared (perhaps because people were astounded to see Airfix produce ANYTHING after years of slumber) but which can already be seen to have been clearly way behind the current state of the art even when they appeared. (For me I think the cutover point comes at around the Harrier GR.9/Spitfire I point and continued since.) I am not much impressed by, say, the Spitfires IX and XIX or the Canberras while the MiG-15 deserves to be consigned to the deepest pit of hell otherwise reserved for Starfix products with the Bf 109G and Sea Harrier kits only a step or two higher.

Many of the ancient Airfix offerings were, in their day, state-of-the-art: it's just that, thanks be, the state of the art has moved on considerably. We are judging the past by the standards of the present - and, if we have shelled out hard-earned dosh for a poor product, we are perfectly entitled to. The problem to which neither I nor, as far as I can see, anyone else on this thread has an answer to is that one cannot tell from the box or the price whether one is buying a 3-month-old jewel like the Defiant or a 50-year-old fossil like the Walrus. Expecting manufacturers to label some kits with "Warning: this kit is c**p" is, I suggest, a little unrealistic. But, by and large, I'd rather have an ancient Bv 141 than no Bv 141 at all.

Well, actually some have good transfer sheets.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we all have our favored brands. I like the Japanese brands because they generally have really well-fitting kits with good surface detail, whatever their vintage (ok, from the last 30 years). For this same reason I tend to avoid pre-1980s kits from most manufacturers.

However, there are loads of exceptions. Airfix and also Matchbox have released loads of interesting kits, and even the older ones, as long as they are not superseded by newer kits, still hold up well.

Furthermore, making a blanket statement about Airfix is pointless. Their newer releases are frequent, well-detailed, cover interesting subjects and generally fit well. The series 1 and 2 kits are priced very competitively as well, although I find some of the larger kits a bit overpriced (wish that C-47 was a bit cheaper...).

Airfix do have really old kits in the catalogue as do just about everyone else but at least they aren't trying to push them out at new tool prices like a certain Japanese manufacturer I could mention.

I disagree with that, Airfix's old releases are generally similarly priced as new tools:

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/de-havilland-dh-88-comet-racer-red-1-72.html

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/spitfire/supermarine-spitfire-mkia-1-72.html

It's just more obvious with Hasegawa because the importer ups the prices and makes you pay through the nose for them, if you were living in Japan you wouldn't be complaining. In addition, generally, not always, but often, Hasegawa's back catalog is superior to most other manufacturers'. I recently paid 15 quid for two Ki-61s, and that's still good value for money. Had I paid the 10 quid that Revell would ask for a repop of two of their Tony's, I would be a bit miffed as it's really not relevant anymore in this day and age.

Edited by sroubos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is such a disclaimer, in effect, on all the major manufacturer's boxes, in the form of the "Skill Level" requirement guide - it might be subjective, but I imagine it covers them legally.

Not sure they quite work like that. I would expect the Revell Ju 88 and the Airfix Do 17Z both to score highly on the "Skill Level" scale because they are complex kits requiring some pateince and manual dexterity to assemble. At least in those cases the Skill Level would not, IMHO, be code for "Avoid unless you are a complete masochist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really it's nearly impossibile to dismiss a manufacturer and praise another as each has made good and less good kits... and some have also made awful kits.

The age of a certain kit can't be underestimated. Things were different 20 or 40 years ago, nobody can expect to buy a 40 year old mould and find it as good as one issued last year. The best a modeller can do is to search for information on the specific kit. Generally a question posted in the relevant section of this forum will result in some useful information. The collective knowledge of this and similar forum is such that I believe something would be found on every kit ever issued.

It's also important for the modeller to understand what kind of product the manufacturer is proposing: there are companies that make mainstream kits using certain production techniques that usually result in good fit. Other companies however make kits using different techniques that will always require more work from the modellers. Modellers buying a short-run kit can't expect these to fit like mainstream kits. And even within the short-run kits manufacturers, some use more sophisticated manufacturing techniques than others. A modeller can't buy a Mach 2 or an A-Model kit and then complain about ill fitting parts ! These kits are made with techniques that can't be compared with what Airfix or Revell use. At the same time these techniques allow them to make kits that don't require tens of thousands to be sold to repay the mould, hence the availability of certain subjects from them and not from the big guys.

When it comes to the acceptability of short runs, each modeller will see things differently based on his/her skills and interest in a certain subject. I don't mind A-Model kits, others may find them unbuildable. Mach 2 would rate even worse with many and so on.

If I had to name companies that I would avoid, I'd probably only mention the "cloners", those companies who simply make rought clones of other companies kits. The resulting kits generally don't fit well, have rough details and dont' offer anything better over the originals.. with a few exceptions though, as some are cheaper or may offer good decals. Of course, while I would avoid them, I have a few from such companies in my stash. A few names are Kitech, Zengdefu, Mastercraft

Now if I should name kits I'd avoid, that's a different story and I'd have many to mention !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that does make me chuckle about this type of discussion is imagine if say Merit re popped their old moulds with raised lines where the "transfers" go or a Frog mould with the half a pilots head sitting on each side of the fuselage half!!! Now that would cause apoplexy in some quarters

Trouble is us old fuds remember those days and it was about all you could get. Airfix was better giving at least a "Frogman" style pilot and a peg to glue him on

And when you tell that to kids today they don't believe you. Cue mill owner accent

Some of the old Merit kits are still availible under te SMER banner complete with the raised markings , they can ,however , be made into very nice replicas with a little work .

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been one for blanket labelling any manufacturer - especially as the OP provides no specific definition of the term "terrible" . In addition, I think it is ( as others seem to agree here) more than just a tad blinkered and ignorant to base unqualified and undefined assertions on a single Airfix kit which first saw the light of day over 40 years ago!! Trying to compare the Airfix HE-177 with the superb Revell kits is like trying o compare a Trabant with a Rolls Royce!! Utterly pointless and meaningless. There ae still a large number of people it seems who are happy to judge the past by the standards of the present day.

As has been pointed out many times, ALL manufacturers have their horrors. However, I really think the OP should perhaps try a few of the recent Airfix kits before uttering crass comments. No, I do not fawn over Airfix unfailingly but neither will I condemn them or anyone else without due cause. Some Airfix kits - DH-88, Halifax B.111 (to name but two!) really SHOULD be consigned to history. Equally, there are some old items (F-84, F-80, F-86D, F2H- Banshee & F4D- Skyray for example) which, although 70s era are all very decent kits.

Where I do have issues is with Airfix (and others) releasing old kits at new tool prices. How can this be justified as, surely the expensive R&D /tooling costs will have been recovered.. An example being the otherwise very neat little Fouga Magister at £10.99.

I suppose it's really horses for courses. As long as ANY manufacturer produces kits of what I want to build then, I will buy them. No particular loyalty to Airfix but, some of their recent releases are definitely imaginative and I have to admit that most of my recent purchases HAVE been Airfix! I think it would therefore be fairer to say that there are plenty of KITS to be avoided, rather than individual manufacturers.

Allan

Edited by Albeback52
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post may have been ill advised and sweeping but I must say that it has provided some lively and entertaining debate :winkgrin: I think everyone is pretty much singing off the same hymn sheet even if we don't realise it. We all want to see model kit manufacturers go from strength to strength and produce those kits we want to build at todays standards but in the absence of modern versions we have to make do with what has gone before or is made in a low-tech form by the dedicated cottage industry producers.

The big issue seems to be not being forewarned just which type of kit you are getting be it old or new tool and pricing accordingly. I reckon this must have been brought to the attention of Airfix themselves at some point given that the website has "new tool" splashed across the listings for their new releases. If you assume that all development costs of the mold have been recovered on a 30-40 year old mold then I reckon the most expensive part (by a long chalk)of a re-popped 30 year old kit is that ever so snazzy all round printed and varnished heavy cardboard box that it comes in.

In closing I would like to say that if those fellows at Airfix are reading this ....... Any chance of some more new 1/48 scale fighters? Not fussy be they Japanese, British, German, Russian, American, Italian and I will happily go for WWI, Inter war, WWII, Cold war

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the old (1970s) Airfix B-26 Marauder is still probably the best kit in the scale (although the Monogram snap together kit is another cracker, albeit a different variant). You can keep your overpriced Hasegawa kits with unrealistic engraved panel lines...

bestest,

M.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really fun! I was inspired to google Starfix kits, and eventuelly one built up surfaced:

http://modelingmadness.com/review/axis/luft/fordhams109.htm

See, the real fun would be if somebody could turn this Messerschnitzel into a prize winning model for Telford! That would do it.

As to the main theme here, isn't it so that Britmodeller introduces itself as an international list with some British, was it slant? So Mr. Kolibri's opening mail would be similar to what would happen if I went to an US list and claimed that the Mustang was probably the worst plane ever produced in the US, and so far no decent model has appeared. I am quite sure that Mr. Kolibri is not so innocent as he claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...