Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In my post I linked to my criteria. Accuracy isn't quite the highest on my list, but other factors that can be quantified to some degree, which relate to engineering and design. Then again, those criteria are my personal preferences, which others may disagree with.

Yes, understood, but that is your criteria.

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I clearly state in my post?

Edit: I'm clearly aware of this, which is why I stated my criteria before even posting my selections. I was trying to be helpful to people to give a sense of what I, in my personal experience, have found the best kits to be. People can read it, consider whether it conforms to their values, and make a judgement.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

If accuracy is no issue then we should just all make fiction stuff from cardboard and paint everything pink and violet.

You mean to say, you don't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best as most realistic, most accurate, most detailed, problem-free assembly? Maybe all of these and more.Of kits I've owned Small Stuff's Sukhoi Su-14 would possibly have the most realistic surface detail I've encountered, see my review here for those unfamiliar with this brand:

http://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/kits/smallstuff72002reviewmd_1.htm

Of injected kits, only ICM approaches a similar level of surface detail realism, such as their Ki 27, I-15, PO-2 and SB-2. But they may not be best kits when ease of assembly is considered.

Tamiya's A6M's and Eduard's F6F, Bf 110 & MiG-15 series must all be up there too. If you introduce value for money as a criterion, then Eduard's Profipack Editions of the kits I mentioned are very strong contenders.

Another excellent kit (actually 3 boxings), and one of the most complete I can recall in terms of research and options etc was CMR's Scimitar. Another really impressive resin kit is Silver Wing's Southampton (their first and only 1/72 release I think), if you are unaware of this release please see:

http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/kits/silverwings72001reviewmd_1.htm

It may be early days yet, but Airfix's Whitley would have to be one of the best WW2 bomber kits I can recall.

As you can tell, the question is too hard for me to come up with clear answer, but if pushed I'd maybe settle on Small Stuff's I-14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean to say, you don't?

I have advanced, I build them from Lego but sshhh, don't tell anyone haha

So you've seen my finished models!... :)

I am certain your models are much better than that :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it would just be possible to pick out one *best* kit regarding accuracy, ease of build etc. Firstly I don´t have the time to try them all fairly and secondly there is just too many.. :)

But it is damn fun discussing kit´s issues, pros & cons here and with friends - lots of fun time to be had.. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If accuracy is no issue then we should just all make fiction stuff from cardboard and paint everything pink and violet.

Occa

you are my 9 year old daughter and I claim my £5 prize for identifying you!

DC

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an observation, from following this thread and similar ones in the past, no matter how objectively we define "best" that criteria never exceeds 49% of the individual's position. The other 51% or more is subjective. As an example, I subjectively only build 1/72 aircraft that operated in the timeframe 1911-1955. I may stray a bit but only if a subject or kit truly moves me. Therefore my objectivity is severely limited because I rarely even look at kits in other scales or genre. Within my specified genre I gravitate to British subjects, but also like Naval ones. So at best I could only opine something is "best" from a rather limited subset of experience - even though I have nearly 50 years of said experience.

Enjoyable thread...

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resin is cheating.

I thought that the Revell Ju 88A was supposed to be the best? Difficult to compare it with a kit that's not yet out, let alone subjected to any detailed scrutiny. it certainly looks good, but I hope we've learned from previous kits that this doesn't prove a lot.

The Revell 88A is awful compared to the new Airfix kit, nothing fits on the Revell kit and its sorely lacking in detail

Link to post
Share on other sites

If accuracy is no issue then we should just all make fiction stuff from cardboard and paint everything pink and violet.

That comes across as a bit insulting. Not everyone is accuracy obsessed and some people have higher priorities that absolute accuracy. I'd rather have a well detailed and engineered kit that fits together properly and is 95% accurate rather than one that's less well detailed and poor fitting but 100% accurate. I'd like a kit to be as accurate as possible but I'm not going to lose sleep if it's not perfect. Instead of making derogatory comments why don't suggest what you think is possibly the best kit and why and participate in a positive manner?

The Revell 88A is awful compared to the new Airfix kit, nothing fits on the Revell kit and its sorely lacking in detail

I'm confused by this comment, if this is not some kind of humour (and there's no indication whether it's in jest or not) either you're thinking of a different kit or you've been smoking/drinking something funny.

thanks

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That comes across as a bit insulting. Not everyone is accuracy obsessed and some people have higher priorities that absolute accuracy. I'd rather have a well detailed and engineered kit that fits together properly and is 95% accurate rather than one that's less well detailed and poor fitting but 100% accurate. I'd like a kit to be as accurate as possible but I'm not going to lose sleep if it's not perfect. Instead of making derogatory comments why don't suggest what you think is possibly the best kit and why and participate in a positive manner?

thanks

Mike

I am sorry that you felt that way, it was just a smart 'bottom' remark from me not meant really serious.

Everyone can build the models they want tho I want to explain the background of my sayer a bit:

If everyone says they don't care much about accuracy I am afraid the manufacturers could be encouraged to do sloppy research.

I personally just feel much more satisfied if a model catches the look and sit together with the shapes and proportions of the subject as much as possible.

It was a reaction to what Neu- had said (in post #47) and how Nick responded to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry that you felt that way, it was just a smart 'bottom' remark from me not meant really serious.

Everyone can build the models they want tho I want to explain the background of my sayer a bit:

If everyone says they don't care much about accuracy I am afraid the manufacturers could be encouraged to do sloppy research.

I personally just feel much more satisfied if a model catches the look and sit together with the shapes and proportions of the subject as much as possible.

It was a reaction to what Neu- had said (in post #47) and how Nick responded to it.

Perhaps it would have been better if you had used the smiley things (or whatever they are called), then it would have been clearer you meant it in jest.

thanks

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry that you felt that way, it was just a smart 'bottom' remark from me not meant really serious.

Everyone can build the models they want tho I want to explain the background of my sayer a bit:

If everyone says they don't care much about accuracy I am afraid the manufacturers could be encouraged to do sloppy research.

I personally just feel much more satisfied if a model catches the look and sit together with the shapes and proportions of the subject as much as possible.

It was a reaction to what Neu- had said (in post #47) and how Nick responded to it.

Excuse me? Where did I say that accuracy wasn't important? All I said that its not the highest importance for me, compared to engineering and design. That's nowhere near what you're suggesting that "accuracy doesn't matter"... I'd probably agree with MikeMX's statement about 95% accurate and easier to build is preferable than 100% and a PITA. Did you read the criteria I linked? There I clearly state that I look to other people's opinions (one being Nick, who's helped me immensely on my builds) to judge accuracy. Don't put words into my mouth please.

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites

My nomination is the Tamiya 1/72 Bf-109E-4/7 it is the kit I most enjoy making. The fit, the design, and the overal look.

I think enjoying the making process is very important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not often mentioned in such lists but I loved the Academy/Italeri B-17C/D

Accuracy is very good (maybe not 100%* but I remember no distracting faults from reviews or my build)

Fit required no filler that I recall with problems regarding over complicated engineering, dodgy fits, sprue gates, sinkmarks or another imperfections.

Detail is good and certainly is more than sufficient for s closed up build as little can be seen I internally. The obvious issue is the Bombay but unless you leave it open and regularly pick up the model (or disply on a mirror) then it's certainly no worse than the majority of it's competition.

As with pretty much every kit etch will add smaller details but isn't needed to make it the 'wow' factor on completion.

And 2 other things that I believe add to a kits appeal:

It can be painted in a shiny NMF or different camouflage schemes. Also despite their limited operational life you have multiple markings options for both US and RAF.

...and it's different to the normal F & Gs

*There are issues but check out the list on this thread:http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234934515-best-172-b-17-kit/

Imo, and experience, these are all well within the capability of even a beginner, and even if not tackled are details and not structural errors that would need a practiced eye to spot.

Edited by dpm1did1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? Where did I say that accuracy wasn't important? All I said that its not the highest importance for me, compared to engineering and design. That's nowhere near what you're suggesting that "accuracy doesn't matter"... I'd probably agree with MikeMX's statement about 95% accurate and easier to build is preferable than 100% and a PITA. Did you read the criteria I linked? There I clearly state that I look to other people's opinions (one being Nick, who's helped me immensely on my builds) to judge accuracy. Don't put words into my mouth please.

Sorry, no offense at all intended, if I had wanted to adress you personally I would have directly quoted you ...

I was just goofing around with opinions trying to place my personal pledge for super accurate models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revell 88A is awful compared to the new Airfix kit, nothing fits on the Revell kit and its sorely lacking in detail

From which alternative reality are you writing this?

I am thinking this the reality where Do-17s look a lot like Ju-88s.

Edited by sroubos
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revell 88A is awful compared to the new Airfix kit, nothing fits on the Revell kit and its sorely lacking in detail

Isn't there multiple 72nd moulds still doing the rounds in shops?

A-4 or A-4/D-1 of different vintage would explain a lot, as well as C-6z

I've not double checked and I can't remember the relative ages but I've certainly seen 2 different Revell 72nd Ju-88A boxes in recent months

Edited by dpm1did1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revell 88A is awful compared to the new Airfix kit, nothing fits on the Revell kit and its sorely lacking in detail

Eh? Have you mixed up Airfix and Revell or the Ju 88 and Do 17? The Airfix kit is not new but from 1964! The Revell kit is a new tool from 2011 and has been praised in reviews:-

"Revell's all-new 1/72 scale Junkers Ju 88 A-4 kit is accurate, highly detailed and sensibly engineered"

There was an older Revel Ju 88 kit from 1967.

The Airfix Do 17 is also new. The Revell Do 17 is a re-issue of the old Monogram kit from 1969 which was thought to be pretty good in its day:-

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71940-dornier-do-17-z-2/

It has been released twice by Revell, in 1994 and 2011, and twice by Hasegawa in the 1980s. Revell also re-released the Frog Do 17 from 1971, under their Matchbox label in 1992

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Have you mixed up Airfix and Revell or the Ju 88 and Do 17? The Airfix kit is not new but from 1964! The Revell kit is a new tool from 2011 and has been praised in reviews:-

"Revell's all-new 1/72 scale Junkers Ju 88 A-4 kit is accurate, highly detailed and sensibly engineered"

There was an older Revel Ju 88 kit from 1967.

The Airfix Do 17 is also new. The Revell Do 17 is a re-issue of the old Monogram kit from 1969 which was thought to be pretty good in its day:-

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71940-dornier-do-17-z-2/

It has been released twice by Revell, in 1994 and 2011, and twice by Hasegawa in the 1980s. Revell also re-released the Frog Do 17 from 1971 under their Matchbox label in 1992

Nick

Revell have also re-released the FROG Do 17Z

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...