Worst kit
Daniela & Augusto
I am working in a heller愀 1/72 Dewoitine 520, and this question came to me:
Which is the worst kit that you ever saw?
No need to say my vote :).
----
Augusto Versiani
Scott Van Aken
Well, there are several that come to mind including a PZL.50 from some
unknown Polish manufacturer. I would also include the Italeri 1/48 Tornado
in there somewhere, but by far, the worst is Heller's P-36. It is so bad,
that of the over 1000 aircraft kits I have built, it is the only one that I
have never completed and trashed in disgust(it does have a nice propeller,
the kits only good point). No need to go into the nauseating details:-} You
might consider some of VEB's kits as well. Although I did finish it and it
took nearly five years and several tubes of putty, the 1/100 Bear (variant
unknown, but I did modify it to an 'H')was a real chore. Takes up an
incredible amount of space as well!
Scott
_______________________________________________
And now...Back to reality, which is already in progress!
Copyright (c) 1996, Scott Van Aken. All rights reserved. If you use any part of this material, you must give me credit and you cannot use it for commercial purposes without my express permission.
Frank Henriquez
Pioneer Model's 1/72 Ta 154 (or the Revell Germany's Ta 154 - same kit
watch out!) is just awful. Everything about this kit sucks.
The VEB 1/24 Vostok is not bad, shapewise, but the fit is terrible, and
the sprue attachment points are about 1/4" in diameter...even for
small,delicate parts.
Frank
--
Frank Henriquez UCLA Astronomy Department
fr...@ucla.edu -or- fr...@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu
Jennings Heilig
I still maintain the Airfix 1/72 F-105G (actually, that should be in
quotes, cuz it ain't no F-105) ranks as the worst kit I've ever seen. It's
the only one I've ever purchased and then taken back to the hobby shop to
get my money back on. There weren't even any parts in the thing I wanted
in my spare parts box!
Jennings
Art Murray
As my recent ranting re: the LS 1/72 Judy shows, it is still my personal
candidate for Worst Kit.
However, I just started cutting the parts of a MPM 1/72 A7M2 Reppu off
the sprue trees and it has the potential to take first prize. Parts are
covered with bubbles, scrapes, scratches, flash and, for lack of a better
word, "chunks" of plastic all over them. Sprue attachment points are
*huge*, numerous and ill-positioned. Some pieces (engine, wheels) are
just blobs of plastic with little definition. Saving grace are
interesting photo-etched brass and decals which I'll use on another kit.
Art
rick_fluke
In article <frank-15069...@ts37-14.wla.ts.ucla.edu>, fr...@ucla.edu says...
>
>Pioneer Model's 1/72 Ta 154 (or the Revell Germany's Ta 154 - same kit
>watch out!) is just awful. Everything about this kit sucks.
You think that's BAD?? Ha! I'll raise you with an Entax P-50 Kit!!
Mark Cartagine
The Tauro Macchi Mc202 in 1/48 scale gets my vote...
panel lines engraved with a pickax, nothing fits properly, terrible plastic
that tears as soon as look at it, etc.
None of this is particularly unusual. The thing that makes it the "worst"
for me is that I had such high hopes for it, what with the detailed interior
and engine and all.
Mark
Stephen Tontoni
Couple come to mind, but one especially. There was a Japanese kit of a
Japanese WWII floatplane that I bought a long time ago. Sorry I don't
recall either the type or the mfr. Never did build it. The dry fit was
dynamic; any part could have been mated to any other part equally
successfully. It was ambitious also; it had separate control surfaces,
folding wings, etc, etc. Perhaps by making half the kit mobile you wouldn't
realize the fit was nonexistent. The canopy resembled toothpaste. There are
bits of that kit in my cannibal box, but I don't think that there is
anything that I can use from that.
---Stephen Tontoni
Joe Hegedus
In article <4pvfhk$n...@doc.zippo.com>, Rick says...
If you want to see a REALLY bad kit, check out the Starfix Spitfire or Me-109,
using those designations very, very loosely.
Joe
Mark Shannon
Does anybody know of any references for Strategic Air Command (SAC)
flown F-86A's, and what those references are? During a transitional
phase, SAC actually did fly F-86A's.
Also, is there a photoetch set for the 1/72nd Matchbox F-86A? Does
there exist *any* aftermarket decals for the F-86A? TIA!
Please email me direct. Thank you.
Matt Bittner
me...@cso.com
Nagel
I've been working on the Imex HD Softail for almost a year now. All the
parts have a really bad line of flashing. Even the chrome parts too.
By the time the parts are scraped and sanded, there's no chrome left.
Who ever heard of a HD without any chrome? Not only that but I think the
instructions really suck, and are hard to follow.
Steve New
In <4pvfhk$n...@doc.zippo.com> Rick Fluke writes:
>
>In article <frank-15069...@ts37-14.wla.ts.ucla.edu>,
fr...@ucla.edu says...
>>
>>Pioneer Model's 1/72 Ta 154 (or the Revell Germany's Ta 154 - same
kit
>>watch out!) is just awful. Everything about this kit sucks.
>
>You think that's BAD?? Ha! I'll raise you with an Entax P-50 Kit!!
>
>dog...@marsweb.com
I'll see you both and raise with a Starfix Spitfire
Steve L. New
ne...@ix.netcom.com
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
The worst model kit, intended as a model kit, rather than a toy, that I
have ever encountered, was the Hobbycraft 1/72 Fw190A, a very bad copy of
the already very bad Revell model.
EF Hill
Hmmmmmmm... Worst kit... Damn, that's a toughie, I can't think of any
_SINGLE_ kit that I absolutely hated. Correction, there's one that I got
so damn disgusted with that it broke a chip out of the cinder block walls
in the dorm room I lived it. But only 'cause of the force with which I
threw it. That was the Arii 1/72 scale O-2A Skymaster kit. Nothing fit,
too much flash, _NO_ interior detail, tail booms broken in the box, clear
parts frosted. I live for Vietnam era a/c and this is the only O-2 kit
available now. Perhaps someday when my pessimism and cynicism have died
down again I buy another, eh... correction, nope I won't buy another.
Other kits that I loathed but never hated quite that much are Testors B-2
kit (OK, so that's a given as well... ;) ), MPC 1/72 AC-130H (Used over
a tube and a 1/2 of greenstuff on that bastard!), and some 1/72 scale
Russian dual rotor helo (similar to the chinook or sea knight) buy KP I
think. They were horrible kits, but no where near as abd as that O-2!
Happy modelling!
-Andy Hill (The Draken)
"We've got to get them to a hospital."
"What is it?"
"A building where you keep sick people, but that doesn't matter right now."
-- _Airplane_
José Herculano
>If you want to see a REALLY bad kit, check out the Starfix Spitfire or Me-109,
>using those designations very, very loosely.
Has anybody seen the Airfix 1/72nd A-4 Skyhawk?
Jose
doc...@ix.netcom.com
Anyone want to buy an ESCI 1/48 F-100?
Doc Hal
Yuri Rambelli
Old ESCI 1/72 F-14 Tomcat is the worst!!!.
But I remember many other bad kits (all in 1/72): Airfix F4U1D
Corsair, AMT Snap X-Wing, Esci Mig-29, Yak-15 from an unknown russian
manifacturer (think it has been issued also by matchbox), Hobbycraft
Mig-25, Academy Mig-21 (hey, my newsreader gets messages only up to
1MB!!!)........
------------------------------------
Yuri Rambelli <y.ram...@ra.nettuno.it>
Scott Haas
Save the new Oldsmobile 442 W-30 kit, just about every AMT kit I've ever owned has sucked!
Anybody know how hard it is to keep a straight face when someone gives you an AMT kit as a gift!!!???
:SSH
IPMS1282
Aurora Mig-15!
Boyd W.
Mike Long
>If you want to see a REALLY bad kit, check out the Starfix Spitfire or Me-109,
kit I own that I've refused to build. I don't dislike anyone enough to even
GIVE it away. It's yewky. (To be polite)
Charles Metz
augv...@embratel.net.br (Daniela & Augusto) wrote:
> I am working in a heller´s 1/72 Dewoitine 520, and this question came to me:
>
> Which is the worst kit that you ever saw?
In 1/32 scale, I have nominations in two categories:
-> Revell P-51B Mustang for Worst Individual Prop Performance
-> Combat Models for Lifetime Career Award
Charles Metz
(That's my name, not a nomination!)
Paul Boyer
You're all a bunch of whiners! Try putting Combat Models' 1/32 scale
vacuum-formed F-80 together. Nothing fit, the fuselage had no detail, but
the wings had heavy recessed lines. The topper was that the right
horizontal stabilizer mount was 1/4" lower than the left.
Another one is the old Revell 1/72 P-51D Mustang. It fit OK, but it looks
no more like a Mustang than the Starfix Spitfire looks like a Spitfire.
Cool original box art with a RED-painted Millie G (um . . . no!).
--
pbo...@kalmbach.com
"It's nine o'clock, time for the penguin on top of your television to explode."
Oxmoron
>Aurora Mig-15!
>Boyd W.
But Boyd the color of plastic was soooo nice, and you didn't have to guess
where to place the decals!!!!
Rick C
Ron
In article <4q3s8l$e...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, sco...@meaddata.com wrote:
:Save the new Oldsmobile 442 W-30 kit, just about every AMT kit I've ever owned
: has sucked!
Agreed. The 67 Mustangs they have out is okay, but the Shelby nose does not
fit the body no matter what I do.
I like their Dodge Viper kits so far. They arent finished yet, so I dont know.
Here's a nit-picker's comment: Why is it that the landing gears in their 1/72
XB-35 Flying Wing do NOT fit into the wheelwells? Sure, Im not making an
operable retracting gear on this thing but come on! These are supposedly
from "exact measurements of the real aircraft". Maybe they deflated the
tires after take-off?
The rear gunner's position is way out of whack, making the fuselage not fit
together. Advice? Get rid of the rear gunner's station altogether.
:Anybody know how hard it is to keep a straight face when someone gives you an
: AMT kit as a gift!!!???
:
::SSH
:
I havent been this unfortunate, yet. I hope their 1/72 AC-130U Spectre is
worth building.
Mats
Encore 1:72 PZL 24. Whooah. Apart from normal nastiness the
plastic is dry and grainy and spontaneously falls apart. The
decals seem to be for another aircraft, and the canopy is the
color of swirly amber. Eeek.
/Mats
Oxmoron
Paul Boyer and others said it all in two words
> Combat Models
But some of I D's stuff pushes the limit also
Sure do wish Eschelon was still doing their thing!!!!
Rick
aka Oxmoron
C. Joseph Long
Let me nominate an entire manufacturer. This one's historical; I think
they've gone to the oblivion they deserve. Palmer Plastics used the same
set of frame rails and generic V8 in all their models I had the misfortune
to be given. This was bad enough between a '60 Pontiac and a '63
Stingray, but they also used it in an Alfa Romeo 2600 Spyder (which was
done in a different scale so the frame & engine would fit). The 'Vette's
shape was so far off, it was recognizable as such only by the detail
features.
Joe
Alfred Lafleche
MPM (now Italerie) Mil-8 in 1/72, imopossible fit, poor instructions (at
least the MPM version) too thick glazing. Alien with Egg and Aliens kits
from Horizon. Terrible fit, huge gaps, nearly impossible ridges in which
to sand. So to make matters worse, I lit the interior of the egg with
LED's. maybe I should bein alt.rec.beat me silly. What else, oh yeah, the
DML Scud and launcher. The Have Blue, in 1/72. So much sprue clean up you
wouldn't believe. I don't include those really inexpessive kits, such as
Airfix Corsair, and vacuum formed, just the really ambitious stuff
compounded by high cost. So worst (completed) kit of all time...hands
down...The envelope please...Testor's B-2 Stealth Bomber. More gaps (I
thought there was a scale model of the Grand Canyon along the upper and
lower wing mating surfaces) and droops than anything I've ever done as an
adult.
Stephen Tontoni
> Save the new Oldsmobile 442 W-30 kit, just about every AMT kit I've ever owned has sucked!
>
> Anybody know how hard it is to keep a straight face when someone gives you an AMT kit as a gift!!!???
>
ALL AMT kits? If talking about cars, the only one that I have is the
AMT/ERTL Chevy 3100 (1950) pick-up truck. It looks like a fine kit, but I
haven't built it yet. Reviews on it are very good. Aircraft is coming along
too with the Tigercat and company.
---Stephen Tontoni
Roy Chow
A few that come to mind:
1) Hellers 1/72 P-47 with the airfoil shape on the wings upside down
(i.e. flat on top, rounded on bottom)
2) Airfix 1/72 Dornier 217E. Absolutely nothing of value to the
entire kit. Nothing even merits my spares box. No wheel, no prop
blade, nothing except maybe some sprue to stretch later into antennae.
L.J.Vosloo
I>
>-
I just had a look at the 1/50th Fujimi Alouette III....this kit
is inaccurate in almose each aspect....I know the Alo III
very well, and this kit is an ABSOLUTE abortion.
Not to mention the large scale Alo III from Heller made in the 1960s
Having said that...the Heller 1.72 scale Alou III is a real gem!
-------------
RLACO
How about the AirModell series made in
Germany some years ago. Nothing fit.
B. James Spraner, Jr.
I'll second that nomination on the P-51. That kit is responsible for
most of the trauma in my tortured youth...
Frank Henriquez
In article <4q4lov$8...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, DWZ...@prodigy.com
(Alfred Lafleche) wrote:
> The Have Blue, in 1/72.
dinosaur had to die to make the plastic for the kit...
>Testor's B-2 Stealth Bomber.
Yeah, that's a pretty awful kit...made worse by their instructions that
suggested "ah, just sand all the raised panels lines off..." - well, why
did they put them there in the first place?
Frank
--
Frank Henriquez UCLA Astronomy Department
fr...@ucla.edu -or- fr...@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu
Joe Hegedus
In article <4q1qej$u...@vivaldi.telepac.pt>, herc...@mail.telepac.pt says...
>
>
>>If you want to see a REALLY bad kit, check out the Starfix Spitfire or Me-109,
>
>Has anybody seen the Airfix 1/72nd A-4 Skyhawk?
>
>Jose
>
Yup, that one is pretty bad, too, as are the Lindberg Skyhawk, Skyray, Tiger and
Crusader.
Joe
Art Murray
oxm...@aol.com (Oxmoron) wrote:
>>Aurora Mig-15!
>But Boyd the color of plastic was soooo nice, and you didn't have to guess where to place the decals!!!!
>Rick C
Was this the really bright, puke green Mig 15 with the horizontal
stabilizer on top of the tail section as opposed to 3/4 way up the tail
section? A really old kit from the 50's or early 60's?
Art
Mark Schynert
ton...@halcyon.com (Stephen Tontoni) wrote:
>Couple come to mind, but one especially. There was a Japanese kit of a
>Japanese WWII floatplane that I bought a long time ago. Sorry I don't
>recall either the type or the mfr. Never did build it. The dry fit was
>dynamic; any part could have been mated to any other part equally
>successfully. It was ambitious also; it had separate control surfaces,
>folding wings, etc, etc. Perhaps by making half the kit mobile you wouldn't
>realize the fit was nonexistent. The canopy resembled toothpaste. There are
>bits of that kit in my cannibal box, but I don't think that there is
>anything that I can use from that.
>
>---Stephen Tontoni
>
Sounds like an Aoshima M6A1...or an Aoshima E16A1...or an Aoshima E15K1
..gee, do you detect a pattern here? :-) Since nobody else has ever
done these, I've still got them in my closet. I used to have the
Aoshima A7M2 as well, but when the much *better* MPM kit came out, I
gave the Aoshima try to my 8-year old nephew. Yes, I realize someone
else has nominated the MPM kit as "worst", but I figure they haven't seen that Aoshima gem.
Mark Schynert
Steve New
In <4q4v92$1u...@mule1.mindspring.com> Art Murray
that it looked anything like either aircraft.
Steve L. New
ne...@ix.netcom.com
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
>Anyone want to buy an ESCI 1/48 F-100?
I didn't know they did a 1/48 F-100?
Their 1/72 F-100D is excellent IMO. The cockpit interior could take some
detailing and the ejection seat is not too great (but for RDAF F-100D's it
has to be replaced by a Martin-Baker anyhow), and there are other minor
problems. Other than that, great kit.
The 1/48 must be an _old_ predecessor. Or did you mean the Revell 1/70?
F-100? (Didn't that "thing" have the US insignia actually moulded in the
plastic? I have only seen it once, very briefly! Definitely not a sight to
behold.)
If you were expecting the 1/72 ESCI F-100 to be a 1/48, I can understand
your disappointment! :-) :-)
--
Lasse Hillerře Petersen ! "Business as usual is
Systems Administrator ! no longer acceptable"
Information & Media Science ! -Gilbert F. Amelio
Aarhus University, DENMARK ! Apple CEO and chairman
Dave Williams
I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of plastic.
Dave
IPMS1282
I wholeheartly agree that Combat Models sells the worst line of kits of
any small manufacturer. At a weak moment, I wasted $39.95 and bought
their 1/72nd Martin Mars hoping that at least the shell of the airplane
would be accurate enough to be usable. WRONG! Like Paul mentioned with
their P-80, nothing came close to being accurate and the parts were so
poorly vacuformed that I refused to even start it. I tried selling it for
awhile, but ended-up putting it out for the trash collector after saving
what sheet plastic I could for other projects. FSM should quite carrying
their ads because in my opinion they literally rip-off the modeling
community. How about it Paul?
Boyd W.
MLDHOC
>I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of
plastic.
Too damn true, I'm a Soviet armor guy and got their LOUSY kits for
presents whne what I wanted was the somewhat better DML versions.
But my all time winner is the ERLT Star Wars Star Destroyer, the kit that
drove me away from OOBT slammers for a year. Nothing fit, huge gaps, model
glue would not hold some parts, so I think I spent more on Tenax and Super
Glue than on the kit itself..
Paul Boyer
In article <lassehp-1806...@ra.imv.aau.dk>, las...@imv.aau.dk
(Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) wrote:
> In article <4q2785$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, doc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >Anyone want to buy an ESCI 1/48 F-100?
>
> I didn't know they did a 1/48 F-100?
>
> Their 1/72 F-100D is excellent IMO. The cockpit interior could take some
> detailing and the ejection seat is not too great (but for RDAF F-100D's it
> has to be replaced by a Martin-Baker anyhow), and there are other minor
> problems. Other than that, great kit.
>
> The 1/48 must be an _old_ predecessor. Or did you mean the Revell 1/70?
> F-100? (Didn't that "thing" have the US insignia actually moulded in the
> plastic? I have only seen it once, very briefly! Definitely not a sight to
> behold.)
>
> If you were expecting the 1/72 ESCI F-100 to be a 1/48, I can understand
> your disappointment! :-) :-)
>
> --
> Lasse Hillerře Petersen
There was an Esci 1/48 F-100. It suffered from too many parts and bad fit,
warped fuselage halves, etc. It pretty much disappeared when Monogram
brought out their Hun.
John Hobson
How about the Testors/Italieri T-38 in 1/48th. Actually not that bad
as far as fit goes, but the cockpit consisted solely of two chairs --
I would not go so far as to call them ejection seats. On control panels,
no sticks, just the chairs. These chairs were apparently meant to float
in mid-air, because there was also no cockpit floor.
--
John Hobson |Had I been present at the creation,
Unix Support Group |I could have made a few suggestions
Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, IL |as to the better ordering of the
jho...@ceco.ceco.com |universe. -- Alfonso X of Castile
José Herculano
>If you were expecting the 1/72 ESCI F-100 to be a 1/48, I can understand
>your disappointment! :-) :-)
Esci indeed did an 1/48th F-100. It was said to be the product of
an F-100 mating in the dark with a Super Mistere B2.
Jose
Scott Van Aken
That is true about modellers. When we aren't building we are whining about
what we have built. There is either an axiom or a moral in there somewhere.
To paraphrase "It is better to have built and whined than never to have
finished a kit".
Scott
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now..back to reality, which is already in progress
Firesign Theater
Scott Van Aken
Now, now, I would bet that you have not built thier JN-4 or the remakes of
the Bulldog or the Fairey Flycatcher. Those kits are really nice.
Scott
_______________________________________________
And now...Back to reality, which is already in progress!
Copyright (c) 1996, Scott Van Aken. All rights reserved. If you use any part of this material, you must give me credit and you cannot use it for commercial purposes without my express permission.
Scott Van Aken
How true. I have built all of those Aoshima kits and while they ended up
looking ok, I spent more time on them, and used more bits from the spares box
on those particular kits than I have on any other kit. Even my most
difficult vacuform kit did not take so much effort!
Paul Boyer
In article <4q6a26$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ipms...@aol.com (IPMS1282)
wrote:
Our advertising code allows for any advertiser that makes a hobby-related
product and delivers it for money received. Quality is not in the formula.
However, if an advertiser cashes your check and doesn't send you the
material, we will not allow him/her to advertise until the customer is
satisfied and we get notice of same. You must realize that there are
modelers out there who purchase such kits, build them (somehow), and are
blissfully ignorant of inaccuracy or bad fit. Not all modelers are as
fussy as you or I.
Paul Boyer
In article <31C6B5C4...@ceco.ceco.com>, John Hobson
<jho...@ceco.ceco.com> wrote:
> How about the Testors/Italieri T-38 in 1/48th. Actually not that bad
> as far as fit goes, but the cockpit consisted solely of two chairs --
> I would not go so far as to call them ejection seats. On control panels,
> no sticks, just the chairs. These chairs were apparently meant to float
> in mid-air, because there was also no cockpit floor.
>
> --
> John Hobson
Don't blame Italeri for that one. It is a rebox of an old Fujimi kit.
Mark Shannon
>augv...@embratel.net.br (Daniela & Augusto) wrote:
>
> > I am working in a heller´s 1/72 Dewoitine 520, and this question
came to me:
You can't be serious! If the worst model you've ever come up against
is the Heller Dewoitine 520....
I think it's pretty good, with just a little extra work, it goes
together nicely and sure beats the old Frog D.520 for accuracy. Add a
cockpit floor, work on the landing gear just a bit, polish the canopy
and windows, check the spares box for decals....(right).
It's just that there's not much choice in the matter in 1/72. You'd
have to go to 1/48th for something better on the subject.
SC Lexicat
In article <4q60u6$12...@news.gate.net>, dw...@gate.net (Dave Williams)
writes:
>
>I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of
plastic.
>
>
I certainly have. Some of their 1/48 inter-war biplanes are really nice.
The Gladiator and Bulldog in particular.
Simon Craven
Lexicat Ltd
England
Mark Shannon
In <4q60u6$12...@news.gate.net> dw...@gate.net (Dave Williams) writes:
>
>I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of
plastic.
>
>
It depends on your point of view. Their 1/48 SE5a is accurate for
scale, accurate (for the most part), for line, has good decals, and is
the only thing similar in looks to an SE5a on the market in the scale.
Some correcting (the cockpit area and just ahead of it) and a lot more
detailing, and its an important type that can be added to the
collection.
For counterpart, the Glencoe 1/48 Albatross D.III is as much work as a
vacuform with horrible need for modification and repair, for a rather
pleasant, if unexceptional example of an important type.
Oh, well, if I wanted things simple I would have stuck to sports....
;-)
Rod Lauredo
In <pboyer-1706...@172.17.34.98> pbo...@finescale.com (Paul
Boyer) writes:
>
>You're all a bunch of whiners! Try putting Combat Models' 1/32 scale
>vacuum-formed F-80 together. Nothing fit, the fuselage had no detail,
but
>the wings had heavy recessed lines. The topper was that the right
>horizontal stabilizer mount was 1/4" lower than the left.
>
>Another one is the old Revell 1/72 P-51D Mustang. It fit OK, but it
looks
>no more like a Mustang than the Starfix Spitfire looks like a
Spitfire.
>Cool original box art with a RED-painted Millie G (um . . . no!).
>
>--
>pbo...@kalmbach.com
>"It's nine o'clock, time for the penguin on top of your television to
explode."
The Biggest heartbreak I've experienced is the Tauro Macchi 202 and
205, they look great in the box, but these are the most illfitting
kits I have ever seen. In fact, the first time I stopped work
permanantly on a kit has been these.
The panel lines or "ditches" are also completly out of scale, In fact
the 205 is still not started nor will it ever likely be started by me
anyway
ATorano.
mike_s.
Already griped in rec. models. scale about the Matchbox Spitfire F.22/24
(fit is good, if you're legally blind or own Bondo Inc.)
BUT, the Monogram 1/48 Mosquito has my vote (way too narrow in the fuselage, too
tall in the vertical tail). And that's a shame, because everything else on it is
pretty decent (Hey Revellogram, don't you think it's time to cut a new mold?)
Mike Still
c.r._krieger
In article <tontoni-17...@blv-pm11-ip14.halcyon.com>, ton...@halcyon.com says...
>
>In article <4q3s8l$e...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, sco...@meaddata.com
>(Scott Haas) wrote:
>
>> Save the new Oldsmobile 442 W-30 kit, just about every AMT kit I've ever owned has sucked!
>>
>> Anybody know how hard it is to keep a straight face when someone gives you an AMT kit as a gift!!!???
>>
>ALL AMT kits? If talking about cars, the only one that I have is the
>AMT/ERTL Chevy 3100 (1950) pick-up truck. It looks like a fine kit, but I
>haven't built it yet. Reviews on it are very good. Aircraft is coming along
>too with the Tigercat and company.
>
>---Stephen Tontoni
I have to agree with Stephen. I'm guessing Scott hasn't ever seen some of the
truly dreadful stuff out there if he thinks AMT is bad. There haven't been too
many posts about bad car models, but check the thread on bad models on the box for
my own response.
C.R. Krieger
Joseph Lalor
In <4q1v9c$8...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> elh...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (EF Hill) writes:
>Other kits that I loathed but never hated quite that much are Testors B-2
>kit (OK, so that's a given as well... ;) ), MPC 1/72 AC-130H (Used over
>a tube and a 1/2 of greenstuff on that bastard!), and some 1/72 scale
>Russian dual rotor helo (similar to the chinook or sea knight) buy KP I
>think. They were horrible kits, but no where near as abd as that O-2!
>Happy modelling!
Just as well I never decided to build a Yak 24 - mind you I'd forgotten
that the type existed until you reminded me.
Joseph Lalor
lla...@prairienet.org
Here's my two cents worth on this thread. I build cars only, so if you don't you
can skip this one. As for recent releases, by far the worst has to be Revells
complete screw-up of the Plymouth AAR'Cuda. Talk about a major mistake in
dimensional accuracy! With thw exception of the engine, exhaust and wheels, which
already existed in the Challenger T/A kit, the rest sucks. A major disappointment.
As to older worst kits, The Revell Valvoline VW Golf Racer comes to mind, not
because it is a bad kit per se, but because you can not build what the box
promises. No race stuff save the decals. It has the wrong grill, engine, lights
and bumpers, and the nose profile isn't quite right either. The kit supplied
pieces being of the european golf and the engine is the 8 valve, not the 16 as
advertized. Now you can build a nice replica of a euro-spec 8V GTI, but you must
remove the grill emblem. Hav ing seen the real car race at Road America, I was
excited to have the kit, but upon openinmg the box, I felt cheated. Oh well, it
has made a nice shelf model none the less as an American GTI, with the euro-bumpers
as an owner added option.
Ty Hall
I have also had good luck with Lindberg kits (cars). I try to religously
avoid anything from AMT. The large scale 427 Cobra was horrible. The
tires where not molded properly and nothing fit. Unfortunately it was
one of the best paint jobs I ever did. Oh Well!!
-Ty
Joe Hegedus
>ALL AMT kits? If talking about cars, the only one that I have is the
>AMT/ERTL Chevy 3100 (1950) pick-up truck. It looks like a fine kit, but I
>haven't built it yet. Reviews on it are very good. Aircraft is coming along
>too with the Tigercat and company.
>
>---Stephen Tontoni
Stephen,
I definately agree with you on the Tigercat, it is BEE-YOU-TEE-FULL!! I finished
one about a month and a half ago, so I am basing this opinion on that in addition
to looking at the parts in the box. Just wish they used decent decals, though...
I have also heard that the P-40N they have out is worthwhile, but since I already
have the Mauve version, I'll wait for some other variant from them (hopefully).
Joe
Oxmoron
Paul Boyer wrote:
> Not all modelers are as fussy as you or I.
Boyd is not fussy, Combat is a not a manufacturer of quality goods..
Enuff said
Rick Clark
aka Oxmoron
Joe Hegedus
In article <4q6cj0$l...@doc.zippo.com>, Mike says...
Nah, they're probably waiting for Tamiya to announce one, then, magically, in
another month a ProModeler Mossie will be announced. Just like the P-47N, P-51B,
etc...
Joe
StonedInMD
My worst: the I.D. Models vac-u-form $125 1/72 C-5 galaxy.. HUGE gaps, bad
detail, horrible manual, etc..
mike_s
In article <4q6tl8$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, scle...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <4q60u6$12...@news.gate.net>, dw...@gate.net (Dave Williams)
>writes:
>
>>
>>I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of
>plastic.
>>
>>
>
>The Gladiator and Bulldog in particular.
>
>Simon Craven
>Lexicat Ltd
>England
Simon
Those two planes are actually old Pyro kits, but you have put paid to an earlier
posting on this thread that all Pyro kits are nightmares. I have thePyro/Lindberg
Hawker Fury, and it's pretty decent. I also liked the Fairey Flycatcher.
Mike Still
repo...@mounet.com
Rick Lundin
The Revell 1957 Chevy - unbuildable!
Even worse - much worse - any car kit made by Palmer Plastics (early
1960s).
jeff cooper
In article <N.061296....@augversi.embratel.net.br>, augv...@embratel.net.br (Daniela & Augusto) says:
>
> I am working in a heller´s 1/72 Dewoitine 520, and this question came to me:
>
>
> No need to say my vote :).
>----
>Augusto Versiani
>
Let's see...
Any VEB 1/100 airliner, but the winner(loser?) must be the DC 8. Nose too
pointy, vertical fin too rounded, engines a bit too narrow, and the real
kicker, windows from someone's living room, but the Starbord windows are
about 5mm lower that those of the port side. Don't even mention the windscreen.
Aoshima 1/72 Hurricane II. Nothing fit, nothing accurate, nothing useful.
Nichimo 1/48 Spitfire IX. Huge rivets, no interior, useless decals, more sink
marks that surface, "operating" undercart.
Lindberg 1/48 Hunter. As above.
Airfix 1/72 P 51 B with D model wings!!
Italeri 1/72 SU 27. Decent price, terrible shapes.
Jeff C
jeff cooper
In article <4q6tl8$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, scle...@aol.com (SC Lexicat) says:
>
>In article <4q60u6$12...@news.gate.net>, dw...@gate.net (Dave Williams)
>writes:
>
>>
>>I don't think I've seen a Lindberg kit that wasn't a total waste of
>plastic.
>>
>>
>
>I certainly have. Some of their 1/48 inter-war biplanes are really nice.
>The Gladiator and Bulldog in particular.
>
>Simon Craven
>Lexicat Ltd
>England
This is explained by the fact thet Lindberg didn't cut the moulds for these
ones.
Jeff C
Art Murray
>Yes, I realize someone
>else has nominated the MPM kit as "worst", but I figure they haven't seen that Aoshima gem.
>
>Mark Schynert
>
'Twas I who nominated the MPM Reppu and you can bet your sweet arse that
after reading the posts putting the Aoshima far ahead of the MPM in terms
of "Worstness" (w/o eyewitness testimony I would have said it to be
a physical impossibility) I will carry a cross and a silver tipped stake
with me whenever I suspect the Aoshima kit to be nearby.
Art
Jnoack
If you want to do a really nice vac Martin Mars, I heartily recommend the
(UK) AirCraft Models 1/144 kit, with white metal nacelles and prop blades,
and decals for civilian (canadian) fire bombers as well as the USN
version. Even in 1/144, this sucker is big!
V.S. Kumaraswamy
Daniela & Augusto (augv...@embratel.net.br) wrote:
: I am working in a heller´s 1/72 Dewoitine 520, and this question came to me:
:
: Which is the worst kit that you ever saw?
:
: No need to say my vote :).
: ----
: Augusto Versiani
As far fit goes
1) 1/35th scale Tamiya willie's Jeep. Dreadful.
2) Most of the Star trek kits have fit problems, wobbling nacelles and
wings, gaping gaps between fuselage sections etc.
Sagar
--
I shall make thee king and thy name shall be sung in the vaults of
heaven for a thousand years
José Herculano
>Although someone who might consider a 1/72 C-5A Galaxy from anyone
>might have his judgement called into question! :-)
I'd pay serious money to see an assembled 1/32nd of it ;-)
Jose
hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu
> Another one is the old Revell 1/72 P-51D Mustang. It fit OK, but it looks
> no more like a Mustang than the Starfix Spitfire looks like a Spitfire.
> Cool original box art with a RED-painted Millie G (um . . . no!).
Good call, but in one of its iterations, this kit was issued in yellow plastic
with decals for Bob Hoover's "Rockwell International" Old Yeller -- decals that
I wish I had again now, for use with a better kit!
BTW has anyone nominated the Pioneer 1/72 Spitfire Mk.V Tropical yet? You
crybabies who think the Ta-154 is bad should see this one!
August <hor...@hulaw1.harvard.edu?
ibe...@accucomm.net
Hey, c'mon! What about Aurora's Mig 19 and KC -135. The former resembles more a Star Trek phaser than airplane especially in its puke-green plastic. And what about the "135." Itstarts at the cover art and goes downhill from there. Oops! maybe there has already been a general agreement that Aurora's jets were all junk so let's pick something else.
Steve Kennedy
ipms...@aol.com (IPMS1282) wrote:
>I wholeheartly agree that Combat Models sells the worst line of kits of
>any small manufacturer. At a weak moment, I wasted $39.95 and bought
>their 1/72nd Martin Mars hoping that at least the shell of the airplane
>would be accurate enough to be usable. WRONG! Like Paul mentioned with
>their P-80, nothing came close to being accurate and the parts were so
>poorly vacuformed that I refused to even start it. I tried selling it for
>awhile, but ended-up putting it out for the trash collector after saving
>what sheet plastic I could for other projects. FSM should quite carrying
>their ads because in my opinion they literally rip-off the modeling
>community. How about it Paul?
>Boyd W.
They got me for one of those AND a Boeing 314 clipper! I still hang
on to mine to remind me how much horror this hobby can generate when
it goes too far.
Steve
Steve Kennedy
stone...@aol.com (StonedInMD) wrote:
>My worst: the I.D. Models vac-u-form $125 1/72 C-5 galaxy.. HUGE gaps, bad
>detail, horrible manual, etc..
Although someone who might consider a 1/72 C-5A Galaxy from anyone
might have his judgement called into question! :-)
Buying this from I.D. reminds me of the "Bad Idea" blue jean
commercial parody on SNL.
Steve
LeonardR
In article <4q7qh7$a...@aphex.direct.ca>, jeco...@direct.ca (jeff cooper)
writes:
>Airfix 1/72 P 51 B with D model wings!!
Yeah, but even Hasegawa messed that up when they did their 1:72 P-51B.
SC Lexicat
In article <4q63jk$i...@doc.zippo.com>, heg...@mail.ameritel.net (Joe
Hegedus) writes:
>I have also heard that the P-40N they have out is worthwhile, but since I
>already
>have the Mauve version, I'll wait for some other variant from them
>(hopefully).
>
>
It is a beauty - in some ways better than the Mauve kit, and less than
half the price.
SC Lexicat
In article <4q6cj0$l...@doc.zippo.com>, Mike S. writes:
>
>BUT, the Monogram 1/48 Mosquito has my vote (way too narrow in the
fuselage,
>too
>tall in the vertical tail). And that's a shame, because everything else
on it
>is
>pretty decent (Hey Revellogram, don't you think it's time to cut a new
mold?)
Why bother when the Airfix kit is so superior?
GRBroman
>
>I certainly have. Some of their 1/48 inter-war biplanes are really nice.
>The Gladiator and Bulldog in particular.
>
>
yes, but they are not Lindberg kits. They were made by INPACT out of the
UK. They folded and the molds went from hand to hand until lindberg
recently bought them. Glen
Michael Smith
>> If you were expecting the 1/72 ESCI F-100 to be a 1/48, I can
understand
>> your disappointment! :-) :-)
>>
>> --
>> Lasse Hillerře Petersen
>
[[No, ESCI did a 1/48 F-100. I don't think ESCI "released" this one;
more accurate to say it escaped. After their excellent 1/72 Hun, it
was a huge disappointment. Luckily I bought the "Thunderbirds" version,
which contained at least one useable part for the spares box: the decal
sheet.
Mike Smith (gra...@ix.netcom.com)]]
Burkhard Domke
Hmmm...depends on whether modelling is taken as a pasture or a
challenge.
Heller-Humbrol 1/72 L-1049 Super Connie is GREAT!
Parts serve best for training one's skills in crafting. Just fine to
try out your brandnew drilling machine and all those tiny cutting,
sanding and milling bits...;-)
Burkhard
Roger Wallsgrove
Absolutely the worst kit I've ever had the misfortune to encounter
was the Beechnut CAC Wirraway. Awful mouldings, flash thicker than
some of the parts, and the shape all wrong anyway. Quite impossible
to build!!
Mind you, all Merlin kits come into the same category. I've yet to
meet anyone who's actually built a Merlin kit. These short-run
producers can knock spots off the very worst that the mainstream
guys can manage - and at higher prices!
Roger Wallsgrove
c.r._krieger
In article <4q9j4a$b...@nadine.teleport.com>, prog...@teleport.com says...
was made on a machine that is basically a TOY (Where did you think the term 'Vac-u-
Form' came from?) and then complain because it isn't up to the standards of modern
injection-molded kits. EXCUSE ME? I'm a molded-plastic car modeler who wouldn't
even THINK of buying a vac-u-formed kit like that because of the inherent limitations
of the medium.
Please don't take this as criticism because it's not meant to be. I just find it
amusing that you demand the same accuracy from such different media; a practical im-
possibility.
C.R. Krieger
Jennings Heilig
Not true at all. Some vacuform kits are actually *better* than a lot of
injection molded kits. They certainly are not toys by any stretch of the
imagination, and some have detail, fit and accuracy that put many an
injection molded kit to absolute shame.
I agree that anyone who spends any amount of money, obscene or otherwise,
on an ID Models kit is asking for trouble, but there are some nice ones
out there.
Jennings
Andrew Madison
V.S. Kumaraswamy (ph...@cc.keele.ac.uk) wrote:
: Daniela & Augusto (augv...@embratel.net.br) wrote:
: :
: :
: As far fit goes
: Most of the Star trek kits have fit problems, wobbling nacelles and
: wings, gaping gaps between fuselage sections etc.
That's just the short list. Awful panel detail, where the panel lines
are (pick two) jagged raise lines, very wide, or inaccurate. Many of
the details are inaccurate. The Enterprise Classic (non cutaway) model
has severe profile problems.
But I'm a glutton for punishment. I purchased an Avenger Conversion
kit many years ago, long before the Reliant kit came out. This
resin conversion kit looked good in the box. Then I tried assembling
it. There were enormous gaps between resin and kit, and the conversion
was asymmetric, and the problem was molded into the resin, there was no
correcting the asymmetry, only minimizing it. Admittedly, this was resin,
so I can't complain too loudly, but overall, what a nighmare. And darn
expensive too boot.
Ah, woe to thee that ventures and is addicted to accurate Star Trek
modeling.
--
A.J. Madison mad...@nexen.com | "When the going gets weird,
ascom Nexion | the weird turn pro."
289 Great Road phone: 508 266-2332 | -- Hunter S. Thompson
Acton, MA 01720-4739 FAX: 508 266-2300 |
Scott Van Aken
Gee, Roger,
I guess we have never met. I have built several Merlin kits including
the Ki-32, Vampire T.11, Meteor F.8, Cierva Autogyro, FJ-1 and the Gnat FR.5.
They were a real challenge, especially the Ki-32 as both fuselage sides were
warped i opposite directins and one side was shorter than the other.
Scott
_______________________________________________
And now...Back to reality, which is already in progress!
Copyright (c) 1996, Scott Van Aken. All rights reserved. If you use any part of this material, you must give me credit and you cannot use it for commercial purposes without my express permission.
Gary Anderson
A good collection of worst kits, yes. I'm surprised no one brought up my all
time worst kit nominee, (drum roll)!!!!!!
Fujimi F-8 Crusader
Only value in this turkey was for test shots with your airbrush. Actually, the
kit was so poor a "good" airbrush wouldn't even get near it! Had to use the
backup brush.
Gary Anderson
AMPSOne
If we are only looking at stryene, all time winners in my book include:
the ESCI T-72 (T-74 if you throw in rubber Russian soldiers); the Tamiya
T-55, which has an occasional part which looks sort of like it came off a
T-55, and the Tamiya Sheridan.
Go to resin, and the hands down winner is the Lunar Models PT-76. a bad
resin copy of the Ringo PT-76, which was a re-release of the 1958 ITC kit.
They figured out how to get seams in the hull which are absolutely
impossible to fill.
Cookie Sewell
AMPS
Matthew Y. Hayashibara
C.R. Krieger wrote:
<snip>
>You airplane guys crack me up.
As as "car and airplane guy" there's lots that crack me up from both
sides...
> You spend a near-obscene amount on something that
>was made on a machine that is basically a TOY (Where did you think the term 'Vac-u-
>Form' came from?)
Vaccuum molding has been around a lot longer than the Mattel
Vac-U-Form toy, or the newer toy currently polluting the bargain
tables at TRU.
>and then complain because it isn't up to the standards of modern
>injection-molded kits. EXCUSE ME? I'm a molded-plastic car modeler who wouldn't
>even THINK of buying a vac-u-formed kit like that because of the inherent limitations
>of the medium.
You've probably never seen one of John F. Johnson's (Teapot Graphics)
vacu-formed vintage racing CAR kits... and he made some COOL ones!
Maserati 300s and 151 Sports Racers (the ones with the Merzario
Fantuzzi bodywork) the Aston-Martin DBR-1 (normal sports racer and the
'59 LeMans winner) C-type Jaguar, Lotus 19, Ferrari 712 can-am, and on
and on! I plunked some money into these things, and I'm glad I did.
It's very doubtful that these things will EVER appear as injected
plastic. THat's the main thing about vacs... the tooling is cheap
enough that a small run can be justified.
Sadly, they are no longer made! (Maybe 'cuz John Johnson needs time to
surf the net... I've seen him posting here!) He did a few nice resin
kits before "retiring" not the least of which was a Ferrari 330TR-LM
Testa Rossa...
>Please don't take this as criticism because it's not meant to be. I just find it
>amusing that you demand the same accuracy from such different media; a practical im-
>possibility.
It's possible. The best vacs can give injected plastic a run for its
money.
MadMat
Steve New
>You airplane guys crack me up. You spend a near-obscene amount on
>something that was made on a machine that is basically a TOY (Where
>because it isn't up to the standards of modern injection-molded kits.
>EXCUSE ME? I'm a molded-plastic car modeler who wouldn't
>even THINK of buying a vac-u-formed kit like that because of the
>inherent limitations of the medium.
>
>Please don't take this as criticism because it's not meant to be. I
>just find it amusing that you demand the same accuracy from such
>different media; a practical impossibility.
>
>C.R. Krieger
C.R.
You get into trouble when you use such broad generalities. You
certainly aren't up to date on the status of the Vac-Form industry.
Companies like Wings and Sierra, and in the past, MPM, are putting out
female mold vac-forms that rival the fit, accuracy and detail of much
of the injection molded population.
While I admit they won't touch the most recent releases from Tamiya,
when built properly they will look good sitting next to it on a shelf.
Just like there is a difference in quality between Starfix and Tamiya,
there are differences in quality between Combat Models and Sierra. The
difference isn't the medium, it's the commitment of the manufacturer to
quality.
Steve L. New
ne...@ix.netcom.com
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
Todd Enlund
svan...@gnn.com (Scott Van Aken) wrote:
> I would also include the Italeri 1/48 Tornado
>in there somewhere,
>Scott
You must never have seen the ESCI MRCA (Tornado)... the Italeri kit is
a gem compared to it!
Charles Metz
ne...@ix.netcom.com(Steve New) wrote:
>Just like there is a difference in quality between Starfix and Tamiya,
>there are differences in quality between Combat Models and Sierra. The
>difference isn't the medium, it's the commitment of the manufacturer to
>quality.
Well said!
Charles Metz
Charles Metz
ne...@ix.netcom.com(Steve New) wrote:
--snip--
>Just like there is a difference in quality between Starfix and Tamiya,
>there are differences in quality between Combat Models and Sierra. The
>difference isn't the medium, it's the commitment of the manufacturer to
>quality.
Well said!!
Charles Metz
Jerel Earl
ga...@interaccess.com (Gary Anderson) wrote:
>A good collection of worst kits, yes. I'm surprised no one brought up my all
>time worst kit nominee, (drum roll)!!!!!!
>
> Fujimi F-8 Crusader
>
near >it! Had to use the>backup brush.
Same with Fujimi's 1/72 Mig-29. Totally inaccurate profile & made up
cockpit & weap. pylons. Costs a lot to boot. I'd never buy another Fujimi
if it wasn't for some of their pretty decent WWII stuff.
--
Jerel Earl
-- --
(409)832-1260 or
1-800-789-6062 ext. 5014
http://cust.iamerica.net/jearl/
Mr. Archer
> You airplane guys crack me up. You spend a near-obscene amount on
something that
> was made on a machine that is basically a TOY (Where did you think the
term 'Vac-u-
> Form' came from?) and then complain because it isn't up to the standards
of modern
> injection-molded kits. EXCUSE ME? I'm a molded-plastic car modeler who
wouldn't
> even THINK of buying a vac-u-formed kit like that because of the
inherent limitations
> of the medium.
>
> Please don't take this as criticism because it's not meant to be. I
just find it
> amusing that you demand the same accuracy from such different media; a
practical im-
> possibility.
CR,
There are some incredible vac kits on the market that are a joy to build
and although I don't know of all the brands I do know that Koster kits
fall into this catagory. If you have never seen one you owe it to yourself
to check one out.
Between you and I (and everyone else) vac kits are intended for modelers
of the machocistic variety who enjoy taking a sow's ear and turning it
into a silk purse.
My, how I envy them.
Woody
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Woody Vondracek, proprietor
Archer Fine Transfers IPMS30182
1205 Silvershire Way
Knightdale, NC 27545 Flew high, fell far
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~dfk/companies/archer/archer.html
.....................................................................
Copyright (c) 1996, Woody Vondracek. All rights reserved. Material appearing within this document may not be copied in part or in whole for the purpose of profit without the expressed written consent of the author. This material may be used for the free exchange of information if appropriate credit is given to the author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Johnson
Matthew Y. Hayashibara wrote:
>
> C.R. Krieger wrote:
> <snip>
> >You airplane guys crack me up.
>
> sides...
>
> >was made on a machine that is basically a TOY (Where did you think the term 'Vac-u-
> >Form' came from?)
>
> Vac-U-Form toy, or the newer toy currently polluting the bargain
> tables at TRU.
>
> >injection-molded kits. EXCUSE ME? I'm a molded-plastic car modeler who wouldn't
> >even THINK of buying a vac-u-formed kit like that because of the inherent limitations
> >of the medium.
>
> vacu-formed vintage racing CAR kits... and he made some COOL ones!
> Maserati 300s and 151 Sports Racers (the ones with the Merzario
> Fantuzzi bodywork) the Aston-Martin DBR-1 (normal sports racer and the
> '59 LeMans winner) C-type Jaguar, Lotus 19, Ferrari 712 can-am, and on
> and on! I plunked some money into these things, and I'm glad I did.
> It's very doubtful that these things will EVER appear as injected
> plastic. THat's the main thing about vacs... the tooling is cheap
> enough that a small run can be justified.
>
> Sadly, they are no longer made! (Maybe 'cuz John Johnson needs time to
> surf the net... I've seen him posting here!) He did a few nice resin
> kits before "retiring" not the least of which was a Ferrari 330TR-LM
> Testa Rossa...
>
> >amusing that you demand the same accuracy from such different media; a practical im-
> >possibility.
>
> money.
>
models is it's low cost for molds. A number of people seem to like them
for the sense of accomplishment they get finishing one because of the
extra work that goes into one- suspension, interior, etc. I got a lot of
comments mentioning that building a vac kit was a lot more enjoyable
than they had suspected- but they are not for the beginner- and thanks
for the compliments. John Johnson
LeonardR
In article <4qeh9f$g...@ns1.iamerica.net>, Jerel Earl <je...@iamerica.net>
writes:
> I'd never buy another Fujimi
>if it wasn't for some of their pretty decent WWII stuff.
Unfair! I think the following by Fujimi are the best on the market:
1:72 Intruder series
1:72 Seaknight series
1:72 Cutlass series
1:72 Skyhawk series
1:72 Corsair II series
1:72 F-4K/M series
1:72 MiG-21 (although I understand some like the KP kit better, so be it)
1:72 Phantom II (best around until the newer Hasegawa stuff)
Yeah, you're right, Fujimi has some dogs (MiG-29, F-18, early stuff), but
to slam the whole line is silly!
Joseph Lalor
I notice Aoshima are coming in for some satire on this group on the
basis of past efforts but I'm wondering if someone else is doing their
tooling these days. I chanced to look in the box of their new Ta152 and
if the tabloid newspapers took an interest in the event there would
doubtless be a headline such as "Aoshima in good kit shock". It looked
very nicely done indeed tho' at nearly fourteen quid I wasn't buying just
yet. I shall do so next Southern Expo trip I think. I'm dressing up
the Revell nee Frog kit with Airfix parts at the moment.
Joseph Lalor
Dave Williams
> ibe...@accucomm.net writes:
> Hey, c'mon! What about Aurora's Mig 19 and KC -135. The former resembles more a Star Trek phaser than airplane especially in
its puke-green plastic. And what about the "135." Itstarts at the cover art and goes downhill from there. Oops! maybe there has
already been a general agreement that Aurora's jets were all junk so let's pick something else.
>
>>>>
I don't know. I less likely to be critical of some of the older kits I grew up with. Looking back there was a lot of crap, but when you
were 10 years old and popped open that Aurora or old Monogram box, you really didn't care. Or am I just tripping again?
Dave
Stephen Tontoni
In article <4qel1p$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, leon...@aol.com (LeonardR)
wrote:
> In article <4qeh9f$g...@ns1.iamerica.net>, Jerel Earl <je...@iamerica.net>
> writes:
>
> > I'd never buy another Fujimi
> >if it wasn't for some of their pretty decent WWII stuff.
>
> Unfair! I think the following by Fujimi are the best on the market:
>
> 1:72 Intruder series
> 1:72 Seaknight series
> 1:72 Cutlass series
> 1:72 Skyhawk series
> 1:72 Corsair II series
> 1:72 F-4K/M series
> 1:72 MiG-21 (although I understand some like the KP kit better, so be it)
> 1:72 Phantom II (best around until the newer Hasegawa stuff)
>
The 1/48 Cutlass is just a gem and a half. Separate control surfaces all
around, separate leading edge slats, nice fit.... etc etc etc. I bought it
in a weak moment; I normally wouldn't have gotten that type but the kit was
so gorgeous that I couldn't resist.
---Stephen Tontoni