Jump to content

Stupidest kit features competition


Recommended Posts

You all must have been there - the moment when you look at a part of a kit that you are building and think what the hell were they thinking......?

 

So, a couple grabbed me over the last few weeks, and I couldn't resist putting them up here, but I'm sure that you can all come up with better

 

My (recent) top three contenders are

 

Eduard F6F drop tank - who in their right mind makes an insert with two attachment pins sicking out like this so that there is no way that you can easily sand the seam? And if that wasn't bad enough, let's make the fit so appalling that you have to shim it with plasticard so that you have a chance to make it fit? Now, wouldn't it have been better to make those attachment pins separate so that you didn't have to try and work round them? Even if you wanted to keep the insert (which I can't see the advantage of) at least you can fill sand and finish the top before adding the struts. By the way, I just assembled this for the purposes of the photograph, I have no intention of using it like this

 

20170430_105556_zpsgohkiryd.jpg

 

Academy F-4B/C series - that stupid little nose wheel bay insert that has the door actuator integrally moulded on. The one that you have to put in at the beginning of the build otherwise you have to do major work to get it in. Of course, after about four and a half seconds of handling the actuator rod, which sticks out proud of the underside of the fuselage, catches on something and gets ripped off. All three of my builds have had the same happen, so I now don't bother trying. Just wait for it to detach, put it in a small zip-lok bag and keep it with the other antennae and stuff. But why? What's wrong with making it as a part added later? As for the main gear........

 

20170430_105640_zpsqqomygat.jpg

 

Kinetic F-16AM MLU. They must have had fun when they were designing the sprues for this one. 'Let's see,' they thought, 'the designers have given us a complicated model that requires good fit due to the complexity of the parts and build methodology, and has some fine detail that is tricky to replicate. Therefore we should do the utmost to make sure that we place sprue gates thoughtfully, in places that are easy to access, clean up and result in the minimum of eradication of surface detail' So, of course the sprue gates are a mile wide, and either on critical mating faces or areas where it is impossible to remove without removing very obvious and impossible to replicate detail. Sprue gates that are wider than the actual part you are moulding? Yep. Sprue gates that extend a long way onto the EXTERIOR surface of the part that is being moulded, instead of the inside where it won't be noticed? Yep.

 

So come on guys, let me know the Kit fluff ups and irritations you've come across that really get your goat, pour it all out on here

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

The instabreak pins to hold the wheel assembly to the landing gear struts on the Revell A400M. Here are some pictures to illustrate the issue. Otherwise, the kit is great.

 

IMGP7821-vi.jpg

 

IMGP7827-vi.jpg

 

 

 

Also, as a general comment, anytime you must put the landing gear strut in before assembling a wing or fuselage.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1/48 hobbyboss Su-27 and revell F-15E that have you insert the built nose gear at the beginning of construction, thereby making it easy to break and difficult to mask for painting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kurt H. said:

Also, as a general comment, anytime you must put the landing gear strut in before assembling a wing or fuselage.

THIS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

-The two piece cowls and the exhausts on Eduard's Spitfires. I can think of no other reason for Eduard to mold them the way they did other than trying to be too clever for their own good in a bid to impress.

 

-The separate canopy and frame on Tamiya's 1/48 and 1/72 P-51Ds. Was it really too difficult for Tamiya to provide a canopy as a complete set instead of splitting it in such a dumb way? Hasegawa did it so why can't Tamiya?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Special Hobby's 1/72 Mirage F.1 three piece radome. They split the radome into two pieces, however, they provided two right side pieces.....one with the refueling probe for the French versions, and one without the probe for some of the export versions. The problem is that there apparently is a measurement miss-match with the left side, and the probe-less right side. When assembled, the nose pulls to the left, leaving it off-center.....

SS858412.JPG

 

Some shimming will have to be done in order to straighten out the nose. I don't know if the probe side measures out correctly....if so, it would work by removing the probe.

Edited by Johnopfor
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, White Wolf said:

-The separate canopy and frame on Tamiya's 1/48 and 1/72 P-51Ds. Was it really too difficult for Tamiya to provide a canopy as a complete set instead of splitting it in such a dumb way? Hasegawa did it so why can't Tamiya?

 

..and the windscreen as well.  Hasegawa's 70s vintage 1/72 Mustangs and even Monogram's 60s-vintage 1/32 kit molded the windscreen and adjoining panels as a single piece..makes for a much cleaner join, since you don't have to try gluing the edges of the unpainted glass.

 

And speaking of clear bits, what genius at Academy came up with boneheaded idea to mold the B-17 tail gunner's canopies in right and left halves, leaving an impossible-to-eliminate seam down the middle?

 

But hands down, the one that drives me the furthest up the wall is the insistence of some manufacturers to mold the propeller blades separately from the hub.  It's a huge pain to get them aligned properly, especially three-bladers. I bought UMM Models' prop alignment jig a few years ago, which really helps, but it's a problem we shouldn't have to deal with in the first place.  In fact, it's a major step backwards, considering tgat model companies had been molding prefectly nice one-piece props since the 50s, and the seperate blades didn't really seemed to come into vogue until tge 90s.

 

SN

Edited by Steve N
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kittyhawk F-86D. Oh sure, let's put all of the sprue gates on the mating surfaces. What fun that will be to sand flush so the parts will fit! And let's not forget about the ejection pin marks. Some of them look like fence posts sticking out. Especially the intakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, forgot about ejector pin marks, good one, some are sooo thoughtfully placed.

 

Of course, if we open this up to include resin replacement parts, how about those 'direct replacement' part for specific kits that don't come close to fitting correctly - my Kinetic F-16 sits on the shelf of doom for that very reason *cough cough Aires exhaust, cough cough*

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any Revell kit I've built has the dumbest numbering system ever for parts. Every time you need to look for a part it's pot luck if you pick up the right sprue. None of the numbers are in any logical order and parts are anywhere and everywhere. Yes, let's put one gear door with the cockpit sprue and another in the weapons sprue. Painful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Including complete jet engines that cannot be seen unless you display them separately eg GWH F-15  

The Revell 1/48 Tornado which still includes the options to have the wings pivot like it was a toy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Movable wings can be done well... Look at the Tamiya Tomcat..

 

But I agree that undercarriages that need to fitted early in the build sequence are a pain. .. The Kittyhawk Jag is a example of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Eduard Hellcat tank is a joke.  I knew it wasn't ever going to work like they designed it even before I tried to assemble it.  I cut the supports off and drilled holes for new ones.  Took less time than if I had tried to work around them.  

 

I hate open speed brakes that are not obviously doing their thing because of the influence of gravity (Trumpeter Seahawk, Monogram A-10, and F-101B, Testors B-2 etc.).  Leave them closed please. 

 

Trumpeter's slide molding technology.  Where I get to clean up twice as many mold lines, as if they had molded the part in two pieces in the first place. 

 

Rick L.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMT/ERTL/ITALERI 1/72 XB-70. The whole thing is a huge pain in the butt. There are as many parts in the landing gear as in the rest of the plane. Not to mention the huge gaps in the parts that are going to need a gallon of CA to fill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After building the Tamiya F-14 I realized how the designed they designed the gear doors integral to the wheel bays was genius.  Overall I wish manufacturers took more care was made in the design phase in addressing ease of attaching parts like canopies, landing gear and ordinance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Bombs and rockets with no locating pins and you have to try to glue it to a pylon that only gives you the tiniest razor's edge of surface area.

2) Kits that come with complete engines that you'll never see but they sure charge you for it.

3) Excessive parts count.

4) Photoetch parts with no plastic alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...