Ok, we've bought a lot of kits, we've built some, we've fair reviews from sites such as this, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

So, what are the kits one must truly avoid because it's just simply a waste of money.

By 'truly avoid' I really mean really bad kits because of quality, price, etc. In other words, you're not getting your money's worth.

Cheap=bad does NOT compute, BTW. Trust me. Some klits are Expensive=Bad. Also, inaccurate=really bad doesn't really compute. Unless it's TOTALLY inaccurate (i.e., you're liable to practically scratchbuild more than 50% of it because of the inaccuracies), an inaccurate kit that can be fixed with minor 'accurizing' will does not compute to a bad kit.

I'm talking of really not-worth-your-money-kahit-P50-siya

So, post yours!

I'll start (Shonen, READ THIS!)

TAMIYA M1A2 - reviews basically say 'skip this.' Why? You are paying twice or thrice the value of a Dragon or Trumpeter kit for something that has:

1) An inaccurate, old hull that came from the old Tamiya M1A1 kits - new molds my foot! Hey, you look familiar! Wait... it's... IT'S NOT A NEW HULL!

2) No anti-slip surface (IIRC) like the old M1A1 kits

3) It's ALMOST THRICE THE PRICE OF A DRAGON M1A2 (which costs P550 to P650 at STC) AT P1,298!!!!

To sum it up, for P1,298.00, you are basically buying the old Tamiya M1A1 with M1A2 parts. For P1,298.00, you are being ROBBED of your money.

Another (but not as great a sin as the Tamiya M1A2) is the Academy 1/144 F-14 Tomcat. No cockpit, only four AIM-7 Sparrows, misshapen nose. Fine, it's only P68.00 but you'll be better off by a Dragon 1/144 which even has crew.

Italeri 1/48 RAH-66 Comanche - very bad shape! I'll fitting fuselage and the seams that passes through the other part is wrongly detailed.

Dragon SCUD Launcher - wala pa atang replacement eto. Very bad fittings. Requires lotsa sanding, filling and accurate working.

Tamiya AV-8B Night Attack Harrier 1/72 - basically a rebox. Raised panel lines and require the modeler to close kinda large gaps on the fuselage.

I can't think of any kits I've built that were so bad they were only worth P50, but the Airfix aircraft kits (Harrier and F/A-18, 1/72) I've bought were TERRIBLE! Bad fit, seams, the works! (Well, the F/A-18 wasn't THAT bad, but the Harrier was...) These, however look great in comparison to...

The MINICRAFT1/48 Blackhawk which is, by far, THE worst kit I have ever built (er.. tried to build - I gave up)! Sparse detail and sparser instructions, incredibly bad fit, extreme flash and ejector-pin marks placed by a moron (RAISED ejector-pin marks in places both fully visible and impossible to reach!) make this kit something I would never touch again, even if they PAID me to...

The DML A-10 had pretty nasty fit too (esp. on the engine nacelles), but it wasn't that expensive - only P70...

P.S. GI, I don't think the Tamiya kit is THAT bad - its horribly overpriced (I'd never buy it with my own money) but i wouldn't mind it as a present (though there ARE better presents, especially for the money....) Same goes for their Panzer III with SS-trooper thingies on the back...

"Buyers Beware" (right? Latin's a bit rusty)

Zengdhefu --- ANY KIT! Its a crappy, grainy rip-off. The wheel rims are anything BUT round. The best thing about them is the sturdy box. The decals are incomplete (assuming you can use it). If you have one of these prepare for a major (quintuple bypass major) surgery. Or a serious disappointment and a feeling of loss (money, that is). And I bought three kits!

Blank: Considering that a) Tamiya has a reputation of making A-class quality kits (look at their Leopard 2A5 - fantastic!), and b) that they've been trumpeting about releasing a "new" Abrams kit, coming out with the releasing an M1A2 which has all the faults of the old kit shows that they are NOT doing their jobs well. AND they charge you with such an amount. One would get their money's worth getting Dragon or Trumpeter - at least they got it right (except Trumpeter's 'defaced' turret - but their hull remains the most accurate).

Buck: Yup, you still know your Latin.

Another for the list:

Revell Germany's Leopard 2A5.

Now, you would think that a) it's a Leopard 2A5, a German tank, and b) it's by Revell Germany, so I expect this as the most accurate Leopard 2A5 ever considering its a German tank. Right? Wrong! It's essentially an Italeri rebox, which has the wrong hull (the driver's hatch is indicative that the tank is a Leopard 2A4), the add-on wedge armor is molded to the turret (not like the Tamiya kit), some parts are not well detailed, etc. etc. etc. For P800+, you'll still find the Tamiya Leopard 2A5 kit which costs P1,250 a better deal - even if you're paying more for it. I'd rather sink P1,250 for a well done kit, rather than spend P800 for one that isn't all that grand.

I have to agree with the Academy 1:144 F-14. It simply sucks. No cockpit and flight crew, very very very very very (did i say very?) bad engine nacelle shape, and the swing-wing mechanism locks up in the most inconvinient times. I dunno if I really wanna finish mine.

Another mediocre kit is Revell's 1:570 RMS-Titanic. Although most of the ship is fine, the fit of the rear hull is simply terrible. If ever I'll go for another Titanic it would be on an Academy kit (voted Model of the Year in 1998, by IPMS, IIRC). Available in two scales, 1:400 and 1:600 me thinks.

Fritz' problems with his T34 and Buck's post reminded me of the following kit...

Zvesda/Italeri T-26 with twin turrets/T-26 with 37mm gun. Both kits are by Zvesda actually, the latter Italeri being a rebox. They look great especially the one with the 37mm gun...

... BUT the tracks are too short. The kits come with four tracks which, apparently, you connect two of them to make a pair of tracks. Well, they're still short. And the pins are way too small I melted the track whilst connecting it, so bye bye track.

Sayang. Ok pa naman. Oh yeah, another issue is the instruction sheet. Inspecting both kits, you'd think that both would have the same instructions for the hull. WRONG! There's a part (forgot which one) where the Zvesda sheet says you assemble it this way, while the Italeri sheet says the other way. Ano ba talaga?!?!?

Also, another issue - the Zvesda twin turret kit this time only - four of the wheels do not have the pegs needed to support them to the suspension. So you have to make your own.

Interesting thread...if I may put in my comments:

- Most of the Academy 1/144 aircraft were based on molds by a company called LS. Way back in the early-mid 80's, they cost a mere P20.00 per kit.

- Most, if not all of Tamiya's 1/72 aircracft collection are reboxed Italeri kits. It helps if you research on them under the Italeri brand.

- Tamiya's M1A2 (whcih I do have) IMHO would have been the best 1/35 representation of the M1A1HA and A2 (early version) tank, but gets sidelined by the absence of the anti-slip coating.

However, the new sprue that includes the APU, CITV, MCD, ICWS and the muzzle reference sight blow the rest away in mold quality and detail (I cant say about Italeri's offering since I dont have it yet).

Since I have 6 other unbuilt 1/35 M1s from DML and Trumpeter, I am contemplating on ordering the aforementioned Tamiya sprue (and maybe the tracks) to enhance the detail on some of them. Offhand, my most ambitious goal is to build an M1A2 (SEP variant, if I'm up to it) using a combination of the best kit parts from the top 4 manufacturers (DML, Trumpeter, Italeri, and Tamiya).

Yes, I agree that the price of the Tamiya M1A2 is too much for the lack of improvements on the hull and turret detail...and, if you think about it, even it's partner, the M2A2 ODS IFV, is also overpriced since it is quite inaccurate itself...sad to say that it may be the only 1/35 Bradley ODS available, though.

:)


BT6

BT6: Yes, it's the price and the lack of other improvements that makes the Tamiya M1A2 enter this list. You get more bang-per-buck with Dragon and Trump.

However, if one wants to make a most accurate Abrams model, one will have to do some kitbashing:

Hull - Trumpeter (most accurate running gear, rear engine grills)
Turret - Dragon
Basket - Tamiya (I found the Tamiya basket very easy to do and the plastic wasn't flimsy)
Smoke launchers - Tamiya or Trump
.50-cal - Tamiya (alternatively, get the Academy .50-cal set)
Other parts - Tamiya, Trump (especially the itty bitty parts like the handles, etc.)

If one wants to get a mine plow, get the Tamiya kit. The Trump's mine plow is AWFUL to work with. I haven't had a Dragon with mineplow kit so I can't make comments on that one.

Can't say about Italeri though. I heard that it's an M1A2, not an M1A2SEP, but I could be wrong.

Like BT6, I'm eagerly awaiting the Italeri M1A2.

Minicraft kits: really bad!! i bought an f-5 back then and it was ok but when i bought another F-18 and that kit really sucks i think it waas a copy of an italeri f-18 and the canopies...better throw them away. the decals are like stickers #:-)




wheew! buti na lng i asked shonen about this kit during the JMN meet coz i was planning to buy it




hehehe buck i wasonce saw a kit made out of zhengdefu kits from the ARC website and i cant agree with you more that this kit was terrible #:-)

Actually, the last time I saw that one in lil's megamall it cost ...........P 385.00!!!!!!!. Yes it is in 1/35 scale & it is made by Dragon.

As of now, all I mean ALL 1/48 Comanches are ALL REBOX of ITALERI

Then it only makes the Tamiya M1A2 even worse. Even its A2 parts are not a saving grace to plunge P1,000+ on a kit that you can get from a different manufacturer for a whole lot cheaper. Any improvements for the cheaper kit can be done without buying after market parts. At the quoted price, one can get nearly a platoon's worth of Dragon M1A2s rather than just one Tamiya M1A2.

BTW, let me qualify further on the kits to be avoided so that I can be fair:

If it doesn't have a similar offering by another manufacturer that is not merely a rebox, (e.g. the Italeri Super Hornet, which is reboxed by Tamiya and Revell), then IMO it doesn't count as 'avoid this kit' kit because you don't have a better alternative anyway, unless the same kit has serious faults such as the T-26 I mentioned (too short tracks that cannot be readily replaced nor repaired without causing further damage - and moving the idler wheel is not even an option!).

Having said that, I think Dragon's Scud and Italeri's Comanche aren't all that worthy in the list. After all, they are the sole models available. But the T-26... ugh... if I find a way to repair it, I promise, I'll remove it from this list because it is redeemable/recoverable (plus it doesn't cost that much to get. Come to think of it, now I'm feeling guilty knocking the T-26. I think to amend my 'sin' I should finish building both T-26s and repairing the tracks hehehe sigh...)

Some observations...

- For hull detail, Trumpeter missed out a panel under the rear exhausts. That section is present in DML M1s, and Tamiya added that part in its new sprue.

- The DML M1s' turret missed out the shape of the front armor (although Trumpeter is the worst). The bottom is supposedly flat, but the DML offering is slanted upwards.

- DML provides the most accurate smoke grenade launchers for a US Army M1.

:)


BT6

Dragon M1A2 doesn't have the rear exhaust panels underneath. I was talking in general the Trump's running gear (better detailed than the Tamiya) which also has the anti-slip surface and re-positionable access doors at the rear.




No, not flat. AFAIK, the underside of the front turret of the M1 isn't straight flat but slants upwards a bit. If straight flat, then the turret will be unable to do a 360-degree turn as it will hit the engine. Also, it is because of the slanting upwards of the underside that worries some people that the Abrams has a shot-trap. But yes, the Trumpeter has the worst turret front among the three.

Note pic below:



Underside front slants upwards less than 5-degrees I think.




It depends apparently. I've asked this as well and people say you can use either the Tamiya launcher, or Dragon's, or Trump's. Same thing with the wind sensor mast and the TIS/GPS which the Tamiya M1A1 apparently has the older, somewhat slanted version, while newer ones have the boxy type.

For ease of build without sacrificing accuracy, I'd use the Trumpeter smoke launchers.

Ah, we may be looking at different perspectives...are you pertaining to the undersurface of the turret's front?

What I meant is the frontal armor; the slabs to the left and right of the main gun. Looking at th actual phots and tech drawings of an M1 head on, it's just about parallel to each other.

The turret bottom of the kit slants upward in the DML model - compared the image below:



NOTE: The pic is from www.tanxheaven.com

Hope this clarifies things.

BT6

Ah yeah, now that you mentioned it, you confirmed my thoughts yesterday. Yeah, when I read your thread, I thought the underside of the turret, but after posting it, I thought maybe you were talking about another thing.

I checked my pix of the Dragon M1A2 and saw no slanting up. However, those are pix, not the actual model in my hands, so I cannot really make a 100% conclusion.

And yes, from my vague memory, I think the Dragon Abrams series have a bit of a slant.

BTW, on the Tamiya Abrams series, the anti-slip coating can be fixed by either:

a) sprinkling very fine grains of sand on the surface pre-coated with adhesive like Elmer's glue; or
b) using fine grit sandpaper and double-sided tape.

However, I still stand on my opinion about it being an 'to be avoided' kit. :-)

I agree with you on the practicality of buying Tamiya's M1A2...but since I actually bought one, please do excuse my obsession with the M1 Abrams.

BTW, the other day I dropped by at Lil's and asked if they could provide a particular sprue by order basis. For Tamiya, the delivery would be around a month with the price starting from P300 upwards....just like purchasing aftermarket resin parts, if I may say.

Regarding the application of anti-slip coating, IMHO, I feel Mr. Vodnik's method uf using Mr. Surfacer most intriguing and feasible....just use a DML and/or Trumpeter M1 hull as a template/reference and mask the required areas, then spray away...the biggest problem I see here is the necessity to clean the airbrush ASAP; and I have to use something stronger than water and alcohol.

The ambitious (and admittedly impractical) side of me would like to undergo this excercise, using the Academy M1A1 as an (expensive) testbed. Jeez....Okay, okay, so I do get impractical sometimes...somebody shoot me!!! #:-)


BT6

M1s with reactive armor!? Holy! I didn't know those even existed!

Blank: AFAIK, the only M1s with ERA are the KVTs used at the NTC. And these were in the 80s/mid 90s. Since it took them too long to apply, the ERA was not placed anymore. Note, the purpose of the ERA at the NTC was not for protection purposes but to further differentiate OPFOR KVTs from BLUFOR M1s.

I did hear about the add-on hull front and rear ass armor.

The US Army recently purchased or placed an order for several Ukranian T-84 tanks with ERA. Apparently, the ERA of these tanks are very superior and the US Army would like to study its composition. I think several are on their way or have made their way to the USA, much to the delight of the Ukranian designers.

EDIT:

BT6: Not to be Mr. Picky or being argumentative, but I was able to inspect my Dragon M1A2s side by side with the Tamiya M1A1 and I see no difference. Apparently, the underside slant we notice is a result of looking at a 3D image, i.e. an object in our hands, and not a picture of an object in a 2D surface. If the pic above were in 3D, we would notice the same upward/outward slant of the front underside.