Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Allnightin]

Having converted several plastic kits to RC as well as scratch building others, commercial kits for RC are not my speciality apart from having a partworks HMS Hood to get around to building eventually but even that one I bought largely with at least half an eye ono taking copies of the fittings to use on other scratch built models. 

Increasingly I am getting one of the relatively cheap 1/200th card models of WW2 warships and scratch building the hull from balsa and ply with the card kit providing the dimensions and bulkhead sections ( I find this particularly satisfying in itself) then using the card superstructure parts as templates for plasticard versions, or even the card pieces themselves if saving weight is critical and structural strength is not important.  Fittings are then either from my partworks stockpile,  3D printed alternatives, photoetch versions available to supplement the card kit  or as a last resort scratch built.  That way, I can keep costs down and build models that are unlikely to ever appear as an injected plastic version and still cheaper than the commercial kits.

[Plastic - RIP]

Increasingly I am getting one of the relatively cheap 1/200th card models of WW2 warships and scratch building the hull from balsa and ply with the card kit providing the dimensions and bulkhead sections ( I find this particularly satisfying in itself) then using the card superstructure parts as templates for plasticard versions, or even the card pieces themselves if saving weight is critical and structural strength is not important.  Fittings are then either from my partworks stockpile,  3D printed alternatives, photoetch versions available to supplement the card kit  or as a last resort scratch built.  That way, I can keep costs down and build models that are unlikely to ever appear as an injected plastic version and still cheaper than the commercial kits.

I do this - I use 3mm foam board - I built a 1/200 Titanic from it. It's really cheap - £20 for 8'x4' sheet.

[Martin (Admin)]

Not sure if it is necessary to lock the thread.

There are manufacturers who produce very acceptable models so it is perfectly possible.

All amicable, sensible, productive and anonymous at the moment... so as long as we we keep it that way. 

[Shipmate60]

Some kits do have some problems but this does give a higher sense of satisfaction when built.
Not only to you but other modellers know of the problems overcome.
It will be worth it in the end.


Bob

[Colin Bishop]

To be honest Bob I get more satisfaction when bits fit together the way they ought to. When they don't I find it irritating and frustrating and I start using naughty words.

I keep the challenges for scratchbuilding. When it goes wrong then I can only blame myself!


Colin

[Martin (Admin)]

That very true Bob, one of the most difficult kits I built was the Robbie S130..... but also one of the most satisfying!

https://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/Builds/S130/1ndex.htm


( Worst kit was definitely  the ..... Moderated!  )


 Martin 

[Plastic - RIP]

That very true Bob, one of the most difficult kits I built was the Robbie S130..... but also one of the most satisfying!

https://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/Builds/S130/1ndex.htm

 Martin 

I had one of those - the deck was all over the place and it was supposed to meet the hull at the bow - fat chance!

[Colin Bishop]

So, Martin and Bob, you are saying that a badly designed and implemented kit is more satisfying to build than a well designed one that does what it says on the box? And is presumably therefore better value?

Am I missing something here?
Colin

[Martin (Admin)]

 
Badly designed or implemented kits, that still result in poor products, despite all your efforts are still crap!   


..... but the converse is true of excellent kits I couldn't do justice to!   

[RST]

I don't understand secrecy in naming suppliers sometimes.  But I appreciate some forums take a different approach.  It's like some folk feel they have to state "no affiliation, bla, bla" etc. if they provide a supplier weblink, or feel they cannot post a link to another source.

I have a Sangsetia which I built from Metcalf's hull and styrene pack which went together very well.  I also then had a hull and set of superstructure mouldings for the Sea Trojan -that hull was not so well made at all, If I recall, the superstructure mouldings were so poorly laid up and bent out of shape I just had to send them back.

I started a Blue Devil destroyer kit a few years ago -everything was pretty badly distorted.  But it's such an old set of moulds it's widely publicised things don't fit so well.  So not every plastic kit conversion works.  On the other hand I'm 99% through a Merit 1:48 PT boat conversion and the only thing I did differently so far apart from omitting some fine detail was cut my own deck from polystyrene sheet because it saved a bit of weight.

I gave up on N gauge railways a few years ago partly because I got fed up with the quality of supplied parts vs 50-100% increase in price over 12 months.  You apparently have to accept to fix a £100+ locomotive straight out of the box.  I tried a few small kits and had to replace up to 90% of the parts and was told that was normal and should I should be thankful regardless.


I think it's a very subjective discussion how folk think that a "kit" should go together, but it should obviously go together with reasonable ease.  I am also a bit disappointed with a boat "kit" I bought recently but I never expected it to be 100% right.  It's from a re-mould of something very old but I'm frustrated it doesn't really match what was in the advert pics (I have also never seen so many surface defects in a set of polystyrene mouldings before).  Some parts that were supplied are different from advertised and some other parts not really usable.  Also, photocopy on photocopy of instructions renders information totally unusable -so it's better not to put out unreadable c**p in the first place.  I hope to make a build blog at the end because it's still a good very good base-kit and I want to promote it -but it's not really sold as-advertised at the moment.


If it's 1:96 I'm guessing what supplier it is.  I guess it's down to the extent of what was advertised and how it should go together though.  I would be equally miffed if most things were way-out.  Also, without knowing what kit it is there's mention from others about doing homework first -but how would you know if for example you saw a post like this and didn't know what kit it related to?  It seems a bit of a catch 22 situation.


Cheers,


Richard

[Colin Bishop]

There is a difference between accuracy and quality.

Many kits are obliged to compromise on precise accuracy in order to make them commercially viable. This usually entails a degree of simplification which does not noticebly detract from the appearance of the finished model. For example the Caldercraft Cumbrae pilot vessel is actually a bit wider than it should be to make for a more stable model but hardly anyone would notice the difference. Likewise, the SLEC Huntsnan kit I recently built does not feature the sheer of the hull in order to make construction easier and it has a single screw rather than the twin of the original vessel. The manufacturer is upfront about this and the finished model still gives an excellent representation of the original. I have no problems with this. You might want to take the opportunity to enhance the model by correcting some of the inaccuracies but that is your choice.

However if you have a kit where you assemble a deckhouse and it doesn't fit over the corresponding hole in the deck leaving gaps at the sides then this is a quality issue. Likewise, if the white metal fittings are amorphous blobs rather than crisp details then the manufacturer has probably not refreshed the casting moulds.

It's all a bit of a moving feast in some respects but it is usually easy to establish what is OK and what isn't.

Colin

[Shipmate60]

No Colin,
But most on here know the good and the bad and do appreciate the work needed to get it to a decent standard.
All kits should be of a decent standard but we all know this is not the case.


Bob

[Colin Bishop]

Bob,

The problem is that we don't all know! There are a lot of people on here who do not have the experience and insight that you and I do and have to go by what is published by the manufacturers. They do not deserve to be disappointed as they so often are.

Colin

[RST]

Just to clarify: "decent standard" in a kit means parts should fit with minimal efort and match a rough assembly plan  (parts may need cleaning -up, straightening flash, removal on cast parts etc.)?  It does not necessarily mean the kit is accurate to the original vessel?

[richardabeattie]

"you should do your research into any kit prior to purchase"

  How?  Go to the factory and open the box?  If I give good money I expect to get what I paid for.  If I buy a car and it does not go I have some comeback.  If I buy the Billings African Queen and find that there is no front view of the steam engine on the drawings I just have to guess where the pipes go.  Some members of this forum have decades of experience and know which kit makers to avoid.  The rest of us have to learn the hard way.  So without repeating my suggestion that the OP should name names can more experienced members tell us which suppliers offer good kits with intelligible instructions.  If we can't out the baddies let's praise the goodies.


Fonts fixed - Admin

[richardabeattie]

"you should do your research into any kit prior to purchase." 

How?  Go to the supplier and open the box?  If we are too shy to name the baddies can we at least publish the names of the people who supply good kits?  Some of us are fairly new to all this and don't want to buy lemons.  I bought and built the Billings African Queen.  Mostly good but a very thin hull moulding and no front view of the steam engine so I had to guess where the pipes went.  I think by "research" Steam Boat Willie meant know somebody who knows. 

Fonts fixed - Admin

[RST]

"you should do your research into any kit prior to purchase"

 

How?  Go to the factory and open the box?  If I give good money I expect to get what I paid for.  If I buy a car and it does not go I have some comeback.  If I buy the Billings African Queen and find that there is no front view of the steam engine on the drawings I just have to guess where the pipes go.  Some members of this forum have decades of experience and know which kit makers to avoid.  The rest of us have to learn the hard way.  So without repeating my suggestion that the OP should name names can more experienced members tell us which suppliers offer good kits with intelligible instructions.  If we can't out the baddies let's praise the goodies.


...hopefully that helps as a cut and paste job from Richard Beattie?

Rich

[roycv]

Hi, I think that is where kit reviews come into their own, be it in a magazine or possibly on You Tube.  Model Boats is quite good as was the late Int Marine Modelling.  Deficiencies in the kit can be mentioned without the manufacturer removing his advertising.
 
But I watched in horror a You Tube build of a Dumas Towboat where the builder just picked up a partly shaped piece of balsa and started painting it.

One of the problems is that you might ask if a certain kit is up to standard but how do you judge the answers?  There are rivet counters, modellers who like to get things right and as I have seen blind building of the kit.  It is nice when a kit is improved and the detailing explained.

I think I would put most of my trust in the experiences of those on this forum.
regards
Roy

[RST]

One of the problems is that you might ask if a certain kit is up to standard but how do you judge the answers?  There are rivet counters, modellers who like to get things right and as I have seen blind building of the kit.  It is nice when a kit is improved and the detailing explained.

....That to me is easy.  It should fit together with a reasonable set of instructions (relative to the skillset it is aimed at) and it should contain the parts to complete.  It should be representative at the end of the day as the sales brochure, and list any exlusions etc.  If part A should fit with Part B, it should do so with minimal effort.  If it is not a scale representative of the real ting -then that (unless it's supposed to be) is a separate issue!!!!

I think the OP must be wondering what a can of worms he's opened here.  Should have named from the outset where some more positive help would probably have prevailed with his kit, I'm still wondering what kit that was -but will supect all from the range I think of now.

[tigertiger]

Be careful, as definitions of a decent kit are subjective.


My first plastic kits were Revell, I think they were decent enough even if the pilot was molded into the fuselage halves. Then when I go more pocket money I moved up to Airfix with the occasional Revell, which was a big improvement. As a teenager with a Saturday job I moved up to the occasional Tamiya and was really impressed. If I had a rich Dad and had started with Tamiya, I would have a low impression of Airfix and be infuriated by Revell.


I think it is also possible to come from a plastic kit background and be underwhelmed by model boats. I have also read complaints on American forums about the quality and instructions in British kits generally. A lot of it is about expectations, some reasonable some not, and levels of annoyance from a scale of mildly annoyed to abject rage can be seen on forums. Some people want to punish a supplier publicly, and some want to stir the pot or take a morbid delight (schadenfreude) in the ensuing melee.  All subjective, and rarely helpful.

Reference 'naming and shaming', it seems to bring out the worst of internet behaviors. What this has led to in the past on ModelBoatMayhem is open hostility and flame wars, resulting in bans. I think I can speak for Martin and other Moderators when I say, 'We don't want that on this forum'. We would rather it was a happy ship.

[Plastic - RIP]

I've done lots of plastic conversions - 3 Blue Devils, 3 Flower Corvettes, 2 Lindberg PT109, a Titanic, a Heller Avenir, a few 1/350 battleships and a bunch of others. I consider all of them to be nice models - especially when you think about how old the moulds are.

I'm disappointed with the models where everything is variable - vacforms with no clear edge so where do you cut? The dimensions will then impact other parts and cause issues further down the line when all the cumulative errors mean the larger sub-assemblies are miles out - and when you look to the plan for guidance, it's slightly different to what's in your hand so no help at all.
All very frustrating.

[richardabeattie]

Apologies for my repetitive posts above - I made three attempts to post and they all seemed to disappear but the moderator managed to find them!  Baffled.

[tigertiger]

Apologies for my repetitive posts above - I made three attempts to post and they all seemed to disappear but the moderator managed to find them!  Baffled.

 


Sometimes if you go back to modify a post, when you save the font goes to minimum. You can just about make out a feint grey line. If you go back to edit again, highlight the text and change the font size to 10, all appears normal again.
It is just an annoying little glitch in the software. Sorry for the inconvenience.