The Worst Plastic Scale Model Kits I Built in 2024!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- With another year coming to a close, it is time to reflect on my experiences at the workbench and take a look at the worst model kits that I built in 2024, and the reasons why they deserve a place on this list!
I managed to build a good selection of plastic model kits in a variety of different scales and subjects this year, from planes to tanks and even some Sci-Fi!
🤝 Don't forget you can help support charity by sending any Airfix Flying Hours or un-started kits and supplies to Models For Heroes: www.modelsforh...
🔥 Welcome to the Model Minutes Community! 🔥
Are you ready to take your scale modelling skills to the next level? There's something here for all skill levels, and there's even a treasure trove of exclusive content, perks, and a vibrant community waiting for you. Join us on this thrilling journey by becoming a part of Model Minutes Modeller's Club!
🔶 Become a Patreon Supporter: Your support is crucial in helping the channel grow and produce more amazing content. Pledge your support and discover the fantastic perks waiting for you: / modelminutes
🔷 Channel Membership: Dive deeper into the world of scale modelling. Join the channel to access exclusive perks: / @modelminutes
💫 One-Time Donations: If you prefer a one-time contribution, you can show your love via PayPal: www.paypal.com...
☕ Gift a Coffee: Like what we do? Why not treat me to a virtual coffee over at ko-fi.com/mode...
💬 Live Conversations: Join our Discord community and chat with fellow modellers in real-time: / discord
🛍️ Modelling Supplies: Need the kits I've built or recommended? You can find some of them here, and your purchase supports the channel (affiliate link): www.amazon.co....
📖 Modelling Books - if you'd like to support me whilst also getting something practical that you can actually use on the workbench, please take a look here: amzn.to/3rGFBGJ
🚀 Stay Connected: Be sure to subscribe with notifications on to stay updated and keep supporting the channel: / modelminutes
🌟 Explore More: Check out my second channel for even more fantastic content: / @mattssecondchannel
Let's Connect on Social Media:
📘 Facebook: / modelminutes
📸 Instagram: / modelminutes
🚀 Disclaimer: these videos are tailored for adult scale model enthusiasts. While every effort is taken to try to provide accurate information, Model Minutes holds no responsibility for any accidents, damage, or injury resulting from replicating the steps in our videos. These videos are intended for entertainment purposes only, and all information is believed to be correct at the time of editing. Unless otherwise indicated, all products have been independently purchased. Model Minutes holds no responsibility for the content or accuracy of external links.
Thank you for being a part of this incredible modeller's community! Your support makes it all possible, and together, we'll create amazing scale modelling experiences. 🔗🛠️🚁🚢🎨🌌
Music used from Epidemic Sound:
Gotta Give Me Some Love (Instrumental Version) - Basixx www.epidemicso...
Do You Trust Me - Airae www.epidemicso...
The Remains of Hope - Magnus Ringblom www.epidemicso...
Morning Breaks - David Celeste www.epidemicso...
Perfect Shimmer - Dip Diet www.epidemicso...
Not Getting Younger (Instrumental Version) - Maybe www.epidemicso...
Helium Drive - ELFL www.epidemicso...
#modelkit #scalemodel #worst
I have been modeling for 65+ years. So, I may be able to provide a little insight. Those toolings from the 1950's and 60's are not meant to be historically accurate. They were intended as toys for little boys of that era. As long as it looked reasonably correct, that was all that was necessary; to keep a boy occupied. It wasn't until the 70's that companies started to make an attempt at the historical part of it. A lot of companies from that era have bit the dust. Aurora, the original Revell, etc. That's one part of modeling I don't miss.
There was a definite element of imagination filling in the gaps, so it wasn't so much of a problem at the time. The problem that arises these days however are those same kits being sold be companies that don't indicate the age of the toolings. Especially when they are alongside newer, more accurate toolings in their range. This results in a very inconsistent brand identity and can ruin a modeller's experience with that kit and company
@@ModelMinutes And we all understand that the company in question is Revell :)
@@ModelMinutes Particularly in the case of a company selling the molds to a different company, who issues the kits with a complete rebox (as opposed to the Airfix Classics kits, where you know in advance you're just getting a kit produced from old molds), they don't tell you how old the molds are because the ready availability of information on the Net can inform people not only of whether a kit is new tooling, but go over the details (or lack of them) in reviews and build logs; in order to try to recover what they spent on acquiring the molds -- which may not have been well-treated by the original owners -- doing their best to conceal their age directly helps their bottom line.
That's why I actually really like the Vintage Classics line, it's cool to be able to have a shared experience with someone across 60-70 years. Plus they're cheap here and Airfix doesn't try to hide the age of the tooling. It's probably the only example of a vintage tool rebox done right.
@jefforymitchell5697 I'm 17 and I absolutely adore airfix kits and especially the vintage ones! I'm working on a Churchill atm haha 😅
Unfortunately due to my accident 17 years ago I can't build models anymore but I enjoy watching videos of people doing them.😊
Sorry to hear that, but glad to hear you can still enjoy the hobby in some way :)
Became an honorary member less than 24 hours ago and i have my name in the credits, man you work fast 😁
Sometimes I work fast, other times not so much lol
"Did I have fun, and enjoy building the model?"
THAT, is the point. Well done!!!
Thanks!
What I hate the most about that Revell Mustang or all of Mistercraft is that they have the potential to turn people away from the hobby, since they'll think this is the standard they should expect from model kits.
Yes, this is 100% true. It is a conversation i have had with the head of brand with Airfix in the past - who understand that a positive experience is likely to encourage repeat modelling and create a lifelong modeller
Well, Mistercraft is very cheap so quality reflects price. Smer is better in this regard tho, at least decals are decent. Revell on the other hand. Gosh that Mustang looked terrible even for 1960s kit.
@@davidkopecky6687 I agree, the proportions are so weird ! How long is that nose?
I've argued this for many years. For example, father and son have just watched Goldfinger and love the car. They see the ancient Airfix Aston Martin and build it together. They aren't expecting ejection seats or revolving number plates, but nothing fits, nothing sits right, they end up with an awful build. Are they likely to build another kit? It's unlikely. On the other hand, they've watched Battle of Britain and see a Tamiya 1/48 Spitfire. Boy what a beautiful build! What's going to encourage them to get in to the hobby?
@@MisterHampshire The price of Tamiya kits steers most folks clear. What I hate most about rivet counters is that they can't distinguish between a model and a replica and think they are interchangeable. Wrong.
I harken back 60-some years to when I was about 10-years-old. I got a model of a Sopwith Camel from my aunt for my birthday. The front of the fuselage was slightly oval, the engine cowling was circular. No matter how many times I read the directions, the pieces would not fit together. Very frustrating. My only solace was that I knew that even if I assembled it expertly, it was no more than a month away from being obliterated by a firecracker in the driveway.
no firecrackers in my youth, but being on fire and thrown from a windows definitely was a fate some of my kits met
With the Tiger I, not having exhaust covers or the bin isn't a complete bust, as early vehicles often didn't have them, or in the case of the bin, even used PzIII bins. The killer is the cupola and the turret. The cupola being the cast type with periscopes and a rotating hatch. If it has that recent a cupola, it won't be missing those parts unless it has gone through a decent amount of wear and tear.
The main problem is that the turret wall is one piece that was bent into an irregular horseshoe shape. You can forgive the regular shape, especially at that scale, but having that giant canyon on the rear...
Thanks for the video, was really interesting.
thanks for the info
A bit unfair to add the Airfix vintage range, as your know what you’re getting. An old tool with all that goes with it.
Just because someone tells you that the kit is bad, doesn't mean you then ignore that the kit is bad . . .
Everything is vintage but the price...when "classic" means inaccurate and flash-ridden...Old airfix fanboys never cease to amaze...
@akula9713 the ethics of companies' marketing kits with sprue castings dating from a human lifetime back messes with my head. If it's "okay" to do this, I don't think it shouldn't be published if they're poor kits. Younger modellers could be unaware. I do note Airfix now label Vintage Classic on the box.
@@85inexact sometimes with an older tooled kit, the challenge is to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. Some older kits I enjoy, others are sources of frustration. It’s a great hobby that keeps me away from the pub and loose women.😂
At least Airfix tells you on the box it's old. Revell does not for instance.
I enjoyed working with the Bristol F2B model shown in 7:26 back in 1970's. I was a kid and I don't remember it was a bad kit. Probably I didn't know anything better.
Excellent video. I’ll now watch your “best of” video. Oh I’m currently building a 2 foot Nostromo. Though it’s been on hold for the last 6 weeks due to me injuring my hands and having 2 operations to try and fix them. Ps. Don’t take your thumbs for granted. I’ve for the time being lost the use of one of them and I now realise how vital it is! 😳🙄😩
sorry to hear that, I wish you a speedy recovery!
@ Apreciated! 👍
The Dora Wings 'Jeep' is one I have in my pending pile, and I am looking forward to putting this interesting design together. Your comments on the buildability are to be expected - in my experience, Dora Wings produce some very interesting models that no-one else will ever touch so hats off to them for that. They are therefore, not a mass producer of kits but provide limited run subjects as they are not going to be competing with the bigger brands that do all the obvious stuff (F 35B anyone?). That means that their production methods will probably be somewhat limited so a bit of experience will definitely help. I have built both versions of the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 fighter, both were pretty straight forward to build with nice detail. They did feature the lack of locating pins/holes and a lack of clarity in the instructions, both points I am sure they could improve on maybe with feedback from the modelling community? That said, nothing a decent kit-builder couldn't cope with, I suggest a little on-line research on your chosen aircraft will help too. Thanks for covering this one.
Yeah, when i am building models I tend to research them online to try and inform my build
Any time you fancy a subject in a Mistercraft kit you're better off finding an older release of the original plastic, usually you can pick them up pretty cheap and they will be better moulded. I have the Pogo from the original KP release and it was a good build with no decal problems. The Heller F-86 can easily be picked up for around a fiver from model shows, and then you can get some aftermarket decals, especially if you want to build a few.
Hi Matt. Happy New Year. I wonder if you meant "dis-honourable" mentions!
Keep up the good work.
Oh definitely!
I remember by brother getting that 'banana nosed' Mustang as a kid. Even at 9 years old we knew it was wrong.
I'm so thankful for the past history of the kit feature on Scalemates. Great tool for us modelers! Nice video, thanks for warning me about that Tiger 1 kit. Looking to build one soon.
@@asdf9890 have a look at Tamiya, they have 3 main tiger 1 models: Early, middle and late war production models, and have a really diverse decal set and design process. I have built them before, and they look amazing when done. They are in 1:35 scale however, and the mid production tiger has some issues with the tracks, as they are in individual pieces and are very time consuming. Other than that they look great!! And are super simple to build!!!
Good presentation. I'm working on the Bronco Humber Scout car, too many parts and very poor instructions. In keeping with my normal idiocy regarding kits, I bought 2 because the box art looked good. I've had to have a night off in case it ends up on the lawn in my front garden.
This brings back memories of building all the Airfix WW1 biplanes as a kid. There were so many different ones and they didn't cost a lot. Had my own Flying Circus hanging from the ceiling.
I do shine turd's from time to time; but you do a great job with them. Excellent!
Enjoyed your post. I would revive my interest in modeling if I didn't have so much else on my plate. I have to enjoy it vicariously so, thanks buddy.
Maybe it will be something that you could come back to in the future
OMG - The Airfix Fairy Rotodyne! I did the redo on the instruction sheet for AIrfix where we have to clean up/replace the original instructions to update them a bit for the modern market. Not sure we should have bothered as it is definitely showing it's age, poor mould quality, dodgy fit, horrible transparencies, you name it (the Bristol Belvedere is definitely in this bracket too). These re-issues are okay for a nostalgic travel back in time but I for one am much happier buliding the likes of Eduard's superb toolings, they are a breath of fresh air! I know that's comparing flintlocks to AR 15 assault rifles but I take the less stressful route these days.
I've got the Belvedere in the stash, it is not looking like a kit I want to actually build . . .
@@ModelMinutes There are many issues with it. As well as it's age, the tooling is for the prototype, not the service version. This means a lot of work to get it up to snuff, it's a pretty poor representation of the prototype too! Hard to know what to do about this subject, no one else makes a kit of this chopper and they're not likely too either.
I understand that an Eastern European manufacturer is seriously looking at the Belvedere. It's not going to be Eduard standard, but will probably be quite buildable.
@@MCT954 Ooooh, interesting, thanks for the heads-up!
Dora Wings is a short run manufacturer, so the kits are not easy like mainstream kits. Often instructions are full of mistakes. The trailing edges are intentionally designed so that it's thin, but then there's a seam in the middle which has to be filled.
yeah I noticed these issues. I had seen the Vanguard which is a more recent kit and it looked lovely, so thought I would give this one a try but it doesn't seem to be quite the same in quality
The Airfix "vintage classics" Tiger is a model of the partially derelict vehicle that was (at the time the kit was designed) kept at Aberdeen Proving Ground. This is why details like the exhaust covers, tools and "rucksack" are missing.
I’d heard this story before, but others have questioned how true it might be
Early Tiger 1's lacked those parts anyway.
10:20 fun fact: very early Tigers didn't have the rear turret storage bin. It was thought during the design stage that the Tiger had enough storage space inside. However in practice, crews disagreed and would "repurpose" the bin from a Panzer III. It was 4 months after the Tiger began operational duty (August 1942) that it received it's own official turret storage bin (January 1943).
Christ-stop with the fun facts.
@@tonyromano6220 I bet you're fun at parties 😅😅😅
Fun fact: the turret storage box (gepäckkasten) was named the Rommelkasten (Rommel Box) 😉
Thank you for pointing that out.
@@xRepoUKx Rommel also happens to translate to "junk"
The problem with newcomers to modeling finding crap kits and being dissuaded from picking up the hobby used to be an easy solve. They'd go to a hobby store. Going to a local shop you would have assistants (who hopefully know their stuff) to find out their experience and skills and recommend kits accordingly.
Unfortunately with the dying off of most of the hobby stores around the world, not many people have access to this vital resource. This one reason is why, whenever possible, even if it costs a little more, buy from the local store. Not only might you meet other modelers, the owner is pretty much guaranteed to be a hobbyist, and when it comes to needing just a bottle of cement, or pot of paint, do you want to have to order it online and wait 2 days to a week for it to arrive, or just take a trip locally, have it the same day and also had a chat with the person who can tell you what's good, bad or indifferent, and when they'll have it in stock.
good points
My personal offering is the one that I'm currently making; a Huma Arado 145. Very little in the way of locating pins, loads of flash, poor fit, poor instructions and really very little pleasure involved. I also made the Hasegawa Mig-25, which is not their best offering. It built a reasonable model but it was certainly a struggle.
The dogfight double is the only kit I did from this list last year, and I do think you're a bit rough on it. It obviously features the tooling issues described, but it offers a twofer (great value) and it was far from a bad time. It also makes a nice display piece as a pair. Obviously it's not going to be super interesting for an experienced modeler, but I could see a beginner having a really good time here with this kit and 3-4 pots of acrylic.
The old airfix biplanes feature misalignment of parts, mould flash, ejector pin marks, poor fit and mould seams. If i measure the kits against the same criteria that i measure them all against, there is a reason why they are in this list. Whilst you might get 2 kits in the box, the part count on each is pretty low and you can have the similar amount of plastic in another kit whilst only building one model
The P-51 Mustang by Revell was the only kit I ever had to just throw away. Mine was so incredibly warped that you couldn't get anything bigger than the propeller to fit at all and even that needed some serious repairs.
Having just "finished" the P-51D I can confirm it is DREADFUL and worthy of the top spot!
The newer Heller releases with the (very) yellow boxes now include the year when the tooling was originally made, and when it was last overhauled. They've issued the F-86 in their own box and decals (with the same schemes offered when it first came out), and theoretically should be a lot less prone to disintegration.
Yes, I think having a go at that re-release might be worth a visit to see if it is a better version. That being said however, I haven't experienced any proper heller boxings in recent years so I would be keen to try some of their newer toolings
Nice review! Dora wings Caudron Simoun is a dream for any french modeler...sadly it had the exact same issues you mentioned on the Dora kit. Could not finish it, parts broke, large gaps and very poor mounting design and engineering.
I was looking at that kit online last night, I was tempted to buy it but was reluctant due to my experience with the Jeep
Some early and very late versions of the Tiger 1 did not have the storage bins at the rear of the turret. Looking at the running gear, the model is of a late war Tiger with all-steel road wheels. So the lack of storage bins is prooably okay as long as the paint scheme matches such a vehicle.
I made this kit back in the sixties, and to be honest I hated it. But it was all there was until the 1/87 Riko Minitanls version came along.
i'd be interested to hear what you think of the hobbycraft sabre in 1/72. the instructions are misleading at best & the plastic is a cross between styrene & urethane & i'm definitely using aftermarket decals!
I actually built it a couple months ago. I found the plastic parts to be fairly acceptable, but the plastic was a bit softer and a little grainy compared to other companies. The mould quality was ok but not as crisp as I imagine it would be originally from Heller.
The instructions were a bit difficult to follow at times with bits and pieces just not being as clear as they could be, but the worst part were the decals. Prone to splitting, not conforming to the surface details and leaving silvering when finished.
There should be a picture of my finished Sabre on my instagram here instagram.com/modelminutes/p/DDzAUpFA02a/?img_index=1
I'm sure a full video here on YT will follow when I get the chance to edit it :)
I bought the Fiat, non complete moulding, airfix did send out replacement parts but terrible. I like making the older kits due to simplicity and nostalgia tho.
Interesting points..... Personally I love the 'Vintage Classics' from Airfix, as they generally are simple, uncomplicated builds and normally without parts so tiny that they snap on the sprue when removed, in order to be 'to scale', something that many more modern kits suffer from these days. If you really want to build an 'interesting' kit, I recommend the Marivox 1/72 SAAB 105 kit, one of few kits I have ever binned... although I did buy a couple more, which I have since completed, and I have two more kits to build, mainly because the kit give you the option of 4 different versions, including a photo recon / light attack aircraft. Unfortunately the decals falls into the same category as the MisterKit decals, ie, they split and disintegrate far too easily.. :(
thanks for sharing! I think someone else mentione dthe Saab to me and how bad it was lol
@@ModelMinutes Yes, it has a bit of a (bad) reputation. The Marivox 1/72 kit of the Saab B17 however is a good kit, so if you feel like doing something a bit different to the norm, get yourself one of those.. The kit gives you the options of three different engines, floats, skis or wheels and decals for Finnish, Austrian, Ethiopian, Danish and Swedish aircraft, including target tugs.. :) Ps: The Danes never used theirs in active service, but a B17 in Danish markings can be seen at the Danish Museum of Technology in Elsinore, Denmark.
I have the revell version of the fokker. I haven't finished it yet so I don't know much work it will need to assemble (for now I'm just painting the parts
Totally agree about that Revell P-51. I was fooled by the box art and suckered by the low price, and I thought it was going to be a decent kit, I was shocked by how bad it was. I can forgive crude assembly, sometimes that can be a fun challenge, but this thing as you noted, just doesn't look right when it's done. The forward fuselage around the engine looks too narrow, the whole shape is off. it is just clearly not a P-51D. I plan to give it to my friends kids to blow up with firecrackers.
A poor kit I built a few years back was a 1.72nd Revell Texan. It was worth buying for the decal sheet however which was so big it was wrapped around the kit in the box! Useful for Academy products whose decals were so thick they wouldn't follow curved surfaces...
Hello! I confirm for Dora Wings. I assembled the 1/72 Westland Lysander from the same brand and it was a nightmare. This manufacturer should review his conception of modeling.
that is a shame!
I admit. I do gravitate towards the Airfix Vintage Classic range. Yes, it's true that the tooling has seen better days and the build takes a bit more effort, but isn't that the point? If I wanted a kit that would (in a manner of speaking) build itself. I'd buy Tamiya.
The Airfix Tiger I took a Fujimi kit to bring it up to snuff. The Bristol/Fokker kit was a little disappointing , as it didn't include the original A stand. I ended up buying a scrap Dogfight Double kit, just to get the stand. My Fiat G50 went together rather well. I enjoyed that build.
Recently, for Christmas, I got both the Revell 1:87 scale Union Pacific Bog Boy and the Revell 1:72 scale Mig-29S Fulcrum. I built the Big Boy, and it's a really amazing kit (even though it dates back to 2003). I haven't built the Mig-29 yet, but I do know it's a bit more complex than the Big Boy. However, I do not intend to build my Mig-29 fully due to the fact that I want it to look like the fictional, sentient Mig-29 known as Big Jet (who has a simple design). Hopefully, the build will go well.
I think i have the big boy in the stash, will be fun to take a look at when I get the chance
The 50's and 60's tooling are my favorites. Yes they are "challenging" to build compared to modern kits, but to me that is a plus point. If one is skilled enough, these models can be built into real head turners. I also enjoy building modern kits. My opinion on the hobby these days is that it has become more about painting than building, the building part, judging from most videos of it, is something that has to completed as quickly as possible, with as little effort as possible. Any bit of flash or misalignment is outrageous apparently. The downside of this is that it requires very little, if any skill to build modern kits, and so very little skill is learned, and may I also say, there appears to be very little interest in doing so.
Dont forget that a lot of people who make videos on model kits also do it as a review, so it is in their interests to highlight the areas that dont fit or are misaligned so that someone who decides to part with their money on the product might have an idea of what work could be required on the kit to further improve it.
If we want this hobby to survive for another 100 years and so one, then the technology to produce the kits has to keep up with the times. If it stagnates then new modellers won't see the point in picking up scale modelling. Just because there are certain standards we expect from kits today doesn't mean that skills don't exist. As with everything, change happens.
I still know how to write with a pen on paper, but 99% of my time I use a keyboard and touchtype for my communication tasks. The skill hasn't gone, we just don't need to demonstrate it as much because it isn't as important anymore
@@ModelMinutes My comment wasn't directed at you, I was speaking generally :) As with everything, technology progresses, agreed, and like I said I also enjoy making new kits, just not as much, that's just me. I enjoy your channel and the fact that you also build the old classics.
I have that Fiat G.50 on my shelf so I'm glad it's not TOO bad 😅
Thank you for including the Airfix Tiger. I purchased the 2 of each of the Tiger, Panther and Stug III on a trip to the UK to relive my wargaming childhood of the 1970s era now I am semi retired. I could forgive the weird dimensions but the tracks...I had forgotten how tragic they were on Airfix tanks. Looking at aftermarket tracks I realized I can buy cheap China kits of the entire models than get replacement tracks for these "train wrecks". Nostalgia has its place, but be careful revisiting your youth 🙂. I burst out laughing when yo put it up as your number 2 🙂
:)
I built that Mustang back around 1965. It was terrible then, with a ghastly red paint-scheme, looking only vaguely like a P-51D. It must be horrific now.
Hey Matt could you please do a review of the tankom M60 Rise please and happy late new year
Thanks for the suggestion
A friend of mine likes building vintage "Turd" models, but he enjoys building them well. His Airfix 1/76 Tiger 1 project prompted a mold and resin castings of new exhaust covers, rear fenders and turret bin to fit his model. I made him 4 sets of castings, just to see him build his Tiger I well. Dave's results are not so very different from your own.
I remember building that Revell Mustang in 1995, and even as a ten year old Iremember thinking that was the worst shaped model I'd ever seen. It almost reminds me more of the Piper Enforcer turboprop mustang from the 60's! 😂
It is crazy that revell still sell that abortion.
I HAVE JUST FINISHED MY FIRST MODEL MAKING IN 2025, A IRAQI T-72 TANK OF DRAGON MODEL IN 1/35 SCALE
The airfix WWI set gave me so much trouble and a few of the pieces came bent it was the first kit I have binned. The second being the revell tugboat I bought before learning of scalemates. Horrid kit nearly turned me away especially when I learned it was a 50s tooling with no indication on the box. Partly my fault but I think it should be taken off market.
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
I've also done mistercraft POGO this year. And even though decal didn't break (mostly), some of them were missing, at least according to sources and instruction. Plus, maybe it was my mistake, seeing yours complete, mine has an open canopy, because the pilot seat didn't fit in.
I found the cockpit instructions to be a little challenging - there are little pins on the inside of the cockpit that the floor has to sit on, and other bits and pieces. I think it would be easy to miss these, align things in the wrong places and then end up with things not fitting quite right. It took a bit of time to figure out where everything was meant to be so that it looked kinda ok
Back when I (re-)started my modeling hobby, in 2012 I believe, I was also "tricked' into purchasing that Revell 04148 kit.... When I opened the box I was absolutely shocked to see how bad it was.
I immediately contacted the company that sold it to me (as part of a larger order) and sent them some pictures. They were shocked as well and said they had no idea it was such a bad kit. They returned my money, with an apology, and told me to please not send it back to them, but instead just bin it, or ritually burn it, whatever pleased me most 🤣 hahaha! That was funny! 🤣
They also immediately removed it from their inventory. Some resellers are NOT jerks out to con you 👍
Shame on Revell, though! They keep doing this over and over again, with a LOT of their kits. They have moved waaaaaay down on my list of preferred manufacturers, and I will only purchase a Revell kit if absolutely NO other manufacturer produces that specific model I am looking for.
In general, after having had a few of those experiences, I have become VERY careful when ordering kits and will do extensive research before purchasing anything!
My worst kit in 2024 was the Revell 1:72 AH-64 Apache helicopter kit, I started building it right after I finished building the Fokker Dr.1 in 1:72 scale also from Revell the Fokker Dr.1 went togheter beautifully with no fitting issues, I couldn't say the same when I started building the helicopter... There are some big fitting and alignment issues and massive ejector pin marks everywhere do much that it takes away detail, this is very noticeable on the helfire misiles. I haven't finished it yet as I'm stil mentally preparing myself for all the puttying and sanding work that needs to be done
That kit sounds like a right pain!
If you “enjoy” building aweful model kits you should try finding a frog models Beaufort model kit. It was the worst lit I have ever built
Isn’t that one that could be motorised?
@ yes it was
I’m thankful that airfix puts the vintage classics on the model so I know to avoid them. I just bought an HMS Campbeltown from 1964 because it was $16. I’m now interested as to what the best vintage classics model kit is
I found the F-80 Shooting Star to be a pretty decent kit despite its age
The worst model kit I ever ran across was a large model I bought of the German LZ127 "Hindenburg".
It had two pieces for the airship itself, and not many parts at all.
I put a coat of Gray paint, and tried to get excited about it, but it dawned on me that it wasn't going to take up much of my time, and apart from hanging the bloody thing from the ceiling, was difficult to display.
I took it out to the backyard, soaked it in petrol, and set fire to it, with a bit of "historical commentary"...
"And it's crashing! It's bursting into flame! This is terrible! GET OUT OF THE WAY! This is TERRIBLE! This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of the world...oh! THE HUMANITY!"
It was the most fun I've ever had from a model kit!
sounds . . . pretty horrific tbh
Would the Rotodyne have made more sense than the V22 tilt rotor?
Good question, i guess we will never know
@@ModelMinutes Yes, I suppose we won't.
I've just completed one of my worst kits - the Airfix Tank Transporter. BTW could have been much easier if the instructions had more clarity.
Yes, seeing as the vintage classics use older generation instructions, they can be a bit challenging to follow at times
for gaps and fillings i uze white dass clay no sanding dito damaging needed just a damp cloth to wipe after using and it sticks like anything
That Revell Mustang is about the same quality as an Airfix bagged kit from back in the day.
It's been awhile since I've put a model together and the companies of the models are a little fuzzy in my memory but the Testor's 1/72 scale Starfighter was pretty poor-lacking many details. My g-friend picked me up two Airfix British Electric Lightnings when she was in England and EACH had important parts missing (such as the canopy). To Airfix's credit, they did mail me replacement parts but I should not have had to go through such bother in the first place.
I think it was a Havoc or some other light or medium bomber but some of that kit required that an important part "hang in space" rather than providing a useful anchoring point. I didn't know WHAT to do with that and I think the model was relegated to the trash can. Have had several models with decals that disintegrated.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Whilst I have many good experiences with models there are always times when something goes a bit wrong
Some kits just fight you every step of the way whether they be good or bad kits it’s an experience I had with Arma hobbies Mark I Hurricane kit in 1/72. I’ll admit some of the trouble was my own fault . Like spilling a bottle of extra thin over the decals and watched in horror as the liquid advanced so the every colour the liquid hit then dropped the model breaking off the under carriage legs . The only part I can blame the kit for is that the assemble of the cockpit could be clearer in the instructions. As I built mine slightly incorrect and it wouldn’t fit in the fuselage halves but in all a good kit even though I created some of the issues with the kit. Not every kit you build will go together like you expect even those of good quality can have issues maybe you unwittingly create them or have accidents happen or just stuff up the paint work or decals which anyone can do even those of us with experience of 100 plus models.
Kits don’t come much better for detail or fit than Arma hobbies
I wish I knew about tooling age before. I may have accidentally ordered 15 airfix sopwith camels, the 1956 tooling is “fun”, hopefully they’ll look ok in the diorama
I think I saw you post that on Reddit? It was quite amusing that you bought the "Airfix Challenge" set which is aimed at schools and youth groups . . . Not sure what you plan to do with so many Camels? :)
@ yeah that’s me, I’m planning on doing an airfield diorama so that’s my plan for this year sorted
I've got experience with Mister Craft ...It's 72nd UH-1 Iroquois kit....Well,the box art quite stunning and instructions pages was printed in nice 3D CAD but the kit was totally "Mister Craps".I've can't believe the mold just goes back from 40yrs ago.
Oddly, I loved the Rotodyne, yes it was a bit pants as a moulding, but it was so different to usual Airfix subject matter maybe I ignored the faults.
It was an interesting subject, but perhaps due for a retool
Same with the Belvedere; a unique subject but the kit needs to be updated.
Given the many snags encountered, i think you managed to save all of them very effectively.
Thanks very much!
Happy modeling year 2025 and safe gluing.
you too!
I agree with model companies putting the date of the tooling on the box, its the same way with car models, except alot of us older car modelers kinda expect it, and its not so bad being a car model, but the newer modelers who do not have the knowledge of the old kits get turned off from the hobby by buying these kits and expecting something more
One of the worst one I've ever built is the type 66 Maser Cannon by wave. It's a 60$ re-release of a 1990s kit full of flashing and seams and many parts on it were deformed
that sounds really bad, thanks for sharing
Being of similar age to some of those toolings, I'm not sure which has aged worse - them or me!
i'm sure you are doing great!
Well, if they were rough kits, you did very well with them.
thanks very much!
First of, I LOVE your attitude to turn questionable Models into interesting Dioramas, a wonderful mindset.
Mad respect for that from a person with a short "fuse" struggling with fiddly parts.
BUT i have one point of criticism...no Heller Model in the List? 😂
I've kind of hate/love relationships with Heller Models, but their Barrel bottom Modells are, without a doubt, top notch low quality.
I know they modernized their range, but you can still find some of their weirder stuff.
Thanks! The only Heller model that I built this year was an older example of an F84G and that was mentioned in the video where I talk about the best model kits I built in 2024. Even though it was an old kit I found that the moulding was quite good and the decals were still fine. It went together really well and was a whole lot of fun.
I would like to try some of the current Heller kits though, so maybe this year that will happen
@ModelMinutes As I said, the gap between good and bad Heller Models is HUGE.
The one I remember was the Mirage III Kit. A lot of flesh, strange fitting and gaps.
At the same time I was rather proud of myself after finishing it😁
their new Hawkeye kit is being released in the next few months apparently, after a few years of delays. Will be interesting to see what that one is like
Well, the AT-9 was a terrible airplane, so why should the kit be any better? But don't take my word for it. My Dad's old business partner, John C., once gave an indirect assessment of the plane. He was learning to fly the venerable B-25 during WWII and had just completed his ground training when the class instructor told the students to pair up with a check-ride pilot. John looked around the pool of instructors and realized all of them were his age or younger except for one older man who had to be at least 35. That's the guy he picked, but when they reached their bird and climbed into the cockpit, he noticed the captain didn't say anything, so John asked him what to do first. He replied, "I don't know; I've never flown a B-25 before". This really confused John because the instructors were supposed to be experienced B-25 pilots. When questioned about this, the captain said, "I lied about it because I was training student pilots in the AT-9 and had to get out of those damned crates before one of them killed me." In the end John and the Captain decided to check each other out in the plane by first reviewing the manual and checklist. Once they got it started, they took off and flew patterns until each man felt competent in it.
thanks for sharing that interesting story
10:07 you put the cupola hatch going the wrong way; the swivel mount should be closer to the edge of the turret than going towards the middle
Interesting, I’m pretty sure I followed the instructions but it is possible I do things wrong occasionally
I think Airfix is onto a winner with the vintage classic kits. Love them or hate them... A cheap low detail kit IS WHAT got us into model making. Kids now don't need PE, super detailed cockpits that you don't see and hundreds of tiny details to get started. The Fiat may not be great...but at 7 quid it's a winner for me.
I found the fiat to be a good kit for practicing my airbrushing skills
I think its very clever to incorporate troublesome kits into dioramas as relics or derelict where possible.
I have a 1/144 F-15 Eagle that I botched horrendously because it was my first plastic model. I'd like to turn it into debris for a diorama, better than just throwing it away.
Include Dora Wings Lysander 1/72. I ended up throwing it out!
sadly i have not tried that one, but I have heard from a number of people that it is a problematic model
Matt you need to get the Revell 1/32 F4U-1A Corsair.
I bought this as it was a cheap deal for a 1/32 kit but after watching a few TH-cam videos of it, the kit looks like i should never have bought it 😂
@@spacecowboy107 - Yup. That's notoriously bad.
Oh no, I'm not sure i am up to that kind of a challenge lol
I had it back in the mid 70s; the folding wings were horrible; nothing really fit well.
It’s not surprising that, with the exception of Dora Wings kit, (which, as someone already mentioned, is a limited run kit and most definitely intended for modellers with a good few kits under their proverbial belts) all the kits mentioned were tooled prior to the early ’70’s when the quality of mole capable from the tooling was limited. As you noted, Airfix are to be commended for being quite outright in stating that these kits are not new toolings so you know exactly what you’re getting. Mister kraft kits you’re generally lucky if what you get in the box bears ANY resemblance to what’s on the box and are all very old toolings and their decals are all rubbish. The problem with old toolings, aside from the wear & tear done to them over the years is that they weren’t necessarily even remotely accurate to begin with and their packaging often results in broken pieces.
You may also find you have more success with using different glues- for example, trying to fix the prop on the rotodyne with super glue/CA rather than liquid cement and Tamiya extra thin works best when the opposing surfaces are held together rather than applied as more traditional glues to one or both surfaces and then pressed together. Also, when using more traditional plastic cement, limiting the amount of glue you place on a surface prevents excess glue from being squeezed out from the joints and potentially damaging the surfaces.
Lastly if you’re going to use lead shot as “weight” don’t use super glue/CA to hold/bond it as it reacts with the metal (I’ve heard of similar reactions with steel ball bearings but can’t confirm)
I’m using liquid gravity as my ballast, a product specially designed (supposedly) for this purpose and I haven’t as yet, noticed any reactions with the glue
@@ModelMinutes Apologies! Yes it was specifically designed for adding as ballast (I think they were modellers themselves IIRC)
The 3 item is key! If it does not say “Tamiya” on the box have fun! (Humor to a point)
I don't think there's anything wrong with that Tiger. The very early versions lacked the boxes. In fact the very first one captured in Leningrad had a Panzer IV's storage box.
interesting
I think the worst I ever made was a 1/72 Tu-2 from some Eastern Bloc country, maybe Czechoslovakia. The plastic was weird and the details were very crude. It took a lot of work to make it presentable. Strangely enough, the decals went on well. The second worst would have been a Novo Gannet. Both of these were more accurate in shape than the Airfix Defiant or Bf 109G-6, but that was about all they had to recommend them.
Are you referring to the old Airfix Defiant? Because that was the wrong shape - there is a new tool of that kit now though and it is much more accurate
@@ModelMinutes Yes, the old one. From memory, I stuck a resin nose on it.
6:03 i hate the decals on these i am building a a320 British airways
the decals get so easily damaged the worst part is it is the only brand i can find localy!
Mistercraft decals are a bit of a struggle, I find some microscale liquid decal film on the top can help
Ist der "Sherman" am Ende nicht eigentlich ein Firefly KIT mit falscher amerikanischer Anmutung?
Not sure what you are referring to here, we don't cover a sherman in this video
@@ModelMinutes around minute 14:53 to 60 and at start for 1 sec. M4?? Sherman ?
it is just B-roll footage of me working on building a model. It has no basis on the content of the video, just something to show on the screen whilst i introduce the video
revell kits are for Aunties to give their Nephew as Christmas/Birthday presents. Shudder at the thought of having one
😂
Hmmm. I haven't built a kit since the early 1970s. At that time, I built a few A/C kits, 1/32nd scale. for my young son to play with. I also gave him my old built kits from the 1950s that I built as a young boy. I noticed the usual size of this video was 1/72nd scale. Are the 1/32 or 1/48 models no longer produced or too expensive? The point is, as you said, "Did I enjoy doing it?"
Aircraft models are still available in 1/32 and 1/48, they aren't particularly expensive either
I loved the Fiat G50 - though its about 10 years ago that I built it
I’ve already encountered the worst kit I’ve built of 2025 in the Monogram M48A2
I actually like the classic AirFix kits. I haven’t built any planes but I have done a lot of their 20th century ships and some of their tanks. The kits are simple as you would expect and have some problems but I view them in the same lenses as buying a reissue of a 1980s video game or action figure a bit of a novelty. I enjoy the ships a lot. I have heard nightmares about the classic Victory model and how it’s better to find an original one but it seems that the Victory is cursed as Revell also has a Victory which is also not great. Say what you want about Classics but at least you know it’s a kit from the 50s unlike Revell where the box is black which indicates new while the green tends to be older and you open it to find the same kit from 30 years ago.
If you want to try another really bad kit from mistercraft, do the bm-8-24. The plastic is really cheap, the instructions are for a different katjusha kit. The only actual instructions from mistercraft are the ones for the different top, and the suck. There is a lot of problems with the tracks also. It's 8 pounds in my country so the quality is expected.
thanks for the suggestion but I might try and build some better kits in 2025
The worst kit I built last year was the Bronco Valentine mk. XI. On the one hand, it's overcomplicated mess. And while the details look good (I can't judge how historically accurate the kit is), some parts were literally twisted. And in my experience, the Bronco decals are terrible. This isn't the first Bronco kit I've built and they've all had the same quality of decals.
Hey guys new to this what does the term “tooling”?
tooling is often used as slang and refers to the mould that is used to make the plastic part. Effectively when we say the "tooling date" it means the time when the mould was made. The moulds generally consist of large blocks of metal which have to be machined with tools to create the moulds that are then used for injecting the plastic into to create the model kit sprues - hence "tooling".
Quite typically, given the advances in manufacture technology over the last 80 years or so, something that was tooled back in the 50's would be rather crude, as it would have been done a lot by hand and fairly basic machines. Nowadays, the moulds are made with precision using computer controlled milling tools and other more advanced technologies to give much more detailed components.
Over time, as the moulds get used, they will become worn and possibly a bit damaged. Again, older tooling dates of the kits may have indications of this wear and tear from scuffs, scratches, miss-shapen parts and extra bits of plastic which seeps between the 2 mould halves which is called flash.
These are generally seen as poor quality features in a model kit as it requires more work to clean these parts up before they can be used. Crisper toolings to a higher standard will be a better model (but not always - again this depends on some of the other factors previously mentioned).
Tooling these model kit moulds is usually the most expensive part of the manufacture process. Small and simple moulds might cost only a few thousand pounds, whilst the bigger and more complicated model kits may have multiple complicated moulds which costs upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds to create. When people complain about new kits being "expensive" they are often forgetting that these high costs of design and manufacture will need to be recovered by the company in some way in order to justify the creation of the model.
Sorry I went on a bit of an info dump, but I hope it helps in some way
@ thank you ever so much! That was a great read! Thank you for your help! Maybe it could be a future video idea for beginners, terms and different ‘slang’.
Thanks again
Let’s be fair, most of the Airfix reissues were the types of kits that I used buy on a Saturday morning and build and paint before 5pm , it at intended for an expert build, didn’t expect too much in the early 1960’s
can we really say who these kits are "intended" for? Or is that just how certain members of the modelling community will perceive them?
Afterall, there is nothing on the box, or published by Airfix that these models should only be built by older, more experienced modellers. I think they have no problem whatsoever selling these models to whoever wants to buy them with zero gatekeeping of that fact
@ I can remember Aurora kits that I used to build, some of these consisted of about 10 parts, with the pilot that was moulded into both sides of the fuselage, you could class this as dark ages for modelling or the birth of this great hobby that I’ve been enjoying for the last 65 years. But I still build some vintage kits, as the old proverb says, but you can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
I'm also VERY glad at how you pronounced "decals".
Every model that i have built, being American?
I say it the same way.
I only say it that way because I’d only ever seen it written as a child, it wasn’t until I was older that people told me there are other ways.
But, I do what I want and it doesn’t bother me if people say it other ways
One thing that I think would alter your perspective is the possession and use of very basic modelling skills. Not cleaning up join lines and using thick glues is basic school boy weekend kit bashing. Build them with some care and attention to basic finish, then see what your thoughts on them are. The Rotodyne for example can be turned into a nice replica with a little patience and application of 'model making skills'. The Dora Wings kit has absolutely nothing wrong with it, again basic modelling skills required for what is 95% a very good kit. Perhaps restrict yourself to Tamiya 'shake and bake' kits where you can focus on spending the time on the small amount of clean up required to assemble the model instead of putting in the modelling work to get to the point where you can start to finish the model.
I review model kits on this channel, and I measure them all off the same basic criteria. If we give bad models a free pass by making up for it by putting in more work and applying more skill than we would in other models kits, it doesn't mean that it is a better kit, has a better quality or is not worthy of criticism.
I may not be a particularly talented modeller, but I am able to objectively decide between 2 kits and determine if one has better quality features than another.
You say there is nothing wrong with the DW jeep, but when it is a 2021 tooling and has no alignment markers for the parts, poor fit, gaps, questionable design choices of assembly i would disagree. In comparison to a 2021 tooling from another manufacturer that doesn't have these problems, objecctively in comparison it is work.
If a modeller glosses over all the problems with a model, says it is really good and it encourages people to go and buy it - but then they realise it is a bad model, they feel the review that informed them to get the kit was misleading.
I'd rather by audience felt they could trust my reviews rather than hiding the failings of a kit with my modelling skills. Bad kits exist and to say otherwise just allows companies to continue to sell bad models
@@ModelMinutes I didn't imply that the kits were up to the best of the likes of Tamiya but you do seem to miss the point that slating a limited run kit or a vintage kit sold as such because they are limited run, vintage or outstrip ones abilities is not at all subjective. Its like buying a base spec Fiesta and expecting it to measure up to a top line Rolls Royce, or expecting to be able to drive a 1960's F1 car when you have just passed your driving test (one would undoubtedly crash and burn), which is effectively what you have done. In order to be fair and subjective you would have to break them down into categories like Limited run - Vintage - Mainstream - Complex - Beginner, which would then make it informative and subjective. Fair shout on the Revell Mustang though, there are just some dog awful kits out there being marketed as modern kits and should be called out on their questionable business practices. They all know that model kits aren't just built by kids any more. At least Airfix have embraced the vintage kits and the attached nostalgia value and marketed them as such. You only have to look at Greg's Models to see what can be done with some of these old kits!
A base ford fiesta undoubtedly costs considerably less money than a rolls royce. These products are already marketed at different consumer bases through their pricing model alone.
Model kits however, are not always priced as such. Whilst there are more expensive kits than others, that doesn't qualify them automatically for being better quality.
If you look at any of my unboxing reviews, and build reviews you will know I measure the kits against the same basic standards regardless of whether they are limited run, vintage or whatever. I think that is objective (not subjective - as you stated originally. Being subjective is where you are influenced by personal feelings and opinions) and helps with transparency that my audience likes to see. I will afford leniency in certain areas based on tooling age etc if the manufacturer has been honest and open with these things.
The problem with the categories you lay out (and i have considered using similar in the past) is that they are far too convoluted to make sense. After all, how do we define something as "vintage"? Something that was made and released X amount of years ago? Something that is clearly stated as old on the box even though it was only manufactured last year? A 2024 re-release of an Airfix vintage classic kit would be objectively better than an earlier boxing from the 70's for example given it has new decals that had not aged and reworked instructions. Not all companies list the tooling dates on their boxes, do I then have to assume that people know how old a tooling is and treat it accordingly, or work on the assumption that a copyright date is to be believed? Do I take the base information on the box of the model and measure it off that?
How do we decide what is suitable for a beginner or mainstream? Do we base that off what the manufacturer says on the box - because even then they can't always maintain consistency across their range. For example, I have some Revell kits which have a skill level from 1 to 5, and other Revell kits which only have a max of 1 - 3. Would I consider something that perhaps from the Airfix range is a skill level 1, even though they are technically not aimed at beginners as they have a proper "starter set" beginner friendly range that was introduced in 2020?
These are far too varied and have too many nuances and exceptions to the rules that it would become impossible to measure them in such a way. Someone even suggested that I should weight the plastic sprues in a kit because more plastic = better value. But what if the kit is caked in flash? Does that make it a better kit because it has more plastic compared to a better, more crisply moulded one?
I measure the kits on the same standards across the board - the quality of the moulding, the clarity of instructions, the printing of the decals and so on. I then build the model and measure them against the same criteria in relation to the amount of filling, sanding and extra work that may be required to complete them to form an opinion for a review.
You don't have to agree with my assessment of these kits, but i try and create my reviews based on the main criteria that most people look for when buying a kit. After all, the casual modeller might not have the same level of knowledge that you do and be as forgiving with how to measure a model. All they may want to know is if a kit is worth buying.
I am always encouraging modellers to seek another opinion on anything that i review so please do take a look at some of the other channels to see if their thoughts match mine or if they disagree.
At the end of the day, i'm just trying to help people make informed purchasing decisions and at the very least, provide some entertainment
To paint modles do you just use normal spray cans?
depends on what you mean by "normal". If you take a look at any of my build videos you will see the kinds of products I use, ranging from hand painting acrylic and enamel paints, using spray cans and also airbrushing acrylics and lacquers
@ModelMinutes I mean can I just go to the shops, get any spray can, use it on the modle ,and will it work?
you need to check that the spray paint is safe for plastic. Even if you go to the shops there will be different kinds. No good getting "any" spray can if it isn't plastic-safe and only suitable for metal etc. Wouldn't want it to melt your kit.
Just read the label on the can and make sure it is suitable for plastic
@ModelMinutes ok thankyou so much:)
Built the p51 ages ago, and is top of the list for my worst kits. Great it’s in here too
Scalemates is handy for checking out the history of a kit’s content.
Yup, I use it all the time
I have built the Airfix Tiger in the 80s, when I was a teen. Well, I was very disappointed... Didn't enjoy to work on it. Same thing for the Airfix 1/72 Sherman.
It's a good thing they have replaced with new toolings
You should build the atlantis b-29 in 1:120, worst kit i have ever built
thanks for the suggestion, not sure I fancy trying any bad kits for a while though lol
I've never been a fan of raised rivets. To scale they would be as bir around as your thumb, or worse.
that mustang looking like they stretched it through a Taffy machine