Let's talk about: Chinese kits (XMAS RANT!) 🤬
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2023
- We already recently spoke about Takom and their wacky, misleading instructions & hard-as-nails plastic...- So what about the OTHER Far East (non-Japanese) kit companies?
I think I may be about to get really ANGRY! 😡 Your own blood pressure may rise too!
RANT ALERT!!! 😤🤬
Get your BS BINGO-RANT cards ready, and watch out for keywords:
'INSTRUCTIONS'
'RANT'
'KINETIC'
'INCOMPETENCE'
'LAZY'
'SIN'
'RIDICULOUS'
'GIBBERISH'
(Lol!)
Coming soon: Let's talk about Zoukei Mura & Tamiya...Stay tuned!
For more similar content, please check out my channel: / @peter-oxley-modelling... .
Please like, share, comment & subscribe! - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up building Airfix and Matchbox,buy on a Saturday morning,built by lunch,painted by teatime,and playing war with it and your soldiers on Sunday.I really do wish these kits would be brought back,although I know REVELL have some of their old moulds.
I remember those days!
I still buy old Airfix kits and paint them up with hairy stick. 😂
God those Matchbox kits were good when they were introduced.
@@timbrown4576 Multi-coloured plastic if i recall?They did an awesome 1/32 Dauntless too.
Blue and Red P51 Mustang for me. Very crisp and everything fitted. Blew Airfix into the weeds.
Trumpeter and hobby boss are basically the same company. The HB gets the A team while trumpeter ends up with the B team 😂
To a large degree, Trumpter kits are in 1/32, then Hobby Boss does the same kit in 1/48
@@kudukillaI personally like the trumpeter 1/24 aircraft kits and the giant hobby boss 1/18 kits, the only manufacturer to do these. They are fantastic, affordable kits that go together very well.
Thanks for the video Peter, very entertaining as per.
Just a note on Trumpeter, they do produce some decent 1/350 Royal Navy ships which are most welcome. Who else does a 1/200 scale HMS Hood?
I understand this may not be your genre but they build into very impressive large models of important historical vessels.
However if you want 1/700 scale ships then Flyhawk models are jaw dropping.
Keep up the good work.
I would suggest that these companies are not run by enthusiasts. They are only interested in your money. Unlike most of the Eastern Europeans and Airfix (How have come on great strides recently) who have people interested in the process.
You are absolutely spot on...👍🏻
To answer the question I forgot to answer it's the 1/72 scale Enterprise at EAA in Oshkosh, WI.
Sometimes I just want to build a kit quickly without hassles, and get on with the fun of painting / weathering / using it on the war-games table. HobbyBoss aircraft in 1/72 are great for that. Sturdy kits that come together well and no fiddling about.
Sometimes I want a challenge that is going to force me to think, and take weeks if not months of fiddling around to get a unique result. There are plenty of options there as well.
Sometimes I want an impossible challenge, where I have to push my "skills" way beyond their past limits, and fight the thing all the way to the end. I have a stash of old vac forms and blobs of resin that fill that niche really well.
No 2 kits are the same
That's fair comment. 👍🏻
here here, sometime's I just a want a quick hit build....
I wish someone would step up and create a company to make directions for companies' model kits like how Cartograph has done for creating decals for companies.
There's a (valid) reason for why most kit instructions appear the way they do. The CAD software used to design the kits is able to output the 2-dimensional exploded view drawings/views of the 3D models of the parts/assemblies. These tend to reflect the manner in which the parts are related to the assemblies they are employed in. As a consequence, the kinds of diagrams we see on kit instructions are not always the most suitable representations for ensuring any ambiguity in assembly/fit is properly addressed. Doing so clearly requires more effort and planning in respect of how the views are generated and edited. In the old days of CAD, this used to require hidden line removal and other editing steps. This is how we produced the technical publications for the designs we produced for example. Many designers don't have the appropriate skills to produce high end installation/removal instructions from my experience. It's simply a matter of how much time & effort these companies wish to invest in to satisfy the consumers who they rarely care about.
One of my favourite of all the many 1/76 M4 Sherman tank kits I've made, was one by Trumpeter. Beautiful mouldings, and went together like a dream.
Merry Christmas, Mr. Oxley! Thank you for the Video. Informative with things to watch out for.
I have always had great luck with Trumpeter in terms of the quality fitting parts, Academy also assembled very good. I built the Kitty Hawk F-22 in 1/48 scale and it was trouble from the start, The fuselage would not glue together properly and the gaps where the wings glued to the fuselage were very wide and had to be filled with epoxy filler, I finally had the plane assembled and painted to look acceptable, Then I was putting the decals on and they crackled and disintegrated the minute they were dipped in water, so I had to order some after market decals for a 1/4 of what the entire model cost. I then went and bought the Tamiya F-22 kit and will start it soon. Tamiya and Zvezda are the most high quality model kits I have found.
Most "model kits" made in china are like a kick in the balls 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Another point I would like to make is I read Scale Modeler magazine and they do reviews of many model manufacturers and there are pro's and cons to all kits regardless of which manufacturer mafe a particular kit.
For each good point of a mit there is bound to be something amiss right !!
My experiences with these companies is as follows:
Trumpeter - When it comes to armour (especially soviet subjects) they are very good. I've never built a trumpeter aircraft kit so I can't comment on those.
Kinetic - No complaints, although I've never built that sea harrier.
Border - Never built one, I've heard bad things
Great Wall Hobby - Their su-27UB kit is the only one I've built, and its excellent. No complaints.
HobbyBoss - Their Yak-38 is subpar, but not unworkable.
Academy - Their newer armour kits are excellent, no complaints.
Meng - Never tried, but I've heard good things about their armour.
I can add to that Gecko Models have some extremely nice, detailed kits. No complaints beyond only 1 error in the build manual on the A9 cruiser tank but very easy to note "hang on a tick" and fix.
Just to add onto the Hobby Boss part. They're no ICM, Airfix, or even Eduard but produce some decent kits for a reasonable price. So they have a pretty nice niche they fill.
Maybe I'm a bit late, but i try to avoid Chinese made Model companies.
Not because they have only bad kits, but because i don't want to support a regime that is contrary to my ideals.
The company I worked for also has some factories in China. Not because of product quality, only to produce as cheap as they can. And to avoid any labour laws.
Stiff drink in hand -wine? For God’s sake don’t visit my house then. But seriously folks…
I’m building both a Trumpeter and Kinetic kit right now. The Kinetic kit I’m wrapping up is their MQ-9. The instructions were practically useless, except for the diagrams the call outs were about 90% wrong. Hardly any of the actual parts matched the callouts. It also appears that Kinetics uses a low pressure injections system as their details were rather shallow and not consistent. Fit and finish can be hit or miss. The Trumpeter kit I’m working on is the huge S-300V and so far no glaring issues but we’ll see.
Takom and Meng are from Chinese Hong Kong as well. Being newcomers the thing that impresses me is their high pressure, crips and detailed moldings. Takom’s decals seem to appear to be a bit on the heavy side, but perhaps getting a bit picky. One thing to note with Kinetic - Cartograf decals which really surprised me.
Would I steer clear of all Trumpeter kits in the future? I have several kits in my stash but so far no. Kinetic kits are another story. I place them in the Airfix catagory. If nobody else makes the subject matter and I really want to make it and don’t mind spending ten times the times fixing errors then I’ll bite but other I agree, steer clear. Have yet to make a GWH kit yet, so can’t comment. Just my two cents.
Well, I am from Cheshire! 🤭
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-LabAhhhh! lol…if you ever make it over to the States please stop by our house! We’re in the Midwest section of the US, Minnesota to be exact. I’ll hook you up with some of my cocktails here and we can all sit around the fire pit and talk model talk. Good in depth video, and thanks again!
I have one good chinese joke- Great wall hobby P 61 B 1:48 decals: Theres a decal representing plate with text to throttle /propeller handles on left side of pilot station.
Text on this plate says something like: "QWERTY Happy People"
Good rant. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
I think some Chinese manufacturers are lack of knowledge of aircrafts. Most of them are more focused on AFVs. So when they design an aircraft model, they simply put on random details instead of putting efforts on researching like Tamiya or ZM. Mention about specific manufacturer, Trumpeter was more friendly for kids’ pocket money when I was young. Border’s instructions are nightmare, they didn’t put any effort into researching and reviewing, but their new aircrafts with buckled skin are attractive, maybe the price is more attribute to tax. I got their 190 with about half of the price. However the interior details of Border’s 190 is far from ZM’s. My personal idea is Border has more potentials, hopefully they can improve their researches in the future.
yes, the chinese kits can bring one close to tears sometime, but with patience a good model can put on the shelf ( and yes the instructions do reflect an almost complete lack of sense many times ) BUT they do give us a wide variety of subjects to model besides ME109's and P 51's
Awesome, awesome, awesome, Peter you hit the nail on the head with every issue you raised. Thank you for being there to inform us of these issues and call out these model companies for their sometimes poor effort. I’m grateful that we have companies like this on the other hand, but that means that we have a hobby that have raised the standards of what good is. Long gone are my days of buildings, hawk, testers, Lindberg, and other early companies that built for children and not for adults who are now 95% of the market. Keep up the great work and I always enjoy listening to your rants. Actually, they are very informative and it shows your research and personal knowledge of subjects. I can tell you research these things and have personal experience and not just somebody coming off half cocked. I guess I’m a Peter Oxley fanboy! And I’m proud of it. Thanks again for your work Jim.
Thanks Jim...I try to be factual and fair whilst hopefully entertaining. 👍🏻😆
You are all three. Looking forward to more reviews. And I must say you are an excellent modeler as you have displayed some of your work to us at various times and it’s very impressive. Well done. My favorite of your is the meng Me 163B “Komet” I bought one after seeing yours.
@@jimletizia1942 Thanks very much again Jim! Just watch the tricky wing join / gap. 😉
Will do.
I made the Kittyhawk Jaguar.. over about 5 years! I gave up halfway through but only when another company released an engine for it did I finish it. But oh boy it nearly ended up in orbit!
Yes indeed, it is notoriously awful! 😩
As a matter of principal I avoid anything Chinese when I can.
I have not built anything from any of these companies……..yet, I have two or three in my stash, so thank you for pointing out some of the flaws I might encounter, I don’t mind if things like aerials and probes etc are incorrectly positioned because I don’t have the knowledge about the actual subject of the kit, but by the same token I don’t want to have a kit that I can’t assemble due to poor instructions or paint schemes not being included. Thanks again for enlightening me.
I build the Trumpeter 1/32 Skyhawk M and the kit is quite good. Also their MIG 21MF 1/32 is quite detailed and good kit for the price.
An Absolutely delightful rant. Season’s greetings. I recently built a Kittyhawk Super Etentard and a Meng F-4E and my experience was exactly what you described.
Some of the early Trumpeter car kits were run by American car nuts and sent back to the drawing board 15-20 times. They are pretty good. The rest of the line, not as much.
Buy cheap cr@p, get cheap cr@p. Don’t bother unless you want the challenge.
I agree, but these are NOT cheap: THAT is the problem. 😕
Also, I fully understand your frustrations with how Academy proves no background info whatsoever about many of the squadron markings with their aircraft kits. Perfect point case, their 1/48 F-16A/C with that very eye-catching red and white striped tail fin, what is the story with that particular F-16?! The USAF normally does not apply celebratory paint schemes to their jets, not like how European air forces and the JASDF do so it's rather unusual to see that on an F-16 yet in all of the books and magazines I've seen on the Falcon I've never seen *THAT* particular F-16. By doing a bit of research into the squadron and fighter wing markings, I've deduced the F-16 was from the 512th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 86th Tactical Fighter Wing sometime in the early 1980s marking the transition from the F-4 to the F-16 and marking a milestone or anniversary for the 86th Wing, there are three squadron markings on the tail I can't identify, I think that was from the days when the 86th was a fighter group in WWII and flew P-47s. I was also able to somehow find one photo of that particular F-16 on the Net somewhere, finally! So, there really was an F-16 with those markings, today the 86th is a transport wing flying nothing but "heavies" having given up their Falcons in the mid 1990s. Wheew! 😓
Having been in engineering for 40 years and dealing with the Chinese in the last 20 for local maket production, this is how they are. They can copy but they cannot or do not want to invest time in doing the job properly. Even when they are told how to do it, unless you spell it out, leave nothing to logic. They will make a pigs ear of it.
I didn’t mention but I too had a similar experience in manufacturing of material from China 10 years ago.
Yes, i'm almost finished on the Kinetic F16 Brakeet. Super bad instruction, putty everywhere.(thank god for valejo putty) and so much more headaches...the worst part i guess, is that it costed me a 100.00$ Canadian!
In defence of the academy kit instructions, I think the 2nd is made to be printed in colour for the final paint scheme of the finished model. Keeps cost down printing on cheaper paper & in black & white on the 1st manual. Still a bit of a pain but can be worked with. Great video as always Peter!
Agree that the manual was meant to have the cheaper B&W print for the assembly for costs and the color printing for the color schemes, though they'd have saved a few cents if they just printed only the 4 pages of the color schemes, and the other 4 pages of the assembly instructions stayed with the B&W print instead. At least the numbering is ordered sequentially and organized like in that A-10 from 1 to 12 in the B&W portion and followed by 13 to the end in the color sheet. Unlike GWH which I haven't found any rhyme or reason to their ordering of the steps or sheets whatsoever in none of their kits I own, like one sheets has steps 1, 2, 99 and 10 and another separate sheet has step 3, 15 and 6 and another sheet steps 4, 13, 7 & 9. FFS even kitty hawk had some logic when you understood that their color sheets were just stapled together to the middle of their booklets once you pull them off the staples you had a normal booklet and separate color sheets. Also I don't see any complains when Tamiya includes like several separate sheets in their models, one B&W booklet for assembly, one B&W foldout for the subjects information and a color one for the schemes and decals.
Another great program, Peter! I mentioned before I got the Trumpeter 1/72 CH-47A Chinook from my wife for my birthday this year. It all looks great to me, and the reviews I've seen are very good. But, I think I'll avoid them unless it's something really special I can't get from another manufacturer... As for Academy, I usually have pretty good knowledge about the subject kit, and enjoy doing my own research, but I agree it would be nice if they put something about it -- especially since many of their kits are so good for beginners. The other thing that really bugs me is the part numbers in the instructions are so tiny... And, like the Academy kit you showed here, Tamiya (🥰) really made a mess of the 1/48 Spitfire MkI instructions. As you found, there are two booklets, one B&W, one colour gloss, and when it comes to stenciling and decaling, they have you jumping around between one and the other. It's the only Tamiya (🥰) kit I've ever been disappointed with, although I managed to turn out a pretty good build, and it looks great on the diorama with the Tilly and ICM figures... I'll look forward to your upcoming Tamiya video. Cheers!
Thanks Steve. I have shot the Tamiya vid already and yes indeed that spitfire comes in for a beating, so you are sure to identify with it! 👍🏻
Love your passion Peter your right you have to do ur research cheers
Academy - I built the RAAF F111C, and the instructions were unclear around the different intakes. Also, there was no clarity on which weapons to load - the latter is simply fixed by a search! Meng - I have built the F/A-18F, and the only let down was some lack of detail in the instructions, particularly wrt the undercarriage. Otherwise it built up into a lovely kit.
One thing that you raised, and should be considered, is the subject. I will browse through online catalogues and hobby shops and see what out of the ordinary kits may be available. I am normally a 1/48 and 1/32 aircraft modeller, but 1/72 suits as well when I cant get a suitable model in my preferred scale . I have built the Dora Wings 1/72 Savoia Marchetti S55 - not too bad a kit, but a great subject, and looks nice next to the Italeri 1/72 MK1 Sunderland in RAAF 10 Sqdrn markings. I am building the Valom DH Flamingo which I bought off the shelf at Frontline in Newcastle, NSW. - try getting the SM or Flamingo in another maker! ICM are fantastic - great subjects, and understand the market - they are not competing with the mainstream producers. I have the 1/48 Beaufort - it is a lovely kit, and the thought that goes into the model is something else. This is exemplified by the piece they provide to fill in the interior at the wing root - the Sally has the same. I am waiting for a DAP Beaufort (else a conversion) with the PW engines and larger tail.
And back to your rant - the HB 1/48 LCT is largely okay - detail issues with the ramp cabling, but excusable, as there is very little original material to work with!
Where does my rambling take me? Do your research, accept $%^& if you are stuck on a subject, and lets try and educate the up and coming modellers! However do not take the fun out of the hobby through being too An%^.
Want a laugh? The Trumpeter 1/350 HMS Hood is more accurate than their 1/200 version because Trumpeter in their wisdom decided to ignore the latest findings from the HMS Hood association 🤣
Never made a GWH. Thanks for the review. So many awesome companies kow. We are spoilt.
You got that right! But they need to make more effort for the money.
I have just recently finished a Hobby Boss PLAAF MiG17 1:32 scale and I loved it , Easy to build and simple instructions, plastic was nice too ... finished up in natural Metal with the National markings, It is my favourite model . Mind you I love the MiG17 and have also just done the REALLY OLD ..1:32 scale Airfix one (SMER rebox) .. That is a nice one as well ... bit more tricky and compared to the HB one SLIGHTY smaller in size .
Ya know I've actually got a MiG-17 (or F-5A since it's a PLAAF scheme included) boxed by Trumpeter... so how much you wanna bet it's the same tool? Which if it is I won't complain if it's a legit good build. Though I will say for a 1/32 kit it seems to suffer from the same problem as Revell's 1/32 Hurricane they put out recently, a big kit without many parts to help justify it...
Great to hear!
Really enjoyed this, you're correct on so many points.. But.... The latest Kinetic RAF Pucara kit in 1/48 scale is a beautiful kit, well worth a review. Keep up the good work old chap...
I appreciate these reviews, I am still quite new coming back to building models, I have bought the Tamiya ME 109 G6 following your review and it’s fantastic. I want to do an FW190 next any recommendations for that.
Both Tamiya and Eduard FW190's are good, and the latter still have the earlier better decals. 👍🏻
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab that's great thanks. 👍 good to know about the decals as well. I will have a look and see what versions of the FW190 are available,
@@paulmoore6345 Just be sure the Eduard kits are pre-2021. 👍🏻
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab will check on scalemates. Hopefully that will give me a good idea
To be fair Peter, these companies produce kits of bety unusual prototypes. The hobbyboss range of focke wulfs is excellent. The Tumpeter 1/32 flankers are lovely (l have all three) l agree that the instructions require attention though. In fact my border 1/32 focke wulf 190 didn't have any!
I must admit all the meng models i have done (mostly amour ) have been very good 41:27
That is their strong point but they dropped the ball badly on the DR.1
Jolly good rant sir 😂 off to watch the meng phantom review forgot all about that one😮
I'm currently building the Trumpeter 1/32 SBD Dauntless. Not in the same league as Tamiya or even Airfix. But so far it doesn't seem too bad.
For me, the worst kit I've ever built was the not so, Special Hobby Airspeed Oxford. I will never buy another SH kit thats for sure.
Oh really? 😨 That's a shame...we had high hopes for that one! 😞
THe AMG 1/48 early Bf 109s are the same in terms of their instructions. I've been working on a C1 and the instructions have been terrible in indicating, or rather not indicating where exactly the parts are supposed to go. They've also included parts like the seat adjustment chain which aren't even visible when the cockpit is installed. There's a half-decent engine which can't be displayed via an openable cowel. The control stick is also the wrong type for this variant, being a carryover from the A. Despite this, the kit is fairly accurate which makes the shortcomings all the more frustrating.
I have built a Trumpy Tu-160 - not a problem, also their 1/48 Wellington. Beautiful kit. Takom LUN Ekranopan, again very nice, just a file to a couple of parts. I have 4 Kitty Hawk Voodoos - now they will be fun, plus a T2 Jaguar, which has some rep. But you should see some of the crap I build. Mach 2...Magna...Unicraft... FM Halifax. You want to try some of them and see how much you need to drink before getting to the finish line. 😂
Trumpeter Armour is Brilliant, and the Minibase Flanker is the best kit I’ve ever built. Just my two peneth
Fair comment. But MB Flanker too many parts and TOO expensive
In my opinion I dont think Trumpeter should be put right at the bottom... I recently completed a 1/24 JU87A Stuka by them and all went really well. Really good quality and easy to follow. I have also done a hobby boss 1/18 FW190 which was equally as good - both look great hung up from my ceiling with the rest of my collection. I dont think just because its chinese makes it a bad model but like you say finer details like historial colours and history of the aircraft are left out. But that said I dont think Chinese models are marketed at "Pro builders" though. Keep up the great videos I'm enjoying them 👍
Recently I built a Chinese kit, the SBD-3 Dauntless 1/72 from Flyhawk, it wasn't too bad.
Plenty of decent ones, just beware as some are pretty poor...
I'm now tempted to go get a Border 1/35 Bf.109. For 40-odd years I've been mourning the lack of 1/35 aircraft, whilst simultaneously wishing that all the manufacturers who do 1/35 scale ground stuff would use 1/32 instead.
The plastic is great, but instructions dire...😕
Peter + thanks for the rant its good to get things off you chest i do agree with you on some of these kits and the manufacturers tho they can do better i have some of these Trumpeter's kits because they are the only ones that make some of the kits i am looking for in 1/32 scale like the Devastator torpedo plane they are the only manufacturer to do that subject in 1/32 scale case in point keep up the good work maybe these manufacturers will hear your rant and take it to heart and fix these messes
I hope so Dennis...thanks! 👍🏻
FAO PETER OXLEY! For the sake of your sanity DO NOT look at the Mistercraft 1/72 Sea Harrier FRS.1. It makes your Kinetic kit look like Wingnut Wings!
Nooooooooo!? 😱
Hi Ian Just had a quick look, but it's only £10, (not £70 as Kinetics were) so not quite the same level of deception really, is it?
True!
From my experience, both Academy and Hobby Boss fail with their instructions at the paint-scheme stages; the colours are well described throughout the build, but when it comes to which version to finish the kit as, they give you all the options for supplied decals, but there's no info to tell you which squadron, where they're based, and when.....which I find very annoying...OK, Google will generally sort it out, but it should be there on page.....
Shame, because I've really enjoyed building their kits and generally, they go together well, and with Academy, you can see they try to mimic Tammy's style (on the kits of theirs that I've built...) 👍
The plastic is good, well moulded, fits well, and makes up into a nice model. Trumpeter I've done one armour kit, so hard to judge, but I found the instructions vague about placings of pieces, and in places, the fit of parts was a bit 'iffy'..!! 😂 It still built-up well overall, and If I remember correctly it gave the proper regiment details for the couple of paint schemes supplied...
So as Trumpeter, Hobby Boss, and 'I Love' are basically the same company, why can't they ALL have the same info? They share similar packaging; nicely segmented areas, and foam wrap for delicate parts...???
Oh well, if some are 'learning', then that's good, and I hope it continues; they can turn out some exquisite molds for other manufacturers, and the quality of plastic is excellent; they just need to look to their own brands and finish the modelling process for the purchasers - they really should look to Airfix and Tamiya to learn how to produce quality instructions. 😉
My view as a "veteran" modeller is this..These days theres way too much emphasis on "weathering".Personally,im all for some combat effect,but also a kit does look nice as if factory fresh.You can ruin a kit i think with too much emphasis on weathering.In MY day,you ran home with your kit,got out your "paintbox",glued it all together,and then ran over to your mates to show it off.Bit of string(if aircraft)and on the ceiling,until next weeks kit.Obviously if you got a huge megakit like the Airfix 1/24s then you really took your time.
I agree with you strongly...One example is the over-weathered models of Falklands War Sea Harriers: During the conflict they were mostly freshly painted less than 8 weeks prior! 😂
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab Each to their own of course,but im not a big fan of "weathering".
@@j.4332 I hear you...Still think the Tamiya catalogue looks great with beautifully painted (Non-weathered) models...Sometimes it seems like a race to see who can do the most extreme examples! 😖
I for one, am overjoyed that Kitty Hawk went belly-up. Of the one KH kit I tried to build, I don't think they did a single test-fit of any parts, let alone a full trial test build, before it went to market. It was truly awful. Quite the worst kit I have ever come across (and I am including 1960's Revell & Airfix etc in that).
Well said Sir. Good riddance to bad rubbish!
I agree. Im doing their RF-101 and it is the worst kit I have made in many ways.
The Kitty Hawk 1/32 Texan/SNJ is a great kit.
I've only built one Trumpeter kit and it was very good and extremely cheap for what you get. I built their British AS-90 in 1:35. I upgraded the barrel to a brass one and their was 1 discrepancy with the instructions regarding the turret mounted basket stowage but generally speaking it was very allreet 👌👌
But Chris, Have you seen the three kits I named? 🤢
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab No, I probably just got lucky with the As90!
Currently building a Revell 🫣
Their London routemaster bus which is a recent tooling so should be okish 🤞
Wish me luck! Still building the Leyland engine and so far so good.
When it comes to the manufacturing of pieces, as long as pieces fit together well and there are not many seams or misalignments to correct, and as long as the model itself is recognizable enough so as to make it unnecessary to explain what machine is it trying to represent, I am okay with it; I am no way as demanding and "fusspot" as more experienced modelers can get.
As for these brands, in all these years I have only built one Trumpeter kit (1/48th SA.365 Dauphin 2 helicopter) and decals were so atrociously bad (so fragile, and reluctant to stick on place) that I refused point blank to buy any more Trumpeter kits (a promise that I kept till now). The thing is that if Trumpeter decals are really that bad, you just can throw them to the dustbin (or burn them) and rely on other, better decals.
As for other brands like Academy or Hobby Boss, I do have some more experience with them. I have bought and built a number of Academy kits, and they are quite similar to their Trumpeter fellow countrymen as regards the decals (at least those manufactured until 2010), but with the addition that some moulds leave a bit to be desired; specifically, some 1/72nd Curtiss P-40 that I built, with those blunt propeller spinners and unproportionately tall and narrow canopies. Nonetheless, my latest Academy kits were surprisingly enough much better. Their 1/72nd Curtiss SB2C Helldiver for instance has little to envy from idolized brands like Tamiya, and I am currently working on their 1/72nd Me-163 Komet and so far, so good.
And last, I admire Hobby Boss kit for their extraordinary simplicity and snap kit-like character (ideal for people with little or no experience on this hobby, and excellent testbeds as well for more experienced modelers who may wish to put into practice their skills on hand-crafting extra pieces. Nothing better to build something straightforward and quick.
Even more popular brands, like Italeri, also have their issues, specifically with the instructions (no indication on how to paint some parts, unclear placement of some pieces...). So, been improvable kits is obviously not exclusive to Chinese brands. Even Revell is quite inconsistent as well in the quality of their products.
Academy and their fellow countrymen at trumpeter.. i do not think that Academy would appreciate being called chinese since they're a South korean company 😅
Alas, Trumpeter is about the only game in town for 1/200 scale ships (although most all have many "fixes" to do). I don't see myself ever buying another Hobby Boss or Kinetic kit (some nice subjects...but the only one's I've ever had were horrible). I've had good luck with the majority of the Academy kits I've built. I've not built GWH...but have heard their F-15 kits are excellent. I've a friend in our local model club who bought the Border Models Bf-109 and was amazed the instructions had NO color call outs.
I built the hobby boss F-84F in 1/48 scale a while back. Enjoyable kit to build but the colour scheme was hilariously wrong. They must have done zero research on the colour scheme other than seeing a poor quality photo on Wikipedia.
Trumpeter instructions on the Model Ship Kits ( 1/350 Scale ) are good - although sometimes accuracy of the ship part or era is wrong
trouble is there is no alternative if you want a Royal Navy WW1 / WW1 ship - unless its Academy or Tamiya for the odd one .. great video
Yes in fairness, I should have said people seem to like the Ship kits & I have not had one of those, but my complaints about the aircraft I named is valid.
See these companys stole ip made copies got going on price but in the end the copying and lack of creativity shines thru. It is about numbers not quality. As for others not in China it has been a slow climb Tamiya my model maker (1/36 or 1/32nd armor exclusively for my war gaming)
I just bought the Bandai "Boba Fett" 1/12 scale. I was having so much fun with it, it goes together like butter, that I was obsessed with finishing assembly pretty much in one shot!
They have TONS of Bandai Boba Fett kits in stock at Ollies Discount Outlet in the United States.
Star Wars is DEADER than just about every other sci-fi franchise. (Well, not as many Doctor Who toys make it to the US so I can't comment on that one BUT Star Wars is definitely dead!) The Mandalorian and Book of Boba Fett absolutely DESTROYED the popularity of this character. He used to be one of the most popular Star Wars characters.
Last time I was in the local Ollies, they still had plenty of Boba Fatt model kits in stock for $12.99 US. That's CHEAP for Bandai Star Wars. When I saw this kit elsewhere, it was still marked $34.99
@@AvengerII Well, I still enjoy the "non- sequel trilogy" stuff, and it was a fun build...
Oh my...... This will be good!!
Fasten your seat belts folks!!
Getting out a bottle of red for this one!!🍷
Oh yes!
Tumpeter have been great for me the u boat was brilliant !
OK…Their planes LESS good…
Academy are great.
We will see...😈
🤭
Academy aren't Chinese though, they are Korean
@@seanfoster3052 I know, but I'm sure the title used to be Chinese and Korean??
Sotry missed it live but here now.👍
Enjoy! 😜
I build the Trumpeter 1/24 Hurricane 1 : excellent kit also the 1/32 Avenger.I know Trumpeter released some bad kits, but also lots of nice kits.
The Hurricane is horribly inaccurate...
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab To me it looks very nice, i am not counting rivets
@@lucferrari3109 Fair enough. 👍🏻
I've built most of those brands and haven't had any major problems. With care you can get great results.
👍👍
Trumpeter = Trampeter, HobbyBoss = HoboBliss ....
🤣
The only out-of-box, styrene plastic, Canadian AVGP Grizzly, Cougar, and Husky available in 1/35 that I know of, and if NATO wheeled armour is your main interest you just have to suck it up and build Trumpeter
To be fair their vehicles aren't so bad but some of the aircraft are just dire.
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab That distinction is true: Hobby Boss 1/48 WWII soviet tanks are brilliant, but aside the 1/48 TBF Avenger, all their aircrafts are poor.
Regarding trumpeter, I am in the process of finishing the early 2000s 1/32 TBM3. I am a relatively experienced kit maker, and for me this has largely got it right, with good detail and fit, however the instructions are so so to say the least. With detail, some Eduard helps. The main issue is the wing fold - it is a bit clunky, and also, test fitting seems to indicate that the rockets won't fit on a folded wing (whereas I have seen videos and photos of the real thing were they do). Oh, and damned hard plastic. There are horror stories about the first 1/32 Wildcat and other models. I have a 1/32 Dauntless lurking somewhere, which also has good reviews. Is the term hit and miss, or, to be polite, mercurial?
No: Their early kits had a lot of fair or even great hits, as did the early Hobby Boss kits of 2007-2008. Since then they both have produced mostly garbage, as they are catering more and more to an ignorant, or uncaring, lower Asia or third world market. At least that is the only explanation I can see. (Note Great Wall Hobby is a cut above for jets, but HK is also terrible, and their only good kits are the B-25s researched by an European. I not only don't like them, I just spit on them. They are contemptible bandwidth polluters, reducing the likelyhood of other more serious maker doing these subjects. We are poorer in good kits BECAUSE of them...)
I’m an aircraft modeller but have heard that Trumpeter are quite good with warships, especially those from the Second World War. Is this so?
Actually that is probably fair comment, ships are probably their stronger products...it seems aircraft are their weakest.
The Trumpy ships are not always horrendous, but still not as good as their armor. Avoid their aircrafts, plain and simple...
PS.....re the Falklands.....the crabs won. We never turned up....😳😡😂
Ooooh! Controversial! 😜🤭🤣
Aww I have a few Chinese kits, many of which you featured in my stash already.
I will brace for disappointment, but whatever commentary, no matter how negative is also needed. The world isn't only about praise. To us adults at least lol.
Merry Christmas from Greece, Mr. Oxley
Same to you! 👍🏻🎄🎉🎅🏻
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab also, I have to agree on Kinetic. They are a nightmare, both in their engineering and instructions. I have a Mirage kit teetering in the balance between being scrapped or smashed entirely 😅
I have 4 Hasegawa kits in airplane models. They are good models.
737 in 1/200th scale, B-47 in 1/72nd scale, Hellcat in 1/32nd scale, A-6M Zero in 1/48th. All check out to be very good.
just built a trumpeter 1/35 ch angler 2 tank it was nice kit but the type 45 ship was a sack of shit
I have built some good HB and Trumpeter kits. No problems there. However, am currently struggling with a lousy ICM kit🤬
There are always exceptions to every rule...😕
True 🙂
Personally,
I LIKE a good rant once in a while! It's healthier than keeping your feelings all bottled in.
And Oxley is a neat name. Sounds like a fighter pilot's name!
That said, in the spirit of the holidays, could the next review be of a "Grinch" model kit or at least Scrooge? 😁
No I am more like Santa from now till the rest of the year, no more bad kits, just seasonal cheer! 👍🏻
Good rant mate. Cheers🎉
I would say that they must be pretty terrible if they beat the revel skua or the old airfix defiant or anything from pl models
I find with Academy the kits are generally ok but their decals are awful....so much as break up if you so much as look at them....thats my expeirence with them.
But their instructions are also poor...
As with all companies, you need to find out if a particular kit is a dog or a shining star. GWH has a great F-15C. Meng seems to have really turned around starting with their series of F/A-18’s. Meanwhile Tamiya has had some dogs like their Harrier and Hurricane (although the latter is really Italeri in a Tamiya box).
Yes, agreed. I try to do some research on scalemates and other places before choosing a kit. I learned this years ago after buying "Tamiya's" F-16 and F/A-18 that were really just Italeri reboxes. Most manufacturers get lazy or make mistakes. As I watch this I'm building Airfix's A-4Q which got the shape of the nose totally wrong and the paint scheme depicted in the instructions also has a lot of errors compared to photos of the real subject. As far as bashing Chinese kits I did just buy a Dream Model chinese helicopter and the decals say "Ghost Guard," lol. Hannant's, to their credit discloses this on their site.
@@vice10mmauto I saw on a video of Meng’s F/A-18 they have a Top Gun decal where it says US NANY.
Hi Peter, Love Your work. I have to say I'm baffled by your criticism of Trumpeter kits. their range of 1/48 aircraft are usually excellent (I've built quite a few). Their Chinese and Russian aircraft in particular are very buildable, have excellent detail and accuracy. My only criticism is the lack of detail on the colour sheet as to the aircraft squadron and location. Lets face it they filled a huge hole in post war FAA aircraft (some say they not accurate, but who else has does them.) The mob at Margate I'll bet would'nt look at doing an Attacker or Wyvern even though they love their british subjects (PS do yourself a favour get hold of a Wyvern and build one and then say Trumpeter are rubbish.
Their Armour kits a good as well .
Thanks Mike. I think some of their AFV vehicle kits are not too bad in fairness, perhaps I should have said that...but the three kits I named are pretty dire and not cheap...the Bear has some horrible quality and looks upscaled from 1/72
That is an old original kit their newer kits are good, but Trumpeter aircraft have just about disappeared since Covid
Remember Airfix's old Buccaneer, using that as yardstick Airfix could be looked at as crap model company Thanks Just saying@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab
@@mikeward8597 Please NO! Don't mention the old Airfix Buccaneer! 😵 See my 'The Good, the bad & the UGLY' vid...just mention of it brings back modelling PTSD! But the new one arrives in a week or two!👍🏻
Come on !!! ... I saw some people build the Kinetic Sea Harrier with no complains and also saw great videos on how to apply the new Eduard Decals . Myself made really great Trumpeter kits. Meng are one of the best kit manufacturers as well as RFM. Eduard kits are fantastic in my point of view. However I stay away from Border Model kits...
I don't think you have been paying close attention to the detail of what I said...there are different versions with different instructions...did you see the vids I posted with evidence of the issues? I know three other modellers who had exactly the same issues as myself and only one finished the kit and both agree with my view of it. Have you seen the bad Trumpeter kits I named? Obviously not...
While you are banging on about these manufacturers, the only thing that concerns me is they are able to produce details of things we can't photograph....it's a spy ring😳😂
I have found Academy and Hobby Boss to be quite good. Can’t comment on the others.
The 1/32 B-17 kits are pretty awesome-the instructions are a bit confusing.
I think that you need a taste of Château Margault to bare the chinese models companies!😂😂
the sws fw190 is very nice! be interesting to see your take on it
I am jealous if you have it already...will review it as soon as it arrives.👍🏻
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab I ordered it from Japan I live in aus and sometimes things take an age to get here. It really is something special and you will enjoy it. Fw190 is one of my favourite planes of wwii
I can look past some of the issues with Trumpeter because for a lot of subjects (across aircraft, armour, and ships) they are the only ones actually bothering to make them. If you are happy just building Spitfires, ME109s, and all the other usual subjects you don't need to go anywhere near them- but if you want a 1:72 Tu-160 or countless other 'off the beaten track' subjects then they are often the only option. I personally get far more excited when another unusual and never before modelled subject is announced by them, than I do when one of the premium manufacturers announces a 15th Spitfire variant or yet another Tiger tank. Yes they could improve certain aspects of their kits (and in fairness there is a BIG gulf between modern Trumpeter kits and those from the early 2000s), but I applaud them for daring to produce kits of subjects that nobody else can be bothered with. Trumpeter / Hobbyboss also produce arguably the widest selection of 1:350 scale ship kits that are mostly very good (and extremely well packaged), and are indeed the only manufacturer (I think) producing a number of ship kits in 1:200. If it wasn't for them we would pretty much be limited to building a Bismark/Tirpitz, or a KGV class for the German and Royal Navy historic subjects in 1:350. This isn't to say they shouldn't be called out where improvement is needed, but I feel they deserve a lot of credit for tackling the sheer variety of subjects that nobody else does, and for packaging most of their kits in a fashion that puts some of the 'premium' manufacturers to shame. Perhaps you could review some of their modern offerings Peter and see if it changes your view? I recall your review of their Tu-128 (a 2018 kit) was very favourable indeed.
If they or someone else sends me one I might consider it but based on their previous form, as I said, I wont't be commited my hard-earned on their kits.
@@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab that's fair, hopefully the opportunity presents itself, I do enjoy your reviews. I was just thinking that a larger (and more up to date) sample size would be beneficial when providing an opinion of a manufacturer- the Bear is a 21 year old kit from their early days. Some Airfix (etc) kits of similar vintage are likewise pretty ropey and not at all representative of their current standards. Again I mention the 2018 Trumpeter Tu-128 you reviewed recently that you were very complimentary about- their standards have come a long way since 2002. Keep up the good work though- the format of these videos is excellent, I'm very much looking forward to the Tamiya one!
@@dave177ful ICM, Zoukei Mura and Tamiya all coming by XMAS! 👍🏻 (RANT-FREE!) ☺️
Cool as always.
Thanks again!
That's very unusual types😂
The cgi artbox sux too.....
Tamiya all the way...good plastic, details ,sprus, instructions.
Tamiya review coming at Xmas...👍🏻
@Peter-Oxley-Modelling-Lab I built the Tamiya 1/35 scale Willys Jeep kit. It just goes together nicely with fine detail fit and very good instructios. An A for quality. I built the Italia brand 1/24 scale Willys and I would rate it B.. not quite as good fit poor instructions, mediocre plastic..
The Chinese do make very good HO rolling stock and loco detail.
Most Koreans hate the Japanese because of WW II. I have only had 2 Trumpeter kits and they were both fine. One was the FW 200.
Try the TU-95 Bear, it's truly awful for the money...like a kit from the 1960's, and the other two examples I named are also poor.
It’s odd that Trumpeter is bad and Hobbyboss is good when they’re supposed to be owned by the same parent company.
Its weird but the kits seems quite different in approach.
Can't disagree about Trumpeter instructions, absolutely dire, and I dont build their aircraft kits, only their armour kits. Vague locations on the instructions hardly make for a fun build.
Less ranting,more building
Pay more attention to the channel!
Great video.
Thanks!