The worst or difficult kit to build

[McColm]

Hi Guys,
Most aircraft kits are easy to build as there is a set procedure; cockpit, wings, fuselage, tail and rudder, undercarriage, flight refueling probe and canopy. Paint and decals.

Older kits such as 1/72 Novo tend to warp i.e. Shackleton. If you can get the Revell/Monogram kit this is much better but it has its faults as well.

The Airfix 1/72 Harrier GR3 is to be avoided, due to badly fitting parts. There are better kits available.

The 1/76 military vehicles and tanks by Airfix for example the Scammel Tank Transporter. The trailer is straight forward, but the tractor unit needs to be researched, as the vague Assembly is so frustrating. Unless you have a picture or a model of the finished article as a reference to hand.

Any tank that requires multi-wheels or track in 1/76. Aligning the wheels is a real pain and fixing the track, well I end up cheating by placing the kit in some scenery. Best bet is to use a larger scale i.e. 1/48 or get an adult to help you.

Ships and boats.
To build a 1/72 scale model of an aircraft carrier you would be looking at something between 15 and twenty feet long. The smaller scales 1/144, 1/1600, 1/1800 asks the question of how much detail should the modeller use. Having attempted to build a sailing ship, I have found that the rigging/sails can cause problems although I've yet to complete a warship build.

Cars, Vans and Trucks.
I haven't had any problems with metal or plastic kits in this field.

Sci-Fi/Spacecraft
I have built the odd USS Enterprise in various marks, without any major hiccups. All of them have been given away to friends or family. Who tend to get all sheepish it they have broken or thrown out the model that you gave them.

There are copycat companies that use a cheaper form of plastic for a fraction of the price than that of the Japanese manufactures. You can normally tell by the cheapness of the decals.

The general rule of thumb is the larger the scale the less problems you will have and the more you pay the better quality the kit will be, but there are expections to this rule as you will no doubt inform me about. Do some research about your subject, photos and drawings. Never rush the build, remember what are you going to do with the completed model, where are you going to store it and who's going to look at it.

[Weaver]

The Airfix Harrier GR.3 also suffers from bad design: if the real thing has a one-piece wing, why doesn't the kit? 

The Revellobox Mystere IV suffer from not having a positive wing/fuse joint: you have to jig it to get anything like the right angle. Quite a few old Matchbox kits suffered from this.


1/72nd and 1/76th tanks vary in the complexity of their running gear: Shermans can be quite easy because you build up each bogie seperately then add them as a unit. The worst I ever encountered was the Airfix Churchill: 97,000ish tiny little wheels, all of which have to line up at both sides.....

[Brian da Basher]

The 1/144 Minicraft Boeing 727 needs countless sessions of PSR and would test the patience of a zen master. Their 737 isn't much better.

Brian da Basher

[upnorth]

Revell's 1/48 CH-53G Stallion kit is a right pig in most ways.

Most things from Hobbycraft from the pre 1990 time frame are pretty nasty fare

Outside of aircraft, the single worst kit I ever attempted to build was the Lindberg eyeball anatomical kit. The two hemispheres of the eye were totally different diameters but the hinge that held them together worked just fine so it looked very bad when you closed the halves together.

[thedarkmaster]

More or less anything by A-model is a pain to put together, plastic is brittle , moulding is too thick and locating parts to each other is often a best guess situation but when they are done they can and do look nice

[MiB]

Mumble mumble....I remeber the first one, 30 years ago: combat glider Waco CG-4 Adrian (Monogram 1/48)

[NARSES2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again the Airfix 1/72 RE 8 still gives me nightmares - oh those struts 

If I built it now it would probably be ok but I was about 11 or 12 when I built it all those years ago 

[Mossie]

I've just recentley had 'fun' with the Airfix Strikemaster.  The fit of the parts is pretty bad & much putty-fu is required, including building some sections up.  I've lost a good chunk of the raised detail, it might still look good if I re-scribed this, but I've never done it before.

I've not attempted it yet, but I keep picking up & putting back the Revell Boeing SST as the nose of the 'landed' kit is badly warped & will need hot water treatment.

[Weaver]

Oh and how could I forget the Eastern European (various boxings) PZL.11 Iskra? Think no locating pegs is bad? Try locating pegs that are there but mis-aligned, canopy parts that don't fit each other or the fuselage.....

[B777LR]

I would say the Italeri SH-60 is bad. Currently doing one...
The Italeri 1/35 Tiger 1 and all related Tiger 1 variants from Italeri. Horrible.
The Starfix Bf-109. That one is next up on my workbench! Real world

The Airfix 1/72 Harrier GR3 is to be avoided, due to badly fitting parts. There are better kits available.

Funny, i always thought it was a rather fun and easy kit...

[chrisonord]

I totally agree with Tim on the one about Amodel, if you are of anervous disposition or have any heart problems, leave well alone
I also think the same about Ace kits, they are a  nightmare to build on a good day. I am part way through building a French AML-90, and it very nearly became part of the ceiling. I have a part done APC in one of my draws, and everytime I see it I shudder, as it is the worst fitting kit I have ever tried to make. I have heard Mach 2 kits are an abomination also, so I will steer well clear of those early grave makers.
Chris.

[lancer]

I agree about the Airfix Churchill, what a nightmare! also the Airfix F104G - I brought one a cold War GB but it was so bloody awful all that I kept was the decals and fuel tanks. Everything else was useless crap!
A model kits are a bit rough to be sure, but if you do them carefully they have a tendenvy to come out all right.

[PR19_Kit]

Oh and how could I forget the Eastern European (various boxings) PZL.11 Iskra? Think no locating pegs is bad? Try locating pegs that are there but mis-aligned, canopy parts that don't fit each other or the fuselage.....

Weaver,

That one really takes the cake for sure. When I first saw one I didn't know what the real aircraft looked like, and figured it was just an awful kit. In fact the kit WAS awful, but the real aircraft wasn't much better! 

Darned if I haven't still it too, goodness knows why........

[Hobbes]

The Matchbox 1/32 Westland Lysander is pretty bad as well. They've replicated the real aircraft's tubular frame which is nice, but makes the wing-fuselage joint very weak (it barely holds its own weight).
It also needs tons of test fitting (and even then I didn't get everything to line up).

[frank2056]

Oh and how could I forget the Eastern European (various boxings) PZL.11 Iskra? Think no locating pegs is bad? Try locating pegs that are there but mis-aligned, canopy parts that don't fit each other or the fuselage.....

Don't remind me! In some way it gave me a strange sense of accomplishment in finding and correcting all the various "issues" (more like subscriptions) with that kit. The canopy "fit" was probably the most annoying I've ever seen on a kit.

OTOH, this is a great whiffing kit - it can really test your creativity; coming up with a  canopy solution and fixing the other fit issues.

And as horrible as the kit design is, the shape and details are accurate! The real plane is just as clunky.