"Old" Kit Reviews

Yea. I agree.  Can someone write a review on my old Revell Mitsubishi Jack in 1/32.  It's still sitting there in the box.  Luckily Kitero has come out with a book that has decals for it, because I think my decals are toast.  I heard that the landing gear is weak, but I'm sure coats of super glue will take care of that.  Too bad I blew up all my Aurora BF109s and my yellow Zeros when I was a kid.

Great idea ! Not everyone can afford a new $60 to $80 kit with all of the new technology and pe  . Them older kits by Monogram are still great models and can be built up into a beautiful aircraft . And yet they are inexpensive enough for a begginer. 

Gents,

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree that many older kits are worth taking a second look at and FSM does occasionally review an older kit -- Paul Boyer built the Monogram 1/72 scale Twin Mustang in January 2011. The truth of the matter is we don't have the room to review every new kit let alone older ones. And while many new kits are hyper-detailed and priced at $60-80, we try to review new kits across the spectrum from entry level up.

Note that we frequently include stories about detailing or improving Monogram's gems.

Cheers, Aaron

Hans von Hammer

...As the man once said, "Newer doesn't always mean 'better"...  Ok, it was actually me that said that, but still...

I knew it: Hans von Hammer.... is THE MAN!!!

Didn't you get your wish with the current issue? I seem to remember several Monograms in prominent places.

Aaron Skinner

Gents,

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree that many older kits are worth taking a second look at and FSM does occasionally review an older kit -- Paul Boyer built the Monogram 1/72 scale Twin Mustang in January 2011. The truth of the matter is we don't have the room to review every new kit let alone older ones. And while many new kits are hyper-detailed and priced at $60-80, we try to review new kits across the spectrum from entry level up.

Note that we frequently include stories about detailing or improving Monogram's gems.

Cheers, Aaron

Thanks for the reply, Aaron... Being a subscriber, I was indeed aware of the Mongram kits that were featured, and was also quite pleased with the articles...  I alway love those articles that show what a average modeler, with a few basic scratch-building skills and some sheet & strip can do with these kits...

Proof-positive, IMHO, that one doesn't need to drop 70.00 on a kit and after-market parts to build these old favorites into contest-winners...   It just grinds my gears when I read other reviews of the old kits that "pooh-pooh" them, simply because the kits have raised panel lines and are sparse on detail... Franky, it needs to be pointed out more often, as I try to do, that the when it comes to recessed lines and all that, accuracy isn't always the goal...

 It's more the manufacturers bowing to the masses with pre-conceived notions that the panels MUST be butt-jointed, rather than the more accurate over-lapping type, which was what was much more common on aircraft of the 30's and 40's... Recessed lines on a kit don't always mean "accurate".  In fact, it was the masses that were responsible for the numerous amounts of raised rivet detail of the late 50's- through-60's...  Modelers of that time, simply thought that the rivet-detail looked better, and said so...  

Having got my start in "serious" modeling when there simply weren't any after-market parts around (or very few, being mostly a "cottage industry", I learned to make my own parts and improvements on those old gals, and I've just never stopped...

Anyway, thanks for the articles that y'all do manage to get into FSM... They make the wait between issues worth it... Oh, and please feel free to drop into the Group Build Forum and check out what's going in the "Monogram Mafia" group build.. Any comments from you would be greatly appreciated..

"Don" von Hammer

[quote user="VanceCrozier

Didn't you get your wish with the current issue? I seem to remember several Monograms in prominent places.

[/quote]

Mmmm... Sorta...  But a build article doesn't seem to carry the same "weight" as a review, IMHO...  While proving yet again that the old kits have a place on the real modeler's bench, the reviews seem to carry more influence on what people will build than what one guy does with one kit...

But then again, you know that I'm a great proponent of trying to persuade modelers to look back and try more of the classics, and along with them, learn new skills (or improve current ones) by digging into the parts bins and sheet styrene and add the details thataway, rather than running for the AM parts rack, or dropping all their money on the newest Shake & Bakes simply because they have a fret or two of PE parts...

I have a dream, that one day, all modelers become scratch-built detailers and that 50% of a contest build is in"Scope of Effort", rather than seeing how many pieces of AM brass they can glue into a cockpit tub...  But that won't happen I guess, since we all know that you can't put the AM Genie back in the bottle...As I've said before, I prefer to make "Quality kits" from "Quantity kits" in 95% of my work, and don't care if I gotta take three months to build a cockpit or engine for a 16.00 kit that another guy can do in three hours using the PE parts from a 70.00 kit of the same aircraft, lol... 

 I ain't on deadline to build these things, at least not often... Sometimes a GB or comission-build will do that, but I don't do a lot of custom work any more, since the last few really got me PO'd by bugging me over the progress...  I changed my rates because of those types, from 10.00 per hour if you furnish me the kit, to 50.00 per hour if you frnish me the kit and then call or drop by to check on the progress (70.00 per hour if you tried to build it yourself, then brought it to me, lol).... That's another thread though, lol..

Hans von Hammer

 

 

 

Proof-positive, IMHO, that one doesn't need to drop 70.00 on a kit and after-market parts to build these old favorites into contest-winners...

VanceCrozier

Hans von Hammer:

 

 

 

Proof-positive, IMHO, that one doesn't need to drop 70.00 on a kit and after-market parts to build these old favorites into contest-winners...

 

p38jl

 

VanceCrozier:

 

 

Hans von Hammer:

 

 

 

Proof-positive, IMHO, that one doesn't need to drop 70.00 on a kit and after-market parts to build these old favorites into contest-winners...

 

 

 

 

fred jack

Yea. I agree.  Can someone write a review on my old Revell Mitsubishi Jack in 1/32.  It's still sitting there in the box.  Luckily Kitero has come out with a book that has decals for it, because I think my decals are toast.  I heard that the landing gear is weak, but I'm sure coats of super glue will take care of that.  Too bad I blew up all my Aurora BF109s and my yellow Zeros when I was a kid.

The beauty of Google

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/rm/kit_rm_h268.shtml 

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Inbox/g-j/j2m3-raiden_32-i.htm

I know that the IPMS journal does old kit reviews. IPMS has even decided to let members receive pdf files of old articles or reviews from past issues of the journal.

I agree with your "newer doesn't always mean better" statement. Over 30 years ago, Tamiya released a Chi-Ha, arguably one of their better kits until the 1980s. Fine Molds (a high quality manufacturer of IJA tanks, planes and Star Wars kits) released one a little while ago. While it is "better", it's not 30 years better and cost several times the Tamiya kit.

To this date, the best M3 Grant or Lee model kit (in any scale) was made by Airfix in 1976 (the 1:32 scale kit). It is better than the old Monogram kits, old Tamiya kits or the Academy kit from just a few years ago. It is better than the Hasegawa kits and Mirage kits in 1:72 scale.

Thirty-five years later and an obscure model in an obscure (armor) scale made by a company noted for its aircraft kits still has one of the best M3s around.

Guys,

Just a quick note that subscribers have access to more than 1,100 past FSM reviews on the website. And we will continue to do reissue reviews as space and time permit.

Cheers, Aaron

Aaron.... you let your hair grow out?!?!?!

VanceCrozier

Aaron.... you let your hair grow out?!?!?!

Aaron must own a Van DeGraff machine...............

Out of curiosity, how old a kit would be too old for FSM members to have an interest in reading a review of the kit ?

For example:

Too old if the kit is out of production for more than 15 years ?

or

Too old if a more detailed kit is now available?

I research kits dating from the 1960s thru current production, so the chronological age of a kit is not a limiting factor in my research.

Sprue-ce Goose

 

VanceCrozier:

 

Aaron.... you let your hair grow out?!?!?!

 

 

Aaron must own a Van DeGraff machine...............

Just going back to a kinder, gentler image.

Aaron Skinner

 

 

 

Just going back to a kinder, gentler image.

Glad to hear that!

Good to see you Amy Pond. Glad you waited.

iraqiwildman

Good to see you Amy Pond. Glad you waited.

... for the Raggedy Doctor.

I would love to see reviews of older kits. I have been trying to get, within reasonable prices, some OOP Revell kits on Ebay- many I built when I was a kid and partly for nostalgic reasons, I want to do them again, but can find little on the net about them.

fred jack

Yea. I agree.  Can someone write a review on my old Revell Mitsubishi Jack in 1/32.  It's still sitting there in the box.  Luckily Kitero has come out with a book that has decals for it, because I think my decals are toast.  I heard that the landing gear is weak, but I'm sure coats of super glue will take care of that.  Too bad I blew up all my Aurora BF109s and my yellow Zeros when I was a kid.

Review of the Revell Raiden/Jack at Largescaleplanes.com http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reviews/review.php?rid=803

What about a special issue, the "ALL HAWK" issue, or "ALL REVELL", ALL MONOGRAM" etc... I'd buy it, and would happily submit an excellent build log of, say, "The HAWK 1/48 T-33A and What It's Done"...

The Hawk T-33A, the first chromed aircraft I ever built. No need to paint that thing!

I've still got a couple of the old Hawk chromed kits; a Mustang and a Bearcat.

I'm with Tigerman on this one - Google is your friend. There are multiple (worthwhile) reviews about 99% of the kits out there if you take the time to poke around a bit.

Be sure to include specific kit numbers in your searches, too. Or add the word "build" at the end. Will change your results considerably.

Rob Gronovius

The Hawk T-33A, the first chromed aircraft I ever built. No need to paint that thing!

I've still got a couple of the old Hawk chromed kits; a Mustang and a Bearcat.

Just scored the T-33 and P-51 on Ebay..

Hans von Hammer

 

Rob Gronovius:

 

The Hawk T-33A, the first chromed aircraft I ever built. No need to paint that thing!

I've still got a couple of the old Hawk chromed kits; a Mustang and a Bearcat.

 

 

Just scored the T-33 and P-51 on Ebay..

I know.. I built a lot a cars during my "Gearhead' phase..  Scraping the plating of mating-surfaces IS required..

I've always sanded the major mating-surfaces anyway.. The Testor's gets a better "bite" thataway..

I thought you were still greasy. I need a good car kit. There was a really cool Revell Porsche 911 rally car some years back, but I can't find it.

I do have the Monogram MGC half metal frankenkit in the stash. Courtesy of Liz Dawe the next day

I remember getting some serious money for the chromed OV-10 Bronco. Apparently, that original kit has wingtip sidewinder missiles that were deleted from later moldings. I was just happy with the Testors boxed version.