Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Why didn't they say that !?

10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Canada / Czech Republic
Why didn't they say that !?
Posted by upnorth on Sunday, April 6, 2003 3:06 PM
O.k. Folks, this isn't to bash the manufacturers, but more a wake up call to the finer points of quality control.

Ever have a kit on the go, get it finished only to find that something that got no mention in the instructions can become a masterpiece's undoing?

Thankfully more and more manufacturers are taking the notion to indicate when you actually need nose weight in you plane. however, thats usually easy enough to figure out for yourself.

Years ago I built Monogram's 1/72 B-36 Peacemaker, but over time, the weight of the wings over strained the support block included in the kit and I had an ugly and nearly irrepairable break at a wing root.

Don't they test these things before puting it on the market?

Any one of you want to pass on a warning about a kit, that the manufacturer didn't mention? I know they can't catch everything at quality control, so lets help em' out.Big Smile [:D]

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: United Kingdom / Belgium
Posted by djmodels1999 on Monday, April 7, 2003 2:09 AM
Possibly even more annoying are manufacturers showing off on the box a nice 'artist' vision of the model and finding that the parts inside do not allow you to model what's shown on the box-art... Typical missing items are bombs, missiles, fuel tanks, decals,...
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Canada / Czech Republic
Posted by upnorth on Monday, April 7, 2003 1:48 PM
Been there too.

I remember back in the mid to late 1980s, Monogram had a small series of 1/48 kits that I believe they called the "High Tech" series. Thes kits each included a small fret of very rigid photoetched parts and a little note in the instructions that the photoetch could be attatched to the plastic with ordinary white glue.

"O.K." I said, having NO previous experience with photoetched parts, and I broke out the trusty bottle of Elmer's. Yeah, right! Worked like a charm }:-(

I'm not sure what all was in the "High Tech" series but I remember an A-18, F-14, F-117 and an F-4D.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Panama City, Florida, Hurricane Alley
Posted by berny13 on Monday, April 7, 2003 3:03 PM
I see you all suffer from the same thing I do. I failed Mind Reading in high school and collage. Eight Ball [8]

The kit makers expect us to read minds. Just like a wife. Black Eye [B)]


 Phormer Phantom Phixer

On the bench

TF-102A Delta Dagger, 32nd FIS, 54-1370, 1/48 scale. Monogram Pro Modeler with C&H conversion.  

Revell F-4E Phantom II 33rd TFW, 58th TFS, 69-260, 1/32 scale. 

Tamiya F-4D Phantom II, 13th TFS, 66-8711, 1/32 scale.  F-4 Phantom Group Build. 


  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 7, 2003 3:51 PM
I agree with djmodels. Nothing worse than thinking there are some details in the kit, and then finding out there is nothing. This is a big problem for me with 'auto' kits. Some companies are good at defining whether or not the kit is 'curbside' or not. Others are not. I've even seen kits with pictures on the side of the box of the engine of the real car, but inside the box there is no engine?

After a while you learn to 'read between the lines' when your looking at a kit. I've found that most kits that DO have an engine included will specify that somewhere on the box (ie. 'highly detailed engine...'). If they don't mention it, chances are it's not in there...

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 9:50 AM
Not to defend manufacturers--of anything--who put out bad quality products, but I can understand occasional omissions in kit instructions. It is waaaaay more difficult to write good, thorough, complete, concise instructions than one might think--I used to write editing instructions for copy editors on rather complex publications. The hardest part was putting yourself in the shoes of somebody who's never done the project before and telling them everything they need to know without burying them in detail. (Misleading box art is less excusable, and attributing it to overzealous marketing dept. will do nothing to lessen the purchaser's disappointment! Sad [:(])

That said, once a manufacturer finds out about an error or omission in his kit instructions, it really is his responsibility to correct it ASAP. Reprinting all the instruction sheets may be too costly, but certainly a photocopied correction sheet should be packed in each kit. I've seen those.

This is the long way of agreeing with upnorth that--dang it!--it sure is frustrating when something gets goofed up on your prized model because the instrux led you astray, and--hey!! I've got that Monogram B-36 on my shelves. Note to self: Reinforce the wings. (Thanks, upnorth!)

There are a few ways to minimize nasty surprises: before you dive into a kit, check for an old FSM Workbench Review and post a query on this forum for hints from those who have tackled it before. Dry fitting parts before applying the glue helps in a lot of situations, though I learned that rule the hard way more than once....and still insist on testing it more often than I should.Cool [8D]
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Canada / Czech Republic
Posted by upnorth on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:29 PM
Test fitting's always a good policy, and reviews are good when you can find them, but sometimes there is no review of a kit to be found.

This brings me around to a constant peave of mine, when a manufacturer puts a "new" kit on the market, but its really a borrowed, bought or inherited mold from another manufacturer. On a few occaisions, I've bought a "new" kit only to find that its a repackaged older kit from another manufacturer, sometimes one that I'd die happy if I never saw again.

To my mind, such a thing as that is an inexcuseable misrepresentation of the product. What sin is there in being honest enough to note the origin of the molds if they aren't from the manufacturer who's trademark is on the box?

Another good one is when you see a notation in VERY small letters by a photo of the finished model on the box that says something to the effect of: "Photo of completed prototype model" or "Retouched photo of completed model"

The prototype model is the manufacturer's business, show me whats in the box, there can be significant differences.

As for the "retouched" photo, why did it need retouched? is there some obvious deficiency in the kit that shows up that much when its done?
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Warwick, RI
Posted by paulnchamp on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:03 PM
Here's another good one - how about flimsy display stands which can't adequately support the completed model! (I'm thinking of just about the entire line of Star Trek kits here. . . ) Grrrrr....... Sad [:(]Sad [:(]
Paul "A man's GOT to know his limitations."
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 6:25 PM
i wish i had a b 36 :( u shud use a brass rod which goes through most of the wing.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Third rock from the sun.
Posted by Woody on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 8:11 PM
Get an old Russian kit and everything else will look like roses!

" I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way." --John Paul Jones
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Canada / Czech Republic
Posted by upnorth on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM
Either that or Hobbycraft Canada kits from anywhere earlier than about ten years ago.

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.