What should we NOT still see on models these days?

[The Rat]

Given the knowledge that manufacturers should have, and with the molding technology available today, what sort of things do you think we should be able to rectify?

Couple of things come to mind for me:

Fabric texture. This just shows ignorance, in my opinion. I have seen many fabric flying things, and I can recall only two types on which you can see a fabric texture: Parachutes and hang gliders. If it's a powered aircraft, that fabric is slathered with so many layers of dope that it's as smooth and shiny as any aircraft made of wood or metal. Besides which, if scaled up, those imitation fabric surfaces would be so rough as to preclude safe flight, it would be like the ice and frost that we now take so much care to remove before flying.

Raised or recessed panel lines on aircraft that had overlapping panels. Surely with the technology today it should be possible to imitate the proper surface. On smaller scales it wouldn't really matter, but with some manufacturers turning out large scale aircraft, especially 1/24th, I think it should be possible.

Add your own, and discuss.

[PR19_Kit]

Rivets, or should I say RIVETS!

Most of them are so huge (FROG/Revell Shackleton MR3.............) that they'd be more in place in a Clyde shipyard. 

[The Rat]

Rivets, or should I say RIVETS!

Most of them are so huge (FROG/Revell Shackleton MR3.............) that they'd be more in place in a Clyde shipyard. 

First took it out of the box about 50 years ago, and I think it drew blood on my fingers. 

[kerick]

I have an old P-51 kit in 1/32nd scale where the rivets would have to be the size of baseballs.

Also, wheel wells so shallow they couldn't possibly hold the landing gear.

[Joe C-P]

Excessively thick plastic "glass". 

Speaking of recessed panel lines, such especially do not belong on 1/700 scale aircraft!

And the raised lines on ship's hulls, such thick seams would be really bad for the water flow along the hull, plus they are never aligned to the real panels.

[The Rat]

Also, wheel wells so shallow they couldn't possibly hold the landing gear.

Yep, every time I look at the Matchbox Wellesleys I have on the bench... 

[The Rat]

Excessively thick plastic "glass". 

Speaking of recessed panel lines, such especially do not belong on 1/700 scale aircraft!

And the raised lines on ship's hulls, such thick seams would be really bad for the water flow along the hull, plus they are never aligned to the real panels.

'Twould be nice if some manufacturers would include an optional vac-formed canopy for those who wish to use it.

And yeah, panel lines on teeny scales are just silly. On many real aircraft you can't even see the panel lines from any appreciable distance.

[PR19_Kit]

And yeah, panel lines on teeny scales are just silly. On many real aircraft you can't even see the panel lines from any appreciable distance.

Perhaps they're guidelines for those who INSIST on pre-shading the panel lines? 

[chrisonord]

Over complicated  parts assemblies.  Especially  in landing gear.  They can  and should  be made in fewer  parts  to help the structural strength  and to stop the loss/ ruining of intricate tiny parts.  Especially  by puppet  fingered idiots like me

[major]

Over complicated  parts assemblies.  Especially  in landing gear.  They can  and should  be made in fewer  parts  to help the structural strength  and to stop the loss/ ruining of intricate tiny parts.  Especially  by puppet  fingered idiots like me

I agree wholeheartedly with that! 

And put the little man/woman person BACK in the box, and a stand too!

[The Wooksta!]

Over complicated  parts assemblies.  Especially  in landing gear.  They can  and should  be made in fewer  parts  to help the structural strength  and to stop the loss/ ruining of intricate tiny parts.  Especially  by puppet  fingered idiots like me

Ditto.  Whilst the Eduard Spitfires are absolute marvels and have a quality that makes Mr Tamiya want to commit hare-kare out of shame that his products can never match it, they have some incredibly fiddly assembly - the wheels, FFS, each come in FOUR pieces.  Really?  And they got the post war 3 spoke hub option wrong too.  The rest is fiddly, especially the radiators and the seat is in 3 parts for some reason unknown to anyone.

Despite all the complaining, I still have a 3 figure sum of Eduard Spitfires in the stash...

[kerick]

And put the little man/woman person BACK in the box, and a stand too!

A respectable pilot figure would be great! Doesn't have to be in the cockpit. Standing next to the boarding ladder would be very nice.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Inaccurate weapons.

I can't remember the kit, possibly the Revell 1/48 Tornado F.3, possibly another newish kit, where the AIM-9s looked like something out of an old Lindberg kit.  They resembled Lima/Mike Sidewinders only in the rudimentary layout. 

[zenrat]

Car kits.
Floating alternators on engines.  Is it so hard to mould a bracket on it?
Seat belts.  IRL they used to be optional but not for a long time.  In fact, how about making the interior continue up higher than the bottom of the side windows?

Aircraft kits.
If you are not going to put in a pilot then at least mould some seat belts on the seat.

[DogfighterZen]

Indeed, pilot and crew figures are always a welcome feature in aircraft kits but i agree with Fred, if no pilot is included then at least have seat belts. And speaking of those, they could be separate parts from the seat, considering the current level of the molding technology.