Excellent topic for a thread! For me, the Marutaka B25, but only because of the nacelles. Planking and then fitting retracts/doors into them. To top things off I had some resin not cure on the wing glassing so had to strip it all off. That's how it sits now. The rest of the kit was quite simple. I actually enjoy the Marutaka kits, I just don't like planking on such a small diameter. I later bought their Stuka kit which has a fibreglass cowl, beautiful kit. I also recently bought their .60 size Zero (always wanted a Zero). Both are still NIB, waiting for other projects to be completed.

Most difficult for me has been my current project - Nosen/A&A Mr. Mulligan. I have been building for almost 20 years and have been in the architectural/construction field for about the same, so the lack of instructions (2 typed pages) and only blueprints to go by didnt really affect me. What did though was the poor quality of the wood....replaced probably about 70% of the balsa and ply and added some more for strength to boot. The Nosen kits are definitely "builders kits" which makes it challenging and enjoyable for those of us who still enjoy building.

JoeBob, got to agree with you on the Stafford Aircoupe. After helping my father rebuild his full scale Ercoupe after a major hail storm (6 yrs+) I thought the kit would be a breeze..........It's now with a professional builder in Louisiana and I hope he doesn't toss it!

Hmmm...maybe I found my post retirement job! Yes the coupe was a PITA but a "professional" builder shouldn't have a problem.

Picture is of my friend Dave and the two planes I built for him, Stafford Ercoupe included.

Don Hatten
Galena, Alaska

Some people think Ikon kits are hard to build. I built both the Waco UPF-7 and the Monocoupe D145. They were a lot of work, but I was pleased with the final product.

Now I'm building an ancient Sig Ryan STA. It's from the late '60's or early '70's. This has been a miserable experience. So many design details could have been done better. I'm about to finish it, but am not happy at all. If it flies as bad as someone above mentioned, I'll be very disappointed. I put more work into this kit than I have on any other, including Ikon. And that's including the aftermarket fiberglass parts provided by the seller. If I had to assemble all the stuff provided in the kit, it would never be done.

ditto js, and this was my 7 or 8th kit. still finishing it up so haven't flown it yet but your comment on it's flying is encouraging. actually, a good kit for improving building skills and as a stepping stone toward scratch-building if that's where your interests lie.

Hello; My vote goes to a Royal DC3/C47. I struggled with it for four months, then took it to my plane guru. It took him nearly a year. Luckily he didn't charge me by the hour. After all that it was a terrible flyer, full speed or stall. Mike added a lot of scale details, the plane looks great, but never designed to fly.

I built the Clipped wing version of the Sig 1/6 Cub and yes it was a chore. It was however pretty easy to keep straight and flew
really well. Alot of parts involved but generally all good quality. I have another in the pile waiting to be built someday when
I feel ambitious. Not the hardest but definitely time consuming.
Sam

Ikon N'west Taper Wing WACO.

A true builders kit with a forest of balsa and about 6 diecut pieces. No directions, just some general construction practices and a page of pictures that show a whole lot of nothing. The fuselage has been sitting in a corner for two years now. Bottom wing is built, except I forgot to put in the dihedral. Still trying to get the nerve up to resume this project after that faux paux.. Should I ever finish it, it will be a beautiful Aircraft.

Mine was the Comet rubber powered P38. 2 long booms and the fuse pod built on the half shell with pieces hand cut from printwood. Try to keep everything lined up when you had to splice the keel pieces together, then ad 1/16" stringers and try to keep things balanced, then assemble everything in alignment.

Having seen Dennis Norman fly his, though, I'm determined that some day one of the two kits I still have will fly.

Two stand out in my mind. My 3rd build in the early 80's the red box TF P-40. Took forever.. sand, sand, sand. getting the crapy plastic cowl together with the sharks mouth decal took longer then my first entire build. The worst part was the flight life was inversely proportionate to the build time. Go forward 20 years and build a GP sales P-38, the parts looked like they were cut out with a dull steak knife and the glass seams were even worse. Maybe the product is better now but a few years ago it redefined "A builders Kit" Good news is I learned from my P-40 mistake, flew the 38 twice landed it, sold it and the new owner planted it not to much later.

I have to second the SIG Piper Cub kit. I bought it a long time ago, and even with many kits under my belt, I could not finish it. The cabin area was not structurally sound, and the wings would not stay together. To this day I dislike Piper Cubs.

i know what you mean. the spruce window frame glue joints are very fragile. even after covering with koverall (which ties together the fuse with the spruce frames) i dare not handle the fuse by the cabin area. i must have reglued those joints half a dozen times. so far, though, my wings have stayed together.......but then again it hasn't taken flight yet.[X(]