top of page

Plastic fantastic? 1/200 Kum Aeroflot AN-10 CCCP-11169 review

Updated: Nov 5, 2023

My interest in retro airliners was mostly focussed on western aircraft, but in the past few months I have been more interested in Soviet aircraft instead. Normally I avoid fully plastic models as they often feel very cheap while being rather expensive, but unfortunately there is no diecast AN-10 mould, so I had no choice but to get this one by Kum Models. With 60 grams it weighs about the same as a 1/400 diecast TU-144.

Who is Kum Models?

It is unknown who is behind the brand Kum Models. I contacted Herpa but they have not replied yet. Their models are produced by the Art Model Association (or AMA). They have a factory in Kiev, Ukraine, which produces plastic vehicle models / toys in 1/87 scale, mostly from World War 2 and the Cold War. They also make 1/200 plastic aircraft models, including the AN-10 and AN-12, for Herpa, Aviaboss and Kum Models. This explains the similarity in the box and stand design.

Some clear similarities between Kum Models (left) and Herpa (right)

Background information

The Antonov AN-10 was developed from the AN-8 in the 1950's as a passenger aircraft. The first flight was in 1957 and two years later it was taken into service by Aeroflot. 104 aircraft were build, of which the last retired in 1974. The AN-12 was developed as a militairy version of the AN-10 and was much more succesful (it's still in use today!). The CCCP-11169 was delivered to Aeroflot in August 1959 and flew for 10 years. In October 1969 it got damaged beyond repair during landing at a snowy Mirny Airport, Russia. The fuselage could still be found at Mirny Airport in 2016, where it was used as a shed. It's unknown whether it's still there.

The crashed CCCP-11169. Source: https://russianplanes.net/id95497

Review

There are 6 parts that will be given between 1 and 10 points, 1 being the lowest and 10 being perfect. In the end the average of these scores will be the final score. I have updated the score bar as after a couple reviews I realized it takes a lot to be in the red "not recommended" zone. Now the colors fit better with the scorings.


Accuracy of colors

Source: By Aleksandr Markin, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34071904

There are very few coloured pictures of this livery, but in the image above it's still in decent condition. It features a white top, grey belly, thick blue cheatline with two thin white cheatlines inbetween. The same blue color is used on the tail and propellor blades.

Although slightly difficult to judge from the picture, the colors seem to be replicated well. The propellors on the model are black, but on the picture of the actual (crashed) aircraft the propellors look darker than the paint on the fuselage, suggesting it was black aswell instead of blue. The engines have a red color on the tip, but on the pictures above it's either yellow or without color. Everything else seems to be accurate.


Score: 9 / 10


Livery

The livery consists of a blue cheatline with a wing behind the cockpit, a lightning bolt towards the rear and a triangle on the tail. The wing on the front is obviously wrong. There should be no white space between the cockpit windows and the blue edges should be much much thinner across the entire fuselage. The "feathers" should stretch further to the rear aswell. The triangle on the tail seems totally fine. The cheatline is also placed at the correct height and ends nicely under the black antiglare screen. The white cheatlines are too fat.


Score: 5 / 10


Logos, titles and stickers

Source: https://russianplanes.net/id95497

Because of the very poor design of the wing, it becomes a little difficult to judge how well all other elements around it are placed. The Aeroflot logo is placed too low and should be more towards the nose. The Aeroflot titles have the wrong font aswell. There are red "AN-10A" titles, which should be "AN-10" instead.

The blue edges above and below the white cheatlines are way too fat

There should be a Soviet flag on the tail, but on the model it's just a red square. Considering other small details on the model like the Aeroflot logo, it surely should have been possible to add at least something yellow to make it resemble the flag. The registration is also not very well replicated. The "CCCP" and "11169" should not be above the rear door and the font is not completely right either.

Score: 2 / 10


Other details

There aren't many other details on this model. On the picture above there are 2 windows on the right side of the rear door, but I believe they shouldn't be there at all. The window in the rear door is not centered either and the triangular cockpit window should be smaller. There are some details around the geardoors, which is nice, but nothing spectacular. Something very nice is that the nosecone is transparent, just like in real life.

Score: 5,5 / 10


Paint and printing QC

Overall the paint and printing quality is good. There is too much paint on the belly, making the main landing geardoors barely visible. The grey paint also gets damaged easily where it contacts the plastic blister, but luckily I could remove most of the smudges.


Score: 8,5 / 10


Mould QC

Overall the mould looks very good. The seams from the wing and gears are neat and they clearly put effort in the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The transparent nosecone also fits very well. Some wheels spin, but not all. The propellors are also rather stiff. The model tilts to the right when sitting on the stand.


Score: 9 / 10


Conclusion

Some may think I'm too critical for a plastic model, but I paid €60 for it and the latest releases are €70-€80 (with the same flaws), which is the same as some diecast narrowbodies! Assuming that plastic is cheaper and it's more easy to add details in the mould, this model is way too overpriced. Even the plastic blister is so cheap and weak that it can easily damage the paint. Aviaboss made the same livery on the same mould back in 2015 and did a much better job with the livery and details, so if you can find it, take that one over this Kum Models release. The total score is 39 / 6 = 6.5, which is okay if you really want an AN-10 model, but in my opinion not worth it. I got the AN-12 CCCP-11014 from Kum Models aswell and the quality control is horrible, so I highly recommend to stay away from this brand, unless you can find one with good QC for half the price.



- Mark

Retrohangar Diecast on Instagram

Mark22 on MAF, 400SH, DAC and DIMA

Want to collaborate or let me review your product? Send me a message via the channels mentioned above!

All pictures are mine (unless stated otherwise) and may not be used without my permission!


1 comment

1 Comment


Guest
Dec 11, 2023

Ha mejorado mucho tu website.

Se necesita tiempo para consolidarlo.

Like

See Also

Autor