Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Mick V

Members
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Mick V

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Mistake on the Lake

Recent Profile Visitors

87 profile views
  1. Dear Ka-Efka we absolutely agree. Do you notice the in the forum we do not have any major complaint on the shape after our Mirage 2000 series ? Like Mirage III, F-5, Harrier, Hornet, AMX, Kfir .. ? We spend quite a lot of effort in confirming the basic shape. The time cost involved even more than fancy slide mold tooling. Normally the shape validation stage takes 6 months to 12 months before we go into details. That what we out our resources into.
  2. Dear Foxmulder, As a modeller we can see it is good to provide the one pc missile option. Eduard is resin offering, and aftermarket supply is different from plastic kit injection. We heard some voice to provide super detail option in plastic form in order to provide better value for the modeller. One pc missile is something similar to ind link track link in AFV market. The new question is those option require cost and production capacity to deliver. If the percentage of customer is not large enough to pay the price then large number of consumer have to pay something they 'nice to have' option. The one pc missile for sure a good idea, but it may push the production cost and finally affect the retail price. And then the consumer will complain the kit too expensive. The debat will go back to basic form: whether the market need an affordable kit with option from aftermarket for fill certain high grade market or we provide eventhing in a plastic with a higher price tag? We have seen the proof of provide everything in one box not too success in AFV (after years of implementation) well now the same issue raise to plane market.
  3. That exactly describe our concern. In Su-33 projects, we examine the cost. The tooling itself is not a problem. The problem is he labor cost involved. Recently a lot of new kit focus on one piece missile slogan. We study in detail whether we follow the same route to change all missile to this approach. But seems we can only implement on certain high detail multi axis detail on the fin type missile. And those missile design not good for high volume production (for our US missile sprue we produced more than 500,000 shots so far) if we need to make a one pc missile, multiple that number by 6 to 7 times as the one pc missile cannot require only 3 to 6 missiles per tooling. The material and labor required would make the kit production cost sky high. But of course if the more customer demand and willing to pay for it, why not ? This is not technical issue just commerical consideration.
×