Denford

When I started this topic just after Telford, I never believed it would be going strong on Page 34 and almost 6 months later! Just had to get this in before the Moderator closes the thread.

Simon Owen (Airfix's Researcher) stated categorically at a recent presentation that there would be 'no new parts for old kits' specifically new transparancies for their Halifax.

If all kits were the same size, they would all come at regular intervals. The release of two large kits (B-17 and Victor) cannot but impact on the schedule for 2017 and indeed 2018. I believe too that there was a fall in the number of designers at the end of last year. All in all, Airfix have done very well in their 2017 programme, even if it is 'padded out' with re-issues. More armour, ships, cars Sci fi definitely NOT needed nor 1/32, which Airfix have officially said the definitely won't tool together with 1/144 airliners. Forget too the ships, 1/35 Military and 1/76 railway accessories. Expect them to stick to that which they do best, indeed superbly: 1/72 and 1/48 WWll and Cold War aircraft. Let others go for Luftwaffe '46, Gundam etc and good luck to them; I won't be buying any. By sticking with their proven success, they can produce creditable business plans and persuade the HH Bank Manager to extend their overdraft.

Anyone wanting reviews of the various Scimitar kits should look here. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/index

Remember that Airfix are 'heavily into' WWll, giving us one, or at the most two, Cold War subjects per year. So don't expect the above list to be cleared or even significantly reduced by the end of the decade.

Remember Hornby Hobbies are deeply in debt, and it is only due to the low interest rate that they haven't gone under. If I was their Bank Manager I would want solid assurances (ie verifiable Market Research, data from previous sales of similar subjects etc) that money put up for new subjects would be rewarded. Not merely repaid, but go towards elimination of their debt. Of the above quoted subjects, XF5U was I think somebody else's moulds re-boxed by Hasegawa. Matchbox went into liquidation, and of course mistakes are made. Agree that some Airfix 2017 releases are 'quite brave', but seriously doubt that credit would be extended to HH just because Airfix 'liked the look' of a particular subject. Others may not have this restraint.

I don' t know what payback time (on their investment) Hornby Hobbies work to: I'll guess 3 years or at the most 5 but 20....?

Oh dear, this seems to go on for ever! Intuition says that some subjects will be harder to tool than others. Harder equates to more expensive. I put the Scimitar at the 'harder' end. Airfix put accuracy and quality tooling to the front and no way would they compromise just because a detail was difficult to tool economically. Higher costs would matter less if huge, sustained sales were expected due to world wide fame. Apart from the 'Iconic', 'No line up would be complete without it' etc Brigade, most postings agree that it was something of an 'also ran'. To make matters worse there are no credible 'follow on' variants (Whitley, He111, B-17 as examples) nor variations in colour scheme. To those who say 'What about the TSR2 ?', that Airfix went bankrupt. To those who say 'But they gave us a Sea Vixen which is not so very much different', I would say that that was 7? years ago and would they do that now? I think not, and did it make any money? To those who say 'But what about the Javelin and Swift'? Both served overseas, both have several colour schemes and Freightdog have thought it worthwhile to issue conversion parts to other Swift variants. But above all, did they make any money? The fact that someone gets a hollow laugh (from Airfix) each time they mention it at Telford says it all. They've surely had it brought up 'ad nauseam' and rejected as many times no doubt for combinations of the above. That it could be tooled (at a price) and some individuals yearn for it, doesn't make it commercially viable. In a wider context, there are many, many other 'easier' subjects Airfix have either never tooled (Me410, Beaufort) or are long overdue for retooling (Wellington, Battle) to their current standards. Enough to keep them going (if Hornby Hobbies stay solvent) for several decades. No need to tool something as uncertain as the Scimitar. Don't get me wrong, I'd actually love to see one! And so long as it is accurate, I don't mind who tools it. I just don't think it will be Airfix.

You're quite right. I should have said 'tool designers' meaning those who sit in front of screens at Sandwich (previously Margate). They must decide how to breakdown the subject into the various parts which ultimately determines the cost of the tool. In the case of the Scimitar there's the problem of how to represent the various flush intakes on the upper surfaces and the cannon troughs on the underside: a horizontally rather than vertical split? This was done on both recent Seahawks, though one completely omitted the cannon troughs! And the cannon troughs themselves: I believe some a\c had only 2 cannon with the other two slots faired over. How could this be resolved? Those long, and constantly changing (in cross section) intakes: how can they be represented without prominent seams? And the airbrakes? This was discussed in earlier postings; I never said they had to be deployable (as some seem to think) but at least represented. This requires multiple circular indentations over a non-plane surface. Perhaps slide moulding, but at a cost. Xtrakit got around the problem by omitting them altogether! And the wing-fold on such a thin wing that could almost be one piece, so two wings one for folding, one not folding? No problem except the added cost. And if the fuselage is split horizontally, the design must ensure secure wing fixing. Again if the wing were one piece, what about securing underwing stores? The usual approach of penetrating recesses in the upper surface of the wing underside couldn't be used. Here in 1/48, the subject of the post, one is better off than in 1/72, the earlier post! All in all, not an easy design subject!

Don't know about other kit makers, but as far as Airfix are concerned the decisions are made by Hornby Hobbies Marketting. The toolmakers contribute by providing (design) data that allows a costing to be made. As I've said before, my perception is that the Scimitar would be a difficult, hence expensive, subject to tool.

Just love that photo! It almost looks too big to get off the ground or rather the water. Interesting too are the opened portholes: truly a flying boat.

Hardly know where to start, but perhaps to ask why does it always have to be AIRFIX who are required to produce such 'no hopers'. Nobody ever suggests that of Revell, Academy, Italeri, Hasegawa, Trumpeter ... Seriously though, Trumpeter did give a Sea Hornet (I'll not comment on the quality) so perhaps you should contact them: in Chinese of course and if you don't speak/write it then be prepared to pay someone to do this for you. I did this in Korean to Academy. Secondly, as I don't know how enter to link the earlier discussion on this, it was started early March (10th ?)and is currently 'just about' on page 4 of Cold War and yes you've guessed it is 'When will Airfix give us a Scimitar ? '. There seems to be a general belief that if a subject is 'cool', 'iconic', 'charismatic', 'fills a gap in history', 'no line up would be complete without it', 'even the wife's cat would have bought it', then kit manufacturers (usually Airfix) are under a serious moral obligation to tool that subject. Another tenet is that if enough people contact the manufacturer (again usually Airfix) they will tool it. Hornby are struggling and have better things to do than answer multiple requests for 'no hopers'. True they do issue suggestion slips at Telford and elsewhere but how much of this is a PR exercise I don't know. So go back to the earlier thread and read of the Scimitar's undistinguished history, low profile, lack of colour schemes and above all the tooling difficulties. Forget about comparisons with the TSR2 with most of the same attributes: the Airfix that tooled it went bankrupt! Forget comparisons with the Swift: several colour schemes, served home and abroad, and there are even aftermarket parts. But did the base kit make money? We know there was a tool breakage: perhaps a gipsy's warning? To digress to tooling: the absence of a new tooled Buccaneer is often lamented - why is nobody listening ie listening to me - is it, I suggest, in part due to tooling difficulties or rather making a quality tooling at an acceptable price.

Add F9F- Panther/Cougar to the list. I think it was the US Government rather than USAF who made the limitations

What interests me is not the colour (or should it be color) but that the Spitfire shadows all show 4 cannon......

The Tamiya canopy has separate side panels, presumably to allow the teardrops to be moulded: this would be impracticable with a one piece canopy. Therefore it ought to be possible to remove the blown side panels from either of the above and fit them to the Tamiya canopy. That the full canopy was originally meant for Matchbox, Hasegawa or anyone else shouldn't really matter. If anyone from Attack Squadron or perhaps Quickboost is reading this, could they please consider tooling replacement side panels. A canopy with the astrodome, for the very last versions, is another matter. We'll have to see what KP and/or SH come up with.