Jump to content

Why no injected 1:48 Scimitar ?


gareth

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Scimitar said:

Maybe Airfix will listen this time :idea:

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the Scimitar... the last aircraft to carry the glorious Supermarine name!

The FAA first swept wing type. Entered service in 1958, a good 6 years after the entry into squadron service of the USN Cougar and 5 after the Fury

The first FAA aircraft to be able to carry a nuclear weapon, only a couple years after the Skyhawk (a type that had quite a different career).

A type that, as often happened in those years, enjoyed a very brief career as the replacement was already flying as a prototype when the type entered service. That in that same fateful 1958 another carrierborne type later known as the Phantom II made its maiden flight is an indication of how fast aircraft design was developing in those years.

In 1936 Supermarine showed the world the Spitfire, one of the best if not the best fighter of its era, one of the true icons of aviation history

20 years later Supermarine gave us the Scimitar, an unspectatular aircraft that is now almost forgotten. A type that sure marked a few firsts for the FAA but all of these just remarked how this service had changed in 10 years from being one of the most advanced carrier force in the world to being a force constantly lagging behind the others in terms of aircrafts technology.

So yes, in a sense the Scimitar was historically important as it was a milestone in the decline of both Supermarine and the FAA...

 

Even so, I'd happily build a model of the Scimitar ! 1/48 isn't my scale of choice but who knows, maybe a Scimitar in this scale will appear. I wouldn't ask the larger manufacturers though, this kind of subject is probably more in line with the catalogues of smaller short-run manufacturers. Chinese manufacturers may also be the ones to issue a 1/48 Scimitar, afterall some of them are producing similarly lesser popular types (like the KH Starfire)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denford said:

to ask why does it always have to be AIRFIX

Regarding the Airfix 1/48 Scimitar. This has become somewhat of a tongue in cheek remark and is not meant to be taken seriously by Britmodellers. However if anybody from Airfix reads this......!

Why not Airfix though ?

Dynavector did a Javelin..Airfix did later.

Dynavector did a Sea Vixen..Airfix did later.

Dynavector did a Scimitar...Airfix are you listening?

 

Given some of the obscure one off types that have appeared in 1/48 (and 1/72) I wouldn't be too quick to write off the Scimitar

 

Richard

 

ps. I too would love a Hunter (GA11 of course)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Wez and others above, the Scimitar had a very short career as a strike aircraft then was replaced by the far more capable Buccaneer. Because the S.1 Buccaneers were underpowered and over thirsty the Scimitars were kept on for a few more years as buddy tankers, withdrawn when the Bucc S.2 was introduced. The Scimitar is an interesting aircraft and I would like to see good kits of it but there are other types ahead of it in the queue.

Cheers, Paul

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to summarize, it's all down to "how much money will this make for the manufacturer?" If they think it will help the balance sheet be deeper in the black than otherwise, they MAY give it a shot. If they don't feel it will make money, they won't bother. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a funny thing.  A few weeks ago I was poking through my old content looking for something completely different.  I came across a thread about the AMX in which a number of people said, definitively, that we'd never see a mainstream kit of such an obscure type.  I was interested in it myself and thought, hey ho, that's probably true, if Italeri can't be persuaded to make one, what hope is there?

 

We now have four AMX kits on the market: two single-seaters and two trainers, from two companies.

 

This tells me two things:

1   We don't really know what calculations are going through tool-makers' heads.

2   And anyone who claims to be able to say what will and won't happen is not necessarily right.

 

So, I remain hopeful.

But I do wish people would stop abusing that poor little word "need" ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that we will get one eventually simply because the number of potential subjects is limited. Look at Trumpeter making every type of Russian vehicle that ever moved - tell me that a Scimitar would sell worse than every one?

 

Will

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pigsty said:

Here's a funny thing.  A few weeks ago I was poking through my old content looking for something completely different.  I came across a thread about the AMX in which a number of people said, definitively, that we'd never see a mainstream kit of such an obscure type.  I was interested in it myself and thought, hey ho, that's probably true, if Italeri can't be persuaded to make one, what hope is there?

 

We now have four AMX kits on the market: two single-seaters and two trainers, from two companies.

 

This tells me two things:

1   We don't really know what calculations are going through tool-makers' heads.

2   And anyone who claims to be able to say what will and won't happen is not necessarily right.

 

So, I remain hopeful.

But I do wish people would stop abusing that poor little word "need" ...

 

 

And that thread was right: none of those who were "mainstream" manufacturer made an AMX. Italeri in particular never touched the AMX even if this topped every Italian wish list for the last 15 years.

The first AMX came from Kinetic, one of the new wave of Chinese companies. These companies for a number or reasons can get the investment on a new mould back with smaller numbers compared to the likes of Italeri and it's this business model that allows them to issue kits of types that are not particularly popular. The same applies to other Chinese companies and we have recently seen a good number of new kits of subjects that no traditional mainstream company would have touched. In a sense they have filled the gap existing between "short run" companies and the traditional mainstream manufacturers.

That's why in my earlier post I mentioned Chinese companies like Kitty Hawk, if they can sell a Starfire in the numbers required to make a profit, then they may also think of a Scimitar.

Trumpeter then issued their AMX. Don't know if this was a reaction to the Kinetic one (something along the lines of "ehi, they're making an AMX, let's make one ourselves"). Their catalogue shows a mix of common and unusual, they too may think of a Scimitar and Denford above mentioned Trumpeter for this same reason.

As for the Italeri AMX, we're still waiting... they tried to get an agreement with Kinetic to rebox their kit but this failed, guess that now they'll just live happily without an AMX in their catalogue, as they did for the last 15 years...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:

I have no doubt that we will get one eventually simply because the number of potential subjects is limited. Look at Trumpeter making every type of Russian vehicle that ever moved - tell me that a Scimitar would sell worse than every one?

 

Will

 

 

Have to disagree sorry, the number of potential subjects is huge, at least a thousand aircraft types produced in Britain alone, I find 50's jets fascinating and the Scimitar is an interesting plane but not many have heard of it or would want to model it outside UK FAA buffs or completists who want to model all jets from that era. I think of it as a British equivalent of the McDonnell Demon which at least led to a certain famous plane and are there many good kits of that about? Think there are many types ahead of the Scimitar in the queue.

Cheers, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

none of those who were "mainstream" manufacturer made an AMX

I think we may be using different definitions of "mainstream".  I meant (and I think most people do) a company that makes injection-moulded kits with long-run moulds that aren't 90% flash.  Hobby Boss / Trumpeter may not be very long-established, but it would be hard not to think of them as mainstream now, with the size of their joint catalogue and the professional way they package their wares.  Kinetic may be smaller but every company was small once and, again, they're of the same standard as some older, better-known manufacturers.  (Note I'm not claiming they're free of errors or build perfectly - no company's range is perfect in those respects.)

 

I raised Italeri only because, as much the largest Italian manufacturer, it seemed odd that they hadn't built a kit of one of Italy's few (part-)indigenous post-war designs.  Especially as they were touting for new subjects at the time.  I have plenty of other examples of stuff that I never thought would appear and is now mouldering in my stash, and they come from all sorts of companies.  This is why I live in hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scimitar F1 said:

Time will tell.

 

I disagree on thousands of British Aircraft that have not been kitted. There are few left that have not been done in 1/48 that are not too big when you include limited run.

Sorry I didn't say thousands of British aircraft have not been kitted, I said about a thousand different aircraft were produced in Britain. Of pre war types only a small fraction have been kitted, if you are into the FAA maybe kits of the Blackburn Swift, Baffin, Ripon or Fairey IIIF would be welcome as these were significant types too 

Cheers, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of posts with the "IMHO" missing from this thread, stating categorically that we need X or Y before a Scimitar.  What we want personally doesn't matter one jot to a model company.  They're more interested in how many they can sell, how much they can make it for, and where they can get their data from.  There's a couple of real Scimitars knocking about in museums, and I know that one company was considering doing one in injection moulded plastic a few years back as I provided them with some limited quantity of information, but I can't remember who now! :lol::blush:

 

The TL;DR version is - we know nothing about what motivates companies, and our personal desires for what a company produces next don't matter one bit ^_^

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good old Scimitar has generated another healthy discussion! - in the meantime I have gone back to continue building my injection moulded Trumpeter Wyvern in 1/48 and live in hope

CJP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mike said:

There's a lot of posts with the "IMHO" missing from this thread, stating categorically that we need X or Y before a Scimitar.

 

True, true. Another approach that I can never understand, and seems to permeate just about any thread on such topics on every forum, is "because there is no (modern) tooling in such-and-such a scale of Subject X (or Y), there is NO way that anyone should produce a kit in that scale of a Scimitar (or whatever)!"

That is rather like saying we should forget about trying to cure cancer because we have no cure for the common cold...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pigsty said:

Here's a funny thing.  A few weeks ago I was poking through my old content looking for something completely different.  I came across a thread about the AMX in which a number of people said, definitively, that we'd never see a mainstream kit of such an obscure type.  I was interested in it myself and thought, hey ho, that's probably true, if Italeri can't be persuaded to make one, what hope is there?

 

We now have four AMX kits on the market: two single-seaters and two trainers, from two companies.

 

This tells me two things:

1   We don't really know what calculations are going through tool-makers' heads.

2   And anyone who claims to be able to say what will and won't happen is not necessarily right.

 

So, I remain hopeful.

But I do wish people would stop abusing that poor little word "need" ...

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Denford said:

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.

 Not the case. The Development team work with the Marketing team to work out what range best suits the needs of the business at the time for fulfilling the range objectives. This is based on consumer data, market research, competitor analysis and experience.

 

The toolmakers tool the kit. By this you seem to mean the partners in the Far East. They have no bearing on what gets made. The designers of the kits however most certainly do.

 

There is no reason why the Scimitar would cost more to design or tool then any other subject or the same size or era.

 

But, it is very scheme limited. Probably why it hasn't been done.

 

Simon

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not convinced. You could say the same for almost every subject that was not entirely smooth on the vertical or horizontal plane. Certainly the Sea Vixen is more complicated, the Javelin is larger, the Victor considerable more involved as well as larger and the Walrus?.  Inserts are a fairly simple solution to the detail issues you mention if the moulding cannot be made to work.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denford, you keep repeating that same line, how on earth is the Scimitar more complicated than other kitted subjects?

 

There maybe many reasons why a mainstream manufacturer doesn't produce a Scimitar, but the airbrakes is not one of them.

I don't see where the issue is with them, and even a kit that doesn't depict open airbrakes would be welcome.

 

The 'cottage industry' producers of a Scimitar kit haven't stumbled with the airbrakes feature and I can't see that they're particularly complicated.

All it requires is a separate insert for the airbrake bays, the upper one of which representing the circles that are flush with fuselage, the airbrake panels themselves are simple enough, the upper one having holes in that correspond with the circles in the upper bay.  

Most current kit manufacturers can deal with that, having seen how they rendered the Javelin, I'm sure even the modern Airfix could do it.

However if they couldn't, when the airbrakes are closed they lie flush with the skin anyway, a kit would just need to have representations of the circles, and if that was the case, I'm pretty sure the aftermarket suppliers will be ready (as they seem to be with every modern kit) with resin inserts for the bays, and resin airbrake panels.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure a Scimitar kit would sell just as well without giving airbrake out options, the Dynavector one did pretty well.

 

And, are you serious about the wings?  Airfix coped with the far thinner Spitfire/Sea Fire wings in two halves, and even managed a fold option.

 

The Scimitar was a good looking jet with a surprising amount of payload options, and varied colourful squadron markings.

 

 

You have seen what kits are about now?  The manufacturers can create marvels these days (looking for the tongue in cheek smilie)

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denford said:

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!

 

Honestly, trust me, none of those would present an issue. They haven't on any other subject that Airfix has produced.

 

The issue is far more likely to be the limited use of the type in service and lack of colour schemes/operators for different boxings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ptmvarsityfan said:

Have to disagree sorry, the number of potential subjects is huge, at least a thousand aircraft types produced in Britain alone, I find 50's jets fascinating and the Scimitar is an interesting plane but not many have heard of it or would want to model it outside UK FAA buffs or completists who want to model all jets from that era. I think of it as a British equivalent of the McDonnell Demon which at least led to a certain famous plane and are there many good kits of that about? Think there are many types ahead of the Scimitar in the queue.

Cheers, 


Strange or funny is the fact that Emhar did an McDonnel Demon in 1/72. And they did even two of it and the Fury. So for sure it doesn't have to be an Scimitar from Airfix. And if not Airfix or Emhar why not Xtrakit? I've heard someone saying the words "By Brittish" some years ago. Maybe forgotten words today?

 

Cheers / André

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...