Piotr Mikolajski

Apparently they have unlimited beer for lunch in the company canteen at Eduard More seriously - I've just checked the decals in a freshly bought kit and they do indeed have 5 insignias instead of 6.

Indeed, a great observation! 2014 2022

Yep → https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/84725-wingnut-wings-handley-page-o100/

My German is so rusty that I will not dare to translate. But there is an English description for this video. The time has come - we managed to get a big piece of the last Wingnut Wings "pie"! In plain language - there is another large load on the way to us in Germany with a large number of the legendary kits of WW1 planes! Since it will take a while before the kits arrive here, here is some information from us for you to save you and us the same questions and answers. Christian tells you the most important things in the video - we will also link the list of kits that we get soon here - so keep an eye on the shop or the video here!

Nothing new, this information has been repeated for a few years now.

This is one of the reasons why I stopped buying models in pre-orders and why I have to see a model first before I buy it. I'm not saying that all manufacturers do this, but far too many blatantly lie about their products. They claim the model is "designed in CAD", while you can see it's a crude manual reworking of an old kit. They write "we used original documentation", and you can see that the model duplicates errors from mediocre plans drawn years ago. They say "we did a careful analysis of the available photos", and you see that the letters have the wrong typeface, important details have been omitted, and the colour profiles prioritise glamour rather than realism. In my opinion, the more honest one is the manufacturer who produces a mediocre kit but does not lie about his non-existent research team, the documentation he did not look at, the markings he duplicated with errors, the analyses he did not carry out, the technology he did not use and so on. Personally, I don't mind short-run models, even if they are some kind of challenge to build, but they are generally of satisfactory quality. I know that more often than not, no one will re-release them. But I find products from liars like those mentioned above a waste of money, time and storage space.

Protip: A few years ago they bought the Czech website Modelarovo. There is a box on the top of the right sidebar, that says "Hledat ..." - this is the search engine. If you type in Kingfisher, you will find this entry too: https://www.modelarovo.cz/vought-kingfisher-1-72-azmodel/ The text is in Czech, but that doesn't matter, the photos are more important. If you take your time, you will see the quality of the elements, the fit, how much filler is needed and so on.

Yes, that's true, even Soviet Union had two aircraft. On top of that, there are different versions: OS2U-1, OS2U-2, OS2U-3 (Kingfisher I) and OS2N-1. I don't know how different they can be made in a 1/72 scale model, but it's always an option for more boxes. There are 12 Kingfisher profiles in various markings on this page: https://www.deviantart.com/claveworks/gallery?q=Kingfisher

I will frankly admit that I have my doubts. Maybe it's because I've been seeing similar discussions on different forums, in different languages, for years. Each time, someone explains the situation and reminds that the basic rules of business also apply to this industry, and in response gets fairly standard comments: They always think only about money! Where is some kind of commitment to our history! Company from our country should release kits of domestically designed aircraft! These aircraft [enter list of 20 little known a/c manufactured in small numbers, prototypes or types existing on paper only] were never released in [enter scale], so they will be success! Kit from [enter company name] is old and unbuildable [year of release, detail level and kit quality doesn't really matter], you have to release a new one! Another MesserSpitWulfStang! What a lazy company! [Optionally: "what a f*** traitors!" if the people have some issues with manufacturer of original MesserSpitWulfStang] After years of watching such discussions, a man not only remembers some of the writers, but can even predict what they will write and what part of reality they are denying. Some modellers live in denial - costs, taxes, sales levels are non-existent. Earlier this year I quoted Eduard's statements about rising costs. And despite quoting and showing the source, there were still quite a few voices denying cost increases. Some don't accept that their proposals are really a complete niche that at best, which interests a couple of thousand people in the world. Half of whom will not buy this kit. Some don't understand that many of their proposals could not be realised even if a sponsor came along to finance everything out of his own pocket, because there is no documentation on which the model could be based. There are only some drawings made over the years, not only contradicting each other, but also contradicting the aircraft's design objectives, the laws of aerodynamics and so on. It doesn't matter, the manufacturer should develop a kit and design it with a full interior, high quality details and of course for the equivalent of 10-15 quids. However, let's return to the Flyhawk proposals. It seems to me that Kingfisher would be a natural continuation of Dauntless. Of the German ones, a new Dornier Do 18 would probably be the most needed. The Matchbox kit is not only hard to find, but on top of that it has really aged compared to the others on this list.

I would say that I am rather trying to explain that the modelling companies have an understanding of the market they are operating in and have been aware of the invention called the calculator for quite a long time. Unfortunately, many modellers still refuse to accept this.

This is a very complicated issue, as there are a number of variables here, both in terms of the experience of the designer, the software and the requirements of the mould tooling companies. There is also a difference in the size of the project itself. If a company is designing an aircraft that existed in one version, the design is simple. The design can also be simple when a company deliberately ignores the differences in details between versions, hoping that the customers will not pay attention - such a design can also be simple, and therefore fast and cheap. On the other hand, if it is a complex project, involving a whole family of versions and variants, with many alternative elements (such as the ClearProp, Eduard, IBG Models or ICM projects) - such a project is more complex, takes much longer and thus can be noticeably more expensive. Of course, in a small company the design may be drawn by the owner, in which case it is hard to compare such a cost with that of an employee or outsourcing the design.

It doesn't matter if the company is mainstream. The key is in the technology in which it makes the moulds and in the potential audience for the planned kit. Steel moulds allow hundreds of thousands of kits to be produced, but they are the most expensive to tool, so the return on investment requires thousands of models sold. Only after these are sold, the company start to make money from the project. Every company can estimate what the indicative cost of the project will be, so they also know how many kits they need to sell. If we assume that a company needs to sell 2,000 kits for the investment to pay off and the market for model X worldwide is 5,000 units, no one will bother producing model X from steel moulds. Yes, yes, the company won't lose money on it, but it will have the tooling to produce hundreds of thousands of models, even though it will produce no more than 5000 units. Investing in such a project makes as much sense as hiring a semi-trailer truck to transport a bottle of beer from the supermarket. However, if the subject of model X goes to a company that uses mould much cheaper to tool, the calculation looks completely different for them. Cheap resin moulds may last for 5,000 kits, but may pay for themselves after selling 300 kits. For such a company, model X will be a very profitable subject. You could say it's the guy who went to the shop to buy a beer, but hit a discount and bought a six-pack for the price of one. This business is really much more based on well thought-out calculations than on some mission statement, love of domestic designed aircraft or bold ideas and imagination. And even despite their knowledge of the market, each company has scored at least one not the best choice on which they sunk money or made less than they planned. Even for short-run companies a lot of ideas - which modellers think will be bestsellers - are unprofitable subjects. They won't lose out on them financially, but these kits will be too expensive in other respects - design will take too long, sales will be very slow and so on. Instead of such a design, company can make a kit that costs the same but will be designed faster and will be sold outright in a month.

As we all know, Frog has made a fortune with its kits and is the unmatched leader of the entire modelling industry now. Its main rival, Matchbox, is treading on its heels. True, but it's worth taking a closer look at these kits. Avenger Sword is based on Hasegawa, so in principle these models can be treated as one big family. And indeed, here is material for a new project. Not necessarily now, with the Sword model series and Hasegawa reboxes from Hobby 2000 thrown into the shops, the market is saturated. But releasing the whole Avenger family around 2030, designed from scratch, could be a pretty good idea, especially with the many differences and details included. Barracuda I am afraid that the Barracuda will never be an easy model to build. At the same time, it is such a niche aircraft that it will be doomed to be made as a short-run even if it is made by a company that also makes models in metal moulds. Bearcat Given the existence of the cheap and widely available HobbyBoss model, most companies will give up. Their kit, even if noticeably better, will be at least twice as expensive. The financial risk is considerable, and the subject is not that popular to guarantee a return on investment. Buffalo Buffalo is a still-produced Hasegawa, recently reboxed by Hobby 2000, plus Sword/Special Hobby. These models are good enough, a lot of them have been sold for such a niche subject and they are still readily enough available that making a whole family from scratch makes little sense. Maybe in 5-10 years' time, but even then it will be risky, because every manufacturer has to consider whether those who own Hasegawa and Special Hobby will want to replace their old models with the new ones. Fulmar The same can be written with Fulmar as with Barracuda. Vista is almost 30 years old, but it is cheap. Special Hobby is 13 years old, but good enough. With such a niche subject, making a new model is hardly profitable, because the moulds in the Special Hobby should still be in use for years to come. Sea Fury The Sea Fury from Trumpeter is good enough that there is no point in repeating it. Especially as Trumpeter's price is so low that the idea will be rejected when calculating the cost of a new design. Well... not really. A manufacturer considering a new project looks at existing products, their quality, price and availability. He then looks at whether he can make them much better and how much they will cost. This is where the concept of "the existing product is good enough" comes in. If the models available on the market are good enough, the chance of modellers wanting to replace an old model with a new one decreases noticeably. Which means that niche themes are discarded, only popular themes are considered. Simply put, the product must guarantee not only a return on investment, but also a noticeable profit. And not after 10 years, but after a year or two. This is exactly why IBG Models produced the Fw 190D - they could design a model much better than the existing ones, and the subject guaranteed good sales. For exactly the same reason Eduard will start selling the Bf 109 from next year. In both cases we have the same approach to the subject - the whole family is made, taking into account the vast majority of versions. Of these six aircraft, only the Avenger meets this condition - it was used in combat on various fronts in World War II (and after the war), has quite a few versions and a lot of interesting markings, so it guarantees good sales. The design won't be cheap or easy, but it will sell for years. The other five cases can be described by the phrase "existing kits are good enough". Exactly. This is, what Eduard said during their last event: On the Trener [Zlin Trener family in 1/48] The Trener is a training aircraft and does not belong in the aforementioned top league [Zero and Wildcat]. But we also used it for some training ourselves. Whenever we go into the design of a new type like this, it means that we are confirming something, maybe a new technology or design concept and procedure, or maybe training new people. Right now, we have a Blanik glider in the works, and for exactly that reason. The Trener was still a more expanded project, because there are so many versions of it. Usually, these are more intended for the home market so that Czech modellers can get something out of it as well. On the possibility of producing other Czechoslovak types There will be a Blanik kit, but it won’t be next year, and we are not even sure about the year after. The design phase of the project is nearing an end, but is not quite there, and then it’ll have to wait for tooling, and the same goes for the two seat Cmelak (Bumble Bee). That one had several canopy versions. Technically, I can say that our MiG-21F-13 is Czechoslovak, since it was produced here and we can categorize it as such. On further MiGs in 1:48 Well, I don’t really consider the MiG-17 as a top league player, and to stay with the sports analogies, even the MiG-15 is in danger of relegation to a lower league. But it flew everywhere. I have a personal connection to the MiG-19 as well as the MiG-23, so I can see us doing these the moment we find ourselves with more income than we know what to do with. This is not secret knowledge, people who work in the industry have known about it for years, but producers at such events also speak plainly about it. And yet many modellers are reluctant to accept this, even though here we have a manufacturer from a leading modelling company answering live questions from modellers. By the way, you can also see the prioritisation of mould production. The Blanik was announced earlier, the render of the two-seater Cmelak was also already presented. And yet it is not clear when they will go into production, because they are not a priority. More important are the kits that will definitely make money. And before someone comes along with the traditional whine of "they'd just like to make money, where's the idea", here's a piece on the economic realities of a major model manufacturer like Eduard: On the effects of current conditions on Eduard With respect to the way world prices are evolving, we will be forced to increase ours. So far, we’ve delayed in doing so, despite more expensive raw materials, including plastics. There is a dramatic rise in the cost of brass plating, which have furthermore suffered from delivery delays. For us, it has meant purchasing huge quantities of brass to have something from which to produce and survive the current economic climate. Realize that by February of this year, we already had the same money in brass as we did for all of last year. But even more relevant for us is the rise in energy costs. We are hopeful that our firm will qualify for a government program that aims to cap energy prices for small and medium sized businesses. This would mean a fourfold increase for us, instead of ten. Even that would be a significant increase, because our activities are energy intensive. Bottom line is that price increases will come, and they will come about November or December. The increases looks to be somewhere between 13 and 16%, so somewhere around four bucks for a 48th scale ProfiPACK kit, give or take. On this year’s sales From March, we’ve been feeling a decline in sales. The page really turned with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Up to February, sales were really quite good despite our still recuperating from our fire, the effects of which were felt for over three quarters of last year. In last year’s fourth quarter and this year’s first, our sales figures were considered good, comparable to our pre-fire levels. March saw a decline in sales that then continued on through the summer. It paused in August, but then resumed again in September. We are talking about a decline in the neighbourhood of 20%. The biggest loss is among the home market. It is clear that our modellers and our retailers on the home front have the greatest skepticism level. Typically, the decline on the home market is around 40%, which is significant. The biggest decline is seen in photoetched brass sales, while model kit sales are basically stagnant. I think, though, that September will end up showing a decline there as well, once the numbers are in. We do have one area of continued growth despite what is going on, and that is in the sales of our Brassin items.

Unfortunately, AZ Model has dropped a lot in quality over the years and I've basically stopped paying attention to new products with their logo, unless it's a rebox of a good kit from another manufacturer. In their early days they made quite a few original models that can still be considered good even today. In recent years they take an old model, change something in it and pretend it is modern tooling, designed from scratch in CAD. And a lot of people fall for it, even though you can see immediately by the quality that it can't be a modern CAD design and modern tooling. Of course, there are quite a few people who like to bring such a model to a level that other manufacturers give straight out of the box. If someone likes it, that's fine with me. I, however, prefer to spend money on a higher quality product. That's why, in the case of Kingfisher, I'm still waiting for a good kit, I want one in the Australian Antarctic Expedition markings. If Flyhawk releases it, I will be a happy customer.

I have no idea. Looking at discussions like this over the last few years, it seems to me that some modellers just don't want to accept that modelling companies need to earn money for their operation and for new releases. They also don't want to understand that model companies are staffed by people who know their job. Meanwhile, it only takes a look at a few of the proposals to see that someone has done his homework - the last long-run Kingfisher was released by Airfix in 1967, the Walrus by Matchbox in 1973 and the Do 18 by Matchbox in 1979. Each of these should be profitable even if made in steel moulds and each deserves modern tooling.

WeChat. A great way to reach the international audience that are the company's main customers. Because most of them are not profitable for companies that use steel moulds. And, let's face it, most are hardly profitable at all when released from modern tooling metal moulds. It's material for conversions, resin models, at best for companies that make short-run models. Aeronca L-3 → any short run company Blackburn Shark → any short run company Boeing Clipper → resin / 3D printing, if at all Douglas DC-5 → subject for Valom Fokker F.IX/F.39 → subject for Valom Heinkel He 115 → the only one that could be profitable when released from metal moulds, but not necessarily from steel moulds Junkers Ju 288 → resin / 3D printing / conversion, if at all Lockheed C-56 → Lodestar was released by Special Hobby, three boxes were available for years Nakajima G5N Shinzan → resin / 3D printing, if at all North American P-51 Mustang "lightweight" → P-51H was released by RS Models; XP-51F, XP-51G, XP-51J are for any short run company Vickers Warwick → subject for Valom Waco UC-72 → any short run company, maybe resin + 3D from Dekno Westland Wallace & Westland Wapiti → any short or mid run company able to release whole family; maybe Airfix, when they finally learn to design projects with multiple versions of the aircraft Basically all of them are much more obscure than any from the Flyhawk survey. Of the entire list you've posted, only the He 115 was a combat aircraft with a long and significant wartime combat service record and quite a few interesting markings. The rest were either inter-war, transport or liaison aircraft. Or, finally, the prototypes.

From this note, it appears that Aviation Megastore has received word from their supplying distributor of Minicraft models that the manufacturer has suspended operations. This is, moreover, suggested by the information that there would be no more deliveries and when stocks ran out, the models would be gone. If it was just a distributor issue, Aviation Megastore could have changed to another distributor. Unfortunately, the company's communication channels are so out of date that one might conclude that the company has not existed for several years.

You are pretty wrong and it was really easy to check: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluk or https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluk Pulk, or to be precise: pułk (regiment), is a Polish word. Similar ones are Lithuanian pulkas and Latvian pulks.

Just like dozens of other Italeri announcements. Maybe they will release this set one day, maybe not.

Damn it, the Hutts will add such a margin that the model will cost a fortune.

In an ideal world, comments about the accuracy of models would be backed up by factory documentation and photos and would be written in a tone that shows how something should look, taking into account the technical capabilities of the modelling industry. At the same time, companies commenting on their products would also back up their statements with factory documentation, rather than a mere "it's the way we did it because it's right, and it's right because we did it that way". Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, so a company that puts a lot of effort into releasing a kit for which there is no (readily available) documentation will be criticised on the basis of vague photographs or myths that have persisted for 30-40 years. At the same time, a company producing a kit, for which documentation is readily available, will be praised even if the model has dozens of errors - assurances of their professionalism and a group of loudly clapping fans are enough for no serious discussion to arise. The same applies, by the way, to critics - those who use the documentation and explain what has been done wrong and how, will be labelled as "company haters". But criticism that is based on fantasy or someone else's personal opinion, written in a harassing or insulting tone, will not be met with any response. I have been seeing these behaviours for many years, in different forums, in different languages.... and apparently we have to get used to the fact that there are also such people in our hobby.

To be honest it's hard to say how different it will be. Their model in 1/72 is very good, although of course I can complain that they didn't take into account one of the Polish modifications as well Maybe there will be full riveting? Maybe some of the details available in 1/72 as resin additions, in 1/48 will be plastic? In any case, there will be a bit of a wait for this model, but in all probability it can be assumed that this will be the best MiG-15 family in 1/48.

Nope. The point is that the Cessna 172 is a civilian post-war aircraft. Such kits sell noticeably worse, the same goes for post-war aircraft. If we combine these two indicators, sales come out very poorly. And that is why post-war civil aircraft are so rarely produced and in fact close to 100% of them are produced as short-run or resin models. If you check new tool releases from mainstream manufacturers since 2000, you'll see how few of such kits were released.

Indeed. Just a quick look at the history of this aircraft would be enough to see that several hundred were produced in various versions, which was quite an achievement in the inter-war period. Looking at the multitude of versions I expect many boxes from Special Hobby and certainly no one will lose money on this kit: A-11 - bomber and recon, 108 built; A-11N - A-11 equipped for night flights, 43 built; A-11HS - export version with different engine, Finland bought 8 aircraft; A-21 - night flying trainer derived from A-11N, 8 built; A-25 - lightweight unarmed training version with different engine and dual controls, 25 built; A-29 - float version derived from Ab-11, nine built with two different engines; Ab-11 - bomber version with different engine, 84 built; Ab-11N - four Ab-11 equipped for night flights; Ab-111 - different engine, 15 built; Aš-11 - trainers rebuilt from decommissioned A-11s. Production of the A-11 began in 1924, with aircraft in service until the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and a few made it to the Slovak Air Force. I feel that for so many years of service a few interesting markings can be found.

This is standard cycle of releases: premiere with Limited Edition Dual Combo, ProfiPack a couple of months later, Weekend six months after the ProfiPack.