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. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Good

About HMSLion

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    NAS Pax River, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

771 profile views
  1. Is that Tu-144 a new mold? Ah...no. ICM plastic.
  2. Hopefully they will release one in U.S. Naval Test Pilot School markings. Which are pretty colorful.
  3. Anything from the Dreadnought era is a Good Thing. Though I think a British battlecruiser would have made more sense.
  4. That doesn't surprise me. Anything other than tactical aircraft has an uphill fight in the marketplace. Especially in the large, expensive scales. And the point about this year being flooded with high-dollar kits is true.
  5. 1/32 would be my bet. With Wingnut Wings in operation, it's become the default for First World War kits.
  6. The big headache is that the 1/72 descent module of the LEM is badly out of dimensions vertically. The ascent module looks OK, but the overall proportions of the LEM are out of whack. Can't speak to the 1/48 version. That being said, I will buy at least one Saturn, probably two. One for myself, the other for a display at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School.
  7. It may be basic, but it is an AH-56. And the aftermarket needs something to do.
  8. I'm also perplexed as to the absence of a Be.2. Not that it's on the top of my personal want list, but it's like the Lancaster...once you are building a full-scale replica, you have the data to make a kit. Especially with modern CAD/CAM methods.
  9. I'm actually surprised WNW has not released a DH-5. Given the Australian connection, it would be a natural subject. Not that it would be my personal first choice, but it would suit WNW perfectly.
  10. Nevertheless, the CSM Nieuport is superb. I'm not sure that WNW has all that much design capacity left over, between the Lancaster and the O/400. Which indicates that a single-seat aircraft is likely. I could easily see a Viper-powered Se.5a...a new engine sprue is all that is needed. Although I'd dearly love a Dr.1 or D.VIII.
  11. I think that a reasonably strong case could be made for a prepaid subscription model. You pay your money up front, get the kit (or a refund if it falls through) if there is enough interest.
  12. This is true. The questions I'd be looking at would be: 1. Can I crowdsource any of the research or CAD design? 2. Can the capital be crowdsourced?
  13. No, you have to pick a subject that nobody else has done and will sell enough kits to turn a net profit. Or a subject that has been done, but which you can do sufficiently better to warrant tossing the old kits and buying yours. Kindly note that the Chinese makers have been doing truckloads of prototype and low-production AFVs.
  14. I'd buy a 1/72 Javelin, and two 1/72 Sea Vixens. Having said that, I think the upcoming Spitfire XIV will sell quite well. But what I notice is that a lot of the online wish lists often feature kits that would be enormous when built. I'm a firm believer in the Rule of 225 (or 1600, in Metric). An assembled model must fit into a rectangle of 225 square inches (or 1600 square cm). 15x15. It means that 1/48 is good for Second World War single-engine aircraft and most twins...for a 4-engine bomber, it's really not a good scale (though you might use it for consistency). Jets after 1960 do well in 1/72...in 1/48, they are just too large. I've seen a P-51 Mustang parked next to an F-18B Hornet, and the Mustang is about half the size in every dimension. A model has to be scaled realistically. I'll add that it pays to go where the competitors aren't. Do the kits the other companies don't do. No, Company A's Me-109 doesn't make money for Company B, but Company B's Me-109 loses money unless it sells well. And the 109 market is pretty saturated.
  • Create New...