Flyhawk Model market survey (1/72)

[352nd Fighter Group]

I would not mind a  F4U-1D 1/72 

[Botan]

17 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

[...] 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.

 

I think you are explaining opportunity cost here.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

54 minutes ago, Botan said:

 

I think you are explaining opportunity cost here.

 

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.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

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.

 

I think most do understand this, or at least most quickly pick up on the logic as soon as they're pointed in the right direction. Those who can't or won't understand are in the minority but the things said do tend to stick in one's mind.

 

[JWM]

1 hour ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

Unfortunately, many modellers still refuse to accept this.

This is misunderstanding. Here the company ask us, so a sample of world wide society of modelers active on this forum, what we would like to get? So there is no need (and room) at all for our thinking on "if it will be too expensive or not for them" (so for the producer). When we start to think on that, our response is biased (simply we are not telling the truth). The producer is not getting what he asking for. He needs simply our ranking of preferences and then he will use it and the "invention called the calculator", both as inputs for consideration on the decisions on his production strategy... Therefor I will repeat that I will like to see Botha, DH 86, Vought 93, Breguet XIX, Lavesseur PL 15, CAMS 55 or even such bizarities as Savoia SM 66, DAR 3 Gavron (  ) .... - those are models I would like to buy  and I do not care for whom it will bring profit and how big it will be  . From proposed list I am still interesting only in Catalina, I am still planning to build one (or even two) more of them. I have also to think twice if I need Ju 288 or He 177 only short fuselage A3 (Revell produced longer A5 an I have it). The other of list I will simply not buy, but I think that Walrus, Kingfisher or Do 18 will be welcomed by many of us. 

Regards

J-W

[Botan]

3 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

 

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.

 

Hence, they calculate opportunity cost too.

[Piotr Mikolajski]

4 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I think most do understand this, or at least most quickly pick up on the logic as soon as they're pointed in the right direction.

 

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.

[VMA131Marine]

2 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

However, let's return to the Flyhawk proposals. It seems to me that Kingfisher would be a natural continuation of Dauntless.

One thing about the Kingfisher, it was used by a lot of countries, albeit in small numbers for most of them. In addition to the US and UK, there’s:

Australia

Chile

Cuba

Dominican Republic
Mexico

Uruguay 

 

The South American aircraft in particular will have interesting colour and marking schemes.

In US service it was used by the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard so again some interesting options.

 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

27 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

One thing about the Kingfisher, it was used by a lot of countries, albeit in small numbers for most of them.

 

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

Edited November 7, 2022 by Piotr Mikolajski
Lind added

[TheKinksFan]

Should I start ordering Kingfisher decals? I will be heartbroken if it's not going to be the Kingfisher 😢.

 

My AZ Kingfisher ended up in the bin. I started to assemble it, pretty soon it became evident that it was one those worst kind of short run kits. Arrows pointing vaguely somewhere, nothing on the fuselage sidewall to guarantee that at least one part has a 100% exact location. The plastic didn't seem to react well to any cement. I shoved it back in the box . Later I decided to try again, but one part was missing, so into the bin it went.

 

It's hard to find really good or thorough in-box reviews of AZ/KP kits, often there are absolutely no reviews, not to mention build reviews. And while they keep churning out their kits, usually they don't release any photographs of the plastic. I believe this is intentional, as there's no excuse to not do it, with the access to social media it's so easy to do. The box covers are colourful, and they use the variety of different schemes to tempt fools like me.

Edited November 7, 2022 by TheKinksFan

[Piotr Mikolajski]

5 hours ago, TheKinksFan said:

And while they keep churning out their kits, usually they don't release any photographs of the plastic. I believe this is intentional, as there's no excuse to not do it, with the access to social media it's so easy to do.

 

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.

[TheKinksFan]

2 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

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/

Thanks Piotr for the tip. As a matter of matter fact I check that website quite regularly. But two years two years when I bought the kit I probably didn't find that site. Sice then there are reviews on YouTube and even two build videos. Although one of them Scale Models Japan never shows any actual building (sanding, test, fitting, filling, swearing etc), the parts just magically come together. What I find the worst thing about these kind of kits, is the uncertainty, when there's no way of telling where the parts should be glued, especially on the sidewall. 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

1 hour ago, TheKinksFan said:

What I find the worst thing about these kind of kits, is the uncertainty, when there's no way of telling where the parts should be glued, especially on the sidewall. 

 

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.

[Adam Poultney]

On 04/11/2022 at 19:25, Piotr Mikolajski said:

Right now, we have a Blanik glider in the works,

Certainly excited for another glider kit to enter the market! Any chance of more gliders? 

[TheKinksFan]

2 minutes ago, Adam Poultney said:

Certainly excited for another glider kit to enter the market! Any chance of more gliders? 

That was a quote from Eduard representative during the E-day, I guess. So you would have to ask Eduard. But probably no, if they want to stay in business. They once in a while release kits with no or minimal commercial potential, almost like favour to (certain) modellers.

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, TheKinksFan said:

That was a quote from Eduard representative during the E-day, I guess. So you would have to ask Eduard. But probably no, if they want to stay in business. They once in a while release kits with no or minimal commercial potential, almost like favour to (certain) modellers.

IIRC, the Blanik was a training project for a new designer. 

[Piotr Mikolajski]

3 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

Any chance of more gliders?

 

Not really. This is from their Eduard Info magazine:

 

The Trener is a training aircraft and does not belong in the aforementioned top league. 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 modelers can get something out of it as well.

 

Release date is not known yet:

 

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).

 

 

[Adam Poultney]

Well an Eduard quality Blaník would be great. It's most produced sailplane glider of all time I belive, and has been used all over the world, so who knows maybe it will see some success. I'll be waiting patiently for its eventual release.

I wish someone would do a good quality 1/72 or 1/48 ASK21, which is like a more modern equivalent to the Blaník, a two seat sailplane which has just reached 1000 built this year. The most common twin seat trainer today 

[alt-92]

 

On 11/7/2022 at 9:33 AM, TheKinksFan said:

I started to assemble it, pretty soon it became evident that it was one those worst kind of short run kits. Arrows pointing vaguely somewhere, nothing on the fuselage sidewall to guarantee that at least one part has a 100% exact location. The plastic didn't seem to react well to any cement.

Plastic works just fine with Tamiya white cap or extra thin over here.  The rest is typical for short-run stuff. Yes it isn't 2000s Tamiya. Big deal.

--

Can we get this back to Flyhawk? 
If it's quality requirements, I'd like some better quality decals than they did in the first SBD-3 kit. 

[352nd Fighter Group]

1/72 New Tool TBM Avenger 

[GioCare]

And the winner is .... after several weeks from the beginning any news about the winner? Or winners?