1:72 VC-10

[Giorgio N]

We can of course all argue this back & forth. There have been plenty of reasons put forward as to why (allegedly) a VC-10 will not sell. Fine, I'm prepared to accept that but,where is all the actual hard,concrete, incontrovertible,demonstrable evidence that this is the case? What actual detailed research & evaluation has been done, by whom, when and how was this "research" conducted? Airfix is of course the prime "contender" mentioned in this discussion. The people that run Messrs Airfix are not fools so, perhaps they could confirm (for our benefit as potential customers)the valid,sensible reasons why such a model will (can) not be be produced.. Comercial viability will of course be top of the list and, I totally understand this but,perhaps a comment from a manufacturer can finally put this case to rest?

Personally, I would rather have a clear and specific "no way" compared to a politician type evasion like "no plans to / no current plans to"

Allan

Would the fact that they have not already done be an acceptable answer?

Speaking of Airfix and VC-10, how did the 1/144 kit do ? Has it been constantly available or was it only issued once every few years ? With 1/144 a more common scale for airliners models, the success (or lack of) of the smaller kit might be an indication of the interest (or lack of) for the type

[xffw45343tg]

^{Would the fact that they have not already done be an acceptable answer?}

^{I'm not sure it would. If you follow that logic, there can never be a new kit of a type and scale not produced before.}

^{Speaking of Airfix and VC-10, how did the 1/144 kit do ? Has it been constantly available or was it only issued once every few years ? With 1/144 a more common scale for airliners models, the success (or lack of) of the smaller kit might be an indication of the interest (or lack of) for the type}

^{I can't comment on its sales or release history (other than to say that there have been at least 3 boxings) but do observe that they always change hands on ebay for considerably more than the original RRP. I read into this that the demand is presently greater than the supply - though given that we're talking about no more than say a dozen a week, this admitedly doesn't make a cast iron case for a re-pop.}

^{However, I would also point out that in its role as a military refueller this a prime candidate to extend the market for a variety of 1:72 fighter models. There was an excellent example of this on BM (I'll see if I can locate it later and update this thread with a link) where a chap made a quite magnificent diorama with a 1:72 Magna (I think) VC-10 flanked by a couple of little friends. So maybe the traditional airliner builder is happy with 1:144, but there are other aspirations out there.}

^{Also, if one were thinking about modelling, say, the 2002 Jubilee flypast in 1:72, one would get stuck on a few key participants...}

^Kirk

[Albeback52]

Would the fact that they have not already done be an acceptable answer?

Speaking of Airfix and VC-10, how did the 1/144 kit do ? Has it been constantly available or was it only issued once every few years ? With 1/144 a more common scale for airliners models, the success (or lack of) of the smaller kit might be an indication of the interest (or lack of) for the type

Fair point

However, every kit they have produced had also " not already been done" by them at some point. Once upon a time, they hadn't already done a Short Stirling, or a Halifax BIII or a Vulcan, or a Lancaster Mk II or a Javelin. Then along came.........! If they DID do a brand new VC-10 in 1/144 instead of 1/72, then I personally wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because I really hate that small scale! I will only purchase 1/144 if it's something I really want & there's no other available and/or affordable option in a decent scale!

For all the bally hoo & fuss surrounding (for example) TSR 2, I personally think that a type that never entered service & had only (3 I think?) flying prototypes built is far less deserving of 2 mainstream I M kits than an aircraft that has served with at least a dozen airlines and has served (and continues to do so) with distinction with the RAF.Just a personal perspective though.

All sorts of very valid reasons have been given as to why this hypothetical VC-10 has not/will never see the light of day. However, I reckon we can take it as read that when Airfix release their 2014 catalogue we will see more posts asking yet again " Why have they not done a 1/72 VC-10 - the kit modellers are crying out for"! .

Realistically, I accept it will likely never happen. However, if I'm wrong it will be a DEFINITE bonus!

Allan

[marty_hopkirk]

^{I can't comment on its sales or release history (other than to say that there have been at least 3 boxings) but do observe that they always change hands on ebay for considerably more than the original RRP. I read into this that the demand is presently greater than the supply - though given that we're talking about no more than say a dozen a week, this admitedly doesn't make a cast iron case for a re-pop.}

^Kirk

I would say eBay is a very poor barometer of demand, there are so many skews, many irrational. A better benchmark would be to look at Airfix's production runs of thier 144 scale kit over Airfix's existence. I would venture it has been more out the catalogue than it has been in. The last iteration was as the military tanker version (one would have thought taht would have a degree of popularity) and that hung around model shops like a bad smell and can still be still found if one is willing to search. That I would suggest that tells one more about the popularity of the machine and kit than eBay.

One of Airfix's strategy's appears to be is to run down there back-catalogue retooling their most popular older models, I'm not aware there has been an airliner get the retool treatment to date. My view is that tells one a lot.

If Airfix or any other mainstream manufacturers produce VC-10 it'll be in 1/144 or one of the other popular airliner scales such as 1/200. I think there is perhaps an outside chance of that. But as to a 72 scale one no way Jose I'm afraid.

Marty...

Edited March 15, 2013 by marty_hopkirk

[pigsty]

"Deserving" is not a meaningful term to use. Equipment doesn't have to earn its place in a manufacturer's kit catalogue. If it did, we'd never have had two 1/48 kits of the F3H, we probably wouldn't be getting a 1/48 Javelin either, and my hopes of getting a Scimitar would scuppered too.

[xffw45343tg]

... I think there is perhaps an outside chance of that. But as to a 72 scale one no way Jose I'm afraid.

Marty...

And to back up that confident assertion? Business plan? Market research data? Anything with a fact in it?

[Giorgio N]

And to back up that confident assertion? Business plan? Market research data? Anything with a fact in it?

Fact: the mould for an aircraft the size of a VC-10 can cost up to a few £10,000. That's just the cost for the mould.

Fact: in order to recover the cost of development and tooling, mainstream injected kits need to be sold in the order of several thousands. When that number is reached, the company will start to make a profit on any kit made from the same mould. A subject that can't sell in this order of magnitude is not going to generate profit.

Fact: the larger the kit, the smaller the number sold. A few years ago there were some numbers divulged about Airfix's best sellers and the number of spitfire kits sold was several times that of the Lancaster. Even the number of Hurricanes and Bf.109 was way larger than the lancaster. It all makes sense, as a more expensive kit is likely to sell more to those than want it than to casual buyers. Casual buyers that however make a large percentage of the market of mainstream kit manufacturers.

Fact: the market for 1/72 liners is limited compared to the market for combat types of similar size. The market for large 1/72 combat types is itself smaller than the market for similarly sized 1/48 combat aircrafts kits. There's more sales potential for a manufacturer in a 1/48 tomcat than in a 1/72 Vulcan but more in a 1/72 Vulcan than in a 1/72 DC-8. These are all kits that would require a similar investment, yet one of them is going to sell many times more than the others

Fact: the VC-10 is a subject that is only known in the UK, has very little international appeal. As such. more than 90% of the sales projections have to come from the internal market.

Fact: even in this thread, there have been people who have clearly stated that yes they would like a 1/72 VC-10 but would not want or be able to spend £60 for such a kit.

I've been involved in startup companies before and I've participated in the financial evaluation of projects involving evaluating business plans, market size simulations and all this kind of things. All the above are facts that if a company came to me asking for funding for such a venture, would likely make me think that it is not a good idea.

As to facts that would make an investor believe in making a mainstream injected kit of such a subject, I've not read one yet in the thread.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Giorgio N

[Albeback52]

"Deserving" is not a meaningful term to use. Equipment doesn't have to earn its place in a manufacturer's kit catalogue. If it did, we'd never have had two 1/48 kits of the F3H, we probably wouldn't be getting a 1/48 Javelin either, and my hopes of getting a Scimitar would scuppered too.

I think it's a perfectly justifiable term to use. The word "deserving" is one that recurs frequently in discussions such as this. As for "doesn't have to earn it's place", I disagree with you here also. If equipment didn't "earn its place" ( i e make money!) then it would disappear very rapidly from a any kit catalogue and very likely put any other manufacturer off producing a similar type. We will have to agree to differ on this.

And to back up that confident assertion? Business plan? Market research data? Anything with a fact in it?

If I may throw your comment back at you, what business plan or market research data do you have to back up your own case? You clearly believe a 1/72 VC-10 would be a success so, do you have anything tangible to back up your own view?

I was going to add a bit more but, Giorgio's post above has really covered everything I wanted to say. I'm sure that once this particular discussion has run its course, the subject of the 1/72 VC-10 will once again rear it's beautiful head round about the time of the 2014 Airfix release announcements and/or the various toy/model fairs. Once again we will hear the despairing cries of " why oh why no VC-10!!.

Once again we will all go round in little circles rehashing the same old arguments over & over again!

Allan

Edited March 15, 2013 by Albeback52

[pigsty]

Everything that Giorgio says, I find very convincing. If you remove "£60" and replace it with a more realistic price, even more so.

But I'm not quite sure why anyone who finds the prospect of a 1/72 VC10 unlikely should be required to "prove" it. This is not a situation where someone thinks they've established a fact and others are being challenged to disprove it. It's beginning to look more like the proposition is

"I want this. So they have a duty to make it. They will find this economically viable because I want it"

and the only acceptable response seems to be

"Yes, you're right".

No other response seems to be having any effect so, to borrow a line, are we having an argument here, or just a contradiction?

Edited March 15, 2013 by pigsty

[Mike]

Is this thread really going anywhere now? I've been watching the "Yes they will", "No they won't" argument go back & forth (very politely so far) for several pages now, and haven't seen much if any new material of late. Could we just round it up by stating that some people think it'll happen, and some don't, and agree to differ? Then we can all go off and abuse electrons on another thread with a hopefully more productive outcome. Just so long as it's not arguing over colours on a black and white photo, or some such malarkey

Oh, and just to add... I hope they do, and I hope it sells well, but I won't hold my breath

[thx6667]

We can of course all argue this back & forth. There have been plenty of reasons put forward as to why (allegedly) a VC-10 will not sell. Fine, I'm prepared to accept that but,where is all the actual hard,concrete, incontrovertible,demonstrable evidence that this is the case? What actual detailed research & evaluation has been done, by whom, when and how was this "research" conducted?

OK, I'm loathe to the use the 20-years-in-the-industry experience card but... 20 years in the industry has yielded a certain experience of seeing what sells and what doesn't, what it takes to develop a kit and how much it would take break even let alone make a profit, where market strengths for kit manufacturers are etc...

I look at something like a 1/72 VC10 and I'm trying to figure out how you'd make it work. As easy as it is to just simply say "do all the variants that way you'll cover all bases" it all comes back to R&D costs and whether there is market out there for one, let alone several variants.

Now I'll never say never, but personally speaking there are too many circle needing to be squared. I'm seeing an enthusiastic minority talking up their favourite subject in the belief/hope that the rest of the modelling world will share their vision - which has shades of deja vu with Revell's 1/32 Hunter, or Monogram's 1/48 PBY, Academy's C-97, AMT's YB-35/XB-49/XB-70...

We're very good at saying something will sell, then making noises about how its all very nice it is, I'd love to have one, but...

And my experience says there's a lot of buts with a 1/72 VC10.

[pigsty]

I think it's a perfectly justifiable term to use. The word "deserving" is one that recurs frequently in discussions such as this. As for "doesn't have to earn it's place", I disagree with you here also. If equipment didn't "earn its place" ( i e make money!) then it would disappear very rapidly from a any kit catalogue and very likely put any other manufacturer off producing a similar type. We will have to agree to differ on this.

I don't think we'll need to do that. Just to be clear: any kit has to earn its keep - clearly! What I was saying was that the original equipment doesn't have to "earn" the status of being turned into a kit. The examples I gave were all of aircraft that were somewhere between poor and marginal and failed to set the world alight. If equipment had to earn its place in a kit catalogue, they'd still be behind the door. The real test is whether people are interested enough to buy the kit, and interest merely is - it's not a question of merit. This is why I say that "deserving" is the wrong term to use. Anyone trying to persuade a manufacturer to give us the Farley Fruitbat C(F)Mk.3A will fail if he says "But don't you know about the Battle of Perkins' Knee? Surely it deserves a kit for that!" But he might succeed if he could say "I know fourteen hundred people who'll buy it if you include markings for the Battle of Perkins' Knee."

We're very good at saying something will sell, then making noises about how its all very nice it is, I'd love to have one, but...

This is why I mentioned this thread in the one about crowd-funding an Argus. The original thread on ARC is chock-full of people saying exactly that. Edited March 15, 2013 by pigsty

[Kev1n]

Ok...another fact - as far as airliners go this year's airfix catalogue shows the same two types; the Boeing 737-200 and the Boeing 727-200.

The same pair that have been in the past two catalogues.

I would love to see airfix release/72nd scale VC10, from which one could make any variant, which is the only possible way such a kit might sell in any significant numbers.

But the sheer size of the completed model limits the number of people who could have somewhere to put it when built

and it's size would also mean a high price - as much as I would love to have one, I doubt if I could afford it.

And I'm like most people; limited by time, space and money.

[chris57]

OK guys, but in the meantime while the Airfix money men are weighing up the pro's & con's of this debate. I'll take a couple of those incorrect magna efforts to Hornchurch in case anyone wants to stroke some resin and imagine. chris

[thx6667]

I would love to see airfix release/72nd scale VC10, from which one could make any variant, which is the only possible way such a kit might sell in any significant numbers.

How? You've presented that as a fait accompli, that it simply would happen with no evidence of a market even existing for such a kit. The more versions you make, the more it will costs in terms of R&D which then has to be made back. IYou either have to hope that there's enough of a market to support three or four boxings of what would be a large and pricey kit, or it all goes into one box which means all that cost/risk has to be recovered either by selling fewer at a higher price, or hoping there's enough of market to make for a lower RRP.

Thus far no one has proved there's a market for it. Forums, cottage kits and eBay do not count as supporting evidence, alas.

[pinky coffeeboat]

All quite interesting reading (if a little bit tail chasing). I would like to see a 1/72 VC-10, but I'd much rather have a Zvezda quality 1/144 VC-10 (standard and super) from either Zvezda (obviously) or Airfix or anyone else capable and willing to do it well and not cost the earth..

I recall the excitement and numerous forum posts regarding the BPK 737-200 in 1/72. Now, here's an airliner that is known the world over, sold in the thousands (with the same number of colour schemes), is used by the US air force (and others) and sells for roughly £65. So far, I've seen precisely 1 (ONE) built up on any forum. That, to me says a lot about the chances of a 1/72 VC-10 being made...

[venomvixen]

Silly question but wasn't the Sea Vixen something we all desperatley wanted?

From where I am there are an awful lot of them banging around unsold. I truely hope they

weren't a dud for Airfix.

[pinky coffeeboat]

Silly question but wasn't the Sea Vixen something we all desperatley wanted?

From where I am there are an awful lot of them banging around unsold. I truely hope they

weren't a dud for Airfix.

I bought one, but like you I see a lot on offer (and weren't they on a limited production run of something like a couple of thousand "buy it now or miss out forever") some heavily discounted.

The PBY Catalina topped the Fine Scale Modeler poll of most wanted 1/48 kit for quite a few years and when Revell-Monogram duly released their lovely kit, it became something like their most undersold kit ever, until they released the 1/48 JU-52, then the 1/72 Atlantic...

As for Airfix - from what I see in model shops, the Valiant, Nimrod, Canberra & Sea Vixen sit on the shelves heavily discounted and apparently unwanted. Yet for years these were the kits we were willing to offer our first born and the family cat for. Asking and hoping for a kit are one thing, but as has been said here several times, when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, well that's very different and THAT'S what counts!!

Edited March 18, 2013 by pinky coffeeboat

[marty_hopkirk]

And to back up that confident assertion? Business plan? Market research data? Anything with a fact in it?

If the market existed and it was a sure fire winner as you assert, you would be able to nip down your local model store this fine Saturday morning or Google over to the 'Big Yellow' or any other on-line store and buy one.

I was going to go into some more detail but, Jonathon and Giorgio clearly set out the position as why you are highly unlikely to see a mainstream 72 scale VC-10 kit, so there is no need to.

As I mentioned previously up the thread there is an outside possibility that niche manufacturer might take a punt on a small scale one. But given people like Gemini Jets manufacture a range of pre-made up one (albeit in1/400), I have my doubts.

Marty...

[Albeback52]

OK, I'm loathe to the use the 20-years-in-the-industry experience card but... 20 years in the industry has yielded a certain experience of seeing what sells and what doesn't, what it takes to develop a kit and how much it would take break even let alone make a profit, where market strengths for kit manufacturers are etc...

I look at something like a 1/72 VC10 and I'm trying to figure out how you'd make it work. As easy as it is to just simply say "do all the variants that way you'll cover all bases" it all comes back to R&D costs and whether there is market out there for one, let alone several variants.

Now I'll never say never, but personally speaking there are too many circle needing to be squared. I'm seeing an enthusiastic minority talking up their favourite subject in the belief/hope that the rest of the modelling world will share their vision - which has shades of deja vu with Revell's 1/32 Hunter, or Monogram's 1/48 PBY, Academy's C-97, AMT's YB-35/XB-49/XB-70...

We're very good at saying something will sell, then making noises about how its all very nice it is, I'd love to have one, but...

And my experience says there's a lot of buts with a 1/72 VC10.

Point taken Jonathan & my apologies if you felt compelled to reiterate the point. Actually, I agree with you on this. I do not realistically expect this Holy Grail of kits to appear at all. However, it is clear that there are a number of people like the metaphorical "dog with a bone". They just will not let go!. Once this thread finally runs its course, you can guarantee the subject will arise Phoenix - like from the ashes of previous discussions the next time a "what do you think Airfix will/should produce " discussion appears and/or, the 2014 Toy fair reports appear!

On a related note concerning the hypothetical price of the hypothetical VC-10, I had an exchange of views with a modelling friend of mine yesterday. He was of the firm & unshakeable belief that a kit of the size of a VC-10 should cost no more than £50-£60!. His "evidence"? The recent re-release of the Monogram B-52 with X-15. Current rrp £59.99. You certainly get a lot in the box for that price but, I tried in vain to point out that all the R & D had been done decades ago and, there were no tooling/mould costs to recoup either. I'm afraid he just refused to see it that way. As you can probably gather, he is one of the " I just don't understand why they don't.................... brigade!! .

If/when? we DO ever get a new VC-10, I suspect it more likely to be in 1/144. In that event, I personally would not touch it with a bargepole because I hate that small scale!. However,I'm sure many other VC-10 fans would be delighted!

allan

[marty_hopkirk]

Ok...another fact - as far as airliners go this year's airfix catalogue shows the same two types; the Boeing 737-200 and the Boeing 727-200.

The same pair that have been in the past two catalogues.

That could equally mean the opposite of course. It more likely means they have still have stock from the initial production run to shift and they will simply remain in the catalogue until they are sold. I very much doubt they have been popping them on a regular basis to keep in the catalogue.

Marty...

Edited March 16, 2013 by marty_hopkirk

[pinky coffeeboat]

If/when? we DO ever get a new VC-10, I suspect it more likely to be in 1/144. In that event, I personally would not touch it with a bargepole because I hate that small scale!. However,I'm sure many other VC-10 fans would be delighted!

allan

At the risk of flogging this topic well and truly past it's life, just a quick comment about what you have said above and earlier on. You wouldn't touch 1/144 with a barge pole (scale too small) UNLESS it was something you really wanted and there was no alternative...so does that mean when a 1/144 VC-10 is produced and there is no alternative, then you will buy one?

[kev67]

This topic has 12600 views and counting so a 1/72 VC-10 would stir some emotions at least

[thx6667]

This topic has 12600 views and counting so a 1/72 VC-10 would stir some emotions at least

Consisting of about a dozen or so posters with much the same stuff being recycled every other page, so its not really a barometer of interest in a VC10.

[wallyinoz]

I'd have a 1/72 VC10..a BOAC example that used to fly into Perth would do me