Why doesn't someone???

at the end of the day, its supply and demand. If a company starts rolling out injection mould kits of a, say, blackburn blackburn (someone's gonna say they'd build it, i know they will) even though theres no demand for it. That company has to put in time effort and resources into something potentially nobody will buy.

Injection moulding costs alot to set up.  Thats why when a kit is first released its usually fairly expensive, its to recoup the cost of setup. 

Mustangs, spitfires, corsairs. They're all sure fire sellers. People want them, they get made.

I didnt explain it very well, im sure someone else can do better.

Hopefully that made at least some sense.

Stpete01

To build a really interesting model, you have to resort to the (expensive) limited run manufacturers.

There is scratch building.....

Tracy White

 

Stpete01:

To build a really interesting model, you have to resort to the (expensive) limited run manufacturers.

 

There is scratch building.....

The Monogram Phantom Mustang was rereleased, along with the Olympia, and just to my right there is the Great wall P-61, only the second decent one at 1/48 ever.

I'm pretty happy that companies are using more research to provide more options.

But I am still waiting for a plastic Goeben or Breslau.

Yes we sure have far more choices of kits today than 20 or 30 years ago. In addition to the mainstay WWII fighters, many limited production aircraft such as the Westland Wyvern, Yak-38, or OV-1 Mohawk can be found in mainstream kits. Is everything available, no. But there is plenty out there to keep any modeler busy before having to double up on the old reliables of Mustangs, Corsairs, Zeros, Spitfires and Messerschmitts...

I'm seeing many injection molded models that were once only available in vacuform.

A number of  recently released 1/32 scale aircraft kits were once only available in vacuform.

Armor models such as the German E-100 and Panther II and other formerly exotic vehicles, once only available via scratch-building , have been available in kit form for some time

I suspect the recent flood of model kits has only become available due to modern CAD / CAM design and manufacturing.

Many of the recently released kits have been on my want list since childhood, yet I simply can't keep up.

There are simply too many new kits being released for me to buy, build and store.

I'm pickin' up what yer puttin' down.  But as previously stated its supply and demand and cost of production.  It's a bit risky for a company to shell out 500k to mold an odd subject that might flop. 

Although there are a lot of "paper panzers" being molded which I find odd, but I am not really into german armor so much.  There are a lot of people that are, hence the molding.

 I wish someone would kit the M110, M109, M107.  The prices of those are pretty steep on Ebay.

Stpete01

Hi,

I've got a mild (very mild) gripe about the products being offered by some of the companies that do injection molded kits. Why don't they ever seem to make anything but the same old tired kits: P-47's Corsairs, F6F's, P-51's? To build a really interesting model, you have to resort to the (expensive) limited run manufacturers. Thanks, I just needed to vent.

I've got a few responses.

First - the allies have nothing on zee Germans. The 109 and 190 are the most over-represented subjects hands down.

Second - popularity

Third - Tamiya's last big 1/48 release was the Storch, I believe. One of Revell of Germany's banner releases this year is the Arado Ar 196. Another is (one day) the PV-1 Ventura. Roden brought out a militarized Beechcraft Staggerwing. Two of them, actually. There are still a few that need to be addressed or revisited (the Kingfisher and Seamew spring to mind), but as someone else mentioned, this is a golden age.

Fourth - Don't be so quick on the P-51s, -47s and Corsairs. The Packard Merlin Mustangs are well covered, but where are all the new Allison-engined Mustangs? All that's out there are the Accurate Miniatures kits, and they take some hunting down. Why hasn't Tamiya done a P-47N? Why hasn't anyone else done a P-47M? Or a P-47D-30 in 1/48th? Or a filletless P-51D-5? Likewise, Tamiya and Academy have pretty solid coverage of the F4U-1 Corsairs, but what about the late models. I know Hasegawa made new-mold -5/-7 and AU-1 kits, but they seem to be about as easy to catch these days as unicorns. If you want an F4U-4 you're limited to an older and in my experience overpriced Hasegawa kit, or a less-than-stellar Revellogram (I appreciate the old molds as much as the next, but the F4U-4, like the Dauntless, is too much...cockpit frame molded as part of the fuselage? No thanks). With Spitfires, you're stuck with Classic Airframes if you want the Mk.Vc the Americans flew. Basically...even among the crazy over-kitted subjects, there are still pretty significant gaps if you look closely. 

Join the dark side! More kits of new and unusual subjects are being made every month!

Money, profits, the market.

They make what sells. Traditional money making molds, Spitfires, Mustangs, Shermans, Tigers are going to be produced by the mainstream companies.

New companies trying to get a foothold in the market often go for the popular best sellers if the market is ripe for the update to that subject. If there is the "ultimate" kit of that subject already on the market (Dragon's M1A1AIM & M1A2SEP jump to mind), then they may go in a different direction.

Sometimes the new company goes for a niche that has potential growth and is untapped. Dragon's first models were modern Soviet armor, a field ignored by the major manufacturers at the time. Their big money makers were the T-72, T-80, BMP-1, BMP-2, BTR-70 and BRDM. Cutting edge stuff considering the Wall was still up and references were scarce. Those kits sold well and made a lot of money for Dragon. Over twenty years later, only the Tamiya T-72 has has bumped any of those ex-Soviet vehicles from the shelves.

In today's economy, new kits require taking a chance. Fortunately for armor modelers, the mainly ground war seen in OIF/OEF/OND gives a new area of MRAPS, Strykers and constantly changing field modifications. New companies are taking chances in these areas and hitting homers.

Other companies are content to sit back and re-pop tried and true kits. Maybe tossing in a few new bits to make another version (Tamiya's M1A2, M113A2 and M2A2 ODS jump to mind here).

It takes thousands of dollars to make new kits. The companies have to be sure the market is there before taking the chance. Two companies took a chance on one of Tamiya's most popular sellers, the M41 Walker Bulldog.

It is a kit long past its prime, but was still a big seller and found everywhere. The volume sales of this old starter kit probably made them more money than their outstanding Tiger series from the nineties.

AFV Club and Skybow both took a chance at making the next cutting edge model of this popular seller. They hit the market simultaneously and neither one sold very well. It probably put Skybow out of business (it was their first tank). AFV Club had enough to absorb the losses. Both kits are outstanding models and died on the shelves.

What they didn't realize was that the Tamiya kit wasn't popular because of the subject. The kit was popular because it was cheap, easy to build, readily available and looked like a generic US Army tank.

Rob Gronovius

What they didn't realize was that the Tamiya kit wasn't popular because of the subject. The kit was popular because it was cheap, easy to build, readily available and looked like a generic US Army tank.

+1 to that. I'm a big fan of the theory of "good enough."

Microsoft Internet Explorer killed Netscape not because it was better, but because it was already on the computer and it was good enough for people that they didn't want to spend (in time and money) to go download Netscape. Microsoft also made I.E. better, but that was almost immaterial to the fact that it was good enough.

When working with Dragon on the CVL., we had two philosophies going. Dragon wants to be known as having the best, and most detailed model ships, but there's also the law of diminishing returns, and sometimes it's better to aim for good enough and not get completely bogged down. Hasegawa's Gambier Bay CVE kit is a great example of a good kit that is "good enough. Detail isn't as fine as Dragon's, but you'd be hard pressed to really notice unless you had the two side by side to compare parts.

Tracy White

 

Rob Gronovius:

What they didn't realize was that the Tamiya kit wasn't popular because of the subject. The kit was popular because it was cheap, easy to build, readily available and looked like a generic US Army tank.

 

+1 to that. I'm a big fan of the theory of "good enough."

Microsoft Internet Explorer killed Netscape not because it was better, but because it was already on the computer and it was good enough for people that they didn't want to spend (in time and money) to go download Netscape. Microsoft also made I.E. better, but that was almost immaterial to the fact that it was good enough.

When working with Dragon on the CVL., we had two philosophies going. Dragon wants to be known as having the best, and most detailed model ships, but there's also the law of diminishing returns, and sometimes it's better to aim for good enough and not get completely bogged down. Hasegawa's Gambier Bay CVE kit is a great example of a good kit that is "good enough. Detail isn't as fine as Dragon's, but you'd be hard pressed to really notice unless you had the two side by side to compare parts.

Not sure I entirely agree about Netscape/IE. I agree about what happened...but I think it happened because people are lazy sods. Even at Microsoft, where they let IE languish for so long that the bones of Netscape came back as Firefox. And now Firefox and increasingly Chrome offer extremely viable alternatives to IE.

Personally I'm torn all over the map on this one. I guess it depends on how you define "good enough". Is it in the knowing when to stop, because there are diminishing returns sense? Or the, ah screw it, that's good enough sense? 

I'm totally fine with the former and I think not drawing that line is what leads some kits into frustration (see: Accurate Miniatures Dauntless cockpit, Dragon Sherman drive sprockets). But the later hacks me off, especially when its from an engineering standpoint. I guess to me it's the difference between restraint and laziness.

In the case of the M41, though, it strikes me as more of a lack of proper market research. The M41 is renowned as a great "starter kit", so instead of building a better M41, I'm surprised nobody has focused on building a better cheap, inexpensive, simple, well-fitting, high-volume starter kit of a model. 

DoogsATX

Not sure I entirely agree about Netscape/IE. I agree about what happened...but I think it happened because people are lazy sods.

Well, that's precisely  my point. People were lazy and IE was good enough that it didn't motivate them to change for the most part.

Your point about market research is a good one and illustrates a point I think we're sort of "stuck" in right now.

In the past, lack of detail could be explained away due to molding limitations and/or costs to over come them. That's no longer really the case. Now we have technology where we CAN mold 20mm guns in 1/350th scale or go crazy and do them in turned metal and photo-etch. But when we do so, we advance the kit past what a lot of people are comfortable with and enjoy.

But I don't think manufacturers have figured out the relative sizes of those populations yet, and it's harder to pick a happy medium. What is the level of detail that will make the most number of people happy? What populations are the most important, and are forums like this a good representation or merely a fringe?

Having worked on a couple of kits with Dragon I can say that differentiation is harder than it would immediately appear. It's more than just releasing the same kit, but with single piece fiddly bits instead of 2-3 higher detail bits. You couldn't take one of the smart kits, replace a couple of pieces, and then call it a medium level. You'd have to have two separate designs for it to be truly done right.

DoogsATX

In the case of the M41, though, it strikes me as more of a lack of proper market research. The M41 is renowned as a great "starter kit", so instead of building a better M41, I'm surprised nobody has focused on building a better cheap, inexpensive, simple, well-fitting, high-volume starter kit of a model. 

They took a chance at a niche market (still highly popular among the Bandai-loving crowd) but 1:35th scale was too well entrenched to get modelers to abandon it and jump on the 1:48th scale bandwagon.

The kits are well detailed but not overly complicated. Well engineered and fit to the degree we are accustomed to with Tamiya kits. The line contained the popular choices: Shermans, Tigers, King Tigers, Jeep, Kubelwagen, Panther, HMMWV, etc. and some unique choices like Crusaders, Cromwells, armored cars, supply trucks and airfield vehicles.

At first they were reasonably priced; I got the M4 Sherman and Tiger I for less than $20 a piece. A friend in Japan sent me the M4A1 as a gift that cost $15 there (1300 yen). Today they are in the $25-35 range. Might as well buy a full-sized kit for that amount.

I agree about this being a Golden Age, especially when you look at all the aftermarket accessories available.  At least for military models.  But civil aircraft- that is a different story.  There are a number of very famous civil aircraft- ones everyone ohs and ahs at when they show up at an air show or fly-in.  Yet the only thing available are from fifty year old molds with lots of inaccuracies and really sparse detail.

Even the great Staggerwing kit from Roden, out of the box, as the military version.  Still, at least on that kit the only problem is decals, and I have tried successfully doing inkjet ones, so my Staggerwing will be a civil version.  But how about a decent Stinson Reliant, or even a decent DC-3 that is not a warmed over C-47!

Thank goodness Minicraft does a few light planes but there are a hundred subjects yet to go, and many airliners missing.

I bet civilian aircraft (and liveries) suffer from licensing. At least with military hardware, the items are developed and paid for by tax payers.

A couple of problems in the military side are the HEMTTs by Oshkosh, the HMMWVs by GM and the Jeep name owned by Chrysler. We get HMMWVs but they are either called by nomenclature (M998, M1025, etc.) or 4x4 Utility Truck.

Sikorsky did this back in 2003, surfing eBay for every and any use of the name Sikorsky in an auction and try to stop unlicensed use of their product's likeness. It caused eBay to cancel auction on model kits that had been around for decades and curtail the use of the name "Black Hawk" (they registered the name before the military).

Don Stauffer

.  But how about a decent Stinson Reliant, or even a decent DC-3 that is not a warmed over C-47!

Monogram did a nice DC-3 in 1/48. The proper cabin interior and fuselage door in 1/48. Yes it is based on their original C-47 kit but it has the proper changes to the molds to be more that just "warmed over". It certainly qualifies as decent.

http://www.martinsammodels.com/webpage/pages/Models/Reviews/Reveiws/Monogram/DC-3/DC-3/DC-3.htm

I know it is not currently listed in their line up but it is not likely too hard to find...

stikpusher

 

Don Stauffer:

 

.  But how about a decent Stinson Reliant, or even a decent DC-3 that is not a warmed over C-47!

 

 

Monogram did a nice DC-3 in 1/48. The proper cabin interior and fuselage door in 1/48. Yes it is based on their original C-47 kit but it has the proper changes to the molds to be more that just "warmed over". It certainly qualifies as decent.

http://www.martinsammodels.com/webpage/pages/Models/Reviews/Reveiws/Monogram/DC-3/DC-3/DC-3.htm

I know it is not currently listed in their line up but it is not likely too hard to find...

Nice, but not great.  But the big thing is, I don't have room in my collection for something that big.  My other civil aircraft are mostly 1:144 and 1:72.  Only a couple of the smallest subjects (Ford Flivver) are in 1:48. I still say we need a topnotch (Tamiya/Trumpeter) quality DC-3 or DST in 1:72.

We also need a Ford Tri-motor in 1:72!

Don Stauffer

 

We also need a Ford Tri-motor in 1:72!