 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / May 2006What's going to be the next big thing in modelling?
If resin and brass was the last great thing, what will be the next thing that sets the hobby on its ear? For me it will be a great day when I can actually display an airplane doing what it's supposed to do - fly! The achievement would be in doing away with the intrusive suspended lines or thick support rods neeed to show the birds wheels up. No more tarmac queens for me - maglev anyone? It's be kind of nice to get an effective spinning rotor effect on in flight helos too. You try to spin them now with an electric motor and you will likely wind up with a version of Mattel's old Vertibird toy spread out on your floor in pieces. ;-) Anybody else?... aside from the mundane requests for unfrozen glue and paint bottle caps or the motivation to simply finish a kit. ;-) What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be the next big solution to it? WmB > What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be the > next big solution to it? Scale riggin material that takes paint, glues well, sags in scale yet isn't so fragile a gnat fart will break it. >> What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be >> the next big solution to it? > > Scale riggin material that takes paint, glues well, sags in scale yet > isn't so fragile a gnat fart will break it. I use fly-fishing tippet line. .005 diam. 3 lb. test. CA glues it and acrylic or enamel paint sticks to it. If, after you rig a biplane, ship mast, etc., the lines are not quite taut enough, you can hold the wing, plane, ship, etc. over a heat source, like a halogen lamp, for a few seconds and it tightens right up. If you apply a little pressure on the line when you warm it up as above, it will sag in any direction you push. Hold the pressure after you remove it from the heat and it will stay sagged (unless you heat it up again).  SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To Email, remove the double zeroes after 'at' >>> What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be >>> the next big solution to it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >push. Hold the pressure after you remove it from the heat and it will >stay sagged (unless you heat it up again). an update on the stretched sprew and cigarette trick. > an update on the stretched sprew and cigarette trick. Which is a terrible material for 1/350 ships......... The electromagnetic hovering has been done by Revell. Their Fokker Dr.I hovers over a background, tethered to four corners with very fine monofiliment. You are certainly correct about American manufacturers. Revell, however, has been catering to us 1/72 aircraft and AFV folks with lots of new kits, some replacing their 1960s efforts (Bf 109E, Me 262A, Hurricane), others brand new (Breguet Atlantic, He 177). Some of their armor kits are really state of the art, others are old Matchbox kits. One thing about new Revell stuff, though. It's all from Revell Germany. Tom Oh, one other thing: Have you seen the Easy Model 1/72 aircraft? Built and painted, several variants and color schemes for each aircraft, very nicely done and affordable. I have been watching two hobby shops who carry these and they are flying off the shelves. Customers are about 60% kids, 40% adults. With the kids it's great as it can get them started. The adults, on the other hand........ Tom (who has picked up eight of them so far and shall probably get every single one eventually). >> an update on the stretched sprew and cigarette trick. > >Which is a terrible material for 1/350 ships......... i only used it on ac rigging. the few ships i built had thread or thin wire. >> Scale riggin material that takes paint, glues well, sags in scale yet >> isn't so fragile a gnat fart will break it. > I use fly-fishing tippet line. .005 diam. 3 lb. test. CA glues it and > acrylic or enamel paint sticks to it. If, after you rig a biplane, ship [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > push. Hold the pressure after you remove it from the heat and it will > stay sagged (unless you heat it up again). Oh I use tippett from 1X to 7X for rigging, I just don't like it. I also use .003", .005" and .007" stainless wire for short stays or long saggy antenna runs, I still don't like it. I've tried EZ Line and it looks funky. a well designed USS Enterprise that won't have droopy nacelles or saucer so we won't have to buy a $90 piece of metal to hold things in place. a return to simpler models would be nicer too. Dragon's WWII 4 figure set with over 200 pieces? Not goin' there Craig > a well designed USS Enterprise that won't have droopy nacelles or > saucer so we won't have to buy a $90 piece of metal to hold things in > place. Which also floats in space against a moving star background. (kim) >> a well designed USS Enterprise that won't have droopy nacelles or >> saucer so we won't have to buy a $90 piece of metal to hold things in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >(kim) with a built in transporter for when this planet sucks. > If resin and brass was the last great thing, what will be the next thing > that sets the hobby on its ear? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > WmB The biggest problem/shortcoming that I see is in the US model makers - AMT/ERTL and Revell/Monogram. If they continue to use the same old molds and reissuing the same models with the same faults that have been brought to their attention time after time, we can see them going bye bye. I think the last time I bought one of their models was about two years ago, and the quality was what I expected - NONE. Will they bring the manufacturing of models back to the US - no - why pay an American worker $15 an hour when you can pay a Mexican or Chinese $15 a week, then sell the model for the same price. What would surprise the heck out of me and I think would be the next big thing in modeling is that AMT/ERTL and Revell/Monogram would come out with new tooling for the same old crap they have been selling for the past 20 plus years. Take for example AMT's 1940 Ford Tudor, you can dress a pig however you want, but after all he is still a pig at heart. My two cents. Ray Austin, TX === WmB wrote: What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be the next big solution to it? WmB The biggest problem/shortcoming that I see is in the US model makers - AMT/ERTL and Revell/Monogram. If they continue to use the same old molds and reissuing the same models with the same faults that have been brought to their attention time after time, we can see them going bye bye. Unfortunately, not bloody likely. In the latest Model Expo catalog, I read with shock, amusement, and dismay, a big spread on Paul Gullow's "flying?" "scale" models. I'm 72 years old and I was building models back in 1943. We had "scale" model kits then, mostly the Strombecker horrors. They were bad wood, bad detail, bad scale, and unbuildable by all but the most asiduous compulsive masochists. We had flying models of all kinds, mostly free-flight: gliders, rubber, motor They flew well, but alas, all too often, flew away on a thermal, never to return (in one piece, that is). Radio control was something exotic that very few modelers could do or afford. And then there was the Paul Gullows crap. They were built of balsa and tissue, just like legitimate non-scale flying models, but theoretically could fly. Go ahead, build a model B-17 with undersized rubber powered propellers and see how many turns you can get out of that short nacelle. All they could do was something less than a crash. Although, they were so unstable because of the scale tail surfaces and bad weight distribution that as often as not, attempts to fly them would result in a terminal power dive. I never got one to fly and never knew anyone who did. The usual procedure after several failed attempt to get one of those things to fly, was to give it a Viking funeral. Wind it up, set the tail on fire and heave it away. singing "We live in fame, or go down in flame, etc." I can't imagine who would want to build them things today (Gullows or Strombecker), except for compulsive masochists, or terminally nostalgic old farts like me who didn't know they were being conned back then. Maybe they figure that although they failed with these kits 50 years ago, maybe now that they're adults and have more patience, it's time to try again and succeed. Lots of luck. Now I see in the Model Expo promo that some of these are touted as suitable for control line flying. Yeh, sure! I can just see that fragile, unstable, B29 model with four unsynchronized micro engines lumbering off the ground. Far too fragile a construction to stand up to the rigors of control-line flying. Like all the other kids, I saved up a lot of money, got conned, and bought, and attempted, some of those expensive Gullows "flying scale models" -- never flyable, hardly scale, and barely worthy of the name "model." The balsa was typically really soft and weak: I think they used the bark or something. In some of the later kits, by the 50's they started to supply plastic parts such as cowlings and props. These of us who wanted to build scale were delighted when the first (admitedly crude) plastic scale model kits came out. Those of us who built flying models had a huge selection of excellent kits from which to choose ... improved even further with lightweight RC and tiny, but very powerful engines. I was sure in 1960 or so, that Gullows (for gullible) and Strombecker would die a quiet death. But by golly, like evil, immortal, vampires, they are back! Those two say it all. The fact that probably the two worst kit manufactuers on the market are being touted again to frustrate a whole new generation of would-be modelers, say's it all. Boris ------------------------------------- Boris Beizer Ph.D. 1232 Glenbrook Road Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 TEL: 215-572-5580 FAX: 215-886-0144 Email bsquare "at" earthlink.net ------------------------------------------ >I was sure in 1960 or so, that Gullows (for gullible) and >Strombecker would die a quiet death. But by golly, like evil, immortal, >vampires, they are back! Strombecker is back??? SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." Well, I'm not quite as old as Boris (but almost) but in the late '40s when I started building Strombecker was about all we had for static models. I don't recall "bad wood" and they had no decals only cut outs that you glued on as I recall. As for detail I had only seen B-24s flying over so the "detail" looked ok to me, after all it had twin tails and four engines....what more could you ask for. I built them all from the Globe Swift ( one on floats and one with the little wire l/g), the P-6l, B-17, B-29 and the one and only jet I had ever seen (it flew over my granddad's house) a P-80. I will admit that the casine glue you had to mix with water with a toothpick did "stink". In the 40's and early '50's models were something you put together to play with. We went out side and did the "Zoom - Zoom" thing......no offense to Mazda. As long as they seemed proportionally relatively correct it was ok with me and my buds. We all knew that a P-51 was smaller than a B-17. They were still a step ahead of the "profile" cereal box models that came in Kix or the penny gliders that came in some kind of cereal (I still have a Fairey Fulmar in it's wrapper). When the "super models" came out it seemed a real innovation. Then I found at the local hobby shop, which was a part of a shoe repair shop, an Aurora F9F complete with it's clear nose probe for 98 cents. It took a couple of weeks to save up that dollar to get it and then a Lindberg F-86. Then came the Speedibuilts........Oh Wow! Today many "serious" modelers are concerned with historical replication and accuracy to the Nth degree and that is well and good. I do that too to some point and have won my share of local, regional and national awards, but in the '40's and early '50's that was really of no concern. I built them, played with them and enjoyed them and that was the whole point for a 10 year old. As for Guillow's kits, I never got into flying models. It seemed senseless to spend hours and hours building something that most of the time ended up in a pile in the back yard, besides the ones I did build were Comet kits. Like some of the other "posters" I hadn't heard that Strombecker was making a "come back" and if they do I'll probably buy one just to see what I can do with it now. Anyway, I liked the Strombecker kits. Ol '45 IPMS / USA # 3687 Former National Membership Secretary > WmB wrote: > What is a modelling problem or shortcoming you see and what might be the [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Email bsquare "at" earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------ Interesting. I once had a chat with the plant manager over flying model planes. I mentioned that R/C meant spending big bucks for a flying machine that will eventually try to meld with Mother Earth. His opinion was that that was the fun of it. Yeah, I kind of thought he was weird after that. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. whose collection only flew off the shelves - and onto the floor, occasionally. While Strombecker was probably the most common, and one of the cheaper, there were also DMP (lovely kits but a bit too expensive for a kid like me, Hawk (don't know if it was the same company that later offered early plastic models) Cavacraft, and others advertised in the old Air Trails, Model Airplane News, and other modeling mags. I have been buying some of these old kits lately. Fortunately I am finding them at reasonable prices. Bought a DMP Spitfire last month, and a Hawk P-47 Saturday. > Well, I'm not quite as old as Boris (but almost) but in the late '40s > when I started building Strombecker was about all we had for static [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Former National Membership > Secretary [stuff snipped] > They were still a step ahead of the "profile" cereal box models that > came in Kix or the > penny gliders that came in some kind of cereal (I still have a Fairey > Fulmar in it's wrapper). I remember that Kellogg's or one of the other big cereal companies had a series of profile models of WWII fighters you could order via mail around 1968. John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) > I remember that Kellogg's or one of the other big cereal companies had > a series of profile models of WWII fighters you could order via mail > around > 1968. The profile models date from WWII. I remember them for sale in early 1943. Woolworth's sold a huge kit that consisted of about 40 or 50 different Allied and Axis aircraft. They were printed on very thin pine (impossible to cut without breaking a blade or splitting). Came with glue .. powdered caisein glue that worked about as well as cremora or some similar brand of creamer. Also had a small packet of black die to color them. The whole lot cost 99cents.. A big amount for a kid in 1943 -- believe me. Had to swipe a lot of pennies and nickels from my parent's pockets to get up that dough. That kit was sometimes also given away as a prize at the Saturday afternoon Kiddie matinee. But as was typical of WWII stuff (balsa was completely unavailable because all balsa was going into the production of life rafts and life jackets), it was terrible junk and almost unbuildable. The idea behind these profile models, and the reason they were to be painted black, was that they were to be used (we were told) to help train pilots, gunners, air-raid wardens, and especially, aircraft spotters (they didn't tell us about radar, because that was a big secret). Us kids were to build these spotter models and then they would be given to the air force and to the civilian spotter corp for training purposes. We were sure that Germans or Japanese aircraft would be over our cities at any moment and it was important that everybody be able to identify and report them ASAP. I got about 25 of these models finished... with many tears of frustration, lots of anger, cut fingers, stained clothing, etc. But I was diligent. So then I sought out the right place to donate my models.. started with Woolworth's, of course. They couldn't accept them, they told me, because I didn't keep the receipt!! I tried the Civil Air Patrol and even a Marine Corp recruiting office...no dice. The worst I got was that my models weren't accurate enough. The best I got was the advice that I should use the models to train myself. So they hung from my ceiling as long as we lived in that apartment. About that time, Kellog started printing these on the back of Corn Flakes boxes. After the war we learned that we had been conned. Almost immediately the war started, or perhaps shortly before, the government started making black , molded 3-d models for training out of hard rubber. They were quite nice, but very hard to get, even after the war. I managed to get a P47, a Japanese bomber, and a couple of others. These were probably the first, mass produced scale model aircraft. I bet they would go for a small fortune in the collectors market. Boris Signature------------------------------------- Boris Beizer Ph.D. 1232 Glenbrook Road Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 TEL: 215-572-5580 FAX: 215-886-0144 Email bsquare "at" earthlink.net ------------------------------------------ The "molded 3-d models for training out of hard rubber" were the popular "ID Models". The were made from an early form of plastic, not hard rubber. They still sell for large amounts of money when you can find one in decent shape. There is a serious caviat, however. The plastic used had a definite lifespan and most are deteriorating now. I have a B-26 Marauder that is sinking in the middle and a FW 190 that is taking a very tight left turn. Their value today is zero. There was a company in the US several years back that made exact duplicates in modern plastic, they are long gone now. The first company to mass produce scale model aircraft in plastic was Frog Penguin in the UK during the 1930s. They did everything including buildings and figures to 1/72 scale. That scale started with Skybirds, also a British company, long before Frog. Their kits were wood with metal details. While the Frog Penguins are deteriorating with age due to the type of plastic used, Skybirds only rust and die at the hand of termites. :-) Tom > Well, I'm not quite as old as Boris (but almost) but in the late > '40s when I started building Strombecker was about all we had for > static models. I don't recall "bad wood" and they had no decals > only cut out that you glued on as I recall. I will admit that > the casine glue you had to mix with water with a toothpick did > "stink". Aaahh, the casein glue. I have a Strombecker B-17 down stairs, the later release with partial plastic parts. I keep it for nostalgia's sake, along with a couple of the old Hawk 1/48 scale balsa "solid model" kits of W.W.I aircraft. I was lucky in the glue department, my Mother was a "Craft" type and early on introduced me to the wonderful benefits of duPont and Ambroid tube cement. I also had a hobbyshop down the street from my school where I could get Testor's "Dope" in genuine colors like Olive Drab and gray. I bought out his remaining supply of Dope in the 1950's when he closed up shop and still have a bunch of bottles down stairs.. And it's still good too, although the heavy pigments have settled like rock and you have to stir the hell out of it to use it. Bill Shuey The word or term is R.O.I. or Return on Investment. I agree with you on the same old stuff... However, if a company cannot make a resonable profit on its investment why do it. I am in the business to make enough money to live...as are they. They do pay a workforce, and once you cannot pay them you are in trouble. A company without people is not a company. Our hobby is ill, the market share is shrinking, ask any hobby store owner, plastics are way down. I was told by one owner plastics made up 30% of the revenue, now it might be 5% or less. The margins are gone as well. You have no cash cows with kits anymore. A popular plane or car that sold for less than $10 and wholesaled at under $5 are gone. Small shops can't afford to stock all the latest releases, especially if they retail over $79.99 Its harder to find sales staff that know anything about a hobby, and if you do they want way more than you can pay...McD's pays better and you work less hours. Manufacturers pull products as soon as they announce a release...if they haven't been able to presell them to distributors in a quanity that will justify the expense of production. It is a shrinking planet economically...global economy...take the production facilities to those countries where people are willing to do nasty boring work. We have lost many of those high paying jobs here in my area, most are moving to other states luckily. Bottom line...they moved production to states which offered better tax incentives and the cost of labor is cheaper. What does that do for the workers who lost their jobs here...like me...a chance to start my own company or go to school to learn a new way to make money doing boring work for another company. Glad I chose to work for myself, then I have no one to blame but me. My two cents, now thats four, uncle takes one, leaves us three cents...still a long way to go to even buy a jar of paint. Jerry Neenah, WI > The word or term is R.O.I. or Return on Investment. I agree with you > on the same old stuff... However, if a company cannot make a resonable > profit on its investment why do it. Not that I disagree with you, because I don't, how the hell did AMT manage to make its run during the late 1950s and early 1960s? They came out each year with a whole new line-up of new cars (the specialty kits were a different issue and re-issue). Their new car line (most of the Ford and GM products) was updated each year with the previous year's issues never being seen again. The box-art was very simple, and IIRC, all identical, with the only indication of what was inside being a simple label pasted to the endpiece. The first few years were curbside; what was the first year that they started adding engines? I seem to recall it being about 1962, but am most likely wrong in that. >...how the hell did AMT >manage to make its run during the late 1950s and early 1960s? >They came out each year with a whole new line-up of new cars (the >specialty kits were a different issue and re-issue). They (and Jo-Han) had a guaranteed market for promotional models from the Big Three and American Motors. Kits were based on the promo tooling, the costs of which were already virtually amortized from the promotional run. The decline in availability of 'annual' kits coincided with the manufacturers' loss of interest in promotional models. >Their new car line >(most of the Ford and GM products) was updated each year with the >previous year's issues never being seen again. True for the most part since most 'annuals' were done by modifying the previous years' tooling. In cases where entirely new tools had to be made, though, older kits were often reissued and still are to this day. And in some cases multiple tools were used, again allowing the reissue of older kits. >The first few years were curbside; what was the first year that they >started adding engines? 1960, in the Corvette and Thunderbird kits. I _think_ the Ford and Chevy pickup kits had engines as well. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." I think back then most of the production costs were in the making of the masters to make the molds from. Petro was a whole lot cheaper then and we were riding high on plastics as being new part of our lives. Or maybe the guys and gals who designed those kits are long gone. Someone once told me that the space race produced a lot of 'designers' in the early 60's, most of those folks are retired. I don't know the whole answer, but it is going to be something that I am going to pursue. I have already started conversations with different aspects of our hobby...retailers, distributors and manufacturers...I hope to have a new website up and running soon which will provide a conduit for these communications. I will publish a note here on this forum once the site comes alive, I think you will find it interesting. >What would surprise the heck out of me and I think would be the next big thing >in modeling is that AMT/ERTL and Revell/Monogram would come out with new tooling >for the same old crap they have been selling for the past 20 plus years. Take >for example AMT's 1940 Ford Tudor, you can dress a pig however you want, but >after all he is still a pig at heart. Why would AMT/ERTL want to bring out a new tool '40 Ford to compete with Revell-Monogram's excellent (newish) kit? SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." Downloadable aftermarket decal sets that you print on your own printer. Similar to restricted use such as iTunes, you would only be able to print one set of decals (like limited use protection on songs) and be unable to share the file. Aeromaster (or whoever) would make free downloads of a program to access the files so that when you download a decal sheet, it would be in the scale that you specify. Could be a fraction of the cost of conventional aftermarket stuff, and it would *always* be available. Sound groovy, or what?? Grins... the technology is here now. --- Stephen > Downloadable aftermarket decal sets that you print on your own printer. > Similar to restricted use such as iTunes, you would only be able to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > --- Stephen ...damn. Now they're gonna beat me to it... Signature- Rufus >> Downloadable aftermarket decal sets that you print on your own >> printer. Similar to restricted use such as iTunes, you would only be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ...damn. Now they're gonna beat me to it... Whenever you get a new model, scan the decal sheet and keep it on file on your computer, like in decal folders named 1/72, 1/35, 1/48 etc., so if you got a bad set, or lose the decals, you can print out new ones on decal paper. Much like making backup disks of programs. Of course, you would never share the scans with others. ;-) SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To Email, remove the double zeroes after 'at' "Ray S. & Nayda Katzaman" <rsknk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > The biggest problem/shortcoming that I see is in the US model makers - > AMT/ERTL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > attention > time after time, we can see them going bye bye. No argument from me there. I've posted before on the subject that while armor and aircraft have jumped leaps and bounds, cars are largely stuck in 1960s promo car land. I know fiscally they can't turn the market on its ear overnight across the board - but for Pete's sake (whoever the hell Pete is), can't they test the waters and give us a knock 'em dead car kit of the same caliber as a Tamiya or DML Tiger tank? WmB >I've posted before on the subject that while >armor and aircraft have jumped leaps and bounds, cars are largely stuck in >1960s promo car land. You evidently haven't looked at any of the new-tool AMT or Revell-Monogram car kits, not to mention Trumpeter's '60 Pontiacs and '63 Chevy Novas. >...can't they test the waters and give us a knock 'em dead car kit of the same >caliber as a Tamiya or DML Tiger tank? Revell-Monogram tried that with their Pro Modeler car kits, and Accurate Miniature's McLarens were stunning state-of-the-art kits. They bombed... SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >>I've posted before on the subject that while >>armor and aircraft have jumped leaps and bounds, cars are largely stuck in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Revell-Monogram car kits, not to mention Trumpeter's '60 Pontiacs and > '63 Chevy Novas. Yep - got a Revell '40 Ford Coupe in my lap right now. That is a nice kit that is starting to get into the ballpark of what I'm talking about. If they had opened the doors and trunk lid and detailed out these areas they would have come even closer. Break down the front end into separate fender and grille pieces instead of the traditional unimolded body Revell gave us and they'd get even closer. >>...can't they test the waters and give us a knock 'em dead car kit of the >>same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Accurate Miniature's McLarens were stunning state-of-the-art kits. > They bombed... I've got a Vette, I think it's a '62 from ProMod. I haven't opened it yet. I'd be surprised if the basic construction doesn't follow along the lines of the '40 from Revellogram. Nice kit but probably still taking short cuts. As for the McLaren, that's hardly a car with universal appeal. If they had shot a '57 Chevy or a classic Mustang and went tits up I'd be a little more persuaded. I think the answer is to find a niche. Like the armor guys who collect all German or all WWII, or what have you. People like to collect a series of things. Don't ask me what that would be, but for starters I think you could make worse choices than a series of classic Fords and/or Chevys. Although for the kids it may be time to start giving Toyota its due. Whichever it is, find your customers and give them what they want by sticking with a particular series that has significant if not mass appeal. The approach today is to shotgun the selections with a choice here and a choice there, none of them particularly well connected apart from the fact that they're all cars. I play devil's advocate a lot myself, but for every nay you just work that much harder to overcome the obstacles util you make the thing work. That others have tried and failed is insufficient reason to solve the problems and put the right combination together. *In the 1:1 world Chevy said they could not produce the Camaro and profit from the endeavor, so they dumped it. Ford squeezed the numbers harder and by most all estimates has a winner on their hands with the latest Mustang - and one less competitor in the process. *Diecasts have been elevated to the status they enjoy today fom the days when they were generally regarded as substandard steaming piles of toy crap. I myself went over to the dark side for a while and picked up about a dozen different Mustang and Ford sets I fancy. *Who thought there would be a demand for expensive 1/32nd aircraft over more affordable and established lines of of 1/48 and 1/72nd kits? WmB >...got a Revell '40 Ford Coupe in my lap right now. That is a nice kit >that is starting to get into the ballpark of what I'm talking about. If they >had opened the doors and trunk lid and detailed out these areas they would >have come even closer. Break down the front end into separate fender and >grille pieces instead of the traditional unimolded body Revell gave us and >they'd get even closer. How much are you willing to pay for a 1/25 scale model car? How about the average car modeler? All that stuff would make the cost of tooling skyrocket, and price is pretty much what killed the Pro Modeler and Accurate Miniatures cars. >I've got a Vette, I think it's a '62 from ProMod. It's a '58, and it's *exquisite*. >I haven't opened it yet. >I'd be surprised if the basic construction doesn't follow along the lines of >the '40 from Revellogram. Nice kit but probably still taking short cuts. Well, it does have an opening trunk lid and detailed trunk... >As for the McLaren, that's hardly a car with universal appeal. If they had >shot a '57 Chevy or a classic Mustang and went tits up I'd be a little more >persuaded. AMT's new tool '57 Chevy with PE parts and an opening trunk bombed just like the Pro Modeler kits did. It was a great kit but too expensive for the mainstream model car market. >...find your customers and give them what they want by sticking with a >particular series that has significant if not mass appeal. The biggest things now are lowriders and bling so that's what AMT and Revell are pushing out the door. Tuners came and went so fast it made one's head spin. What are the manufacturers supposed to do when they can barely keep up with the latest car fads? >That others have tried and failed is insufficient reason to solve the problems >and put the right combination together. Revell sells a helluva lot more car models than they do anything else, and AMT/ERTL dumped airplanes because the didn't sell well enough. I doubt that either company is having any problems due to product selection. >*Who thought there would be a demand for expensive 1/32nd aircraft over more >affordable and established lines of of 1/48 and 1/72nd kits? It's still not in any danger of outstripping the demand for 1/48 and 1/72. How many of each scale have you seen entered in contests? SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://home.swbell.net/arfunguy/index.html "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." > If resin and brass was the last great thing, what will be the next > thing that sets the hobby on its ear? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lines or thick support rods neeed to show the birds wheels up. No > more tarmac queens for me - maglev anyone? Dunno about that. As I've said before, my experience with aircraft is that they spend most of their time sat on the deck, canopy and panels open, with the groundcrew clustered round scratching their heads and muttering "Wot the bloody hell is wrong wiv it *now* ?" So that's how I build 'em... SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. The next big thing will be kits that build themselves 10 minutes after you open the box. It's 2006 and everyone wants instant gratification. Personally, I don't need the next big inovation. I build right out of the box with the help of a little putty, some paint, and a few added detailing tricks I am pretty happy with the results. I don't worry about missing rivet heads or slightly misformed or out of scale details. After all, it's supposed to be a hobby not an obsession. There are more great kits on the market right now than I can build in a lifetime. >The next big thing will be kits that build themselves 10 minutes after >you open the box. It's 2006 and everyone wants instant gratification. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >There are more great kits on the market right now than I can build in a >lifetime. agreed. and i build kits just to practice a certain aspect of medeling. like a super painted or super decaled or super carefully built. i use cheap kits so when i'm ready for a big ticket item, i'll have my moves down. > If resin and brass was the last great thing, what will be the next thing > that sets the hobby on its ear? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > WmB CNC milling. There are already several cottage industries out there making custom designed and extremely accurate model parts to be sold as accessories. The future looks really good for CNC milling. Rusty White >>If resin and brass was the last great thing, what will be the next thing >>that sets the hobby on its ear? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Rusty White Even better than that - 3D printing; directly from a CAD or 3D graphics package. I've already seen demos or machines that are more than suitable for doing figures. Signature- Rufus |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.