Jump to content

What Kit Would Be On Your Wish List?


K'Tesh

Recommended Posts

OK, I will cave here.....

1/32 of course

1. Lockheed 12A Electra Jr. (Detailed engines, cockpit, and cabin, maybe a special edition with chrome plating for a highly polished look)

2. Razorback Mustang (optional dive brakes, and two separate sprues one with an Allison, 3 blade prop, Allison engine cowling and early radiator cowling, the second with Merlin engine, HS prop, Merlin Engine cowling and late radiator cowling.)

3. T-6 (with optional Reno Racer decals.....of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I should modify my request. If it isn't too much, every 1920s, 30s, and 40s aircraft never before modeled. Also add in the Cesna 310 Sky King's Song Bird 2 and a Vee Tailed Beech Craft Bonanza. That's all. My wife and daughter will put out a contract with the Mafia, but that's a small sacrifice to make a modeller happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've yet to understand this! Cost of tooling too high!?! And what about the cost of the Tomcat or Su27 tooling? This is a moot point don't you think so?

 

 

 

I agree with you considering how many variants they could have gotten from the molds if they had designed them right. I would think that probably there were other factors involved and I was not privy to it. It really is not that much bigger than the F-14 or the Su-27 and the cost of tooling would be similar. Disappointed to say the least!!!

 

You are correct, the tooling costs of F-111 would be almost the same as similar large scale twin engine jets, such as the F-14. Don't take this as an attack on the viability of F-111 being tooled in a large scale. This is a wish list and members can and should post what they wish.

I think that Mr. Song was trying to convey about the tooling costs was related to the potential sales of the kits. The tooling costs would be for example $100000 USD. The same for an F-14D and F-111B. But the difference is in the per unit cost. The Tomcat is much more sellable than F-111, and therefore will generate a larger production run, so the per unit cost drops significantly. Producing two results, a lower cost to the manufacturer and a potentially a lower cost to the consumer. Simple price theory dictates that a lower price results in increased demand until the natural market equilibrium is reached, the invisible hand theory. Now if the F-111 costs more to produce because of the per unit cost and the manufacturer wants to make the same revenue for each unit then that means they have to charge more for the kit. Which means they will sell even fewer kits, and the per unit cost rises again. So they face a paradox change more for the kit and face fewer sales, or they accept less revenue from each sale. The later results in a less profitable product. So being profit driven most manufacturers choose to produce the more popular kits, resulting in greater sales, and revenue. As the market becomes saturated with other popular kits, and in many cases the same kits for example the Tamiya and Academy F-16's, they move to less and less common or popular subjects so eventually if they still are producing new kits a company will work its way down the pecking order and get to the F-111, and ignore some of the other less popular subjects for the time being.

 

If the tooling costs are $100000 USD, and the estimate that they will sell 10000 F-111's and 50000 F-14's, which I think is still a conservative estimate that the F-14 is only 5 times more popular than the F-111. The per unit cost of the molds for the F-111 is $10.00, and the F-14 is $2.00. Factor in plastic, packaging, decals and instructions which again will assume to be equal for $6.00 per kit. The per unit cost of the F-111 is $16.00 and $8.00 for the F-14. Lets assume, because that’s all we can do, that the manufacturer sells them to their distributer for $30.00 each. They make $300000 in gross revenue from the F-111, and $1500000 in gross revenue on the F-14. Net profit on the F-111 is $140000, and the F-14 $1100000. Let me think, same amount of work and investment, which would I produce if I was CFO. Adjust the numbers around and as long as the tooling costs are the same, a more popular subject will always sell more, and generate more revenue for the same investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dekenba

With all this math and economics stuff about the high cost of producing the kits, how does WNW do it with runs of only 5,000 kits?

Stephen

 

Peter Jackson's wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And direct selling. So they get all the retail price, they get it immediately rather than waiting for distributors to get around to sending them a check, and they have a single point distribution system, containers come in, small packages go out. Their cash flow figures will be awesome, compared with those of a traditional distribution chain. They have cut out several middle men, and when your market is already fairly limited by your choice of subject matter, why give most of your profit to them, when by selling directly, you can have it all?

 

Of course, selling on-line has a massive contribution to make as well. A few clicks on a mouse to add the item to your web shop, and you instantly tap into the entire on-line world market. I can't think why the other producers don't do the same thing!

 

Tim

Edited by wunwinglow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...