Juggernut Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Well, since Hobbico (a US company) owns Revell of Germany, they may have some input into what gets developed and what sits awhile longer. David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airfixer Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) If Revell USA steps up to pay the R&D as well as the production of a P-51B/C, I see a greater chance. Indeed. On the other hand, in 2015 and 2016 RoG performed extremely well, suggesting they're good at what they're doing and projecting. Hobbico is mainly interested in RoG's most profitable part of the portfolio - RC. Edited October 19, 2017 by Airfixer David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kagemusha Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Interesting points, but... I'd say the imminent F/A-18E poses more of a risk applying the German domestic market criterion you set out. There are already far more am decal sheets in 1/32 for the P-51B/C than there are for the F/A-18E, which speaks volumes. Anyhoo... every year brings a raft of interesting releases, and long may it continue. R Palimaka, David66 and LSP_K2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 First, I am NOT arguing, I'm discussing Well, working from the nose to tail, the only things from a "D" kit that can still be used in a "B" are spinner, propeller, exhausts, carburetor intake, carburetor filters, exhausts, gun sight, rudder pedals, trim wheel, outboard landing gear doors, main landing gear legs, main wheels, elevators, flaps, radiator intake ring and duct, oil cooler matrix and flap, water cooler matrix and flap, tail landing gear, tail wheel, tail wheel doors, tail planes, elevators, rudder, tail light. That is indeed about 25% of the plane. All other parts need to be changed, some in small ways, some in radical ways and most of the other parts need to be completely redesigned. The fuselage profile elevation is the same on both except for the upper fuselage from the firewall to the front of the empenage. I'd say the portion that's the same is easily 75%. The wing planform and thickness and dihedral is the same.Obviously there were changes to the surfaces, ie panel lines as well as the cockpit. When youinclude the overall contour and dimensions with the items listed, I still don't see a major difference.I think we're considering two different aspects of the kit as percentages of the kit. I'm refering only to the overall contour and dimension of the kit, not the detail parts like trim wheels and such. David66 and Alburymodeler 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airfixer Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) Interesting points, but... I'd say the imminent F/A-18E poses more of a risk applying the German domestic market criterion you set out. There are already far more am decal sheets in 1/32 for the P-51B/C than there are for the F/A-18E, which speaks volumes. Anyhoo... every year brings a raft of interesting releases, and long may it continue. The Superbug a risk? Not necessarily... The F/A-18E will mainly appeal to younger modellers, it's a contemporary aicraft, currently used during all major U.S. military interventions, etc. And that's excactly what RoG's targeting is about...attract younger, occasional builders, new to the hobby, maybe having grown up with their Star wars kits, etc. The Monogram/Revell P-51B kits have been around since the very early 1960s, late 1960s respectively. So it's quite natural you'll find more related AM stuff. We are (including me) sorta young at heart "old farts" with very particular and somewhat clearly defined preferences, interests and, subject-wise, focusses. Connoisseurs, if you will. Revell will be happy to serve us but we're not their primary target audience. I hope I'm wrong...because I'd really love to see a P-51B/C. Edited October 19, 2017 by Airfixer David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimRice Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Here is what I sent and Revell's response. Me: Would love to see other 1/32 P-51 models such as B/C and marks after D-10 and later. I would also really love a 1/32 Stearman as nice as the 1/48 Revell released. A Vultee BT-13 in 1/48 and/or 1/32 would be great too. Revell: Hi, Jim, your mail is one of hundreds we received during the last few days regarding our upcoming P-51, most of them we don´t comment, because meanwhile we know, how important other versions of the Mustang are. But we would like to thank you for your additional new ideas for model kits, which we will put into our big list with other model ideas. We will discuss and calculate all these new ideas. But we need to do some pre-works for this meeting, which takes some time, so we are not able to give you any definite reply to your model suggestions. We are sure, you understand this. But anyhow, we will take care of your ideas. Kindly with all the best regards yours Revell GmbH from Germany I'm not holding my breath waiting on any of them. David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Here is what I sent and Revell's response. Me: Would love to see other 1/32 P-51 models such as B/C and marks after D-10 and later. I would also really love a 1/32 Stearman as nice as the 1/48 Revell released. A Vultee BT-13 in 1/48 and/or 1/32 would be great too. Revell: Hi, Jim, your mail is one of hundreds we received during the last few days regarding our upcoming P-51, most of them we don´t comment, because meanwhile we know, how important other versions of the Mustang are. But we would like to thank you for your additional new ideas for model kits, which we will put into our big list with other model ideas. We will discuss and calculate all these new ideas. But we need to do some pre-works for this meeting, which takes some time, so we are not able to give you any definite reply to your model suggestions. We are sure, you understand this. But anyhow, we will take care of your ideas. Kindly with all the best regards yours Revell GmbH from Germany I'm not holding my breath waiting on any of them. yep, ......a whole lot of BS (no offence) David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimRice Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) yep, ......a whole lot of BS (no offence) I'm frequently told I'm full of it, but I hope you're talking about Revell's reply. Edited October 22, 2017 by JimRice Paramedic, David66 and MikeMaben 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 That's true. If you're talking about the basic 3D CAD shapes for the outer skin, most of the shapes are the same or very similar. That 'is' what I was talking about. You don't just "Save As" and change the name from "P-51D" to "P-51B" and have at it. Why not ? CAD programs can be copied (nicht wahr ?). Remove that which isn't a B and add that which is. Why rework that which is the same ? Still, no one seems to know why the upper wing inboard LE parts are seperate. They aren't in any other Mustang kit ... except Tamiya's 1/32 I wouldn't even ask Radu for obvious reasons. Paramedic, David66 and Alburymodeler 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martinnfb Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 What is great and very encouraging is the fact that Revell is actually responding and acknowledging our requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radub Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) That 'is' what I was talking about. Why not ? CAD programs can be copied (nicht wahr ?). Remove that which isn't a B and add that which is. Why rework that which is the same ? Still, no one seems to know why the upper wing inboard LE parts are seperate. They aren't in any other Mustang kit ... except Tamiya's 1/32 I wouldn't even ask Radu for obvious reasons. OK, please allow me to put it this way: when working on a model, a project that can take a few months up to a year (or even more), the outside "skin" takes the first few weeks. The rest of the time is spent on creating parts. The parts must be created in a particular way in order to work as injection-moulded parts that fit each other. So, yes, we can create the outside shape of a Mustang B based on what we already have, yes, yes, you are absolutely right, but we do not have what goes inside... you know... the important bits. What you are saying is akin to saying "we have a bottle, how hard would it be to make the wine to fill it with"? As for your statement "why the upper wing inboard LE parts are separate" and why no one has ever explained it... well there is nothing to explain because there is no "separate upper wing inboard LE parts". The upper wing part is solid, all the way from the wingtip to the wing root, except for the gun ports that were made separate in order to show "drilled" gun openings. Check again. The bottom wing LE parts are separate because they had nothing to attach to. Check the parts and you will see it. As I said repeatedly, and I will say it again, it is not possible to make a "B" from this kit. A "B" would have to be a completely different design, a different project, a different time frame. HTH Radu Later edit: here is the IPMS Deutschland page showing the parts. http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Revell/Preview_Rev_P-51D-5_Mustang_32/Rev_P-51D-5.html Here is the wing top part with no separate leading edge inboard insert. Edited October 24, 2017 by Radub BiggTim, David66, R Palimaka and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 My bad (typo) I obviously meant 'lower' LE not upper. Yes the gun ports are better cast as a single unit rather than split, but it also makes it easier to replace with 'other' gun ports. I would also disagree with a 'wine in a bottle' analogy as the cockpit, is about the only 'internal' difference from a modeling perspective between a D and a B. You could leave the cockpit the same in both kits and most buyers wouldn't know or care about the difference. I personally appreciate the fact that this kit does 'not' have and engine or a super detailed cockpit. But that's just my opinion. Thanks for your clarification Radu. I hope you won't look upon my 'opinions' as any contradiction of your position. It's quite obvious that you know what you are doing. I would honestly like to thank for the time and effort you have put into this project. I have 4 kits on pre-order as a way of expressing my appreciation David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 If a P-51B is judged not a commercially viable subject, can someone please explain the single float Arado 196 to me? Please? thierry laurent, Paramedic, Christoffer Lindelav and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 If a P-51B is judged not a commercially viable subject, can someone please explain the single float Arado 196 to me? Please? ... Other than - there's not a 75% change in tooling - I've got nothing! Rog David66 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Molitor Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 So true. A single float Arado 196 kit collecting dust year after year at a local hobby shop near you. That's a brillant analogy in startegic business planning right there. David66 and Paramedic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now