Jump to content
Jan_G

ZOUKEI MURA 2019-2020 - NEW P-51B/C, Bf-109G and Ar-234 ANNOUNCED!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Artful69 said:

The Revell G-6 ... If Revell's A team had worked on this kit (let's face it - they're becoming as hit-and-miss as Trumpeter is these days, albeit cheaper in Europe) then we probably would have ended up with the definitive 109G kit ... as it was we ended up with a kit that had some questionable engineering choices in assembly ... annnnnnd a few accuracy issues.

 

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues. :shrug:

It coulda been a zinger.

I'm hoping ZM winds up producing the 51B as part of their 'Basic' series.

                      kurejJm.jpg

 

If their 'Basic' series does really well (which I think it will) maybe they'll

move the Mustang over to that series .

The FW190 series goes like this ...


Fw190A-3  Basic
Fw190A-4  SWS
Fw190A-5/6/7  Basic
Fw190A-8  SWS
Fw190D-9  SWS

 

...so I read.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

 

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues. :shrug:

It coulda been a zinger.

I'm hoping ZM winds up producing the 51B as part of their 'Basic' series.

                      kurejJm.jpg

 

If their 'Basic' series does really well (which I think it will) maybe they'll

move the Mustang over to that series .

The FW190 series goes like this ...


Fw190A-3  Basic
Fw190A-4  SWS
Fw190A-5/6/7  Basic
Fw190A-8  SWS
Fw190D-9  SWS

 

...so I read.

 

 

 

Yeah Mike ... I'm aware of the choice made by Revell to ignore the plethora of experts willing to contribute to the G-6 project (as well as the Spitfire Mk.IIa and the Erla G-10) - It really was a shame!! :wacko: ... I'm hoping that with the change of management they revert back to the era that brought us the Ju.88, He.111 and the Ar.196. Definitely it was an opportunity missed - yet, I doubt sales revenue will tell them that, given the pricing point it was released at. All of which means that ZM ... who have a passion for the kits they are making ... have that golden opportunity to get it right!!

 

Whether the P.51B arrives in Standard SWS format or Basic Series ... I'm sure the kit will be fantastic ... hopefully we get RAF Mk.III Malcolm Hood options :wub: ...

In any case ... yes, I know you would rather it be in Basic format as stated previously, I'm just not sure how much cheaper it will be - or whether the retail pricing reduction (if any) will be significant enough to sway purchase of one over another in the market place.

 

With the Fw.190's: On the one hand, we all know (or should do by now) that ZM have had the feedback about producing a run of 'simpler' kits - which inspired the idea behind the Basic Series ... On the other hand we all know that people putting money where their mouths are is an entirely different matter. Expecting a Basic Series kit to hit the market at 20% (or even 60%) of the price of an SWS kit is beyond ridiculous ... and yet a lot of those providing such feedback will have this very expectation.

Feedback v's Actual sales is the gripping hand here ... Adding to the confusion in generating accurate statistical sales data in order to assess the demand of the Basic Series - will be a number of issues ...

From last news I had on the release schedule ... The A-4 was supposed to be the designated as the first sale in the line up ... followed shortly by the A-3. The lack of a simultaneous release means that the A-4 may outsell the A-3 regardless, based on availability alone? Then there's marking options - One kit might have a particularly attractive option to the bulk of the market causing people to purchase that kit over the other regardless of build complexity? Variant preference - Does the bulk of the market (choosing one option only) prefer the A-3 ... or the A-4? What about the section of the market who will buy all, regardless of build complexity (like me :D ) - just because it may be either the most accessible option to them, or the most accurate option (or hopefully, both!) ... Personally I think it might have been a more successful marketing strategy to just design the kits to be built as SWS ... then box a run of the slightly cheaper Basic Series with a load of parts missing for a simpler build ... wherever your sales end up (demand wise) determines your production run of each kit type for the next release.

In the current release format, it's interesting to see that they plan the A-5 thru A-7 in Basic. Although visually, external differences fill the bulk of factory changes to these 3 variants, field mods were extensive and varied as pilots changed any number of things (such as armament fit and load outs) to suit their particular tastes ... the SWS system would enable the modeller to highlight such changes beautifully.

 

Either way ... with the recent releases (that still surprise me to think about!), the Fw.190's ... and now these three announcements, it's obvious that ZM are selling well enough to ramp up their production considerably. Good signs for the years to come!

 

Rog :)

 

 

Edited by Artful69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues. :shrug:

It coulda been a zinger.

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

 

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

Edited by RBrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RBrown said:

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

 

True ... this would go a long way to fixing a few of the accuracy issues ... but not so much the engineering issues - such as the overly complex landing gear.

 

Rog :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Eagle Driver said:

I am wondering, why there is still no thread specifically for Revell Mustang /FW-190 too deserves such I believe/ where everybody can blabber about it. If I remember this is a thread for ZM new releases. I bet that if you download this in word and do a keyword search for Revell or Tamiya you will get more hits than Zoukei, Mura or ZM.

 

21 hours ago, esarmstrong said:

^^ Thread drift is very prevalent in here.  It always starts out about the intended subject.  Then someone makes a post about what they wish ZM would release and how we don't need another Bf 109G, etc. and then it becomes a "wish list" thread eventually.  Seems like all threads left to their own devices start turning into "wish list" threads.

 

In my experience, conversational flux is the norm, not the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RBrown said:

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

 

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

The still hibernating G-2/4 variants do have the correct spacing of the gun troughs. The fault was to take over this feature to the G-6 and G-10. Another point of criticism is that the tropical filter and the wing guns were not made. so many attractive variations cannot be represented. Revell is aware of this problem but producing these parts will need new tooling efforts and new investment, seemingly the main area of problems. (So the modelling community has to take some initiative to get this realized). Besides the G-2/4 has the correct landing gear struts and beautiful wheels.

I hope they release this kit along with the later P-51s,  latest in 2020.

Regards

Andreas Beck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Artful69 said:

Personally I think it might have been a more successful marketing strategy to just design the kits to be built as SWS ... then box a run of the slightly cheaper Basic Series with a load of parts missing for a simpler build ... wherever your sales end up (demand wise) determines your production run of each kit type for the next release.

 

A la Eduard Weekend in 1/48? Makes a lot of sense to me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Padraic Conway said:

 

A la Eduard Weekend in 1/48? Makes a lot of sense to me too.

 

I think it would be more complex than what Eduard does with the Profipack and Weekend kits.  Eduard uses the same plastic parts for both, but for the Profipack series, they add resin, PE, masks, and many more decals.  For the weekend kits, it simple to just leave out all of those extra non-plastic bits.

 

ZM kits generally are all plastic, don’t have resin or PE, and usually only have two or three markings options.  All of their detail items are optional extra purchases.  To have a simplier and lower cost version of their kits, they would have to leave out a bunch of plastic.  They would probably have to take more care in the sprue layouts so that all of the common parts for both the Basic and Full Detail versions were on  certain sprues, and then there would be extra sprues just for the Full Detal versions (e.g. Basic = Sprues (A-E), Full Detail = Sprues (A-E + F-H)).  Since ZM has to pay for the molds of all of the sprues A-H, it’s not clear how much cheaper a Basic series would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 5:02 PM, Artful69 said:

I know you would rather it be in Basic format as stated previously, I'm just not sure how much cheaper it will be -

No one does but them, but there's a happy medium where the decrease is made up for in volume sales.

or whether the retail pricing reduction (if any) will be significant enough to sway purchase of one over another in the market place.

There's also the market that prefers simpler kits regardless of price (like me) which I think is undoubtedly the larger segment.

 

From last news I had on the release schedule ... The A-4 was supposed to be the designated as the first sale in the line up ... followed shortly by the A-3. The lack of a simultaneous release means that the A-4 may outsell the A-3 regardless, based on availability alone?  Does the bulk of the market (choosing one option only) prefer the A-3 ... or the A-4?

Folks who don't know or care about the difference will wait for the less expensive. Folks who do,  know that the hop from a -4 to a -3 and vise-versa,  is a short one.

Then there's KH's new A-5  :whistle::popcorn:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Andreas Beck said:

The still hibernating G-2/4 variants do have the correct spacing of the gun troughs.

 

Hibernating ??  Is there an F in there somewhere ??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 4:24 PM, Dave Williams said:

 

I think it would be more complex than what Eduard does with the Profipack and Weekend kits.  Eduard uses the same plastic parts for both, but for the Profipack series, they add resin, PE, masks, and many more decals.  For the weekend kits, it simple to just leave out all of those extra non-plastic bits.

 

ZM kits generally are all plastic, don’t have resin or PE, and usually only have two or three markings options.  All of their detail items are optional extra purchases.  To have a simplier and lower cost version of their kits, they would have to leave out a bunch of plastic.  They would probably have to take more care in the sprue layouts so that all of the common parts for both the Basic and Full Detail versions were on  certain sprues, and then there would be extra sprues just for the Full Detal versions (e.g. Basic = Sprues (A-E), Full Detail = Sprues (A-E + F-H)).  Since ZM has to pay for the molds of all of the sprues A-H, it’s not clear how much cheaper a Basic series would be.

 

I meant the Eduard comparison as more of a simple summary of the situation or a metaphor, rather than as a precise literal comparison. As in all-inclusive vs good quality starting point.

 

I have several ZM kits, most with additional ZM details, so I understand how these are presented and can be upgraded if the purchaser wishes.

 

Mind you, your ideas for sprue layouts make sense; no reason why engine details/interior structures couldn't be designed into the sprue layout so that the relevant sprues are included or omitted according to the boxing.  But the tooling issue stands, so I also think that a Basic series model will also not be that much cheaper than an SWS issue.

 

Tooling costs aside, both Basic and SWS versions will have similar raw material, R&D, CAD, marketing, packaging, transportation, storage, importation, taxation (at least here in the UK), distribution and retailer markup cost additions to the initial tooling.

 

Probably end up costing the same...   :whistle:   

 

Or just being the same with different instructions marking more parts as 'not for use' in the basic version...    :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

×