Thoughts about Possible Future Kotare Releases - NOT a wishlist

[Pete G.]

Haven’t checked on this thread for awhile.  Lots of great insight and a lot of what I think would be solid selection criteria (read less costly to produce and still achieve a high level of quality and be very marketable from a business stand point)

Already mentioned:

1.  In-line single engine.

2. Easily researchable.

3. High desirable by a large segment of modelers.

4.  No recently tooled kits in existence.

 

I am going to be a bit bold and state the 190D family is a solid bet.

Edited February 2 by Pete G.

[CRAZY IVAN5]

2 hours ago, Pete G. said:

Haven’t checked on this thread for awhile.  Lots of great insight and a lot of what I think would be solid selection criteria (read less costly to produce and still achieve a high level of quality and be very marketable from a business stand point)

Already mentioned:

1.  In-line single engine.

2. Easily researchable.

3. High desirable by a large segment of modelers.

4.  No recently tooled kits in existence.

 

I am going to be a bit bold and state the 190D family is a solid bet.

While I agree with an FW-190D , the above criteria would also apply to a P-51B/C. Both of which have the prospect of being quite profitable, I can't out of good conscience consider the Trumpy -51B/C ,just a hot mess.

[MikeC]

1 hour ago, CRAZY IVAN5 said:

While I agree with an FW-190D , the above criteria would also apply to a P-51B/C. Both of which have the prospect of being quite profitable, I can't out of good conscience consider the Trumpy -51B/C ,just a hot mess.

My thoughts exactly, although the rumoured/previously announced/forthcoming/whatever ZM P-51B may affect the probability of a Kotare one.  But then, they would be aimed at very different markets.  I may buy a ZM one just for the experience as I've never done one of their kits, but I'd definitely have a (few) Kotare examples - particularly if they include the later fin fillet as an option (which incidentally was not exactly the same as that on the D).

 

Spot on with the Trumpeter example too, to me it just somehow looks "wrong" in a way I can't quite put my finger on.

[MikeC]

Incidentally, I see we are now up to 14 pages and the thread has mostly stayed on topic, with sensible discussion and some interesting points being made.  Thank you all for this.

[CRAZY IVAN5]

21 minutes ago, MikeC said:

My thoughts exactly, although the rumoured/previously announced/forthcoming/whatever ZM P-51B may affect the probability of a Kotare one.  But then, they would be aimed at very different markets.  I may buy a ZM one just for the experience as I've never done one of their kits, but I'd definitely have a (few) Kotare examples - particularly if they include the later fin fillet as an option (which incidentally was not exactly the same as that on the D).

 

Spot on with the Trumpeter example too, to me it just somehow looks "wrong" in a way I can't quite put my finger on.

After having built 3 Z-M kits[ 2 -109s and the Ki-45], they really are very nice kits with good fit and from what I can tell pretty darn accurate. they're "involved' because of the "innards " but it all works. I think you would like 'em. Roger that on the B/C fin fillet and the Trumpy kit , can't rightly pin down what the problem is exactly ,seems as though the cockpit is too wide for one thing, don't get a good "vibe" with it .

[Shoggz]

It's like the Hobbyboss Spitfire Mk.Vb.. Just looks 'wrong'.

[Tony T]

I know my favourite in-line engine comprises a series of compressor discs rather than pistons, but Kotare did say all eras so a small dinky jet like the F-86F Sabre ticks all the options: interesting artwork, Aces and so forth.

(My own preference is for an F-84F Thunderstreak but I don't see them doing that, or a MiG-17, sadly.)

 

The other dinky jet ticking boxes in my head is the two-seat Vampire, Venom, Sea Venom and French Aquilon.  

Seriously. Very seriously. Very very seriously.

 

And if they don't grab the subject by the hook I think DBMK will. 

 

Tony

[Pup7309]

9 minutes ago, Tony T said:

I know my favourite in-line engine comprises a series of compressor discs rather than pistons, but Kotare did say all eras so a small dinky jet like the F-86F Sabre ticks all the options: interesting artwork, Aces and so forth.

(My own preference is for an F-84F Thunderstreak but I don't see them doing that, or a MiG-17, sadly.)

 

The other dinky jet ticking boxes in my head is the two-seat Vampire, Venom, Sea Venom and French Aquilon.  

Seriously. Very seriously. Very very seriously.

 

And if they don't grab the subject by the hook I think DBMK will. 

 

Tony

I think DBMK will. But you never know

[MikeC]

3 hours ago, Tony T said:

I know my favourite in-line engine comprises a series of compressor discs rather than pistons, but Kotare did say all eras so a small dinky jet like the F-86F Sabre ticks all the options: interesting artwork, Aces and so forth.

(My own preference is for an F-84F Thunderstreak but I don't see them doing that, or a MiG-17, sadly.)

 

The other dinky jet ticking boxes in my head is the two-seat Vampire, Venom, Sea Venom and French Aquilon.  

Seriously. Very seriously. Very very seriously.

 

And if they don't grab the subject by the hook I think DBMK will. 

 

Tony

Indeed. I do wonder if we will see a JP/Strikemaster at some point. Plenty of scope for a varied series, quite small, lots if potential markings options including RNZAF, and come to think of it, I believe I made the same arguments several pages ago: for repeating myself.

[Pup7309]

Nah the two seater ship sailed with Wingnuts- Lukgraph looks like only option there

[Pup7309]

1 minute ago, Pup7309 said:

Nah the two seater ship sailed with Wingnuts- Lukgraph looks like only option there

Sorry wrong thread …need a coffee

[Archimedes]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:45 AM, MikeC said:

My thoughts exactly, although the rumoured/previously announced/forthcoming/whatever ZM P-51B may affect the probability of a Kotare one.  But then, they would be aimed at very different markets.  I may buy a ZM one just for the experience as I've never done one of their kits, but I'd definitely have a (few) Kotare examples - particularly if they include the later fin fillet as an option (which incidentally was not exactly the same as that on the D).

 

Spot on with the Trumpeter example too, to me it just somehow looks "wrong" in a way I can't quite put my finger on.

For those in the know (meaning the denizens of fora like this one) it is clear that Kotare and Z-M appear to have taken aim at different types of modeller. Kotare have stated they want their kits to be simple to build. That they did not include an engine on the Spitfire is evidence of this. Zoukei-Mura, on the other hand have a leader who openly states that their philosophy is to put in as much internal detail as possible to replicate the real thing. The two companies appear to be aiming at different modelling experiences for their audiences. So, I don’t think Zoukei Mura doing a P51 B-C should stop Kotare but it may lessen their desire to do so if, indeed, they are planning to do that type at all.

 

On 2/2/2024 at 6:40 AM, Tony T said:

I know my favourite in-line engine comprises a series of compressor discs rather than pistons, but Kotare did say all eras so a small dinky jet like the F-86F Sabre ticks all the options: interesting artwork, Aces and so forth.

(My own preference is for an F-84F Thunderstreak but I don't see them doing that, or a MiG-17, sadly.)

 

The other dinky jet ticking boxes in my head is the two-seat Vampire, Venom, Sea Venom and French Aquilon.  

Seriously. Very seriously. Very very seriously.

 

And if they don't grab the subject by the hook I think DBMK will. 

 

Tony

I could not agree more on the F-86. It does tick all of the boxes laid out by Pete G. Only Hasegawa know whether 1/32 Sabres sell well or not though.

 

Kind regards,

Paul

[RBrown]

In addition to the excellent candidates mentioned, Kotare should add a Spitfire Vb and Vc to their current line up.  This could be accomplished with minimal tooling and I think both would see sales comparable to the Spitfire I already marketed.

[Dpgsbody55]

13 hours ago, Archimedes said:

For those in the know (meaning the denizens of fora like this one) it is clear that Kotare and Z-M appear to have taken aim at different types of modeller. Kotare have stated they want their kits to be simple to build. That they did not include an engine on the Spitfire is evidence of this. Zoukei-Mura, on the other hand have a leader who openly states that their philosophy is to put in as much internal detail as possible to replicate the real thing. The two companies appear to be aiming at different modelling experiences for their audiences. So, I don’t think Zoukei Mura doing a P51 B-C should stop Kotare but it may lessen their desire to do so if, indeed, they are planning to do that type at all.

 

I could not agree more on the F-86. It does tick all of the boxes laid out by Pete G. Only Hasegawa know whether 1/32 Sabres sell well or not though.

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

The problem here is the price Kotare charge for their kits.  In my experience, there's not much difference in price if I order a Z-M 109 or 190, or a Kotare Spitfire.  With exchange rates as they are, I'm paying about $180AUD plus postage for both.  As you say, Z-M kits have more parts and some of that includes a very well detailed engine.  If I'm paying that sort of money, I'll buy the Japanese product any day in preference to the engineless Kiwi product.  I also don't agree that the number of parts is the sole dictate of the ease of a build.  There's plenty of difficult to build kits with few parts on the market.  Yet my last Z-M build went together easily and in what is a short time for me. 

 

I do agree that Z-M telling us that they're doing a P-51B or C shouldn't stop Kotare doing one also if they should so decide, especially as a Z-M P-51 is likely years away.  We've seen nothing from them yet, and their 109 took at least four years from early build photos to release.  As to a jet, I'd personally prefer an F-84, but agree that an F-86 would be a better choice for a first jet.

 

5 minutes ago, RBrown said:

In addition to the excellent candidates mentioned, Kotare should add a Spitfire Vb and Vc to their current line up.  This could be accomplished with minimal tooling and I think both would see sales comparable to the Spitfire I already marketed.

 

There are quite a few differences between any Mk.I Spitfire and Mk.Vb or c.  To do one of these, they'll need to offer a new wing assembly as the B and C wings differ from the A wing (Spitfire Mk's I, IIa and Va) due to the addition of a cannon barrel, cannon barrel and stub barrel, bulges in both upper and lower wings to clear the cannon breach, deletion of one machine gun cover, and possible external wing stiffeners on Mk.Vb's.  Metal covered aileron's appeared in May 1941 too.  The undercarriage was also canted further forward to counter the tendancy of early Spitfires to nose over.

 

I haven't built a Kotare Spitfire yet, and it's now debatable if I will as Australia Post lost my Mk.I early , so I'm not sure if there's any cockpit differences.  One thing here I am sure of is that the panel will be different as Mk.I's had two fuel tank gauges, whereas Mk.II's and subsequent Merlin Spitfires had only one fuel gauge which read off the bottom tank only.  There may also be other differences in the cockpit, but I'm not sure about that without further research.

 

So I can't agree that it would be as easy as you say, though if the wings don't have any guns on display, this needs new tooling for three or four large and prominent parts.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

 

[thierry laurent]

Only early Mk.I had the two fuel gauges.