I think we can safely assume they'll release a bunch of kits with
different markings, but will they also offer different versions of the
aircraft? I'm not a Lanc expert but from what I do recall there were
variations that simply did away with turrets. I'd bet that's the most
they'll do--provide plugs to replace turrets. Otherwise it will be left
to the aftermarket to come up with conversion sets.
Still, considering the age of the Airfix kit and the quality of the
Hasegawa B25s and HE111s this should be a heck of a model.
There will no doubt be a dambuster and a Grand Slam version.
As far as I remember, the BI had windows in the fuselage, while the BIII
didn't. I wonder if they will go so far as to cater for this difference. It
shouldn't be too difficult to have the windows flashed over, to be opened
out as required.
The BII version had Hercules radial engines instead of Merlins. I doubt that
there would be a sufficient market for this version. There is also the
unarmed tranpsort version, the Lancastrian, but I imagine that would be down
to aftermarket conversion sets. The Avro York would require a complete new
fuselage, but I'm sure that's well beyond the bounds of probability!
I must say that I am very disappointed with Hasegawa's policy.
They released fabulous B-25s in H,J and PBJ version, then
rushed ahead to He 111s without covering the rest of B-25 family
before (early models with turret placed further back).
The choice of Lancaster is at least doubtfull, as there is still excellent
Airfix kit (one of their best kits) available in many variations (standard
Mk.I/III, Dambuster and Special).
It would certainly be better move if they did H.P.Halifax, which had
greater range of versions and the kits present on the market are not
as good.
The other problem with Hasegawa is their production run. For example,
they did great kits of different Bristol Beaufighter versions and only one
boxing depicted Beaufighter with straight taiplane-NF.MK.I. However,
this boxing is long OOP, although straight-tail versions were largely
respresented among early Beau marks.
Their technology is great, but their market research is very poor.
What a shame!
Marko
I think you're defining market research differently than they do.
They're concerend with sales, not with filling the gaps in the market
place. And as all of us who frequent this list know the two aren't the
same. Granted, the existing Halifax products may be far inferior to the
existing Lancaster products. But I'd wager they'll still sell far more
Lancasters than they would Halifax kits. As for not offering more
versions, I think they've decided to focus on offering different
markings rather than different versions. Probably makes greater sense
economically--much cheaper to commission new decals and box art than to
have a different molding. I also think we forget the importance of the
Japanese market to their business. That's why you'll find a kit of
every Japanese two engine bomber ever made, but no B26 or A20, or A26.
The Avro York would also require modified wings.
The span of the Lancaster & York are exactly the same - so you can't
just stick Lancaster wings onto a wider York fuselage - you need to
remove a section from the wing root to preserve the span.
Ken
In message , Mark Levine
writes
Picture of the Boxart on display at Nuremburg toy fair can be seem here.
formatting link
For those not interested in looking the details are :
1/72 Lancaster B Mk I/III
Kit number E23 (00553 2)
Release date 3rd Quarter of 2005
Boxart picture shows fuselage WITHOUT side windows
Decals for PD O S "S" for Sugar the plane at RAF Hendon with the
huge bomb tally and the Hermann Goering quote...
IMHO this will be vastly overpriced and the panel lines on the B-25 &
He111 still look too prominent for this scale.....just my two
pennies........
I must say that I am very disappointed with Hasegawa's policy.
They released fabulous B-25s in H,J and PBJ version, then
rushed ahead to He 111s without covering the rest of B-25 family
before (early models with turret placed further back).
The choice of Lancaster is at least doubtfull, as there is still excellent
Airfix kit (one of their best kits) available in many variations (standard
Mk.I/III, Dambuster and Special).
It would certainly be better move if they did H.P.Halifax, which had
greater range of versions and the kits present on the market are not
as good.
The other problem with Hasegawa is their production run. For example,
they did great kits of different Bristol Beaufighter versions and only one
boxing depicted Beaufighter with straight taiplane-NF.MK.I. However,
this boxing is long OOP, although straight-tail versions were largely
respresented among early Beau marks.
Their technology is great, but their market research is very poor.
What a shame!
Marko
in article snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com, Enzo Matrix at
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 2/19/05 1:49 PM:
I'm not sure that's true. According to Lancaster in Action (Squadron), Is
and IIIs were built concurrently, with different engines. The IIIs used
American Packard-built Merlins disignated Merlin 28, while Is got the
British Merlins (whose short supply necessitated the move). The fuselage
windows seem to have been phased out somewhere in the joint I/III production
run, so either mark could be seen with or without them. In addition, quite a
number of both Is and IIIs had the windows simply painted over.
I'll be more interested to see if Hasegawa offers options for some of the
other details that changed over the Lanc's life, notably the propellers
(pointed or paddle-bladed), the bomber's nose blister, and the flat or
bulged cockpit canopy sides. The 1/48 Tamiya kit, for example, only offered
small nose blister (early) and paddle-bladed props (late), a combination
seldom if ever seen, I believe.
Pip Moss
I used to feel cheap 'cause I had no signature.
Good point. As for any business, the marketing philosophy is based
primarily upon generating profits, and not necessarily on satisfying a
niche market. The ideal choice of subject for a major manufacturing
company must obviously be one that will not only fill a gap in the
market, but also be a popular enough subject to ensure plenty of
ongoing sales in the years ahead. If these conditions cannot be met,
then the subject would obviously be a limited-run and directed at a
specific niche market (enter Pavla, Sword, MPM, Aeroclub, Czechmaster,
etc).
The Lancaster is an excellent choice of subject for Hasegawa. There is
currently no kit out there featuring the quality and detail provided
by modern production techniques. The subject is a well-known aircraft,
used in a wide range of environments and with a wide range of
after-market goodies and markings already avaiable. The kit is assured
to generate huge sales, even though it will undoubtedly come with a
hefty price tag.
When Academy/Minicraft released their B-17, B-24, B-29 & PBY range
back in the late 80's & early 90's, I was hoping they'd extend their
attention to "heavies" to the other side of the Atlantic and cover the
Lancaster, Halifax, Sunderland & Stirling, but alas, it was not to be.
Personally, I'd be more than happy with the slightly lower level of
detail given by this company as a trade-off for a more realistic price
tag.
The price of the Hasegawa Lancaster will surely make a lot of modelers
think twice (I'm not that sure that I'll be rushing out to buy one),
but given the ridiculous price of the old Airfix kit, the economy of
scale may be about right.
One last point: Whether we love or hate Hasegawa and their new
Lancaster, the new kit will not only generate sales for the company,
but will indirectly generate profits for the aftermarket "cottage"
industry. Think of all those new decal sheets, conversion sets,
correction sets, detail sets, etc, etc, that will come flooding out
following the release. It will also give those bloody rivet-counters
endless hours of mindless debate; I can already hear them warming
up... "the port fuel filler cap is 2 scale centimetres to far aft...";
"...the navigator's seat is too high..."; etc...
Cheers,
James.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.