Top Ten Bombers: Which would YOU like to see produced????

[3rd Pursuit]

Just finished watching an episode of "Top Ten" on the Military Channel called "Top Ten Bombers". Experts ranked the top ten bomber aircraft according to:
1)Innovation
2)Payload
3)Fear Factor
4)Defensive armament
5)Service length
These factors were based upon their respective traits at the time, so let's keep that in mind. The top ten are: 10)B-17G Flying Fortress, 9)Handley Page 0/400(WWI), 8)Junkers Ju-88, 7)Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear", 6)B-47 Stratojet, 5)Avro Lancaster, 4)De Haviland Mosquito, 3)B-29 Superfortress, 2)B-2 Spirit, and FINALLY(drum roll please), 1)B-52 STRATOFORTRESS.
Keeping in mind the development costs, size, plus waiting time for any release my two choices in 1:18 would be the MOSQUITO and JU-88.
Of course, any of the others even in 1:32 would be super cool too. Any of you guys agree, or do you have your own additions to the list??

[eddie372]

If you search other related threads, you'll see that I and many others in this forum are B-17 fanatics, and would absolutely love to see it in 1:18 scale.

Having said that, and being fully aware of the problems and obstacles involved in such a massive project, I have to say that my second choice would defenitely be the Mosquito. I think Roy Southerland of 21C said that we will eventually get one in this scale.

The B-25 would also be very nice. I have the feeling that Admiral Toys will be the one eventually producing these series of bombers, even in 1:18. If that turns out to be the case, Admiral would certainly become my all time favorite manufacturer.

Ed

[MG-42]

You know as well as I do,....that any type of BOMBER in 1:18 is going to be "HUGE". .....and most of you guys already know what type of BOMBER I want to see in 1:32,....so I really don't think you'll be seeing a 1:18 BOMBER any time soon,....cause it'll be introduced and produced in 1:32,..first !

[der Vogelfänger]

dV

[MG-42]

Ahhh,...come on "Jim" ,.....well,...you're allowed to dream. ....."Just Dream" !

[3rd Pursuit]

I'd definitely have to agree and add the B-25 Mitchell to that list. In the bomber version make mine a Tokyo Raider please!!

[aferguson]

i saw a very similar show (just like the tank one...strange) only #9 was an Italian WWI bomber made by Caproni (?)....anyway it wasn't the HP 0/400 and the Ju-88 was omitted altogether and the Stuka was #10 with the B17 at #8 IIRC. How they could have omitted the Ju-88 from the list on the show i saw is beyond me..

I like these shows a lot though..

[Threetoughtrucks]

Add me to the B-25 crowd, but I'd like the version with the 75mm canon in the nose.

Of the list, I'd agree about the Mosquito but each has some of the list of qualifications.

For longevity in service the B-52 wins hands down. I remember more than one day in VN listening to thunder and then finding out it was a B-52 bombing raid off in the distance. Unbelievable noise and later flying over that area in a Huey and it was like flying over the moon landscape, no more jungle just craters. The B-52 has to be near the top of that list.

We'll never see the B-52 in 1/18 except maybe a "one of" RC. But since there are some 1/6 Me-109's and Komets floating around for the guys with deep pockets, you just never know.

TTT

[aferguson]

there was a thread on here once about a 1/15 or 1/12 scale B-52.....anyway it was much larger than 1/18. It crashed IIRC.

I agree the Mosquito is likely at some point and a B-25 a reasonably strong possibilty. A Ju-88 isn't too bad size-wise but i'm not sure if it would have the market appeal or not (it does with me...and talk about repaint potential!).

The only 4 engine bomber we may possibly see is a B-17......i'd say there's about a 15% chance of seeing that some day. Otherwise, i think we're on our own...

[Quixote511]

Everyone talks about the Mossie and the Mitchell. I love them both and I would be more than happy to own one of each, and maybe more if logistics permitted it. However, no one talks about the B-26 Marauder on here. Maybe because they are not as attractive as the 25 with it's twin tail configuration and all. But, I would like to see a 26 as well. They flew some critical CAS with the 9th AAF in Europe during the war. Very cool, plus, they would compliment the P-47 very well.
Aaron

[digger]

Of the choices I'd love to see a B-25 (and it is feasible in 1/18 which is so attractive). That would put Admiral near to my heart if they shook things up and dropped the B-25
But the He-111 & Ju-88 would be awesome. Just the Battle of Britain schemes would be scary...

[lightning2000]

Hi,
While I'd love to see a 1:18 scale bomber, I dont see anyone producing a 4-engine version (buzzkill, huh?) anytime soon. We sell Armour 1:48 scale aircraft and the boxes are huge. A 1:18 scale B-17 would be impossibly large and I dare say the Post Office wouldnt even accept it for shipment, much less UPS and FedEx. Furthermore, mass merchants and deep discounters look at the "turn rate" for shelf space when deciding upon what items to stock. The faster the turn rate the more likely the item will be re-ordered, which is probably why you see some items appearing in Walmart once or twice but never again.

A 1:18 scale 4-engine bomber would take up an inordinate amount of room both on the shelf and in their stockroom. Even if the wings were detached, the box would be difficult to warehouse. Think about how many other toys they could sell that would take up the same amount of shelf space and the margins they would generate...

I havent done the calculations, but even a 1:18 scale twin-engine bomber would be very large as well, but feasible if it was attractively priced and protected to ensure the lowest possible return rate.

Finally, does anyone know the dimensions of a B-17 if it were produced in 1:18 scale then protected by at least 2-3 inches of foam on every side? I havent done the math, but I can tell you right now that you're looking at something the size of a Mini Cooper. The actual plane was 74 feet long and 103 feet across. At 1:18 scale, that would work out to 4 feet long by almost 6 feet wide, if my math is correct...

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com

[vulgarvulture]

Wow. The B-24 did not make that list. Interesting.

[Threetoughtrucks]

A 1/18 B-17 would probably fit in a box the size of the one now used for the 1/6 Abrams and certinaly not as heavy as the Abrams. Wings apart and tail off, nose off.

I don't think it will ever happen in 1/18, just not enough interest in such a huge bomber in 1/18. We would buy it up in a heartbeat, but how many guys are "we". Not enough, I'm afraid, to put 21C in the black on such a plane.

Now a B-25, B-26 or Ju-88 and Mosquito......they are doable And we have a bomber now.....the Avenger is a bomber....oh, I forgot for a moment, we are still waiting for the Avenger. Sorry.

TTT

[Threetoughtrucks]

Vulvg:

Sorry, but the B-24 didn't make the list. The B-17 was just what it's name said it was a "Flying Fortress" and B-24 was not a pretty plane, kind of like comparing a pick-up truck with a Jaguar.

Think where and who built each plane. Boeing built the B-17 and Henry Ford built the B-24 at his Willow Run plant, the biggest auto assembly plant in the world. Unbelievable that raw materials went in one end of Willow Run and finished planes came out the other, crews got in and they took off. Crews lived at Willow Run for short periods to get their planes and take off.

It doesn't matter, that the B-24 could fly farther and carry more bombs, the public was in love with the B-17 and the B-24 just went about it's own ugly way, winning the air war.

TTT

[lightning2000]

Agreed TTT,
The audience for a 1:18 scale 4-engine bomber would be so small that it wouldnt justify the cost to produce. The B-17 would have to be made in multiple versions to recoup the cost of tooling. Having said that, how many people would buy multiples of the B-17 much less one piece? Where would you put such an ungainly beast?

Unimax faces the same problem with the 1:16 scale King Tiger. They claim that they have to produce it several times over to recover the production costs, which is why more vehicle types arent offered.

Essentially, the widest diversity of products arise at the small end of the scale since production costs arent that great as compared with larger sized vehicles and people arent as reluctant to purchase multiple versions of what is essentially the same vehicle. As you go up the size scale, diversity is reduced since it costs more to produce the item and consumers are less likely to purchase multiple iterations of the same vehicle, especially if its going to be displayed.

Think of it as a production pyramid of sorts...

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com

[pilotman]

lightning,

Very astute reasoning. Of course reasoning doesnt much factor in when you're addicted to airplanes.
"J u ss t one little Lancaster bom be r and I'm done, I swear!!"

[aferguson]

i have a 1/18 b-24 r/c ARC kit and the box for it is just a hair (and i mean a hair) larger than the BBI 1/18 F-18 box. It's fully assembled just broken down into componants (fuselage, wings, tailplane etc) so it is quite representative of how an XD B-24 (or B-17) could be broken down for efficient packaging. Well within USPS maximum package volume restrictions.

The Armour models come fully assembled and the boxes are reallly big......but you couldn't even sell a 1/18 scale fighter that way; far too large. 1/18 aircraft will always have to be broken down and assembled by customer.

I still say there is a respectable chance of a 1/18 B-17 and i am convinced it would be popular enough to justify its production. Choice #2 would be a Lancaster but that, i doubt we'll ever see.

[lightning2000]

Hi,
You're still laboring under the assumption that even if the aircraft could be broken down into subcomponents then re-assembled by the end-user to reduce the packaging footprint, that the average retailer would want to carry such a huge item or the manufacturer believes there's an audience large enough to support such an endeavor. While there are countless aircraft aficionadoes, many of whom support this and other like minded forums, I dont think there would be enough collectors to justify the costs.

If you were in the manufactuer's shoes, would you take a gamble of this nature or continue to pump out product you feel reasonably sure would sell enough to justify the manufacturing costs? Just a guess, but tooling costs for a 1:18 scale 4-engine bomber would probably run at least half a million dollars at the low end and probably more when you factor in leasing production time from the factories, training costs to construct the plane, licensing fees to the original aircraft manufacturer, etc. That's a tough sell no matter how you look at it. Finally, if they had to choose an aircraft, it would likely be the B-17 (at least as I see it). THe B-29 was much larger and the Lancaster is too Euro-centric to sell here in the US.

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com

[aferguson]

http://eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/100_0723.JPG

ooh yah..

[lightning2000]

Nice pix. I have a few questions though. Do you think the R/C audience is bigger than the static collector audience? Do you think most people would sooner buy an R/C plane versus a static model, especially when you start getting into prices above $200? Do you think this is a mass production plane versus a build-it-yourself kit that requires dozens of man hours to construct? Do you think 21st Century Toys, which has a history of selling into mass merchants first, will want to start catering to a different segment of the market if WM doesnt bite on this item? Do you think the average hobby store will stock enough pieces to justify 21st Century's costs?

I dont mean to seem negative, just being a pragmatist. I too would love to see 'em build a 1:18 scale heavy bomber, but I think its going to be a tough proposition on a myriad of levels...

Lightning2000
www.themotorpool.bigstep.com

[Threetoughtrucks]

AFerg:

Nice pic of you and the plane

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

TTT

[CW4USARMY]

Hey Aferg, any more pics & details about the bomber in the pic, i.e. company and kit #. That looks awesome enough that I might actually try to build one!

[aferguson]

There was a long thread about it on here a few months ago. If you do some digging you should find it. The title was something about a 1/18-ish B-17 being on Ebay.

The kit is made by EAM and turns out to be 1/17.9 scale. It's a LOT of work as only the fuselage is provided. You have to make the wings and complete tailplane from scratch using formers and plywood skinning. The kit comes with clear parts and vacuform nacelles and cowls and retails for $275.

[vulgarvulture]

http://eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/bomber17.htm