Small Scale Military Headquarters

Well I think that since two companies are making the F-4 that makes the viability of the A-10 no longer a doubt. I want to use this thread NOT to nag the manufacturers but to give input as to how this aircraft or your favorite aircraft might be done simply and cheaply without sacrificing quality. I would like a constructive discusion not a "my plane is better then yours" place to argue.
So pick out your most desired aircraft and jump in.

I'll start out with, of course, an A-10

My first point to make is that an A-10 is a low wing monoplane jet powered but not any more complex then a World War II fighter, only bigger. Fighters like the F-4 and later jets involve many complex curves and wing angles.

The main landing retract simply and don't require a complex door assembly in fact half of the A-10s main gear protrudes from the wing. Only the nose gear requires complete covering.

I will quit here and let others make thier points about this or thier favorite aircraft. Tell us why you think it would be a good subject to manufacture. Not only from a historical but from an economical point to the manufacturer after all they have to build it. Make a logical argument without letting your emotions guide you. You have to convince the builder it will profit them in the end. Remember because it is cool is not a good reason. Everyone thinks thier plane is cool.

You F-14 lovers out there its a big complex aircraft and would be hard to make start thinking about it.

Jericoeagle1 wrote:Well I think that since two companies are making the F-4 that makes the viability of the A-10 no longer a doubt. I want to use this thread NOT to nag the manufacturers but to give input as to how this aircraft or your favorite aircraft might be done simply and cheaply without sacrificing quality. I would like a constructive discusion not a "my plane is better then yours" place to argue.
So pick out your most desired aircraft and jump in.

I'll start out with, of course, an A-10

My first point to make is that an A-10 is a low wing monoplane jet powered but not any more complex then a World War II fighter, only bigger. Fighters like the F-4 and later jets involve many complex curves and wing angles.

The main landing retract simply and don't require a complex door assembly in fact half of the A-10s main gear protrudes from the wing. Only the nose gear requires complete covering.

I will quit here and let others make thier points about this or thier favorite aircraft. Tell us why you think it would be a good subject to manufacture. Not only from a historical but from an economical point to the manufacturer after all they have to build it. Make a logical argument without letting your emotions guide you. You have to convince the builder it will profit them in the end. Remember because it is cool is not a good reason. Everyone thinks thier plane is cool.

You F-14 lovers out there its a big complex aircraft and would be hard to make start thinking about it.

Big and complex yes, but the more room you have to work with, the more complex mechanisms are easier to integrate.

And also it would probably outsell the A-10, its very popular and its a fighter well appreciated for its looks. So it has 3 things going for it that the warthog does not.

Don't get me wrong man, i'd love to see the A-10 made and would buy one, its in a world of its own as is the tomcat.

And put it this way we both just want to see the tomcat and the hog, with either toy its a risk to make, the hog is not as popular, the cat is but is way more popular but a whole lot more complex in comparison.

Either way its a financial risk but I think one of these days one of the companies will take the risk to make one.

I will say this, the cat has 3 decades of color schemes to choose from, and both full a2a and a2g complements.

but who are we kidding we won't rest till either of these are made!

So the question is then how do you make it less complex (the F-14)? Maybe instead of a built aircraft make it a screw together type where everything is still printed on the Fuselage like some model kits are done today. I think monogram or aurora made large scale P-40 and B-25 models that were like this. You definately could put it in a smaller box and any compatent adult can assemble one (I hope!).

While I'm beyond excited about a 1/18th F4E, I'd still like to see a 1/18th JU-88A4.

The repaint possibilities are endless, along with the weapons stores; gun-packs, nose-cannon, bombs. True, the bird does not lend itself to mass-market toy appeal, as Lil Johnny won't have a canopy to break open and jam a pilot into, so the JU-88A4 remains a dream.

So maybe, an Me-110? Tons of repaints like a JU88, and with easy "playability".

An F105 Thud? A Thud in Wild Weasel config, or all bombed-up? Maybe even an early Thud in NMF... Still, not as many repaints as the German birds...

And.. as long as we have the F4 to lok forward to, its time to do a Mig-21!!

Early P-51B/C Mustang,
Not any more difficult to produce than the D Mustang, and would sell just as well as the ultra popular P-51D.

Late-War Griffon engine Spitfire,
21stCT has the early Spitfire mold, just modify it! A late war Spitfire should sell as well as the Mustang, and the Spitfire hasnt been seen for a while.

HO-229,
Not really well known, but should be quite easy to make. Could be quite attractive to the general public, looks modern.

F-15,
A beautiful, and well known plane, should sell very well. Should not be very hard to produce, since the F/A-18, F-16, and 2 F-4's have/soon been made.

WWII Russian Aircraft!!!,
The Il-2, Mig-3, La-5/7, LaGG-3, and Yak-9, played a very important part in the war, and are not worse than thier German, American, and British counterparts. Should appeal to general public, most have the cockpit back, huge engine forward look, I heard that is why people like the Corsair. Il-2 looks more like a plane than a Stuka Dont see any problem with producing them.

Mig-17, 19, and 21,
The Mig-15 has been made (thank god!), continue with it. The Migs are beautiful, popular aircraft, with a rich history. The Migs have a huge repaint potencial, since so many countries used them, particularly the Mig-21.

Mig-29,
The F/A-18, F-16, and F-4 have/soon been made, why not the Mig-29? The Mig-29 also has huge repaint potencial, due to the many countries using them, and the "Russian Blue Angles", the Swifts.

Do-335,
Well, I guess this is personal matter
Might be a good seller due to the interesting and unusual looks?
Sorry, Im blinded by love for this plane, I just love it.

F15?

do i hear a Star Scream Repaint?

I'd rather see ThunderCracker

First thoughts......Hurricane.

Would make a good companion for the spitfires.
Would make a good companion for the german 190's and 109's
Would tie in with that area of conflict (Britain Vs Germany and the battle of Britain)
Relatively average size and same basic fuselage/wing casts. (No overly complex moulds).
Different variants - from night fighters / tropical versions / catapult launched variants and the traditional green and brown camo.

Jericoeagle1 wrote:Well I I'll start out with, of course, an A-10

My first point to make is that an A-10 is a low wing monoplane jet powered but not any more complex then a World War II fighter, only bigger. Fighters like the F-4 and later jets involve many complex curves and wing angles.

To counter your argument against the F-14, you state that the F-4 and other later jets involve complexity. As of the past two days we now know that TWO companies are building the Phantom which now proves feasibility. One even claims to have every movable flight surface functional. The F-4 has a lot of complex curves and the F-14 does not in my view have anything in terms of structure that hasn't been done before by a toy company - The Hasbro SkyStriker which replicated the shape/configuration of the Tomcat was manufactured wasn't it?

World War II Aircraft outnumber modern jets in the toy realm. For those who want to see modern aircraft, we only have the F-16 and the F-18. Repaints and other re-hashing can only go so far.

Cost. I believe a Tomcat can be made for the $100.00 ballpark range and still be profitable. It is undeniably a very popular aircraft and I have seen people express high interest in it in several forums.

MiG29K wrote:

Jericoeagle1 wrote:Well I I'll start out with, of course, an A-10

My first point to make is that an A-10 is a low wing monoplane jet powered but not any more complex then a World War II fighter, only bigger. Fighters like the F-4 and later jets involve many complex curves and wing angles.

To counter your argument against the F-14, you state that the F-4 and other later jets involve complexity. As of the past two days we now know that TWO companies are building the Phantom which now proves feasibility. One even claims to have every movable flight surface functional. The F-4 has a lot of complex curves and the F-14 does not in my view have anything in terms of structure that hasn't been done before by a toy company - The Hasbro SkyStriker which replicated the shape/configuration of the Tomcat was manufactured wasn't it?

World War II Aircraft outnumber modern jets in the toy realm. For those who want to see modern aircraft, we only have the F-16 and the F-18. Repaints and other re-hashing can only go so far.

Cost. I believe a Tomcat can be made for the $100.00 ballpark range and still be profitable. It is undeniably a very popular aircraft and I have seen people express high interest in it in several forums.

As stated in my first post I'm not hear to critisize anyones choice for aircraft. I'm asking them to convince the manufacturers to make them. I'm playing devil's advocate here. Personally I want all the jets made in time. The point is to make them look at things and say it can't be done but rather to say, "We didn't know that, maybe it can be done." I'm using the A-10 because it is the aircraft I'm most familiar with.

What I'm asking people to do here is not just say this is my favorite plane, but this is how you could do it so that it can viable and made today. For example has anyone actually thought how could 21st or BBI or Admiral make the swing wings work? It should be simple and a sturdy design. Ive actually looked at scale models to see how they accomplish it. They have wings that interlock and when one is moved the other follows, tremendously simple. How do you reduce the size for packaging? Make the nose and cockpit section separable at the point where the engine intakes are.

Basically I think the producers are tired of hearing what we want. They know what we want because they want them too. I think they want to know how they can make it practical.

We have a huge mass of people here with different levels of knowledge. We all tired of the way things are lets figure out a way to change them so that everyone is happy.

I've done my share of %$#@% here I want to turn my energy now into doing something constructive that will benifit all of us.

I am more into the WWII planes, so a lot of my favorites are already made. As stated in another thread, I would REALLY like to see a 1:18 scale P-38 of Glacier Girl made. They would have to change the cowling on the existing P-38 model due to it being a F model, and the model they have out is a later model with different cowlings. There is a very special story behind this plane and I am sure it would sell well among the airplane buffs, especially if they sold them at the museum (which they would.)

As far as an all new airplane is concerned, I'd like a F-14. It was the plane that sparked my interest into airplanes when I was younger. The interest that took a back seat to cars for a long time till last summer when my dad took me to the USAF museum. As said in already the F-14 Tomcat is a very popular plane, and has almost endless paint schemes to choose from. With its recent retirement from service, A special edition one could also be made to honor it. It would sell extremely well, at least I think it would.

Lastly, an unrealistic dream.... 1:18 scale B-17 bomber. Yes, that plane would be huge.

I always thought the Starfighter was a "public legend" just as the F-14 and Mustang is.

I'm also more into the WWII stuff. I'm a great fan of the Corsair. I would love to see a hyper-detailed version of the Corsair. A F-4U4 would be nice too.

Reno Racers anyone ?
This HPH one (1:18') is wicked !

Or a 1:18 BearCat like this one made by HPH :

I'll always be a supporter of a F-22A Raptor. As it starts to grow in the minds of the public since it's just starting to get combat ready status in some squadrons, I think it'll be a popular plane. Next year is supposed to be the start of the full F-22 demos at airshows, and it never ceases to make people go 'woooooooow' when they see it even now.

Seeing the Raptor go vertical and then just stop and hang there for a good amount of time is always a crowd pleaser.

Hi Everyone,

A couple of comments on this thread:

The Aurora planes were screw together. They were made this way because the kits were originally designed for control line flying, but then were also sold as put together model kits. They were pretty cool for their time. Comet also made a P-40 and P-51 in this fashion.

The Aurora B-25 is roughly 1/32 scale. I am fortunate enough to own one. I found it on evilbay in a heap of plastic and restored it to some glory. The screw together functionality of the kit made it very easy to paint and put back together. I also like the fact on these kits that the landing gear was made of stiff wire (after all, these were made for control line flying). This landing gear is then covered with detail pieces. Unfortunately, the gear does not retract, but it does make for a very impressive model. Mine is a rebuild in my own colors and markings, Guillows parts and Corsair 1/32 props finished this job. Decals are my own. This is a big bird in 1/32, it's about as big as the 1/18 109. Here is a picture:

http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 184pz6.jpg

Aurora also made a 1/20 Fokker and SE-5a, they are very hard to find though. I have yet to find one in good enough condition that I'd add it to my collection. The B-25 was virtually a scrap pile but figured I'd try to get it back together and it looks ok. I can only imagine a 1/18 version, which gives me kind of a thought that a B-25 might be the biggest we go in the scale. But who knows.

If you want to see more photos of this bird, check the custom and mods section. You will have to go back quite a few pages, but more photos are there. But, this is to illustrate my point that I agree, screw together airplanes would be a great possiblity in the 1/18 scale and would be a way to do larger planes.

One thing I would want to see to be totally honest would be some metal parts on these planes. Most notably in the landing gear and they wing folding mechanisms. I think more durable metal parts would go a long way to quality of the model and improved functionality. If there is a metal hinge mechanism on the Corsair for example, I doubt they crack like they did. Though this might give increased costs, I'd pay it to see it be more durable and not breakable. I think some type of metal device would be needed to do the swing wings on a possible F-14.

I don't have a preference what plane comes out next, only that it is done totally right. I think these companies and planes are far enough along to be able to deliver a super product with no glaring defects (saw too many Avengers with them) and that has excellent functionality and high level of detail.

Regards

Corey

I would love to be able to purchase a 1:18 F-111 as far as jets are concerned. For WWII I still think a 1:18 P-39 Airacobra is an obvious no-brainer. Sorry, I'm going to keep pushing this one until someone makes it.

Jericoeagle1 wrote:

MiG29K wrote: To counter your argument against the F-14, you state that the F-4 and other later jets involve complexity. As of the past two days we now know that TWO companies are building the Phantom which now proves feasibility. One even claims to have every movable flight surface functional. The F-4 has a lot of complex curves and the F-14 does not in my view have anything in terms of structure that hasn't been done before by a toy company - The Hasbro SkyStriker which replicated the shape/configuration of the Tomcat was manufactured wasn't it?

World War II Aircraft outnumber modern jets in the toy realm. For those who want to see modern aircraft, we only have the F-16 and the F-18. Repaints and other re-hashing can only go so far.

Cost. I believe a Tomcat can be made for the $100.00 ballpark range and still be profitable. It is undeniably a very popular aircraft and I have seen people express high interest in it in several forums.

As stated in my first post I'm not hear to critisize anyones choice for aircraft. I'm asking them to convince the manufacturers to make them. I'm playing devil's advocate here. Personally I want all the jets made in time. The point is to make them look at things and say it can't be done but rather to say, "We didn't know that, maybe it can be done." I'm using the A-10 because it is the aircraft I'm most familiar with.

What I'm asking people to do here is not just say this is my favorite plane, but this is how you could do it so that it can viable and made today. For example has anyone actually thought how could 21st or BBI or Admiral make the swing wings work? It should be simple and a sturdy design. Ive actually looked at scale models to see how they accomplish it. They have wings that interlock and when one is moved the other follows, tremendously simple. How do you reduce the size for packaging? Make the nose and cockpit section separable at the point where the engine intakes are.

Basically I think the producers are tired of hearing what we want. They know what we want because they want them too. I think they want to know how they can make it practical.

We have a huge mass of people here with different levels of knowledge. We all tired of the way things are lets figure out a way to change them so that everyone is happy.

I've done my share of %$#@% here I want to turn my energy now into doing something constructive that will benifit all of us.

Well you pretty much answered your own question about the swing wing. The only alternate mechanism I've seen is the one on an MPC brand MiG-23 that used a solitary 45 degree angled pivoting rod - it was very clever but will not do anything to save space, The "Quarter-Gear" method is the most practical and in fact, since some planes already need one or two parts assembled with screws and washers, they could have the "Pancake section come unassembled. The wings can be stowed in the rear of the packaging like the F4U corsair. All it would take is to fit the wings into the pivot slots, align the gears and assemble the top section onto the bottom half. The rest of the assembly can be like most other A/C: Snap in the Stabilizers and tail. You say that these companies are sick of us whining about what we want and that WE should give them ideas about how to do their work? Perhaps some of us here ought to be paid to do that then eh? - Or two maybe a fourth, more responsive company should be established so they can get the ball rolling. Too bad there isn't a bored "Venture Capitalist" to front up some cash and pull together some talent and build the things that a lot of us want. I have a lot of crazy ideas but hey, thats what the designers at the companies get paid the big bucks for.

The list is easy for the modern

A-10
F-22
F-14
F-15
A-6
A-7
F-8
Mig-21 through 29 -25
Su-27
Tornado
Erofighter
Super hornet
f-16 better tooled

aww man a Eurofighter would be awesome as well as an A-6 intruder, now that would be awesome in the U.S Navy scheme