Any interest in a A-20 Havoc/Boston?

[wm6929]

I’ve been back and forth looking at the current market of incredible twin-engine EPO warbirds, and I keep coming back to a massive historical gap: The Douglas A-20 Havoc.

Given how popular the FlightLine B-25 has been, it surprises me that no major manufacturer has tackled the A-20 yet. It has everything to look for- twin-engines, a unique silhouette, and a rock-solid tricycle landing gear setup that would handle grass runways beautifully. Plus, UK and European hobbyists would love it because it can easily be skinned as an RAF "Douglas Boston."

How do you go about getting a manufacturer to seriously look into this?

It seems to me that if a company built one in a similar scale to the 1600mm B-25 Mitchell, it would be a massive win-win for production costs. From a manufacturing standpoint, they could practice some great "parts-bin engineering":

• Powertrain & Cowls: The real A-20 and B-25 both used Wright R-2600 radial engines. A 1600mm A-20 could seamlessly reuse the exact same motors, ESCs, 3-blade props, and internal molded radial engine faces from the existing B-25.
• Landing Gear: Because both planes are tricycle-gear medium bombers in a similar weight class, the landing gear and retract units from the B-25 could drop right in.
• The Boston Variant: If they put both USAAF and RAF decals in the box—and maybe included a modular nose cone to switch between the "Glass-Nose" bomber and the "Solid Gun-Nose" strafer—they would instantly capture two huge global markets with a single set of airframe molds.

What do you guys think? Is the demand out there for an A-20, or is there a technical hurdle I'm missing that keeps manufacturers from touching it? How do we best grab a product developer's attention for a subject like this?

[xviper]

Such a company would be Freewing/Flightline and MotionRC has their ear on these sorts of matters. The key is to generate lots and lots of interest in threads like this. If you get enough here, Motion will see it and take note.
A single individual with an idea is not enough to inspire consideration. They need to believe they can sell pallets full in order to justify the expense of R&D and eventual manufacture. I suppose you could go to their official website and send them a note in their "contact" method but don't hold your breath.

[wm6929]

Absolutely agree with you. A single email to a 'Contact Us' box usually just gets a polite automated reply, which is why I wanted to start here first. You're spot on about needing to sell pallets of them to justify the R&D.

But that’s exactly why I think the A-20/Boston is such a smart business bet compared to starting completely from scratch. Other companies have proven that there is a massive market for more 'esoteric' twins like the A-26 Invader or the German Heinkel He 111. The demand for unique multi-engine subjects is absolutely out there.

I’m looking at this purely from a way to keep production costs significantly lower than a typical start-up project. Since FlightLine already has the highly successful 1600mm B-25 Mitchell, an A-20 could completely carry over the entire tricycle landing gear setup, the brushless motors, the ESCs, and the Wright R-2600 radial cowl/prop assemblies. They've already paid for the most expensive mechanical engineering; they just need to wrap it in a new foam fuselage.

To add to the sales potential, the decal options would be a marketing dream for global distribution:

1. USAAF Havoc: Perfect for the domestic US market.
2. RAF Boston: Instantly captures the UK and Western European crowd.
3. Soviet VVS Lend-Lease: The Soviets actually flew more A-20s than the US did! Adding Red Star decals opens up the Eastern European market completely.

There's a huge historical connection here for me, too. My grandfather flew with the 38th Bomb Group in the Pacific, and they had A-20s flying right with their B-25s on those low-level strafing runs. They are literal sister ships.

If we can get enough guys bumping this thread, hopefully the team at Motion takes note that the market and the parts list are already waiting.

Out of curiosity, if they did pull the trigger on a 1600mm version, which of those three theater options would you skin yours as?

[wm6929]

[tab28682]

Personally, I think a B-26 Invader would be a better and more interesting choice.

[xviper]

I’m looking at this purely from a way to keep production costs significantly lower than a typical start-up project. Since FlightLine already has the highly successful 1600mm B-25 Mitchell, an A-20 could completely carry over the entire tricycle landing gear setup, the brushless motors, the ESCs, and the Wright R-2600 radial cowl/prop assemblies. They've already paid for the most expensive mechanical engineering; they just need to wrap it in a new foam fuselage.

All the stuff you listed are the easy (and least expensive) bits. What costs is the mould, which can cost between $75,000.00 to $100,000.00. The moulds for the B-25 can't be altered or "tweaked" to make even a slightly different plane.

As you can see, individual tastes vary. Personally, I like the B-25 but it's not my favourite plane in my hanger. Therein lies the problem. There's a thread here about what people would like to see next. You could post up your choice there. Manufacturers need to know that they can sell a crap load of them before they consider doing one.