Announcement

**Beeg** · Jan 30, 2020, 10:54 PM

For matching scale based solely on wingspan, the FlightLine P-38 (1600mm) (1/9.9 scale) and FlightLine Fw190 (1120mm) (1/9.4 scale) about a close match.

The FlightLine Spitfire (1600mm) (1/7 scale) and the recently discontinued FMS Bf-109 (1400mm) (1/7 scale) were an exact match. Based on wingspan.

Attached is an image of a spreadsheet I made up that lists the predominant WWII fighters and what their scale would be if they all had a 1600mm "scale" wingspan.

This is not to say that don't need an updated "super scale" version of axis warbirds in larger scales but gives some perspective. I've long wanted an Fw-190A&D in large super scale format but I'm most interested in a new 1600mm Mosquito Mk.VI becuase I love tearing around at low level and the only other plane that looks as cool as the P-38 doing this is the Mosquito!

**Beetlemankurt** · Jan 30, 2020, 11:33 PM

Hi Beeg, now that’s an interesting spreadsheet. I don’t know why but I hadn’t really considered ‘scale’ in relation to other warbirds but it’s a fair point. Makes for an interesting comparison for sure.

I agree about the Mossie, that would be awesome as would a super scale P40 at some point. (But after the early FW190 please 🤣...). Given that the two 1.6m birds to date have both been Allied birds, I’m really interested to see what is next in the mix.....whatever it is, if it flies half as good as my Spitty I’ll be stoked 😎.

Cheers BMK

**CF-105** · Jan 31, 2020, 08:56 AM

The US is likely the largest market for RC planes, so companies are naturally going to gravitate towards those models that will sell best in that market. I’d imagine if the UK or other commonwealth country was the largest market, we’d see mainly RAF birds. And so on with other markets. Folks like us on the forums are generally only a fraction of the overall market - the ones with a “love affair” with warbirds in general. The rest are happy to maybe have a Mustang in their fleet and fly it occasionally. Thats the rationale I’ve come to understand anyway...

like you guys, I’d love to see way more variety from all the manufacturers! I’d love to have a Boulton-Paul Defiant or an I-16, or even a Raiden or Wellington. I’m not a foamy guy, so the Seagull Mossie works for me (got one for Christmas!), but agree that a foam version would be attractive for lots of flyers.

I do wish companies would match scales between their planes. I think I get why they don’t: a single power system can likely be used across a whole catalogue of planes of the same wingspan. Makes development easier and keeps costs down.

**Beeg** · Jan 31, 2020, 09:54 AM

This post from Alpha will give you some insight.

https://www.hobbysquawk.com/forum/rc...901#post153901

**CF-105** · Jan 31, 2020, 10:39 AM

Yep, that post by Alpha could have been from any of the big retailers. Bottom line is they have to make money.

**Beetlemankurt** · Jan 31, 2020, 12:40 PM

Thanks for the link to Alphas comments on the Zero, that sure gives it some perspective form a business point of view and wasn’t a post I’d come across before.

I agree wholeheartedly that they’ve gotta make some $$ and I want them to so they can continue to be around and make fantastic models for us to enjoy going forward 🤩. I also agree that as customers we’ve got to support the more left field releases when they happen for this sort of thing to continue given it’s always a bit risky for the business compared to the usual releases.

Given Alphas comments about the Zero, and accepting that us more ‘general warbird fans’ are likely a small part of the overall market, i still hold out some hope for some super scale axis releases over time as Motion RC in particular, still seem to at least be willing to have a few on their books compared to Horizons marketing approach which is more predictable. Funnily enough, while I was reading your posts a banner appeared at the top of the screen for Motion RC advertising the Me262 which was one I’d forgotten about.

Thanks again for the additional info guys.

BMK

**Twowingtj** · Jan 31, 2020, 02:36 PM

Some axis birds do sell well enough. The Black Horse 102" FW-190A is nearly sold out. The Black Horse He-111 has already sold out once. The Black Horse 112" Storch is doing OK. And I expect that the, much anticipated, Do-335 will go quickly as well. The market may not be as big, but there is one there.

We've also got the Freewing Me-262 that's popular and the German version of the T-33.

It's more about the cool factor of the airframe design than the country of origin.

**Beeg** · Jan 31, 2020, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Twowingtj View Post

Some axis birds do sell well enough. The Black Horse 102" FW-190A is nearly sold out. The Black Horse He-111 has already sold out once. The Black Horse 112" Storch is doing OK. And I expect that the, much anticipated, Do-335 will go quickly as well. The market may not be as big, but there is one there.

We've also got the Freewing Me-262 that's popular and the German version of the T-33.

It's more about the cool factor of the airframe design than the country of origin.

Can't really use that as a comparison since MRC is just the vendor and doesn't have to recover any capital from R&D for the Black Horse models. As for axis warbirds, I would venture to guess that the Fw190 is probably the best selling followed by the Bf109 and Zero only because these three are the best "known" machines that are in the axis camp.
But, It's not just "allied vs axis". The popularity of a model is more about legend, mystic, propaganda and most important notoriety of a few particular machines like the Spitfire, Mustang, Piper Cub, etc... There are still many allied aircraft I would like to see developed. But again, only those of us that are students of aviation or aviation history are even aware of them and their exploits in that we could easily justify/rationalize for development but the vast majority of the RC aviation community have not even heard of them. One would have to get all the aviation magazines to do cover stories and a TV show to promote something like the Curtiss P-36/Hawk75 to elevate it the point where it's market risk could be justified. And, even if more people knew much about the lesser known machines we all have a favorites and may pass on a particular offering. This narrows the margin even more.

**Grossman56** · Jan 31, 2020, 03:52 PM

Funny, I was in the basement/hangar lastnight and looking at the 1600 mm Spitfire, thinking,"If that's not the most sexy airplane" and wondering what other airplanes are just as astatically pleasing. The Mustang of course and the Zero as well. I would scoop up a 1600 mm Zero as well. An extremely clean design and really, it could have held its own as an aerobatic airplane for years.
But, it all comes down to $$$ and I don't mean that sarcastically, but it would sure be something to see. Still waiting for the 1600 mm version of the Bearcat though.....

Grossman56

**Alpha** · Jan 31, 2020, 06:43 PM

Beeg, I love your lists!

I'm happy to chime in with my two cents on this topic of subject matter selection, specifically in the frequent debate of why at times certain RC Aircraft manufacturers seem to favor producing US birds vs Everyone Else's. It's a topic we visit often but one I always welcome open dialog upon.

For our part, I can say that we monitor data across the global hobby, including brands and formats we don't sell. Obviously, the data for products we do sell is more concrete than information deduced anecdotally from our compatriots in other RC categories, but in general the Trend, reinforced over many years, is undeniable: In most any combination of size, material, and finish level, Mustangs and Cub-ish Trainers always sell. Always. Another trend, in the context of foam electric aircraft, is equally difficult for manufacturers to downplay when considering which plane to produce next: Soviet, Imperial Japanese, and German warbirds have historically struggled to meet the sales required to break even, let alone make a profit. When's the last time we saw a few hundred La-3s or Zekes or Doras at Nall or squawked about on an online forum by a couple thousand committed persons? It has never happened.

That's not for lack of trying, either. In foam electric, Starmax made a 1.6m FW-190, Lanyu made a MiG-3, FMS/Roc made a great flying 1.4m Zero, Bf-109, FW-190, and my favorite little Ki-46, plus the Typhoon and CJ-6. Dynam had a good Bf-110 and Hurricane, early Eflite had a Sea Fury, HSD had a Zero, Avios and Alfa and GWS had their own non-US birds, and we've produced a smaller Dora, Ta-152, La-7, and even a P.15. Unfortunately, I'd have to guess that several of those birds combined would be outsold, again, by a well-enough finished Mustang or Cub in half the time. To be clear, this isn't knocking Mustangs or Cub-ishes, either; I love those platforms as many of us do for good reasons. Subject recognition (Mustangs and similar) and Ease of Use (Cub-ishes) are *VITAL* to keeping the global RC aviation hobby growing and engaged. However, I'd observe that what often happens afterward is once we're each inside the hobby, we then take diverging interests of subject matter. Sometimes our varied interests retain considerable overlap (OV-10 and Airliners, apparently) and sometimes there's enough to make a living (Spitfires and P-47s), but sometimes our diverging interests land ever smaller numbers of us into niches that cannot be reached by a company that needs to sell products to stay alive. Sorry, Dragon Rapide lovers!

Why should companies retool, for the third or sometimes fourth or fifth or sixth time, to sell a plane from a category or country that has so far shown itself to be, shall we say, not in vogue? A convincing case is not always easy to make. Dead factories, after all, do none of us any good. What then, can we do? I think the answer is rather straightforward, even if not immediately effectual:

If we as a community want to see more product developers reinvest six figures into "less traveled" subject matter more often, it begins with voting with our wallets to support more-obscure airplanes that are already on the market. I have bought several planes over the years not because I love their implementation (V-22 Osprey, Starmax Fw-190, Grumman Albatross, and Convergence come to mind), but because I chose to support the developer who took a risk on trying something new, in hopes that the developer would take the proceeds and reapply that same risk-taking attitude to subject matter that I love. Dragon Rapide, anyone?

I also choose to spread news of products I might not like myself to others who may want it because I recognize, intimately, that the dedication and resources necessary to bring a flying RC consumer product to the market is not easy. Attitude, plus Capital, plus the Risk that [the bulk of] your audience may prefer a more recognizable plane... these are long shots in the best cases. It's not about *making* money, either --it's about *not losing* money. This is an understandably murky paradigm, but no less true. I haven't seen the following sentiments raised in this thread, but in other parts of the internet, I will always continue to gently push back on any notion that we and most RC industry people are in this business to make money. It makes me chuckle just thinking about that, actually. I have seen firsthand that the majority of us in this industry are passion driven, not profit driven. For decades I frequented Evett's Model Shop in Santa Monica, run by Colby and Yvonne, who did it for love for its 70 year history before recently closing due to high rent. I hope what little I contribute to this hobby honors the commitment of people like that.

For us, we don't equate capital with strength. We equate vision and community and transparency with strength. If you believe those are values worth supporting, then stick around and we may just be crazy enough again to release a [insert your wishlist here --might I suggest the Dragon Rapide]. Time is on our side.

p.s. Dragon Rapide.

**Beetlemankurt** · Jan 31, 2020, 07:47 PM

Hey Alpha, thanks so much for taking the time to write such an in-depth reply. It’s pretty much answered everything I wanted to know about how the decision making process is made 😎....

I know that others here hold the same view that we are thankful to have someone such as yourself at the forefront of whatever model comes next and that you bring your passion into our hobby in such a way that it benefits us all at different points in time. Man, we live in such a cool time where anything really is possible providing there is a reasonable enough business case to produce it.

I’m definitely in the camp of having a relatively full hangar these days (but there’s always room for just one more 🤣) and am now looking for planes that have previously been further down my ‘must have’ list. I’ll certainly be trying to support the more ‘Risky’ releases with my wallet where I can going forward.

Thanks again, BMK.

**CF-105** · Jan 31, 2020, 08:18 PM

The DH Dragons are definitely pretty birds!

My first choice for additions to my hangar is the less common planes. Budget and space constraints narrow the options for me. The new BH FW-190 and H9 Oscar both got my attention... but are just too darned big. Everyone has their own sweet spot, mine tops out at about 80” wingspan. For certain models I’d make an exception (1/5 scale Wildcat?), but that’s a short list.

one of the things that excited me about BH becoming available, is that their website shows quite a variety of warbirds. Fairey Albatross?? Talk about an obscure choice. I want one just to see peoples’ expressions at the field :)

**Beeg** · Jan 31, 2020, 09:08 PM

I would posit that certain aircraft do or don’t sell not just because of their particular model but because of detail and execution. Nearly every foam axis airplane in the last decade, in my opinion, was either too small or poorly modeled not only in proportion but also in detail and color. This can also be said of a number of allied aircraft offerings.
A couple of examples are the FlightLine Spitfires. I had no interest in a Spitfire, especially for the 1200mm version but the detail, size and execution ( built quality/appearance) of the 1600mm was more than I could pass up. A truly outstanding model in both appearance and flying quality. The latest FlightLine Corsair follows this level of quality execution what most of us currently refer to as “super scale”. On the other hand, I have very little interest in the FlightLine Fw190D (850mm) although this aircraft has always been a favorite just because of it’s size. For me, the same holds true for the Ta-152.
I think “super scale” in the 1/6- 1/7^th scale would translate very well into the best known “axis” models (190, 109, A6M, etc.) and would argue that high quality models of these types would sell a lot better than previous offerings, in my opinion. Just getting the landing gear right on a particular model goes a long way. Contrary to this the FlightLine F8F was a little small but its scale fidelity, other than landing gear, was such that I had to have a couple of them. Another outstanding offering but a larger version with scale gear would be the cats meow.
I can only guess that similar arguments have been used toward the powers that be in the MRC team.

I now Freewing did a Mosquito a few years back but the smaller Parkzone Mosquito was smaller and had less detail but it “looked” better proportionally than the more detailed Freewing Mosquito (1400mm) and it flew and handled extremely well.

For this reason I put forth that a new “ super scale“ FlightLine Mosquito Mk.VI (1600mm) and Fw190D (1500-1600mm) would not only break even but generate positive cash flow for MRC! There you have it! Lets see if anyone else can type up a better sell for their favorite birds!

**Alpha** · Jan 31, 2020, 10:50 PM

CF-105 You're right, balsa is safer ground for experimentation especially for big stuff, because it doesn't require a nigh six figure tooling costs. One of the reasons why we like Black Horse is their preference to trend more often than not toward less prominent subjects. As you mentioned, the Fairey Albacore is a good example of that. I have been trying to get a good Fairey Swordfish, but the Albacore is even less known. One has to admire their effort to fill in the nooks and crannies with certain models that likely will never be made in big foam electric.

As for the foam guys, it remains prudent to test the market with smaller sizes, then scale up if/when the subject proves its potential. From the Stinger 64 to the 1.2m Mustang, this is common practice among most RC manufacturers, at least those with large and evolving portfolios. Too many duds and it's the dregs.

**Twowingtj** · Feb 1, 2020, 07:09 AM

Alpha, my friend, I'm right there with you on the Dragon Rapide! If our friends at Black Horse could bring one out at 80"+, I'd be all over it. The DH designs have such recognizable classic lines. Ivan Pettigrew has plans for the Rapide and other classic designs, but a nicely done ARF would be outstanding.

**CF-105** · Feb 1, 2020, 09:27 AM

Good point, Alpha. Had never considered that startup costs on a balsa model would be far lower than for foam. I get it now though. Simply by loading different CAD files into a single laser cutter, a wide variety of planes can be cut. Foam equivalents would require separate models for each one. Yikes!

I’ll make another pitch for a smaller incarnation of the new BH 190. I’d love to have a Wurger active in my fleet again, and my old PZ is just too small now. Another plane I’d love to see is an I-16. Lots of character! Normally I’d make a plea for a Wildcat, but I realize the landing gear makes that unlikely (although you could do a 1/5 scale with fixed gear but include provisions for using the Robart gear...). You’d be guaranteed to sell at least one!

D'oh! Just realized I had said "Fairey Albatross" previously... you're right, it's the Albacore!

**paladin** · Feb 3, 2020, 09:36 AM

I am assuming that with the numbers of product sold that they us soft molds for our foam planes that would be good for 10-20k before they needed refurb or replacement. I would bet that on a hot seller we don't buy up more than 50% of the molds usable life. if that is the case I'm wondering if we may see some of these with updated electronics as time goes on. e-flite T-28 is a perfect example; they changes the absolute minimum and re-offered the plane. why not all the tooling is payed for, they sold out fast and a third run is scheduled (IDK if they have delivered yet cause I have mine) or the freewing me262, has seen motor upgrades and a new paint scheme without ever going out of production. I assume this will become the new marketing strategy once they get the planes large/accurate enough to withstand the test of time (hit the models sweet spot if you will).

Joe

**ncflyer79** · Feb 5, 2020, 09:19 AM

Id personally kill for a nice 1600mm bf-109 in a Hans Assi Hahns scheme!! would go so well with the spitfire!!

**paladin** · Feb 5, 2020, 10:13 AM

The FMS me109 at 54 in is very close to the same scale as the FL spit. spit is 1/7.0159 which = 55.23in ws me109.

Joe

Announcement

Production of Allied vs Axis warbirds

Production of Allied vs Axis warbirds

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment