Previous Message

Well said.

We struggled with exactly this issue with Forrestal-class and modernized SCB Essex-class islands and got badly burned. The relatively few customers who were interested in those islands only wanted a specific island with features representing the ship at a very specific time and only that time. No other configuration would do. But those ships changed so frequently that there are simply too many configurations even for a single ship. Each configuration being extraordinarily costly to research and design, for a very small market. This makes the subject for many vendors a product development "deal breaker".

The same problem exists for FRAM destroyers: too many unique configurations, small market. And with a limited design budget in terms of time and funds, and a very small niche market interested in FRAM DDs, we can't afford to gamble on one specific configuration for one ship at one time and hope it sells well enough to pay for product development. We simply aren't resourced like that.

Complicating the issue is research. The notion that a perfect set of references for any one configuration at a specific time exists is false.

For example, a potential customer will say, "I need a USS Ranger CV-61 island exactly as it appeared in the summer of 1970 when I served aboard."

Okay, then to make a CV-61 island as it appeared in the summer of 1970, I need detailed, authoritative 2D drawings of the island as it appeared in 1970 (hopefully dimensioned) and good resolution photos taken during the summer of 1970 of all 4 sides of the island and an overhead photo showing the funnel exhaust. Those references may simply not exist.

What this means is that the product(s) a vendor can offer are often limited by the references available at the time the model is being designed. Sufficient references may exist for a single configuration, but those references may not match the configuration best supported by the market. So customer wants a 1970 island. I may have great references for a 1958 island. Customer says no sale . He wants "1970, dammit".

When developing a product, model kit manufacturers typically establish a short period of time with a finite research budget to research the subject. In other words, the design team will be given a firm "Good Idea Cutoff Date" (GICOD) and a certain amount of money for research purposes, all based on the subject's expected sales potential. Firm GICODs and budgets are necessary to bring to get the kit to market on time and within production budget.

So with limited research time, references, and budget, we often see kit manufacturers produce a kind of hybrid model with features specific to different times.

Trumpeter's 1/350 scale USS Yorktown CV-10 is a good example of this. The box art states that the model represents the ship as it appeared in 1944. But the model has features for both 1944 and 1945. In other words, it's not accurate for either 1944 or 1945. It's a hybrid, and from the manufacturer's perspective, it's close enough to sell well enough for the general market.

Manufacturers can also face a language problem when conducting research. For example, if the native language of members of the research time uses Kanji characters (think Chinese and Japanese) and aren't familiar with the Latin alphabet, the team members may not be able to read the English/French/German writing on the references. Therefore, the potential for mistakes is huge. Even with the use of electronic translators, the potential for errors is large because electronic translators make mistakes, too, especially with technical and nautical terms.

Even when excellent references exist, there may be no agreement among members of the market (potential customers) on the appearance of features the references confirm existed. For example, ask 10 Titanic modelers how many blades Titanic 's center propeller had and five modelers will say 3 blades and five will say 4 blades and both be adamant in their answer, references be damned. The ship's builders' notes explicitly state the answer to the question. But there will always be those who refuse to believe it and those people have Facebook accounts.

So even if a manufacturer produces a product that is well-researched and very accurately matches the available references, there will be those modelers who race to social media to condemn the model's features publicly, spoiling sales .

Although research laziness certainly exists among manufacturers, kits with hybrid features most likely happen when a manufacturer's kit development time period is too limited for extensive research and/or the available references are likewise limited at that time. So the hybrid kit that gets produced is a result of less-than-sufficient references for the period or configuration intended.

Sometimes, available references may be so insufficient that an accurate model cannot be made at all. Manufacturers choose to move on to other, better referenced subjects.

Or we get a product announcement, then years pass and no model is actually produced. Or we get a model but it is sort of "the real thing might have looked something like this" model.

My potential 1970 Ranger CV-61 island customer may want the product and be willing to pay for it. But without the necessary references and sufficient market demand, I just can't make it happen for him. And he's just not interested in that spiffy 1958 Forrestal island I do offer. So, in response to lack of references and sufficient market demand, and in order to stay in business, I must move on to other, better referenced subjects.