Kule Kanain
Posts: 137
Joined: 9/24/2002
From: Sheffield Lake,
OH, USA
Status: offline
|
Since this thread still seems much alive, I would like to comment on a statement made by Mike and followed up by DP -
quote:
As far as the request for kits, that us an interesting idea. On the surface it seems pretty simple, however one huge road block is the development of a construction manual. To do one for a kit to H9 standards would be a huge undertaking. I remember from my days at Midwest, it took us longer to produce a construction manual than it did to design, prototype, test and finalize the model.
I don't believe we could recoup the investment it would take to kit our models.
While I understand that apprehension concerning ROI, there is a fairly simple, reduced risk way to test the theory. Regardless of who is putting the model together - ARF or kit - the parts are already cut. Whoever is putting the ARF's together has to have some instruction, even if it's !QUOT!...put these parts into that jig and glue...!QUOT!. I am pretty sure the ARF's are being manufactured in some form of assembly line sub-assembly fashion. Take some additional pictures, put a couple of paragraphs together and call it a manual. Hell, don't even call it that, make it an addendum and the guys building the first few will re-write the manual for you anyway.
I'm not saying push major dollars into advertisement, re-packaging, etc. If the ARF fits in one or two boxes - so do the parts it took to build them. Determine the per unit price reduction of labor and materials that do not go into the 'short kit', and offer at a reduced rate comparable to your required margins and whatever you believe the market will bear.
The best part, no re-tooling, acquisition of license, modification to existing distribution chain or any of that would really be required. Design a strategy for MINIMAL requests - set some parts aside and package them up in existing packaging, modified for PARTS instead of finished sub assemblies. Set your price, advertise word of mouth, require special orders so you can control the inventory and the process - this also aides in ensuring that the customer understands the conditions of sale for a 'limited time' product with minimal documentation. This therefore reducing the risk of reputation of the H9 line which is clearly in good standing. If you only get a nibble, what have you lost? If the floodgates open, you just found yourself in a new market.
This is only an suggestion and an overview from about 10,000ft. I understand that there is still much more brainstorming and due diligence required, but, spec it out and run up some numbers. I think if you ask and look around, while there is definitely a swing in kit to ARF market-share, you will find MANY folks would STILL rather build. Was this ARF trend brought on by the everyday modeler who wants to fly airplanes or the manufacturer who wanted to reduce overhead and increase profit margin while maintaining competition with emerging overseas manufacturers?
Given the option - which is becoming harder to find - I would rather build an airplane to my specifications than glue a couple parts on a fuselage and add an engine and some servos. With a set of plans, I can always get some lumber and build more or easily repair a mishap. Then again, there may just be an after retirement career for me - take broken ARF's out of the burn barrel, re-build them, and sell the 'New and Improved' plane back to it's original owner.
Just IMHO -
_____________________________
Vice-Pres LCRC
AMA L778
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> TEAM RCU >> TEAM RCU - Mike McConville >> RE: New Hanger 9 Planes 
RE: New Hanger 9 Planes - 
, Walt
