Just another plank......

[Terence Lynock]

Can we PLEASE have some plans of aircraft that actually existed instead of all these 'another plank' model plans that all look alike and in 99% of cases are of aircraft that never existed, I had to buy the plans catalogue to get a decent Spit plan.
If RCM&E carry on publishing plans for the mag like the last few months I am out of here and so is my direct debit, I know the publishers cant produce a scale plan if they dont have one but they do have plenty in the archives so republish a few of those.
The type of free plans should be much better balanced instead of month after month of aerobatic/stunt/shock or whatever, give us one decent plan every three months for scale modellers and we may just keep the origins of this hobby alive instead of something resembling a foam filled teddy bear,


regards, Terry

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hear what you say Terence, probably a thread for the feedback section by the way (in fact I've moved it there)

To a certain extent we're chosing from aircraft that our 'design team' want to build. It's very hard if not impossible to make someone design, build and fly a model he doesn't want to do. Having said this we had the Pioneer in January and the Nijhuis Typhoon is on the way. We have published some scale plans this year although they have been too large to be free.
Some would level criticism at us if we re-printed plans but we'll have a look and see if anything catches our eye.

Thanks again
David.

[Terence Lynock]

Hi David,
we are now into the September issue(?) and this year have had only one scale plan as you mention the Pioneer which although an interesting aircraft in itself is not what I would call an eye catching spectacle.
I would take out a 12 month subscription to any mag that can promise me a decent scale plan every three months leaving the other two months for the brightly coloured strange shaped planks so many others seem to be interested in manufacturing from blocks of foam.I am one of the old school that still believes in the working of wood as any true model maker worth his salt should be able to do.
I just wish one of the mags would do plans like the Arado 240, Westland Welkin, Blackburn Firebrand, Me 410B, FW 187 and the like and give us the chance to build something different and worth the effort,

regards, Terry

[Terence Lynock]

Model aircraft has gone the same way as fast food and everything else, if it comes in a box and can be ready in five minutes the 'want it now' brigade is for it, what is needed is more exposure for the older and more technical side of the hobby not just flying a piece of foam in circles at the local park, that isnt model making the same as a take away meal isnt cooking.

Publishers of mags can have great influence on the future of our hobby by promoting the original concept of the hobby of build it yourself and see how it flies, to do this we need decent plans at a fair price not the £10 and £12 for one sheet most mags charge.
What most people do when taking up a new hobby is think 'what is it going to cost' and if the first thing they are faced with is a £12 outlay for one sheet of plans they will just walk away and find something else, after thirty years in model ship building I can assure you that this is a major concern and has probably lost us many fine would-be model makers as a result.

[Grant Darnley]

"Arado 240, Westland Welkin, Blackburn Firebrand, Me 410B, FW 187"

Terry, these are subjects with very limited appeal, even among scale modellers, while many would be willing to "ooh" and "aaah" over one that turned up at the field, I have to wonder how many would try a build. Not knowing your abilities I'm shooting blind here, but could a discussion with the ed. give you the opportunity to design one for the mag?

PS, those pieces of foam in the park? I don't think I've seen one do a full circle yet :)

[Terence Lynock]

PS, those pieces of foam in the park? I don't think I've seen one do a full circle yet :)

A 'fly-in' was held at one of the town parks few weeks ago with everyone turning up with their latest birthday present or purchase,
after two hours there was more wreckage than the Battle of Britain and lots of long faces and mutterings about 'interferance' and flat batteries.
A lot of them think that the signal from the transmitter only goes as far as their model not realising it can affect another half a mile away in all directions so there they are tweeking servos and adjusting bits and some poor sod is having heart attacks in the next field.

regards, Terry

[Erfolg]

To some extent I can see the frustation of both the model magazines and us the reader.

This web site is I think, intended to get an insight to modellers, wishes and what they actualy do. If you look at the numbers of discussions on the various folders you may draw some conclusions on what realy interests us as a group.

Yet If i go to my local flying field it does not appear to fit the apparent breakdown. Most models are powered gliders, 95% ARTFs, there are some foamies of various types (low powered Graupner/multiplex etc.) These gliders vary from the mighty "Tracker" and Swifts to 400 paper bags.

Very few scale, although most people have one. Most have no undercarriage due to the nature of the field. 50% are Spitfires, the rest a ragbag of models, Tucarnos, F16, Vampire, strange swedish or danish biplane.

I my self have a Bf 109T (48"), A Ta152H (36") and a Gee Bee R2 (under construction, foam kit). Yet these are a minority.

I to would like to see plans for some interesting scale models i.e, Heston Racer, Martin Baker 5, Heinkel Uhu (or Hutter 211), Dornier Phiel. All for brushless motors. Yet most people want Spitfires, Hurricanes and Typhoons

I guess I will eventually design and build them myself, until then I will put up with the squadrons of Spitfires, in all marks and sizes (perhaps a Spiteful for once).

I have attached my Ta 152H yet to fly.

Regards

Erfolg

[Terence Lynock]

I suppose it comes down to who supplies what and what will sell the most, a manufacturer will produce something that he knows there is a market for and items exotic do not come into it.
I think of the heavy twins my favourites are the He219, Ta 154 and the Fw 187 Falke which I have not found plans for as yet, as I worked on the sole remaining Me410A in the early 80's this too has a place in my model making future.

I have just managed to aquire a plan for an Arado 555/e3 which offer much promise for buzzing foam spitfires at a later date but as good as the original plan is it still needs adapting so a few hours on the drawing board (not CAD) are called for I think,

regards, Terry

[Erfolg]

I have started a plan for a Heinkel 219. It has a number of attractions for me.

a) All variants have an essentially slab sided fuselage.
b) Wing plan form is quite simple especially the Hutter 211 variant. Also big wing high altitude variant built.
c) the wing is well out of the way when landing, reducing potential for damage (do not use undercarriage).
d) The simple rounded top and bottom are well suited for production in Blue Foam (when I get some more).
e) Very simple canopy.

against

a) Engine nacelle cross section huge compared to body.

If high powered electric propulsion had not come economically viable, I would not consider twins or other combination of multi. But it has.

The Arado 234 is also viable, although reservations abot glass nose. When I built my Bf 109T I found that if I joined (to the side of fuselage) the 1/16 ply side re-enforcements using impact adhesive with a transverse rolling action I could get a good curve where bulkheads could do the long term holding. Together with blue foam a good fuselage should be possible.

[Erfolg]

I have started a plan for a Heinkel 219. It has a number of attractions for me.

a) All variants have an essentially slab sided fuselage.
b) Wing plan form is quite simple especially the Hutter 211 variant. Also big wing high altitude variant built.
c) the wing is well out of the way when landing, reducing potential for damage (do not use undercarriage).
d) The simple rounded top and bottom are well suited for production in Blue Foam (when I get some more).
e) Very simple canopy.

against

a) Engine nacelle cross section huge compared to body.

If high powered electric propulsion had not become economically viable, I would not consider twins or other combination of multi. But it has.

The Arado 234 is also viable, although reservations abot glass nose. When I built my Bf 109T I found that if I joined (to the side of fuselage) the 1/16 ply side re-enforcements using impact adhesive with a transverse rolling action I could get a good curve where bulkheads could do the long term holding. Together with blue foam a good fuselage should be possible.

[Terence Lynock]

The Arado 234 is also viable, although reservations abot glass nose

Have a look at the Arado 234 P-5 which had a nose dome and smaller canopy something simular to a Mosquito, it was a very late varient but as far as I know nobody has modelled this one before,

regards, Terry

[Richard Wicker]

Very interesting thread.
Being a builder first and flyer second, I have to admit to having little interest in non scale models, and even less in A.R.T.F. That said, there is one area where A.R.T.F. comes into it's own, that being the R.C. Trainer. Having built and flown my own F.F. Scale models for many years, (from my own scaled up plans from scale drawings) I recently moved into R.C. Obviously I needed a trainer, and shunning A.R.T.F. decided to build one from a published/bought plan. MISTAKE!
Not having any incentive to build it, beyond that of havjng to have a trainer to learn with, I had a real struggle to summon the enthusiasm to complete the build. Yes, I got there in the end, but it was more of a chore than anything else. Looking back, it would have made more sense to go the A.R.T.F. route, learn to fly, then pass it on or sell it.
Just my personal view, for what it's worth.

[Tim Mackey]

And a very valid one too Richard.

[Terence Lynock]

I have moved from one area of model making i.e ship model construction for museums and collectors taking anything up to 2500 hours to complete so building a flying model in a month is like a quick sprint to a marathon runner.
I started a trainer and got the fuse framing built then started a 2 metre span glider to a 70's design and modified it fitting a spare 480 Race motor and 7'' folding prop in the process and this may well turn into my trainer but I will complete the original over the next few weeks anyway.
I think there is far more pride and satisfaction in flying a model you have built yourself and like you I much prefer scale and was into FF and control line years ago and am now having a break from ship models to fly RC before I am too old and christmas crackered to do it, a nice big lazy glider with power if needed seems about right for me so that is the way I will go initially.

regards Terry

[Erfolg]

I understand the satisfaction that comes from building and or designing your own model.

However I do believe these ARTF models have a lot to offer us builders. Have you noticed that a lot of the models that they emulate are of subjects which would have been considered the province of the expert both to build and fly. Typically Sukhoi, Spitfires etc.

How do they do it?

In my opinion the structures are extremely light, if plywood (which seems a preferred material) it is mostly removed, the models have very good strength to weight ratios. Additionally the designs incorporate effective amounts of washout, aerofoil sections etc.

In essence these are good flyers, which do not disintegrate on the first poor landing. Quite a contrast with some of the overweight/over engineered lead sheds I have tried to fly.

I am building a AFTF (so the advert said) model of the Gee bee R1. It has taken me 2 weeks to date, with another week to complete (in my estimation). Rather reminiscent of the those balsa shell Jetex models of the 60's. I will have some pride in this model when finished and flying.

Just another perspective, of a modeller.

Regards

Erfolg

[Richard Wicker]

I think I can see both sides to this, and please don't misunderstand me, I don't decry A.R.T.F. models or flyers. If someone loves flying but for whatever reason, be it lack of time, space, skill etc, struggles with building, then for them A.R.T.F. must be a God send. Our hobby/sport is there to be enjoyed, so people should be free to enjoy it in their own way.
At my local club there is quite a mixture of A.R.T.F. Kit and Plan built models, most of them Sports/Aerobatic jobs. Now OK, It's not for me, but I can appreciate the skill involved in flying a tight circuit in a fully aerobatic missile, which I personally have neither the skill or inclination to do. Likewise, these "Hotshot" pilots appreciate the skill involved in building a true scale model, even though they have no interest in building one themselves.
Different strokes for different folks I think!

[Terence Lynock]

There appears to be two trains of thought with some saying ARTF's are great for the hobby so a complete novice can go down the shop and buy a very nice model of 'Rare bear' a racing F8 Bearcat then take it straight down the park and the other camp saying you need to stat with a tame high-wing trainer and an instructor and build up to your 'A' gradually before going solo and flying stuff like Bearcats and Spits.
Now that the former option is available then the dedicated builder is on the list of endangered species unless the model aircraft magazines and suppliers support and promote building from scratch, in a past life I built scale sailing ships from scratch to National Maritime Museum original ships draughts.
On the other side of the coin are the ship model kits every one of which is inaccurate in some way and some in every way but people still buy them, I think the same goes for ARTF aircraft models so scratch building is the only way to ensure true accuracy to the model you wish to depict,

regards, Terry

[Richard Wicker]

Just one further point about this topic.
What does strike me is the amount of A.R.T.F. flyers who don't have a clue how the aircraft they're flying is built, and so are at a total loss with what to do should they damage it.
Example.
At our club last summer, a member was flying quite a nice looking A.R.T.F. Sports plane. He tends to fly fast and furious, and when comming down for a high speed "Touch & Go", he lost all elevator control. Damage wasn't too bad, broken prop, split cowling, firewall pushed back and U/C mounting torn off. When I and another member offered advise on repair;
"Nah, I'll just buy another one"
was the reply. So for the sake of some time, effort and maybe £20 in materials, this guy would gladly pay £50, £60, £70?
It's a funny old world.

[Richard Wicker]

Yes Terry, A.R.T.F. along with kits and most plans will never be accurate, in the main due to cost. Likewise, model shops have to make a profit and so must sell these products to the masses. Left to the likes of you and I, who make, adapt, carve, scavenge etc, and (in my case anyway) are happy to spend say 18mth-2yrs on one project, there wouldn't be a model shop left.
Maybe our only hope is to accept that at least the "Open the box & away it flys" stuff gets people into the hobby. If the likes of you and I can then get even 1% of them off the "shake-n-bake" product, to actually build something, we may just survive!

[arthur bishop]

Wow..what a humdinger of a discussion! I have anticipated something like this for ages,Technological advances have been mighty,and so will continue until either our pockets cannot reach the depth,or,all personal knowledge and desire to build, former by former, longeron by longeron,is lost, Gladiators were a challenge,Lysanders ,Junkers 87,all sorts,all a challenge and fun to build,even the Defiant.not only war birds but so many aeroplanes of all shapes and sizes.so come on lets not discourage the Mag Team,or each other, there are old crumblies like me clinging to what was, and there are 'jet-heads', Time is now,lets build and fly before the developers take our fields.

[Peter Miller]

Several points here.

I think that the title is wrong. there are lots of plans produced that are NOT "just a plank" I would point to my own recent CAP 21. Going back a bit my Culver Dart (See my Avatar) was extremely popular and is still being built. Then look at the other magazines.

On Scale accuracy. There is no such thing as a completely accurate 3-view. One can only get as accurate as the available information. In the past I have designed and built models from the original full size construction drawings. In fact my latest design was built in that way. Even then many of these are not completely accurate as they tend to be incomplete or the aircraft has been modified since. I am talking about homebuilts which is my favourite area.

There is nothing wrong with a sports scale model for Sunday flying being slightly altered to make it fly a bit better in model sizes.

The answer as many posts in this thread are saying is, design your own, that way you can be as accurate as you like.

[Alistair Taylor]

Excellent discussion

If I manage to spend 2500 hours building over the rest of my life I'll be doing well!

I'm always amazed by my contemporaries' inability to build/create/imagine things from scratch (I'm 34 in 8 days time). DIY (the assembly of flat-packed furniture, very much in the ARTF tradition) is seen as a real challenge, requiring expensive power tools and frequent refreshment (but, of course, not even a cursory glance of the instructions).

I've been making models from plan/kit since starting down the castor-lubricated slope in about ninetween eighty-something, although so far at best only near scale (45" tucano). This amuses/bemuses my friends in equal measure (why make it when you can buy it? etc etc), but I'm really strapped for time and space, and so have indulged in several ARTFs that I liked the look (and price) of. They fly well enough for me, and I get some building kicks repairing them occasion....frequently.

That RCM&E publishes plans at all is to be applauded. Likewise the designers who come up with enough scale and non-scale subjects to keep us in plans every week should get a slap on the back. Other magazines from across the pond just review what's on the shop shelves that week.

I find the comment "just another plank" in relation to non-scale models interesting, as it was the conservatism of the full-size aviation industry that killed off the boeing dreamliner canard wing/blended-wing-body airliner that would have been such a stunning shape in the sky. Only multiplex managed to get a model to market before the concept was killed off.

Being liberated from this conservatism we modellers can give free reign to our imaginations and come up with flying machines that are unlikely ever to be emulated by the full size, whether in form or performance. IMHO there's quite a lot of skill involved in doing this successfully.

AlistairT

[Terence Lynock]

I'm always amazed by my contemporaries' inability to build/create/imagine things from scratch (I'm 34 in 8 days time).

I suppose i am lucky in this day and age of having a teacher that was a designer during the war working for Avro, he was hot on technical drawing and pressed home the ability to think in 3D which has stayed with me.
I can look at a set of plans and know what the finished product will look like, or have an idea of what I want then just sit quietly and 'construct' the model in my own mind then get up and sketch it out, this was drummed into me by a man who was only happy with a set of dividers in one hand and a slide rule in the other.

I think scratch builders develop from the younger generations because as you grow older you ask more questions and become more interested not in how it flies but why, the young start off with a fairly easy kit then as they go advance to more and more difficult challenges finally realising the kit doesnt offer the satisfaction they are seeking so start to scratch build instead,

regards, Terry

[Peter Miller]

I started building back in 1952. I had no help I learned to build from the kit instructions and a very good but simple little book. All these were in Spanish but as I was living in the Argentine I could speak the language.

When I can=me home I moved on to power models then C/L.

We didn't have ARTFs and pocket money was limited so we learned to design because that was cheaper. Plans were cheap so we built from them quite often.

The KK handbook had two whole pages of accessories but it was cheaper to make a bellcrank or a horn. There was such a limited range of tanks that we soon learned to make our own. A bit of old tin and some copper tube and solder it all together.

These days I do buy tanks in most cases and engine mounts and horns etc. But I can make anything that I need if I want to,

The modern idiots say "Why build something when yoyu can buy it". Well. I don't about that but I love the act of building, I like cutting wood and glueing it and watching it grow.

Today I I got my plans printed up and started on a new on a new model. I can already imagine flying it, it excites me thinking about that first flight.

Buying an ARTF is like taking a bath with your clothes on. You miss most of the pleasure.

But then I do understand them, they are the people who buy frozen meals all the time and never enjoy cooking fresh food.

Sorry I got carried away.

[Alistair Taylor]

:)

I was taught technical drawing at school with ruler, set square, pencil and paper. They now teach CAD, because with CAD skills you're employable (my father-in-law, a now retired designer/draftsman for magazines, was replaced by a computer and a yoof in the eighties, his manual artistic skills had become superfluous to requirements before I'd even started A-levels).

My generation of modellers may well (and I've done this) imagine a model, programme a simulator to show what it will look like (in three dimensions), then fly it with the simulator, before putting knife to depron (ok ok, to balsa). IMHO this is a skill. Some may go on to publish the plans on the WWW via web forums or personal websites, or even set up online shope to sell their own designs.

I'd be stunned if any of them knew how to use a slide rule, but then you try buying a slide rule from a high street store these days! Calculators are ten a penny, computers are now freely available in libraries, and both can be programmed to do triple backflips while calculating lift coefficients, drag curves and predicted amp draws, at the same time as letting aunty Nora in Brisbane see your new haircut as you gas about the price of sheep for free using skype.

I, and I think pretty much all of my contemporaries, get great pleasure from the building process, although the materials and techniques have changed a lot - much more use of foam/carbon fibre/plastic film, and less (but still some) use of balsa and "traditional" materials (I don't think bamboo gets a look in, but I may be wrong! tissue covering is rare but not unheard of).

Of course the people I know and fly with may be a bunch of unrepresentative retro freaks who bear no relation to the rest of the modelling world, but I still don't think you need to worry too much about the yoof of today not being able to build their own fuel tanks, horns, etc. or not being able to design, draw and build models, even if there's a roaring trade in ARTFs.

It's just that an awful lot of this is going on outside the pages of magazines; is only visible if you go online and look for it; and has taken on a distinctly international flavour via the WWW, with plans/designs being shared/tested/improved by modellers on opposite sides of the globe, never mind the pond.

I'm quite encouraged by this, because it means that the modelling fraternity is no longer divided into small groups of people who all fly together cos they live in the same place/go to the same school. Such small groups are easily overcome by developers wanting to transform flying sites into housing. A globally networked community is a much more formidable prospect.

What were we talking about?

Oh yeah - just another plank.....

Spitfire = curvy plank
Hurricane = curvy plank that's easier to build
Mustang = plank
Lancaster = biiiiiiiiiiig plank
Tiger moth = two planks, one with a bend so the pilot can get a tan
Sopwith cam/pup/strut = two planks with trellis work
Helicopters = plank caught in mid-disintegration from 2, 3 or 4 parts into 1000s....

Any fule can design a plank.

:)


AlistairT