Pick a Plane 2011 - chat and FW-190 build

[Steve W-O]

Posted by kiwi g on 07/12/2010 08:46:38:

bronco.???

isnt it an american truck or horse. 

Not for me .

That twin above looks good.

Then again so do alot of twins.

 

 

 

No, not a truck nor a horse, but it is American.

 

 

One of my other votes is the only one made anywhere near you.

 

Both the Bronco and the Nomad are still used in the Philippines, unfortunately gravity is slowly but surely reducing the numbers still flying.

[Tony Richardson]

Close Erfolg DO-28 skyservant.

[Erfolg]

Tony

 

A slip of the keyboard, I thought it was a 28. Just do not tink it is commercial enough. Nice aircraft though.

[Tony Richardson]

Certainly different Erfolg, found some three views on line today "sigh" another one to put in the pending tray, I do so like aircraft that are a little different  or obsolete and even those concept aircraft, the FW42 still whispers my name at night when I have nothing else to think about

[Tony Richardson]

Not too many built but this Mustang is much more interesting than the Bronco

 

and here is a model

 

here is the Bronco

 

 

 

[Tony Richardson]

Try HERE  it takes you to the lost V Bomber on U-tube and also a snippet of Canards of war  Sorry Papa could not get your link to work so copied and pasted Lost V Bomber into google and it got me there anyway, very interesting video.

[Papa]

Thanks Tony, here is a more modern canard and civilian. Not as aggressive as the FW42. The Piaggio P180

[Tiger Tim]

    Hello all,lots of talk about modern plastic fantastics...if Airliners are to be considered what about a Connie? Truly classic design and can be completed as military or civil.

 

 

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Any mods around? Looks lie Papa's post at 02:32:32 has taken us underneath the ads.

[Erfolg]

does any one know the standing of this years vote, to-date that is?.

Edited By Erfolg on 23/12/2010 14:11:09

[Andy Blackburn]

Couple of observations (apropos nothing)

 

Please can we have whatever-it-is designed for both IC and electric, unless its an EDF? I fly both.

 

Whatever we end up with, I'd really prefer not to have to adapt it for retracts that move through more than 90 degrees in order to get the wheels to retract all the way into the wheel wells; if that's what it requires (which was the case with both the Typhoon and Hurricane) then I'd much prefer that it was designed from the outset for a 95 or 96 degree retract system (e.g. Unitracts) in the first place.

 

[F Bakker]

Other nice twins are the Cessna 310 or 421, with a wing span of about 2.50m or 100'''.

Suitable for two gas engines, so that you have a reliable propulsion. 

[Tony Richardson]

Barry if you are still watching this thread can check your message box please then I will send you my E-mail addy thanks Tony.................

[Mir Ali]

Eurofighter Typhoon....rules..is d best Fighter jet ever

[Clive Kerr]

 

In  my opinion the general trend is to ask for a design which is too exotic : typically the WWll fighter with retractable gear, and unforgiving flying qualities. How many people actually build Tony Nijuis' marvellous designs ?

 

 The fighter is designed to be unstable, to whizz in, stab someone in the back, then  bravely run away.  Not the formula for a scale model which will do genteel aerobatics and land slowly.

Why not go for something which does ? Something which will also be simple to build.

There are a lot of training aircraft which do fulfil that role. Let's avoid biplanes, and struts, rigging, and that take ages to put together on the field. A simple mono-plane with fixed gear....perfik.

From WWll  the Miles M.18, would be ideal, though they even built the Miles M.20 as a standby fighter in case Spitfire and Hurricanes were in short supply. Look at the contours of the early tailwheel Yak 18,  that cowling would even hide an upright 2/4 stroke. The Piston-Provost, the Zlin Trener, Martin -Baker MB- 2 ? But I guess we have WW ll Luftwaffe, to go through first !

 

 

 

 

[i12fly]

There's nothing wrong with bi (& tri) planes, the key is in the design. I have a triplane that assembles in 2 minutes. I hope Tony pushes something a bit different this time. I'm sure it will be good whatever.

[Clive Kerr]

Certainly nothing wrong  with bi-planes, but it depends on the bi-plane as to how long it takes to build,  and to rig. A pal of mine has 'one-piece' Jungmann, struts, rigging, 4 ailerons inter-connected:  it took a lot of modelling to make it.

 I am thinking of an aircraft for a design competition that will be attractive to look at , safe for the average flyer, simple to build, and not too fiddly at the field, so that more than just a few might make it.                

 

[Phil 9]

Do we have any idea what are the top voted for models so far?

[Steve Adams]

Hi David,

 

Any Idea when the winner will be announced,or is it to early to tell?

 

                                                     Steve

 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Hi Steve

 

A bit soon yet but I'll talk to Tony early in the new year. I must admit I haven't collated any numbers/trends/favourites yet. Any clear favourites emerging?

[Andy Blackburn]

Clive Kerr wrote

>  The fighter is designed to be unstable, to whizz in, stab

> someone in the back, then  bravely run away. Not the

> formula for a scale model which will do genteel

> aerobatics and land slowly. Why not go for something which

> does ? Something which will also be simple to build...

 

 A fair point, but in order to get people to build it, it has to look attractive enough to push their buttons (as it were) and inspire them to start the build. If we're going for a short-list (as I believe we are) then surely it's better not to artificially restrict choice to a "sensible" subject? There will be a chance for sanity to prevail at the final voting stage.

[Erfolg]

Although I can comprehend the views and reasoning of Clive, with respect as to why not some aircraft. I think the view is overstated in that the characteristics of the full size machine should be considered as limiting on model selection.>>

 >>

Above all the ideal "set of models" needs to be "Iconic". Ideally encompassing the memories and aspiration of the whole modelling movement. As this is clearly not achievable, it will that of the RCM&E community.>>

 >>

To many of this year’s offerings are extremely narrow in their appeal. The suggestion being made on varying basis, be it a joy ride, training experience etc.>>

 >>

To have a commercial modelling future, the appeal, out of necessity needs to go further. Some Aircraft talk of history, the Spitfire, the Bf 109, others speaking of an era, the Concorde etc. Some were mere adjuncts to history, worthy, yet lacking in that one thing, called charisma. These models other than as personal builds are of such limited appeal, as disqualify themselves for  any serious consideration.>>

 >>

My plea is make the selection using both head and heart.>>

[Clive Kerr]

Just seen the vote so far....the Mosquito is winning....that perfectly illustrates the point I made earlier. A beautiful aeroplane, but : twin engines, retractable gear, flaps......ok for master-modellers who spend their lives in the hangar, but just how many do you think would be seen on the flying fields  ? 

Ripmax do a pretty good ARTF one, anyway, which I have seen flown well by an expert.

 

Spitfires , Hurricanes, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Fw-190s, Me-109s are great, but there are  plans, kits, and ARTFs galore already for them.

 

Something original, simple , and straight-forward,  like a Miles M.18, or Miles  M.20,or a Provost .                                                          

 

 

[Erfolg]

I can understand why a few of the highest scoring achieve their votes.

 

To a large extent the successfully commercially kit models are either Iconic or capture the Zeitgeist as far as modellers are concerned. Hence the Smiths mini-plane, Whitman Whirlwind and so forth. We all understand the Spitfire in the UK, probably not that popular in the USA or Germany, the Mustang etc leading in popularity,

 

Unfortunately Miles aircraft do not register in this era. Where as the name De Havilland does. Provost only registers with some, although the Jet Provost was outstanding in so many ways.

 

I suspect the choice this year will be hard from the list to date. Although the FW190 has possibly the strongest commercial legs. If this were to be selected I would expect a lot models being built.

 

I would like something to happen that shakes things up a little, as the present listing is not awe inspiring for me personally. Unfortunately the current aviation scene is not inspiring as has been the case in previous eras, when avant garde aircraft, that were modelled, included the Sabre Jet, Hawker Hunter, Folland Gnat, Phantom. The best we have today is the Tucarno and all the Aerobatic aircraft, that only we modellers know.

 

 

[kiwi g]

And the worst part about a mosquito winning would be that tonys already done one i believe.

But theres nothing wrong with an updated version, .

Why does having retracts and flaps make it too hard clive, twin motors arent a problem in electrics these days , would probably be a nice aircraft.

The mile range of aircraft are nice but they too are being done nowdays. nothing wrong with a good fighter as long as its not a common one.  how about a mig 3 or fiat something unusual. 

Its the old story , we have hundreds and thousands of great planes to choose from, Ive always been keen to see a theme to the voting to narrow down the catergories.

Last year i suggested a time frame , that limits a plane to a certain age group  eg 1930-1940 or 1960-1970?

It wouldnt limit a choice to a certain type of plane.

Or maybe the choice could be biplanes only, or commercials only ,as hinted this year i believe.

I dont feel the choice should be restricted to easy flying planes, or easy building ether as the challenge is in the build and flying , and theres alot of guys out there that are past the beginner stage . The learner to intermediate is more likely to buy an arf than to build..