Pick a Plane 2011 - chat and FW-190 build

[Clive Kerr]

 

Kiwi G, I have the utmost admiration for Tony Nijhuis and his designs, but I have not seen many Halifaxes , Lancasters, B-50s, Typhoons...... where I fly. 

 

My point is why go down a well trodden path which might appeal to a few, to end up with another warbird which is well catered for in the ARTF market anyway. Even Tony Nijhuis has already ' done ' a Mosquito.

 

Why not produce something which will be popular with the masses to build, and fly , instead of watching the one or two on Youtube who actually make one.                            ?

[Steve Adams]

Hi All,

 

If by some miricle there was a comercial aircraft chosen,it probably would be a good

choice if it forfilled all 3 rolls ie civil/military/comercial like say the DH Dragon,DH Dove/Devon,DC3/C47,Or the VC10(would love to see one in British Caladonian Colours!

All of these have forfilled the 3 rolls with success in fairly good measure.The VC10 Still does,as far as i know.As far as the voting goes hopfully most of us will be suprised in a pleasent way!................................Time will tell,good luck to all regardless of out come

[kiwi g]

Yes clive.  look at my posts and read them. I am pushing for something different just like you. but  i dont  think that an easy flyer designed for the beginner is always the best.

I have cubs ,austers , a flybaby , and spacewalker.  all great aircraft and mass produced . but after a 5 minute fly the challenge isnt there. they all take off and land the same.

The beauty of something unusual is the build and the challenge to fly.

Its always going to be difficult to please everyone.

Granted there arent many heavy bombers around here either. except my b25 but looking at tonys previous designs theyve all flown well and been commercially viable..

The lysander had a following because of the lack of production models . Weather it was comercially viable only tony will know.

As for the comment of producing something popular for the masses to build and fly , then i believe thats what were trying to do. be it a mosquito , spitfire hurricane, whatever. they are popular.  without a theme thats what we get because they re on most wishlists with the beginners.

 

Edited By kiwi g on 01/01/2011 21:49:57

[Andy Blackburn]

Kiwi g wrote:

> As someone else said they were going to wait to see what

> top runners were so they could then vote for the one that

> was more likely to be built. Betting on the mosquito getting

> a lot more votes now.

 

But if we're voting for a shortlist (I assume we are), then it doesn't matter which one gets most votes, it only matters that they make it onto the shortlist.

[kiwi g]

No we were voting for any aircraft , there is no short list as yet ,only a front runner.

and the frontrunner will now get more votes as has the last couple of years.

[Clive Kerr]

Because an aeroplane is easy to fly, it does not mean it is necessarily for beginners only. It depends how you fly. I am never without a Wot-Trainer, easy to fly, but not so easy to fly well , and accurately in aerobatics low down.

Heavy Bombers....can you do much other than fly circuits with them ? They look silly when people fly them inverted, often at out of scale speeds too, but what else can you do , exercise the u/c and flaps ?

 

If the Mosquito does win it will be interesting to see how many are built, flown regularly , and survive till this time next year.

 

Keep it simple.

 

[kiwi g]

   Yes and keep it interesting,

[Hugh Coleman]

Yeah, well a Mozzie aint for the faint haerted and certainly not for novice flyers.

 

I would love to see it down though... I would build one... if only to act as a goal for improving my flying.

 

I have a mate who built a P38 before he even started learning to fly.  He has not yet flown the P38.

 

Hugh

[Steve W-O]

Isn't it possible to have something interesting and challenging without it being another warbird?

 

 

I wonder:-

 

How many different people have voted?

 

How many of them will actually build ?

 

What the readership of the magazine is?

 

How many of those readers are builders?

 

 

How these figures relate to each other?

 

 

 

I like the idea of TN giving a list of planes he would like to do, and then the vote being on them.

 

 

Maybe the same list could be in the magazine, with an email for readers to place their votes.

[Clive Kerr]

   

 "Yeah, well a Mozzie aint for the faint haerted and certainly not for novice flyers ".

 

.....Hugh, faint hearted does not come into it. So long as BOTH engines keep going on a twin, ( assuming i/c), then it will be much like any other war bird.

 

If your mate has an electric P.38,  like the two I have had, it will be a pussy-cat, but wouldn't it be best if he learns to fly at a club before he tries it ?

 

 Incidentally , here is the Ripmax  ARTF Mossie  flying at our field :

 

 

 

Why put Tony Nujhuis to all the effort of duplicating what is out there already ? ( I do not have any connection with Ripmax ).  

 

 

 

 

[A.A. Barry]

Still out of  the same stable as the Mossie, a smaller single seated fighter, fastest piston engine aircraft, 491 MPH, it did not get the glory that its big brother did , but it  saw  operational service in Malasyia and Hong Kong, it was also adapted to aircraft carriers.

A very well designed plane, unfortunatly none of the 400 odd survived the scrap yards in the 50's 

An ideal Electric/ IC  subject

...............DH 103 Hornet

A.A.Barry

Edited By A.A. Barry on 02/01/2011 12:01:39

[Papa]

In the words of Monty Python ... and now for something completely different .... If it looks like a twin is becoming the model of choice then I support Mr. Barry's Westland Whirlwind despite my "sacks of potatoes" jibe in an earlier post.

 

Think about it, it is different and rarely modelled and would likely push everyones building and flying skills to greater heights.

 

I belong to an all electric club and we see a lot of new members who join with ARF;s. After two or three years they are exploring scratch building and loving it. I think this will be the new way of entering the hobby but scratch building will always have it's place and we need RCM&E's free plan and the Tony's and Peter's and Tim's of the world.

 

 Jack Higgins

Toronto.

 

 

[Erfolg]

The selection of an aircraft is only part of the conundrum as to who will build it.

 

If IC powered, the size tends to be large, and for electric fliers, the power train requirements financially onerous.

 

If however the right decision is made and it were to be electric, at present this would point to a smaller and lighter constructed model. The howls of anguish from IC heads, will be heard around the world. 

 

I have strove to be balanced in my assessment, although I know that an unreasoned bias towards IC, is evident. That is given the obvious superiority of electric flight.

 

I preferentially would like to see a model selected where, the complexity of the overall form favours many moulded components, to aid construction. This would enable me to build a model which otherwise would demand to much time, money and skill to make. It would have the attraction to TN of rewarding his efforts in the sale of the mouldings etc.

 

Happy New Year Everyone, especially the old one, Biggles that is.

Edited By Erfolg on 02/01/2011 14:14:56

[Danny Fenton]

I disagree that using electric as the propulsion would make the model either smaller, lighter or even cheaper. Unless you want to buy Hacker motors and cells that is......

 

Cheers

Danny

[Erfolg]

I think the Whirlwind is a non-starter. Because it has been done.

 

When I finish my Cloud model Komet, I intended building Whirlwind as it only costs £55 and has been done already, I cannot see the need for another.

 

This is an example where kitting works, as the Nacelles are the tough bit etc. and they are all done for you.

[Danny Fenton]

I think just because an outline of a model is available for example the Ripmax Mosquito doesn't mean that the Mosquito has been done. I think there is room for a larger mosquito in the 80" area, I know that there is a very accurate Brian Taylor version that fits the bill but thats a long term project that many don't want to comit to. As Tony has already done the Mossie in smaller scales then a larger one would follow in the Spitfire scaling up theme? A simpler build to the Taylor one.

 

The designer puts his own ideas on how a model is built and building a Brian Taylor Spitfire is totally differnet to building a Nijhuis one to a similar scale, and the enjoyment for me is in the building. So it may end up another Spitfire but the build is totally different.

 

Cheers

Danny

 

 

[CARBON_ROD]

 To get away from the war birds that i feel have been absolutely thrashed .I would like to see some thing not heard of very much IE:Varsity or Valletta.?  Both of witch i have flown in as an  ATC  Cadet at RAF Tangmere which was a navigation school back then.  Regards TD

Edited By taildragger on 02/01/2011 15:52:23

[Erfolg]

Taildragger

 

I do think we need to get away from aircraft, so forgettable to most modellers, other than those with some personal emotional attachment.

 

We need to think bigger. At this time, there does not seem to be any aircraft that stirs the imagination of the wider modelling community. Other than perhaps the Red bull types of aircraft or working aircraft such as the Pilatus Porter.

 

If correct in this view, it could partially explain the enduring attraction of WW2 aircraft in general. Partly due to the momentous impact this war has had on history in the broadest definition. It is part of the consciousness of most families and individuals. Constant references to those who fought and died, in newspapers and television etc. keep the image alive. This is true for most in the UK, the ex-colonies in addition to the vast majority of European countries. Views of the rights and so many wrongs may vary from country to country, but the impact is ever present for many.

 

Of the non-military genre, it is probably in the racing aircraft, aerobatic and home built that have the greatest attraction across the spectrum of modellers. So if non military, aircraft of historic impact could be considered. Examples such as the Spirit of Saint Lois, or the Junkers W33 the first east west transatlantic flight. Or maybe some of the lesser known Schneider Trophy aircraft the Shorts Crusader (there are just so many) or maybe the Messerschmitt 209 (airspeed aircraft) the original Comet.

 

Above all please avoid selection on the basis of being politically correct.

 

 

 

 

Edited By Erfolg on 02/01/2011 17:07:14

[Tony Richardson]

No disrespect Clive but I do not think a novice flyer is going to build from a plan at that point of their participation in this great hobby, they may however wish to keep said plan for a later build.  As for the faint hearted I have found that most warbird models fly very well and are not so different from a low wing trainer, the challenge with most is a straight take-off run and the higher landing speeds,  both of which become easier as more airtime is accrued, most clubs have an instructor or seasoned flyer who is more than happy to help a member with their first " tricky " bird.  If anybody has watched Barry's Whirly fly on you-tube you will see that even on one engine it still fly's very well, there is of course the electric option where the chance's of an engine/motor failure are a lot less but still possible.

 

 

Like Erfolg I would ask the decision not be made on the basis of being politically correct, I know the term "warbirding" and warbirds are not PC for some, but these aircraft played such a large role in shaping history, not only during the War but in the years after, a lot of what was learned during this black period influenced the safe air travel we all enjoy today..

[Terence Lynock]

I have a collection of plans running into hundreds so whatever is turned out by Tony,as good as it may be, I probably already have a plan for it somewhere.

It looks like, as someone has already stated,the Mosquito is favourite and now that is common knowledge everyone and his dog will vote for it just so they can say they did.

Personally I would love to see a plan for a Brabazon, Constellation, B36, or some other lump of exotic metal but lets be realistic, who can afford/have the expertise to build/ be able to fly such a beast?. And can you afford the expense of crashing it?.

I thought we went through all this a couple of years back and someone said the voting format would be changed but here we are again, now the outcome is pretty well known many including me will lose interest, as good and reliable as Tony's designs are it will be just another warbird.

[Clive Kerr]

 Where have a I said that the choice is for beginners only ? Because an aeroplane is  easy  to  fly, should not exclude it from the vote .

 

 Easy to fly need not mean boring. A ' challenging ' aeroplane is often one with the CG too far back, over large control throws, zero exponential, and a ham fist at the Tx.

 

Practically every aeroplane mentioned so far is attractive in its own right, but we are considering  a readers  popularity vote.  I presume RCM & E would like to see the result built, and flown in reasonable numbers , in less than a decade, so a 4-engined leviatan would hardly appear in squadron numbers, would it ?

 

Hence my preference for something simple, attractive,  and aerobatic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Papa]

With the advent of good inexpensive EDF's what do you think of a four motored Vulcan or early DH Comet or in its later form the Nimrod? While not WW ll they are war birds and in one case also commercial.

 

My personal favourite is the Vulcan. An absolutely beautiful plane in the air and that sound was so memorable.

 

Jack Higgins

[kiwi g]

Easy to fly need not mean boring. A ' challenging ' aeroplane is often one with the CG too far back, over large control throws, zero exponential, and a ham fist at the Tx.

 

No clive .. that would be a badly setup aircraft and pilot not a challenging aircraft.

[Tony Richardson]

Apologies Clive it has been a very merry new year if you catch my drift, I read the quote in you last post from Hugh.  I still do not think most novice flyers will be building from scratch, that said there are many builders who take to flying the models they have built long after their first scratch build,  I agree many easy to fly models are regularly flown by many people long after they have their wings myself included, makes for a great relaxing afternoon.   

I must admit my preference is for scale/sport scale models and it seems that a large portion of these fall into the warbird genre their are others  the Zlin Z526 was one of my choices a much under modeled aircraft , altyhough I see Great Planes now has an ARF of this one.

 

Hugh is right a Mossie is not for the faint hearted although I am sure Tony N would do his utmost to ensure the model behaved itself,  I certainly would build one and as hugh voted for it I am sure he would to, but as has been pointed out it is available as an ARF from several different sources and Ivan Pettigrew has an excellent plan for an electric version. 

 

The Mossie would most likely be a good subject for Tony  as he has already drawn a smaller one and may be able to scale up his prior drawings.

 

Whatever the outcome this year maybe next year the staff of RCM&E could create a short list  we could vote on.

 

Edited By Tony Richardson on 02/01/2011 22:03:48

[Clive Kerr]

 

 

  " No clive .. that would be a badly setup aircraft and pilot not a challenging aircraft. "

    from Kiwi g

 

   In that case just what is a " challenging " aircraft then ? Because if it is set up right, it is  no longer challenging , because it flies like an aeroplane should.

 

  But we digress, so far as this vote goes my personal wish would be for something that   would get built and flown by a reasonable number of modellers.

 

Something scale, simple, attractive , and aerobatic.