How Vintage is Vintage?

[Big Bandit]

An interesting post John,

 

I've already got the Astro Hog for the Vintage build, but I also like the Cub so that may be on the list for have to build.

 

Happy new year,

 

Chris.

[kc]

The Fokker D8 by Earl Stahl is 1941 according to a Ben Buckle Plans Handbook of about 1986

The Sig kit for a Kadet is advertised in the August 1975 RC Modeler along with the Super Chipmunk, Skybolt, etc.   I cannot find them in anything a few years older.  So definately pre 83 and maybe around 1975.  The Kadet kit was 27.95 dollars in 1975

Edited By kc on 31/12/2011 18:50:13

[David Davis]

You don't want to build another Super 60 John? According to what I've read they first flew in 1959.

 

The Eric Stahl Fokker certainly qualifies and the Senior and the smaller Seniorita look like vintage models so I don't suppose anyone would complain if you turned up with one!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

David is right - I don't think we want to get too hung up on "documentary proof that the model pre-dates 1965" - its the spirit and the fun of the thing that counts.

 

The only thing I've said really is to try avoid those blatantly 1970's designs - you know the type very sleek, trcyclical undercarriage etc.

 

As long as it looks pre 1965 it fine with me!

 

BEB

[Bob Cotsford]

Ed Kazmirski was campaigning his Taurus in 1961 - that's quite sleek with a trike UC!

 

[John E ( Puffin Models )]

Hi All,

 

I was convinced that the Kadets were in the mode mags when I first started RC (about 1 months pay in 1974)

 

I have a Super 60! But it was made super tough by a friend before he died. I guess I should clean it up, sort everything out, and get it going again. I started to convert it to electric, and I did look at converting it to my idea of what a low wing 60 should look like, but the changes are too dramatic for a built fus to be a sensible basis for the "development", and the ailerons are "trainer size" with trainer response. Now, a light electric R/E Super 60 (with slight washout - learnt about that improvement by accident!), or a low wing 60 with full size inset ailerons would be enough to get me interested.

 

It's just a thought, but I have been racing Fast Electric boats for the last couple of seasons (with the trophies to prove it!), and the number of ex-potential model flyers (and ex customers) I have met are enormous. The comment is always the same, and that is that model flying is too hard to learn. I was solo on my 3rd flight with a Kamco Kadet, and the difference is that many of the "trainers" of nowadays require a great deal of instructor time, and yet, I can get anyone flying any R/E model really quite quickly (yes, they have to take off and land directly into wind). It would be great to see more people having a go with some of the older radio designs (both R/E and Full House - that are pre-70s 1/2" balsa block!) that had to be designed to be easy to fly (with bang bang radio) which make it so easy with modern gear.

 

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

For me that is a interesting point John. I think pretty well all of the modern trainers assume that the learner will have access to an instructor linked to them via a buddy box. An arrangement which is no bad thing but even on that basis some of them lack the sort of "robustness" needed in a model that some one is going to learn to do landings on in this wonderful (windy) climate we have in the UK! And what about those who simply don't have access to that sort of support?

 

David Davis has previously on this forum championed the benefits, particularly for older learners, of the R/E route to learning to fly. There is certainly a lot to be said for a Super 60 type model on 3 channels as a trainer - afterall its track record in that respect is impecable!

 

BEB

[John E ( Puffin Models )]

Hi BEB,

 

For my first 6 years I flew only R/E, and all of the old arguments and misconceptions simply don't hold up. The most common misconception is that without roll control, the model can't turn right, which of course is correct with a flat wing, but introduce dihedral and the yaw of the wing presents the outer panel at a higher AOA - roll control! The biggest problem I had teaching people to fly was that they thought that they were doing something wrong when the model started to veer off course, but of course with the increased dihedral of the R/E model the model simply doesn't veer off, and the student can then concentrate on positioning and speed of the model without it going off track all of it's own accord. And don't get me started on the change of steering control from right stick to left stick at the very time that the model has just left the ground! Yes, I have taught people with both R/E, and with aileron models.

 

Going further, I was looking at the Graupner Carvelle the other day at near 70" wingspan for a .40, and then thinking of the mass of .40 size aerobatic ARTFs (typically far less than 60") that are simply intended to maximise profits as they make their journey to cross the counter. Many people who do not get on with the trendy hot aerobatic models would have such a great time with older aerobatic designs such as the Astro Hog etc designed to be stable for use with reeds, and originally flown with .35s at approaching 70" wingspan. Put a modern .40 in any of these early designs, and I am sure we would keep far more immediately post A cert model flyers.

[David Davis]

Just a little rider to vintage models and modern trainers, as stated above, many vintage models have noses sculpted out of 1/2" balsa block and can withstand quite a hard arrival.

 

Some years ago I was teaching a beginner to fly his ARTF trainer when the engine cut and I had to land very gently in a field sown to potatoes. The potato haulms got between the fuselage sides and the engine bay and ripped open the fuselage like a peeled banana. Since then I've always recommended that beginners glue a piece of balsa block between the fuselage sides to strengthen the structure.

 

Just my two pennorth