2014 Mass Build - Discussion about model choices

[Martyn K]

Being realistic, it is very unlikely that we could get a new plan/model, drawn up, test built, kitted and published before December (for January start), so we are stuck with an established plan (which could be enhanced by a parts kit (as the Tucano was last year)), or an established kit.

Personally, the Webbit ticked a lot of boxes - even if it was only a part kit - it had a built up wing - which to me proved that beginners could cope with this. In fact, I think a built up wing is better than a sheet wing for a beginner simply because the majority of the profile is already set by the wing ribs - lots more carving and sanding (and scope for error) on a solid wing.

The reason why I suggested the Flea-fli was because it is very similar to the Webbit - it has a simple parallel chord wing, a simple box fuselage with space for LiPos if required and a sheet back end. It's small = cheap and a plan is readily available. The downside is that it's fully aerobatic which maybe a bit too much for those flyers with less experience (however it can't possibly be harder to fly than the webbit).

My thoughts

M

[Concorde Speedbird]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 19/09/2013 15:35:58:

Jester - a good choice if it was a project for those with a model or two under their belt but a bit much for initiates, besides which there are those like kc who favour a plan build.

It's an easy build, and I think it is as easy to fly as last year's Tucano (if not easier). The other Pegasus models kits show some other possibilities as well.

CS

[WolstonFlyer]

I am still crawling along with the Tucano.. getting there slowly, due to a lot of things happening at work I have had little time for building or flying. I will be interested to see what you pick but will probably sit this one out.

[David Davis]

Posted by Erfolg on 19/09/2013 15:00:37:

Now I would guess that maybe no more than 20 people, maybe 30 people took part in the build.

I could easily be wrong, often am, but any design requiring greater investment in time, and level of skill or financial investment, or limited all weather performance could well result in fewer models being built.

I belive that the 2011 "Webbit"event attracted about 40 builders. The following year was open to any vintage design. At least the same number of people built vintage models, some of which were quite time consuming, Astro Hogs for example. The reason why the 2012 Greenacres, the Vintage Model event, was not well attended was because of the monsoon-like weather which persisted over the weekend. Quite a few builders stayed at home, and I can't blame them.

The 2013 fly-in was relatively low key compared with the Webbit event. In my view this was because the model selected required a pretty competent pilot to fly it, as a result, less skillful pilots sat this one out. Vintage models fly themselves and Webbits, having quite a low wing loading were quite easy to fly for anyone who can manage a WOT4.

I suppose it's obvious but we need to find something which is easy to build, easy to fly, inexpensive and which looks good!

[kevin b]

The thread is getting interesting. There seems to be a general agreement that it is going to have to be an existing design due to time restrictions. If this is the case then it wouldn't take long for the cnc cutters to produce partkits. They are doing it for the magazine very quickly after the plans are released.

Vintage designs seem popular, but it has to be aimed at someone who doesn't have years of building / flying experience as well as those of us who have built (and crashed) one or two.

Having just done a very modern design last year it might be nice to look back at an "early days" type model, which doesn't have to scream round the airfield, but can handle a bit of a breeze. I like the idea of the Barnstormer. My only concern is of the size. I would have thought a model 800mm to 1200mm wingspan would have been more the size. We also have to consider what building space may be available to the builder. I agree that built up wings are a must, but preferably without having to build in washout. As they say "K.I.S.S."

kevinb. Another two pennorth.

[Colin Leighfield]

Quite a lot of diversity already apparent! How many of us writing in are actually planning to do the build, or does it depend on whether or not we personally approve of the final choice? Are there any lessons from the last three years? I'm sure that some of this year's builders didn't make it to Greenacres because of the awful weather, but taking that into account, does BEB have a view on which of the subjects, i.e. vintage, Webbit and Tucano, was the most popular?

I tend to think of something quick and simple because I don't want to be diverted too much from all of the other projects I want to complete! Even the Tucano made quite a dent in my available build time. However, I'm glad I did it and it's a very useful, practical all round flying machine. I hope that this year's choice can tick the same boxes.

[Erfolg]

I agree Colin, your point will be certainly be true for many modellers. that is the mass build is a project that is squeezed inbetween projects, that modellers fell more passionate about.

As to true vintage models, my VS Tomboy is certainly no all rounder with respect to the weather. It is OK when the wind is low, even then its repertoire is low. True vintage I would guess appeal to a few, perhaps SAM flyers in the main.

With respect to selecting a number of viable models for consideration, we need to be a little less focussed on our own interests and consider the broader modelling community. My own would be a Gee Bee model D, a non starter for many it would appear, so consigned to the bin of suggested models.

I suspect the model needs to be electric or small IC powered, or the investment of scarce resources will not attract very many.

[Colin Leighfield]

Thanks Erfolg, I think we're on similar lines. I'm interested to hear a few more suggestions and see if we start to get a pattern, but at present diversity appears to be the theme!

[jeff2wings]

Posted by kevin b on 19/09/2013 19:33:48:

The thread is getting interesting. There seems to be a general agreement that it is going to have to be an existing design due to time restrictions. If this is the case then it wouldn't take long for the cnc cutters to produce partkits. They are doing it for the magazine very quickly after the plans are released.

Vintage designs seem popular, but it has to be aimed at someone who doesn't have years of building / flying experience as well as those of us who have built (and crashed) one or two.

Having just done a very modern design last year it might be nice to look back at an "early days" type model, which doesn't have to scream round the airfield, but can handle a bit of a breeze. I like the idea of the Barnstormer. My only concern is of the size. I would have thought a model 800mm to 1200mm wingspan would have been more the size. We also have to consider what building space may be available to the builder. I agree that built up wings are a must, but preferably without having to build in washout. As they say "K.I.S.S."

kevinb. Another two pennorth.

The baby barnstormer is 812 mm and the original barnstormer was a single channel model of 1320 mm , also avalible as a biplane !

[Devcon1]

Hi Martyn,

I fully intend to build but just wondered who makes the final decision on the 2014 mass build.

Kind Regards

John

Edited By savedbytheground on 19/09/2013 21:44:20

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

We all do John!

The way we usually try to do this is:

1. Have a phase like this - sort iof brianstorming session. Anything can be suggested. We tend to let this ferment for while then hope a couple of more practical candidates start to emerge in popularity, and we might give that a "bit of of a hand" if needed

2.There are several ways we can then proceed, if we have 5 or 6 obvious contenders then we can go straight to a final round vote. If there are too many contenders for that we can hold a "first round elimination" poll - all suggestions in, we vote for our top five or so, then we have a league table - find the top five - then vote again for the final decision.

But the bottom line is - how ever we do it - the community decides the model.

BEB

[Colin Leighfield]

Yeah Jeff2wings, the biplane was the Bi-Stormer. They were very popular and flew well, although I was flying a Pat French (PFM Models) 60" biplane at the time and I preferred that. One of those reduced in size would be a great proposition and simple. The approach on the cabane struts was the simplest I've seen and very robust. I think you're about right on the size range for this project.

[Martin McIntosh]

How about my 48" DM 165 Dalotel Viking? Very simple to build, mainly from balsa covered foam.Flew like an arrow at Greenacres this year even in those conditions. Originally with a OS 25FX but now electric using a Prop drive 35/48. Flies the same. David A. took some pics of it. Sorry about mine.

[Mark Stringer]

Well if nothing else the talk of the same model in different sizes has got me itching to try a half size Rat out of hell for electric.

If successful I may post the plan on here and maybe do a build blog, though it is a very straight forward build

The offer still stands of a plan for the original if it is fancied for the mass build (and build instructions of course)

Thanks to all for the inspiration

[Richard Harris]

Looking at everyones ideas so far at the top of my list would be the Shark Face, that is a model that is adaptable to almost everyone. It can be shrunk,enlarged,electrified,IC'd etc. It is easy to build and would not cost a lot to construct.

For me, the WebBit was the best of the mass builds so far(and I know plenty who agree with me on that), it could be altered by the tinkerers amongst us and was good for the first time builder. We had newbies, experienced, old and young having a crack at it, plus for those who were able to get to Greenacres, we did have a good laugh!

Rich

[Martin McIntosh]

Well thats easy-already have one. Bit too quick for most I would suspect! Bent it at Geenacres getting a little overenthusiastic but simple to mend.

Edited By Martin McIntosh on 19/09/2013 23:01:25

[kevin b]

The baby barnstormer is 812 mm and the original barnstormer was a single channel model of 1320 mm , also avalible as a biplane !

Thanks for that Jeff. I've learnt something else today !

Ok then. Barnstormer gets my vote !

kevinb.

[David Davis]

If people think that the Sharkface is too small, Chris Foss made a very similar model called "Sawdust" which had a 36 inch (90cms) wingspan.

Alternatively you could take the Sharkface plan to a print shop, where for a modest charge, you could have it increased to 1.5 times the original size or even double the original size.

[John Roberts 9]

Hello,

I think that the availability of a parts kit is likely to bring in more first time builders. I believe that many people (and not just newbie builders) find it daunting to build from plans.

From the suggestions made so far my preferences would be a slightly scaled down Rat Out of Hell (the odd ball looks appeal to me for some reason) or an E2K model (but no speed competition for the reasons already set out in this thread). Wasp E2K

Cheers,

John

[John Fontana]

Having put together and repaired several ARTFs, I had decided to embark on my first ever build as a project over this winter. I got a couple of suggestions from the club when I came across this thread. It sounds perfect for me, especially in being able to tap in to the collective wisdom if I were to get stuck.

However, I would definitely want to start with a laser cut kit rather than building from scratch. I know this might more accurately called an assembly rather than a build, but it would be a first step in accruing confidence in this dark art. Also it seems to me, there might be expenditure on new tools that might not get used again, should I find the building bit doesn't really appeal after all.

[David Davis]

Barnstormer afficianados may care to know that plans are avilable from the RCM&E website in the following wingspans:

• 32 inches (815 mm.) Code RC1106
• 52 inches (1320 mm.) Code RC1039
• 72 inches (1829 mm.) Code RC1118

There is also the Mark One which is an updated Barnstormer which has a wingspan of 63 inches or 1600 mm. Code RC 1698.

DB Sport and Scale offer plans and plan packs for Barnstormers with 63, 72 and 88 inch wingspans.

Their plans are rather less expensive than the RCM&E plans.

Biplane versions are available.

[steinar danielsson]

What about a simple model that could be built with different sets of wings (one short-span, neutral profile for experts and one with longer span and a lifting profile for beginners like me?)

[Martyn K]

The Whiz Kid looks like an interesting model with scope for variation.

Build blog and discussion here

[kc]

Presumably there would be a rush of orders for any kit or sets of ribs for the selected model. Has anyone checked if the parts could be available in the possible numbers?
I wouldn't expect a problem producing plans but actually cutting kits or ribs etc might be a different matter.

Edited By kc on 20/09/2013 11:34:00

[Jon Laughton]

I'll suggest it again for he thrid year running: Martin Maker MB5 anyone?