2014 Mass Build - Discussion about model choices

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Well, I suggested the Whizzza last year and have seen it mentioned a few times already this year. Apart from the fact it doesn't have a built up wing, it seems ideal in all other respects.

There's cutting and shaping and glueing, getting things straight and square, measuring, sanding, installing and covering/finishing to do. There's also plenty of scope for modification.

Nothing stopping us doing a built up wing version, or increasing the size.

Last years Tucano showed that the construction was ideal for a beginner to cut his/her teeth, and plenty of variations were made. A CNC wood pack already exists too.

Here are some Whizzas: electric, IC, U/C and hand launch versions.

If we think a more recent design might be better, then Rich's slingshot fits the bill. I wonder wht the timescales are to get that published as a free plan?

[Martin McIntosh]

When I said the `Rat` looks good I meant from a simple build point of view only!

[Richard Harris]

Have to say I do agree with BEB regarding the time issue. The Webbit build was like that, hence why it was probably the most successful of the mass builds to date.

Also I think another reason for less activity was the voting process, at this stage last year it was clear to me that the Fun Fighter idea had quite a few excited. This was not even given a chance for a vote, I know from speaking to others that folkj had got there backs up regarding this and decided not to participate any further.

Probably a good reason for this.However, I would like to see everyone who has taken the time to think of an idea or model have the chance for others to vote for theirs. We are still 3 months away from Xmas. Ample time don't you think to whittle things down?

Regarding the Sling Shot, I could easily design a ribbed wing for it so there could be either option. Getting it into the magazine is up to the powers that be, I have done the plans and 3/4 of the write up.

I still like Shark Face!

Rich

[Hadley]

Just to throw something else into the mix, what about the Galaxy Aerojet? I remember this being a very entertaining flyer, easy and quick to build, foam wings so no need for a large board to build on and is another skill for builders to learn, cheap power plant and I'm sure could be easily converted to small I.C. but most of all a full kit for under 40 quid!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well its a bit more complex than that Rich with the greatest of respect mate!

What's the Mass Build for? That's the first question. Now if we agree that the prime purpose is to encourage folks that have not built a model from plans before to have-a-go, then that puts certain restrictions on us. We have to accept that many of the people involved won't only be "inexperienced builders" it's quite likely that they will be "inexperienced fliers" as well. So whatever we pick has to be relatively striaght forward to build and to fly. And that is where fun-fighters fell down as an idea. They are a great for the more experienced, but for someone just emerging from learning on their ARTF Trainer they are too fast and too unstable.

Now if in reality, we ignore this and select a model purely on the basis of what we, as already experienced builders, would like to build, regardless of whether its particularly easy to build or easy to fly once you've built it, then we end up with a beast of a different colour - simply a collaborative build with no particular "new builder" dimension.

Now if that's what we want that's fine and of course we can do that. But I get the impression that a lot of folks sre keen on bringing the less experienced builders in - and if that's so then the selection of model has to reflect that and I think fun-flighters doesn't tick that particular box.

Now just an historical note in the interests of fairness. No one was stopped from Mass Building Fun Fighters last year. So I really don't see any reason for people to "have their backs up".

At the time fun-fighters were excluded from last years Mass Build (which was seen as a beginner orientated activity - but if that were to change then so would this position) I was at pains to make the point that there was absolutely nothing at all to stop those that wanted to getting together on here to do a "Fun Fighter Mass Build". All I said was that because my time was committed to the beginner orientated Mass build that I personally couldn't run it (I do have a day job!). But there was absolutely no reason why you have to be a mod to organise a Mass Build - if people wanted to do it then they should have just done it. You, or someone else keen on the idea, could have run it! But the fact is - no one did. But the offer is still "on the table" - someone just has to pick it up!

So, it seems to me we have two decisions:

1. Does the mass build stay a beginner orientated activity or should it simply be the most popular design regardless of suitability for the less experienced? Maybe this is a good question for a poll?

2. Do some people out there want to run a Mass Fun Fighter Build independently if this project remains beginner orientated and doesn't select that theme? But, if so, one of you will have to organise it as I can't (NOTE: I reserve the right to join in though as I have a nice FW190 waiting to be built!)

BEB

[IanN]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/09/2013 12:18:36:

.Barnstormer - ticks a lot of the boxes; nice build, good flyer can be IC or electric with the added advatage of coming in different sizes. Someone pointed out that is available as a number of plans from RCM&E as well as DB Sport and Scale. A strong contender I would have thought.

.BEB

What.s not to like? Choice of sizes, elec or i.c., plans and parts readily available, also biplane versions for those with that particular itch

[Concorde Speedbird]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/09/2013 17:36:15:

2. Do some people out there want to run a Mass Fun Fighter Build independently if this project remains beginner orientated and doesn't select that theme? But, if so, one of you will have to organise it as I can't (NOTE: I reserve the right to join in though as I have a nice FW190 waiting to be built!)

A mass warbird build would be fun, I'm doing the Spitty, you've got your Typhoon and I am sure others would join.

CS

[Richard Harris]

BEB,

I totally understand and absolutely believe we should bring new blood into model building game, the fun fighters was really just an example. This wouldnt nessesarly mean the old heavy weight Cambrian type models, but profile,depron, OD's and of course some of the excellent examples that have graced the pages in the magazine.

Sorry for going a little off topic, still going to vote for shark face! but I would certainly be up for a fun fighter mass build also.

I will crawl back under my rock

Rich

[Bob Cotsford]

Now the point has been raised, what do we want as the objective of the excercise?

I honestly thought the original fly-in build was primarily to have a joint venture with a fun build model - ie nothing too serious, lots of room for personalising and if it helped newcomers I only saw that as a useful side effect.

Whatever level of model is chosen there will be those for whom it is a step up and there will always be an educational element in any common build so I say don't rule any model out just because it might be too advanced some.

New techniques like Martin's veneered foam are as valid as rib and stick, just a different skill set.

E2K - what's hard about bolting a radial mount in place of a leccy motor, and a tank in place of a battery - another sharing experience for those taking that option.

Warbirds - excellent second-line theme but it would need to be a pretty open definition to include the excellent full on scale models and funfighters. I've still got a Galaxy Typhoon fun fighter to build yet, I can't see me getting either of the Top Flite Gold kits I have built within the next six months.

Rat out of Hell - excellent model type IF a plan/part kits can be made available. It would be good practise for Mark as preparation to get the Jabberwok kits going again.

My 2p worth.

[Erfolg]

I do believe that for a successful mass build, simplicity is very important.

When I think of WW2 aircraft, I would take some convincing with respect to simplicity. particularly if good flight characteristics are required. Other than a MB5 of course, certainly not a Spitfire.

[Concorde Speedbird]

Correct Erfolg, something like the Barnstormer (or Jester in my opinion) is right for the mass build. But a seperate warbird build could be interesting, I'd join in with the Spitfire if there was one.

CS

[kc]

Erfolg is right to be concerned about copyright - Barnstormers of different sizes seem to be published by varying people such as DB Sport & Scale, MyHobbyStores and RCM Plans( USA) and I think Model Flyer (ADH) had a small version. So producing a set of different size ribs would be a minefield!
Where did Baby Barnstormer get published. Was it Boddo's book which gave scale up details?

Edited By kc on 21/09/2013 19:27:10

[jeff2wings]

Baby Barnstormer Jan 1971 RCM&E Barnstormer (52" ) first pub September 1969 RCM&E Barnstormer 72" May 1971

Edited By jeff2wings on 21/09/2013 19:39:36

[David Davis]

Posted by kc on 21/09/2013 19:25:32:
Erfolg is right to be concerned about copyright - Barnstormers of different sizes seem to be published by varying people such as DB Sport & Scale, MyHobbyStores and RCM Plans( USA) and I think Model Flyer (ADH) had a small version. So producing a set of different size ribs would be a minefield!
Where did Baby Barnstormer get published. Was it Boddo's book which gave scale up details?

Edited By kc on 21/09/2013 19:27:10

DB Sport & Scale produce ribsets for the 63", 72" and 88" Barnstormers as well as ribsets for two different sized biplane derivatives.

[Greybeard]

Posted by David Davis on 21/09/2013 12:08:31:

Posted by Greybeard on 21/09/2013 08:05:37:

David picked up on one point thaI was thinking about with regard to the D.B. Barnstormer; that it is available in three sizes and has been built in three and four channel as well as i.c. and electric versions, so there has to be one to suit everyone.

Five sizes to be exact: 32", 52", 63", 72", and 88" wingspans.

Modellers more used to metric measurements please see my earlier posts for the metric equivalents.

Given the average age of modellers I doubt your statement, this could be a good subject for a poll.

[David Davis]

Posted by Greybeard on 22/09/2013 07:55:02:

Posted by David Davis on 21/09/2013 12:08:31:

Posted by Greybeard on 21/09/2013 08:05:37:

David picked up on one point thaI was thinking about with regard to the D.B. Barnstormer; that it is available in three sizes and has been built in three and four channel as well as i.c. and electric versions, so there has to be one to suit everyone.

Five sizes to be exact: 32", 52", 63", 72", and 88" wingspans.

Modellers more used to metric measurements please see my earlier posts for the metric equivalents.

Given the average age of modellers I doubt your statement, this could be a good subject for a poll.

I was being considerate to continental aeromodellers!

BTW I set foot in Australia in November 1979 on the very day when they changed over to the metric system. Few Australians, (or New Zealanders) under 40 will be familiar with Imperial measurements.

[Colin Leighfield]

I remember well all the Barnstormers and Bi-Stormers we used to see cruising around, typical Boddo fool-proof and practical flyers. However, although not complicated they are a traditional build with quite a lot of work and you've got to want one. I never did and I don't want one enough now to divert build time from my queue of unfinished projects in the way that I did the Tucano, which filled a niche and is proving to be a really practical, minimum fuss all round useful flyer. Much as I enjoyed the on-line information sharing and getting to know people you gain from the mass-build, you've also got to want the plane. In my head I'd got the idea that this needed to be something that was quick and easy to build, relatively cheap and not a disaster if you wrecked it. That is why I suggested Fizza or Whizza at first, then voted for Martin Macintosh's Dalotel, which also looks quick and simple as well as interesting. Chris Bott's reference to the Slingshot is interesting too. For me, a Barn-Stormer needs to be at least 52" to be worth doing, a plane like that doesn't work so well in the smaller sizes because it's a design I associate with pleasant relaxed flying and the bigger ones do that better. Whatever you do with this one, you can't please everyone and that doesn't matter. Whatever the choice is I will be interested and follow it, but the decision to build or not depends on the subject. That's true for everyone and it's how it should be.

[Dylan Reynolds LaserCraft Services]

I have one or two thoughts from what's been said so far on this thread, I may be way off the mark but it's how I am thinking about this project.

Surely the mass build should feature a RCME plan/kit from a RCME contributer, so to cover this I would suggest t has to be a model buillt from one of the published free plans and a kit of parts could easily be made available if not already?

My thoughts on an outside sourced "kit" such as one from DB, Flair or whoever, is that if the majority of modellers wanted to build one, they would have done so already or at least have it on their to do list?

The idea of the project is to help new builders, so again an RCME plan built model would have the benefit of having the designer/contributer on the forum doing their own build blog how it was intended, more experienced builders making and showing changes to the design as it went along.

Thats why I suggested something like the Dawn Flyer - Free plan, kit of parts available if needed, Lindsey Todd here on the forum to help etc. I know it is a leccy, but the scope for experienced builders to scale up, make ic, add detail etc is enormous.

Like I said, I may be way off the mark, but surely this keeps things simple, and personally, if it followed this formulae then I'm in, but if I have to go out and buy a kit from someone else that wasn't already on my to do list I will more than likely sit this one out.

[kevin b]

As much as I like the Barnstormer I must agree that an RCM&E free plan would be a better idea. The plans are usually designed for beginner / intermediate builders and are all proven designs of a reasonable size. Also the magazine article is available for assistance. The drawback is that most of us, had we wanted to, would have built the model by now and not a lot of us are particularly interested in building the same one again. However, over 50 years worth of magazines to go at, there must be some designs there that the vast majority of us (certainly under the age of 50 !) have never even seen. Even if they haven't been issued as free plans. Wouldn't it be a good idea to dig out something suitable and the magazine put it out early in the New Year as a free plan, along with a copy of the original review ? After all they have already paid for the design !

Another idea for David. How about putting out a printed catalogue of the RCM&E plans or running it in the magazine over a few months as a pull out. It's ok to browse the plans online, but by that time you probably know what you want. I often look through the old plans handbooks. How many others do ? It's the same as the old kit catalogues, where we look through and wish they were still available. In the case of the plans, they are !

kevinb Slightly off topic.

Edited By kevin b on 22/09/2013 12:17:37

[Colin Leighfield]

Some good ideas there kevin b.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by kevin b on 22/09/2013 12:15:54:

As much as I like the Barnstormer I must agree that an RCM&E free plan would be a better idea. The plans are usually designed for beginner / intermediate builders and are all proven designs of a reasonable size. Also the magazine article is available for assistance. The drawback is that most of us, had we wanted to, would have built the model by now and not a lot of us are particularly interested in building the same one again. However, over 50 years worth of magazines to go at, there must be some designs there that the vast majority of us (certainly under the age of 50 !) have never even seen. Even if they haven't been issued as free plans. Wouldn't it be a good idea to dig out something suitable and the magazine put it out early in the New Year as a free plan, along with a copy of the original review ? After all they have already paid for the design !

Another idea for David. How about putting out a printed catalogue of the RCM&E plans or running it in the magazine over a few months as a pull out. It's ok to browse the plans online, but by that time you probably know what you want. I often look through the old plans handbooks. How many others do ? It's the same as the old kit catalogues, where we look through and wish they were still available. In the case of the plans, they are !

kevinb Slightly off topic.

Edited By kevin b on 22/09/2013 12:17:37

I agree with a lot of what you say there Kevin - one thing that irritates the hell out me is that (assuming I'm not missing something!) there doesn't appear to be a facility to search the plans on the MHS site shop. So I can't get a list of all of the "one and two star" plans. Or all the plans with a wingspan smaller than "x", or all the Peter Miller designs, or all the biplanes; you get the idea. The only option seems to be to laboriously go through screen after screen until you find what you are looking for. It's really annoying and I'm sure it affects sales. If the plans achive was properly indexed we would all browse there more often and they would sell more plans! It isn't rocket science!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/09/2013 13:34:40

[Colin Leighfield]

Those are good points BEB. Those plans are a major asset, they could be used better.

[kevin b]

It could be done, but it would not be an easy job. That is why I suggested doing it over a period of months. The problem is that MHS (sorry - My Time Media) inherited most of the plans from the previous publishers and they likewise etc, etc. The plans will be in piles or rolled up in tubes and of all different sizes. Some of them will be old dye line masters as well. Because it is not a great money earner (or hasn't been) then paying for the man (or woman) hours to sort them all out, scan them (assuming they have a scanner big enough) and then archive them on computer, are the reasons why so far it has been avoided. I have just done the job with my model boat plan collection (smaller plans) and approximately 800 plans have taken me about 3 years (about 3-4 hours per week) to sort out and archive. They would be able to start off with the ones which are already digitised, which won't take long and work backwards. That should take them back to about 1998 I would think.

That's the problem with the X plans. There is no list. Just a stack of plans. Every time anyone wants one someone has to physically look for it, have it scanned, then printed and posted out (you can't just use the office machinery). After that it can be stored on a computer, but it's going to take an awful long time to build up the list and then what about the ones which have been forgotten about, or nobody wants ?

How about having a word with management BEB ? If there is a will to do something I would certainly volunteer to assist.

kevinb

[Martin McIntosh]

Hi Colin, thanks for the plug for my Dalotel.

Being a retro enthusiast I got a cnc kit of parts for the Tomboy Senior a couple of years ago. Everything is there bar the strip wood and is of excellent quality. Construction is simple. I use a Mills diesel but you could easily fit a leccy motor instead. Anyone should be able to put it together with a minimal amount of skill or tools and if things go wrong it will just fly by itself.

Just a thought.

Edited By Martin McIntosh on 22/09/2013 18:19:26

[kc]

We are veering off subject!
The Dalotel must be harder to build ( for a newcomer) than a Barnstormer. Tapered wing, fancy cowl, canopy required, only one colour scheme are all against the Dalotel.

There are even more sizes of Barnstormer than those already mentioned......
24 indoor Micro Barnstormer
38 inch Miss Barnstormer ( free flight or RC from Model Flyer Oct 2001)
120 inch Mega Barnstormer.

If anbody thinks a more modern RCME design should be considered, lets have some nominations. Maybe Dragon Dancer or Agritug?