Kit builders, what would you like???

[Tim Flyer]

A Wots Wot XL size kit please!

[Jon H]

Posted by Michael Ramsay-Fraser on 29/04/2016 09:58:54:

With all due respect to Jon, I don't think the decision on which model to kit should be made on a particular brand of i/c engine.

I have made no comment about designing a kit to suit any brand of engine. Earlier in the thread i said quite specifically that the model needs to be designed in a way that allows the use of any powerplant be it electric, glow, petrol etc. I will work with Richard to ensure that any design allows easy installation of a Laser but it will not be so as to make the model exclusive.

In all honesty the whirlwind at 72 inch would probably be too small for a pair of Laser 70's and if i cannot work out a way to squeeze my old 62's in then i will probably (as i already said) use alternative engines, most likely my spare pair of old saito 45 specials as they are fairly well matched and should have enough power. I have no doubt that asp 52's and 61's will be the engine of choice for the whirlwind given its size and the price of those engines. I knew this when i suggested the size of the model as this thread is for Richards benefit not Laser's. If we get some sales from it then great, but that is not the purpose of this activity.

If the Tempest was 65 inch then it would be able to take anything in the 80-120 range of engines depending on the weight and performance expectations. I would guess at about 9lbs?? As for electric, could you get 1000 watts out of a 4s? 70 amps seems excessive to me :\ Run them in parallel for 8s and get loads of power!

Regarding the span of models, i only have a nissan almera and i can easily fit an 80 inch warbird, a 70 inch sport model and a fully rigged 52 inch biplane in all at the same time. I can even squeese a bbq and a heli in there as well if i try hard enough. It is a bit like aviation tetris, but it gets the job done

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

I wasn't refering to yourself, Jon and I appolgise if I gave that impression.

It was a reaction to other posters(of which there have been a few) who have suggested a design to suit a particular Laser engine.

To my mind, the design process works the other way round. Design a kit and then see what engine or engines are most appropriate.

Im not knocking Laser or any other brand of i/c engine, I'm just trying to make the point that electric seems to be the popular choice.

[Nigel Dell]

Posted by Michael Ramsay-Fraser on 29/04/2016 14:17:15:

I wasn't refering to yourself, Jon and I appolgise if I gave that impression.

It was a reaction to other posters(of which there have been a few) who have suggested a design to suit a particular Laser engine.

To my mind, the design process works the other way round. Design a kit and then see what engine or engines are most appropriate.

Im not knocking Laser or any other brand of i/c engine, I'm just trying to make the point that electric seems to be the popular choice.

Michael

I would not take it all too literally regards engines, I think you will find to a certain extent that some have had dealings with Jon via Laser like myself and it is like being at a club meeting the banter comes around as it does, it is not trying to exclude or make it a secret club just the way of aquaintances I guess, for what its worth I would be looking at electric for the Whirly if it comes about as I have been doing it for a longtime now but equally I am in need of a bit of diversity and will be using an I.C. in a single engined model probably the LA7 I have just bought from Richard, now this could be my Laser or equally my Saito or Enya, but there are those on here who like Lasers like myself and with Jon around it is naturally going to be mentioned, but as Jon said it is about  helping Richard source marketing information really and I am sure Richard will be approaching the design phase in exactly the manner that you elude to as he has done with his collection thus far.

And you are right electric is a big part of the hobby now and everything is doable these days unlike when I first started electrifiying things, like someone once said' you have never had it so good!'

 

Edited By Nigel Dell on 29/04/2016 14:55:50

Edited By Nigel Dell on 29/04/2016 14:57:33

[gillyg1]

Micheal I'm sure Richard will design what ever model to be either electric or i/c as with all his other designs.
As stated early I prefer i/c and like laser engines.
Cheers Graham

[lightning 759]

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 28/04/2016 19:44:13:

Thats Auntie Violet ,

I wondered where she'd gone,

can you fix me up a date she looks just my type of gal .

andy

[lightning 759]

How about a Henschel 129 ? nice simple shape.

traplet do one around 80inch span for foam wings

andy

[jeff2wings]

Posted by lightning 759 on 29/04/2016 17:59:09:

How about a Henschel 129 ? nice simple shape.

traplet do one around 80inch span for foam wings

andy

They also do the whirlwind in 72 " & 75" w/span for E.P. my guess is the choice will be a B 25/Me 110 twin or Tempest/P47/fW 190 or a Zero (YAWN ) still,plenty of lazer cutters out there if you need to build some thing different

At the end of the day we need people like Ron at Warbirds to be successful or the hobby will be poorer without them.

[Colin Leighfield]

I hope that there's room for a slightly different suggestion. What about the best Mustang, the P51H and the twin Mustang F82? The P51H was a lot different to the earlier versions with no interchangeable parts and was the basis of the F82, so a lot of the design could be common to both kits. At a scale of 1/8 the P51H would be 55" span and the F72 75". !/7 would give you a span around 63" for the single and 88" for the twin. The extra length of the twin was achieved by simple insertion of a fuselage plug. The outer wing panels are the same. The prototypes of the twin and first 20 production planes had the same Merlin as the P51H, so cowls could be the same, although later ones had the Allison, so that would need to be different. However if fibre glass cowls are being moulded it wouldn't be difficult. It might be the simplest way to get a single and a twin and although the Mustang may be overly modelled, the P51H is a noticeably different plane and the F82 is something really unusual.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 29/04/2016 19:20:40

[Colin Leighfield]

I don't know why the photo of the P51H didn't come up, here it is.

[IanN]

Both nice looking, interesting, and under-modelled aircraft, but (like a great many many suggested every time we do this sort of exercise) are they really commercially viable?

To put it another way, if you were putting your own money into designing and producing these kits, and wanted a fighting chance of it turning a small profit, then - hand on heart - would these be the "top of the list" ones you'd hang your hat on?

[MattyB]

Posted by IanN on 29/04/2016 19:26:00:

Both nice looking, interesting, and under-modelled aircraft, but (like a great many many suggested every time we do this sort of exercise) are they really commercially viable?

To put it another way, if you were putting your own money into designing and producing these kits, and wanted a fighting chance of it turning a small profit, then - hand on heart - would these be the "top of the list" ones you'd hang your hat on?

Fair challenge - if it were me in Richard's shoes I would go with a Tempest/Sea Fury, Macchi or FW190 for the singles, and maybe a Whirlwind or Beaufighter for the twin. I am still not certain the twins will ever be that commercially successful though.

Edited By MattyB on 29/04/2016 19:34:21

[Jon H]

Posted by Michael Ramsay-Fraser on 29/04/2016 14:17:15:

I wasn't refering to yourself, Jon and I appolgise if I gave that impression.

No worries, its all good

[Colin Leighfield]

Mustangs are always popular model choices and the H is something a bit different. The ability to produce a twin using a lot of the same design and build detail is an interesting opportunity. If these were available to an audience wider than us contributing to this forum, I'd be surprised if there wasn't interest in the H. Twins are always a bit more problematical market-wise and will have a smaller market regardless, even though electric power has made them so much easier! I like most of the proposals in this thread, but I'd be interested in these. I might draw up an H anyway.

 

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 29/04/2016 20:38:00

[RICHARD WILLS]

I think Ian and Mattty (and Jefff ) are pretty much on the money . If you personally had to put in a bucket load of a work . then do it again to make the manual , Create all of the accessories like spinner make and the moulds , sort out the retracts etc which would you really choose to make it worthwhile?

Its hard for people on the other side of the trade counter to realise how tentative the market is now.

Take the Mustang , we get zero interest in the p51B . I mean literally one enquiry per year .

Why? I flew the one in the pictures on our site for three years and another before it (a malcolm hood from the Len Deighton book cover "Goodbye Mickey Mouse " . Loved them both , faultless aeroplanes.

P51H ? Not for me . If I cant sell the historic champion of the P51 range I'm not going to attempt the "Johnny come lately ". Anyway , I do feel the Mustang fans have had more than their fair crack of the whip.

We will have some new kits out of this thread chaps , that is not an empty promise . A twin and a single engined fighter .

Andy , I can feel you being drawn in my Auntie Vilolets tractor beam . She;s always been my favourite Aunt and she's between husbands you'll be pleased to hear . I must warn you though , the previous four died in strange circumstances , although the coroner said they all died smiling .

As ever , be careful what you wish for . ( quote of the late, great, Fairy Godmother )

[Colin Leighfield]

Fair enough!

[onetenor]

Posted by MattyB on 28/04/2016 21:34:06:

...and another off the wall suggestion from me for those who like the Italian fighters - the Reggiane 2005:

Perfect dimensions for a good flying model, and that wing is very P47 like so we know it will handle well. Probably too rare to be much of a seller I know, but you can dream!

I would say very Spitfire type wings

[onetenor]

. A supermarine Dumbo maybe but how many would be built, Only two full size were built

[onetenor]

Supermarine ASR1 Seagull amphibian . Lovely design

[Colin Leighfield]

The Caproni Reghiane Re2005 wing is closest in shape to the P47. That is because it is basically a re-engined Re2000 and that was based on the design of the Seversky P35. The P35 lead to the Republic (Seversky with a new name after they threw him out) P43 Lancer, which was the stepping stone to the P47 Thunderbolt.

All three of the main Italian fighter designs, the Re2000, Mc200 and G50 became top-notch after re-engining with the DB601 or 605.

The "Dumbo" interests me as well, the variable wing incidence would be a challenge! The undercarriage is very narrow though. Can't argue with the Seagull either, beautiful plane, again the variable wing incidence would be worth having a go at. None of these are going to meet Richard's criteria though. For me one of the main reasons for building model planes is the opportunity to see in the sky something really interesting that you otherwise would never see. There are loads of these, the Re2005 is in that category. We see Mc200, 202 and 205 modelled, but I've never seen the Re2000, 2001 or 2005. Not sure about the G55 either, although the G50'has been done.

I can't understand why we don't see the Nakajima Hayabusa modelled either. In production all through WW2, generally equivalent to the Zero and shot more down allied planes as well. I suppose that because it was army and wasn't at Pearl Harbour it doesn't have the "cachet". It's a bit like building a Corsair and ignoring the Hellcat, unthinkable.

[Jon H]

For those desperate for an Mc202/5 my friend brian designed and built this..

Plans (I think) could be made available if there was sufficient interest.

There is no conflict of interest here either. This model requires a very significant amount of building with the whole fuselage being strip planked. As this is not something Richard is likely to do It wont be depriving him of a kit

[MattyB]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 30/04/2016 06:51:00:

The Caproni Reghiane Re2005 wing is closest in shape to the P47. That is because it is basically a re-engined Re2000 and that was based on the design of the Seversky P35. The P35 lead to the Republic (Seversky with a new name after they threw him out) P43 Lancer, which was the stepping stone to the P47 Thunderbolt.

All three of the main Italian fighter designs, the Re2000, Mc200 and G50 became top-notch after re-engining with the DB601 or 605.

...None of these are going to meet Richard's criteria though. For me one of the main reasons for building model planes is the opportunity to see in the sky something really interesting that you otherwise would never see. There are loads of these, the Re2005 is in that category. We see Mc200, 202 and 205 modelled, but I've never seen the Re2000, 2001 or 2005.

Actually I did find a small Italian company Piccole Ali that do a 60 sized ARF of the Re 2005 - it appears to be a "stand well back" version though!

[lightning 759]

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 29/04/2016 22:29:56:

Take the Mustang , we get zero interest in the p51B . I mean literally one enquiry per year .

Why? I flew the one in the pictures on our site for three years and another before it (a malcolm hood from the Len Deighton book cover "Goodbye Mickey Mouse " . Loved them both , faultless aeroplanes.

That surprise's me guess it might have something to do with mostly d models left on the air show circuit, hope you still do it though as its on my wants list

andy

[Bob Bertram]

Jon, your friends Macchi looks superb.

Bob

[Sparks]

There was mention of a twin, how about the Grumman F7F Tigercat?

One day I shall build one, but would be good to have a kit to get me off the starting block.