Kit builders, what would you like???

[Jon H]

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 26/04/2016 12:47:22:

80 inch Hurricane ,? Nice but then why not Mick Reeve or DB Versions ?

In fairness, the MR version is discontinued and the DB is a lot of work and a lot of money with the kit over 300 quid before you even start. When i mentioned the idea of a bigger hurricane it was based upon the galaxy mustang principal of cheap/simple/quick and not a scale epic as, frankly, most people dont have time for that!

As for the return of the Laser 45 thats quite unlikely, but as the 70 is the same size just use two of them! :D

[Nigel Dell]

I must admit I like the idea of larger Galaxy Mustang style Warbirds as Jon says not many have the time these days, I am taken with the Yak 3 in the Balsa Bashing thread and I do need to get myself back into the building frame of mind.

All this talk of the Whirlwind had me going onto Outer Zone and downloaded the Cronin / Hollandby Whirlwind plan and enlarging it by 125% so wingspan is 81.25" nice size, for two 70's I may go bigger or just do electric!

Well I can think about it until something else comes along!!

[Jon H]

An 80 inch whirly sounds ace, but an 80 inch twin is bigger than an 80 inch single because of all the engines everywhere. I would be really happy with 72 as it will fit my hangar nicely and i have some engines available

As for the Yak, it really is a cracker. I have one as well but decided to do the hurricane for my winter build as i had everything for it. I am looking forward to doing it though once i have space in the hangar!

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

Posted by David Davis on 26/04/2016 13:11:44:

I've been given a part-completed Balsacraft Blenheim to finish off. I'll fit it into all of my other projects!

Off topic, I know but please let me know how you get on with it. I have one waiting to be started (along with the Balsacraft Spit, TN Spit & Typhoon. Too many planes, not enough hours ((used to be girls ))

[Nigel Dell]

Now you are doing the sales pitch!!

Yes I can see me getting the Yak, I may print out the plan for the Whirly at 72" and see what it look like, original was 65" so not massive difference.

This BT Mk IX Spitfire for the 180 I had off you is getting pushed back again!! but in fairness the Spit is not a good get back into a build after years of composite Gliders so enter the Yak!!

Talked myself into that one! nicely done! and the Missus is away with work next week so boxes can be entered at will.

Thanks Jon !

[Jon H]

No worries Nigel.

I had a look at that Whirlwind plan you mention and it scores a nil for me. There are too many scale compromises for me to be interested. The nose and position of the engines and wheels is way off base and there are no flaps!

Sorry RIchard, looks like you have to do a proper one after all

[IanN]

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 19:01:43:

No worries Nigel.

I had a look at that Whirlwind plan you mention and it scores a nil for me.

This might be a better one

**LINK**

[Jon H]

I have seen this one and it looks really nice but I bet its pretty costly to import not to mention cowl/canopy availability in the event of a whoopsie.

But, that to one side, if Richard produced a kit like this with laser cut parts would that be more attractive than a foam core type like his ju88?

Having seen the ju88 in person I can confirm that it is both light and tough as well as being very quick to build as Ady is showing on his thread. I have enjoyed the quick build aspects of my hurricane and its weight is looking good.

So I suppose my question is this. is all the negativity about foam core models weight etc from documentary evidence of current production models or is it historical information from the Aerotech days that you heard from a chap at the field one day? or is there another factor that puts people off foam cores vs fully built up? I ask as I see both having a place but I believe foam cores are more suited to these 'sport' warbirds and build up better suited to the full on scale epic.

Answers on a postcard....

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 20:19:22

[Nigel Dell]

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 19:01:43:

No worries Nigel.

I had a look at that Whirlwind plan you mention and it scores a nil for me. There are too many scale compromises for me to be interested. The nose and position of the engines and wheels is way off base and there are no flaps!

Sorry RIchard, looks like you have to do a proper one after all

Jon

I thought I could improve it but having a good look now it is far too much work! I did start drawing one of these and a Welkin years ago, of course can't fing either now!

[IanN]

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 20:18:36:

I have seen this one and it looks really nice but I bet its pretty costly to import not to mention cowl/canopy availability in the event of a whoopsie.

But, that to one side, if Richard produced a kit like this with laser cut parts would that be more attractive than a foam core type like his ju88?

Having seen the ju88 in person I can confirm that it is both light and tough as well as being very quick to build as Ady is showing on his thread. I have enjoyed the quick build aspects of my hurricane and its weight is looking good.

So I suppose my question is this. is all the negativity about foam core models weight etc from documentary evidence of current production models or is it historical information from the Aerotech days that you heard from a chap at the field one day? or is there another factor that puts people off foam cores vs fully built up? I ask as I see both having a place but I believe foam cores are more suited to these 'sport' warbirds and build up better suited to the full on scale epic.

Answers on a postcard....

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 20:19:22

I'm not against foam wings, and have no idea re how light current ones are v "back in the day" examples - I hadn't really thought about that angle

I suppose I just intuitively think that the built up wing must surely be lighter by a worthwhile margin (isn't it?) and that that could usefully be used as either less inertia. Or if you prefer by, say, using a bigger battery instead to extend flight time

If the difference is marginal then foam obviously wins easily on convenience and build time (although I don't find building wings a chore) and I guess the cost of production of foam v laser cut wood - and hence the final selling price - also becomes an important factor

Edit: I have just been advised that postage to UK of the Harold Osborne Whirlwind plan and short kit is $60, making a total of $202 or £138. As you say, no canopy or cowl included. I guess that would make a UK produced complete kit at around the £170/180 mark reasonable value

Edited By IanN on 26/04/2016 22:10:53

[Jon H]

The only references I can give you at the moment about the weight of Richards wings is from my unbuilt yak and my complete (almost) hurricane wing. Each yak panel is 6oz and requires only a leading edge, a wingtip and a single 1/8 ply joiner. So if we assume the complete wing as a basic structure is 1lb and the 55'' yak has a flying weight of 6lbs it is hardly a big issue. Clearly servos and retracts go in, but you need them in the built up wing as well.

For the Hurricane, while I don't have any measured weight it is significantly lighter by feel that the very similar built up wing on Brian's VQ hurricane. I will get some weights and report back but if the right type of foam is used the wings are very light and all of the fuselage decks are hollowed out as well so they weigh next to nothing

[IanN]

If the overall weight and wing loading are within whatever is required to make the model pleasant to fly then it is, as you say hardly an issue. Foam wing Whirlie it is then I'm not precious about it

Would be interested in which out of foam v laser cut is cheaper to set up and produce

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by IanN on 26/04/2016 22:01:54:

So I suppose my question is this. is all the negativity about foam core models weight etc from documentary evidence of current production models or is it historical information from the Aerotech days that you heard from a chap at the field one day?

Answers on a postcard....

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 20:19:22

I'm not against foam wings, and have no idea re how light current ones are v "back in the day" examples - I hadn't really thought about that angle

I suppose I just intuitively think that the built up wing must surely be lighter by a worthwhile margin (isn't it?) and that that could usefully be used as either less inertia. Or if you prefer by, say, using a bigger battery instead to extend flight time

My original mid-80s Acrowot foam wing was no heavier than an equivalent strength one I could have built in wood, it's current BillKits replacement is possibly even lighter.

As I said before, the all veneered foam Typhoon I had decades back was a peach to fly so I don't even think weight was an issue back then.

[Jon H]

My galaxy mustang and MR hurricane were not obese either but my dads CAP Harrow wing was very heavy indeed. I wonder if it was brand specific because i know many of the aerotech kits ended up very fat and didnt always fly that well

[G-JIMG]

My vote would be for a civvy aircraft rather than another Warbird. How about a King Air 300?

[IanN]

G-JIMG, the company is called "Warbird Replicas"

There's a clue in there

[Kevin Wilson]

I am glad its not just me that went off the thread title without reading from the begining.

Even so, I still doubt any of my suggestions would hold popular support.

Grumman Tigercat or a Mitchell perhaps?

[Jon H]

As it happens the B25 would make a nice model, and the tigercat is mean looking and i would like one. I nearly bought the asm version but i wasnt impressed with the plastic fuselage. A shame as they apparently flew well

[will -0]

P-36 and Harvard/texan/yale both have fixed gear variants .................

[Nigel Dell]

Posted by IanN on 26/04/2016 19:57:26:

Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 26/04/2016 19:01:43:

No worries Nigel.

I had a look at that Whirlwind plan you mention and it scores a nil for me.

This might be a better one

**LINK**

That one is most definately a better one! Bob is one great Guy he has sent me files to the Whirly and they are very good plans indeed, a lot of scale detail and from a quick look that I have had as accurate as I have seen, they remind me of BT plans, not sure when this model was designed, I only say this because it has one aileron servo shown and pushrods and bellcranks but that is not an issue of course a good plan is a good plan whenever it was drawn!

The parts count is high so in my opinion the laser cut parts are a good deal, for those interested it might be a good idea to get together and see how much to send a few in one go and share the postage costs, I am going to ask Bob if he can supply the Canopy etc. too.

[David Pearce 4]

Although a Whirlwind, sized for an economic electric set-up and using foam core wings etc to simplify, would be my first choice, the Fokker D.XXI would also be tempting.

It's a pugnacious little fighter from WW2 with fixed undercart and some great Dutch and Finnish colour schemes. Not well known enough for the required economics of kit production perhaps but very suitable for model flying. You could even fit ski's as per some Finnish examples.

Yes, I know unlikely to get many votes but I've liked it since building a plastic Frog kit, many many years ago . . .

[Bob Cotsford]

oooh! I like that David

[Dave Hopkin]

Of course there iw that overlooked area of Military Aircraft - the trainer/utility types

Scottish Aviation Pioneer

Percival Provost

Miles Mercury

Percival Proctor

Or some of the more esoteric ones....

Westland Wyvern

Westland Lysander

Fairy Firefly

[RICHARD WILLS]

What we really want to settle on is a probable single engined aircraft and a twin . I appreciate the latter will attract less sales but as I'm keen to test the water in that department based on the gamble that once a few people try it , they may enthuse others, I'm willing to give it a go . The single absolutely be my bread and butter .

Now chaps , please have a good look at the 88 thread , If it isnt what you fancy , then say so . if you would like something different , but in the same ball park , say so .

The concept works well and I would expect all new "twinnies" to go down the electric route , Its hassle free and confidence building , Twin 52s or similar makes a lovely racket but of course engine outs and vibration are always going to be there . 90% of our Spitfire sales are electric versions . All of the twins would be available in both versions.

Foam veneer or built up doesnt make any difference to us or the price , So it comes down to this . Something with plain flaps (most German stuff) is easy to do foam veneer . Anything with complicated flaps ,best to go laser cut built up wing ,

The 88 and 110 are very easy to build since they have box fuselage with foam veneer top and bottom decks and a moulded nose , Stick the nacelles onto some big foam veneer wing and youre ready to chuck in the hardware.

Hornet is simple too so would be in the above category ,

Anything with compound curves is going to slow you down , ie He111 , Mossie , C47 .

So maybe they would be the second one in the range (if we get some reasonable interest in the first ).

Graupner did make a 70" He111 ARTF which I dont think sold that well and is now on offer via Black Horse ?Ripmax . Agin , lets have your thoughts on that . Wrong model ? Too expensive , Why did it not sell ?

Looking at the lack of success ARTF twins (apart from the Harmony maybe) it may be that the twin IC route has left each club rather tainted after seeing a B25/Mossie etc pile in after engine failure.

Having flown twins with ic motors in for years and not being a spectacular pilot , I can tell you that its all about

preparation (without the H) . I simply add fuel filters , run the motors a little rich and check for loose anything before every flight. My Aerotech (new wing) 110 has done at least 100 flights , B25 the same.

But , electric is now the way to go for most , and once each club has a chap in it who regularly flies one of our well sorted , practical and impressive twins the word will spread ,

The Whirlwind is getting some backing and it has come up before from my phone calls with customers over the years , The Tempest has some appeal as it can be done in three variants (inc SeaFury ) so encompasses a few different favourites,

Dont be put off by the apparent size , 72" twins dont have large bodies so are easy to store build and chuck in the car .

[IanN]

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 27/04/2016 16:25:56:

What we really want to settle on is a probable single engined aircraft and a twin . I appreciate the latter will attract less sales but as I'm keen to test the water in that department based on the gamble that once a few people try it , they may enthuse others, I'm willing to give it a go . The single absolutely be my bread and butter .

Now chaps , please have a good look at the 88 thread , If it isnt what you fancy , then say so . if you would like something different , but in the same ball park , say so .

Ok, honesty time.

Although I put in for a Tempest in the single dept, as I'd very much like a warbird at that 65-70" size, it's not a guaranteed buy for me at the moment. I may - probably 60/40 would - get round to it in time but realistically I have enough on my plate in single engine and other "sort of" scale stuff at the moment to be going on with. So I'll step out of this category and leave others to express their view

The one that would float my boat sufficiently to clear some bench space and go for it would be a Whirlwind (electric - presumably two of your Spitfire motors would more than suffice?). I've just had a reread of the JU88 thread and if a Whirlie could be kitted along those lines - ie "box fuselage with foam veneer top and bottom decks and a moulded nose , Stick the nacelles onto some big foam veneer wing and youre ready to chuck in the hardware". then I'm 100% in. Keep flaps simple - no need to replicate that drooping rear nacelle business