What size model?

[Michael Barclay]

I have just started a Fokker D7 and decided on a wingspan of 44 inches, this being a practical size to build because of space considerations ( I live on my boat) and also I walk to the club so must carry my models. I have built bigger such as my Handley Page bomber ( see my albums) by building in sections before final assembly but its a pain really and an awkward beast to carry any distance.

I was wondering how others decide on the size of a model when designing or buying a kit. Is it a practical descision, or an aesthetic one? Perhaps like me you think that above a certain size a model looses a certain appeal? What does the panel think?

Mike.

[Peter Miller]

Personally I like models in the 48" to 60" span size.

This is partly due to my building space and also my small car but I think that it really goes back to my control line days and even my RAF days when transporting a model home from camp meant long train journeys.

In passing, I wish I had a pound for everyone who said "Why don't you get in it and fly there!" I could afford a Rolls Royce!!!

[Bob Cotsford]

When I was young then I was wage limited to .40 size models, then as I reached more senior positions I progressed up the ladder from .60, .90 then eventually 40cc petrol models at which point the size of models was dictating the size of my car. As I started the downhill slope the larger models and then IC in general was shed and now I'm back to .30-.60 size models with electric power and getting smaller by the year.

[Jon H]

Like most i started on smaller models with 30-50 size engines but then moved up to bigger stuff. I remember the first time i flew a friends 88 inch spitfire and thinking 'yup, this is where its at'.

As i mostly fly scale and have a big thing for WWII fighters i have settled on the 70-90 inch span sort of bracket with most hanging around the 80 inch mark. My sport models are 76 and 80 inch as well.

The reason for this is that these bigger models look awesome, fly better, can handle the added weight of retracts etc without getting to heavy to fly, have better/stronger retracts available, are easier to work on, and are not too big to transport and store. I also find that they are not that much more than a 65-70 inch model in cost but offer so much more.

Many people often comment that they cant transport a model that big in their normal hatchback and are surprised when i tell them that in a pinch i could transport 3 80 inch warbirds in a ford focus/vw golf sized car. Its just a matter of careful placement,

In any case, its unlikely i will go much larger than 90 inch as i dont want to be in the position Bob mentioned where i need to make vehicle choices based upon fitting models into it. I dont want a van so i will keep to models that fit in a normal car and i think the 97 inch La7 i have plans for will be the absolute limit for me....unless i win the lottery, then i wont care and can just airlift the things in if i have to

Edited By Jon - Laser Engines on 11/01/2020 11:05:56

[David Davis]

I once knew a man who drove a Peugeot 205 GTi and who managed to cram a Precedent Stampe biplane into it.He put the transmitter and a bottle of petrol into the two cockpits and it really didn't take him long to assemble it once he'd got to the flying field!

[Nigel R]

60 size max. So about six foot and 10lb for me. They start getting awkward to build and store much above that.

[Robin Colbourne]

Some people measure up their car and then build the model. Others take the model round the car dealerships, until they find a car in which it will fit fully assembled.

[leccyflyer]

I mostly enjoy funfighter sized models - so 40-48*, 3lbs ish, so several will fit in the car fully rigged and they give me the best bang per buck. However I'm increasingly being drawn to slightly larger models with more in the 60*" + range planned for the coming years, due in part to flying at a new club field where the models are somewhat larger in general.

I've also got a bit more workshop space than previously and am investing in getting that up to a high standard with a view to having a bot more time in the future for building and tackling the kit mountain. I can see a future of taking just one or two larger models to the field, rather than a half-a-dozen smaller ones.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Robin Colbourne on 11/01/2020 13:07:16:

Some people measure up their car and then build the model. Others take the model round the car dealerships, until they find a car in which it will fit fully assembled.

I recognise that! When I started flying 2 mtr class F3A aerobatics, the Saab estate car I had would just take the 2 mtr fuselage but the nose poked between the two front seats. When I changed cars to a Skoda Superb Estate, I took the fuselage with me to see if it would fit and found that I had to leave the rear seat squabs down and tip the backrest down and then it was fine. I can get 2 x 2 mtr aircraft and a 70 size aerobat into the Skoda and if I fixed up a hanging support I could get some more stuff in as well! While I didn't buy an estate car for model transport, more for its load lugging capability, garden rubbish especially, I don't see me going back to a saloon or hatch till I hang up my F3A boots.

The other thing about larger models is that they fly much better because they operate at a higher Reynolds number so the whole wing tends to work rather than just the front part. Same for the tailplane.

[Nigel Heather]

I prefer bigger models as they are more stable, and therefore, look better in the air.

But the things that drive my reality are

Model cost, not just the initial outlay but can I accept losing it in an accident

Do I have a suitable power system

If I have to buy a power system is it affordable

Can I transport it

Is it going to be a faff to setup and disassemble

I generally find that 60” is a good sweet spot for my needs. So generally the range 59” to 70” depending on aircraft type.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Simon Chaddock]

Surely its just a matter of personal choice.

As I build 'own design' most of the time size is only one of many parameters. The biggest reward is achieving what I set out to do whether big or small.

[J D 8]

Michael has to walk/carry his models to the flying site so 40 to 50 inch is probably practical the limit as that sort of size can be carried in one piece.

Older modelers will remember the ingenious way's of transporting models by bus, pushbike, motorbike ect.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Michael Barclay on 11/01/2020 10:21:02:

I was wondering how others decide on the size of a model when designing or buying a kit. Is it a practical descision, or an aesthetic one? Perhaps like me you think that above a certain size a model looses a certain appeal? What does the panel think?

Mike.

Mike's OP wasn't really looking for recommendations if I read it correctly, but on what others feel are their criteria.

My view is totally the opposite I'm afraid, as I feel that models gain appeal the larger they are! As others have already stated, they fly more realistically, are generally better to fly and can be detailed more easily. While nowhere near LMA territory, my larger models tend to be in the 18 - 20lb class in anything from 1/6 to 1/3 scale depending on the subject although the largest span was a 4m Discus which was much lighter of course.

Limitations to me are the size of my field, transport and storage. In practical terms, anything larger than around 80" span will need to have a 2 piece wing.

Having said that, my winter hacks tend to be in the sub 60" category.

My current [rather long term] build was largely guided by these principles - I wanted to build a Tempest and chose a 76" version which has a one piece wing [quite a large chord to accommodate in the car] and will use a Laser 200v which represents an affordable high quality power plant.

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/01/2020 19:36:36

[Andrew Calcutt]

I find a lot of guys who have large models rarely fly them,they just become hanger queens smaller models are more convenient,less of a disaster if you bin it and easier to store.Still like a quarter scale tiger moth though!

[alex nicol]

For years I've been flying general sports models 46 to 53 powered, some plan built and some artf.

A while back I acquired a Falcon Aviation Eurobat ( 84" span ) powered with a ZDZ 40cc petrol unit and in my opinion this flys better than the 46 - 53 sports stuff. That said there's a lot of fun to be had with the smaller planes, variety's the spice of life as they say.

The current project on the bench is a scaled up 84" span version of Mike D's Rival for an ASP 1.80fs, which, fingers crossed, will give me the best of both worlds.

I'd like to see more 40 size sports models scaled up.

To get back onto the thread topic, for me typically model size is circa 58" or 84" span.

[Scott Edwards 2]

I use the "Ford Mondeo algorithm" Starting point is to work out the largest model that will fit in a Mondeo estate and work backwards. I find larger models are more stable, predictable, look better, have far more presence in the sky and are more rewarding to operate. The downside is cost, construction time, storage, transport and assembly. Small stuff is great too, but if you fancy a go, don't be frightened of going bigger. In many ways they are much easier than you think particularly when you head north of 7Kg.

[Jon H]

Posted by Andrew Calcutt on 15/01/2020 20:12:42:

I find a lot of guys who have large models rarely fly them,they just become hanger queens smaller models are more convenient,less of a disaster if you bin it

I hear this sort of thing alot and it always confuses me.

My 63 inch Hurricane needs 4 things to be connected and the wing bolted on. My 80 inch sea fury needs 4 things to be connected and the wing bolted on. Neither fit in the car with the wing on, and once assembled both can be picked up and moved by my weak and feeble arms. As a result i dont really see that the big'un any any less convenient. The same is true of my 1/4 stampe vs my dads old flair pup. Both have two wings, neither fit in the car rigged, and both have the same number of struts,wires and bolts to fiddle with.

As for crashing it..why would you crash? why is that a consideration? If you are building a model and expect to crash it then its probably a good time to look at the reasons why. Most crashes are either caused by pilot error or some sort of failure. To combat this, fly in a way that means you are insulated from small mistakes. Perhaps ask someone else for help improving your skills. To guard against failures perhaps do some preventative maintenance. How many of us really inspect our equipment as regularly as we should for loose connections, falling battery capacity or other simple mechanical problems which can bring down a model? And how many of us have bought a model 2nd hand that was 'ready to fly' the the equipment install looked like a blind chap did it with his feet?

While i admit that throwing hundreds or thousands of pounds into the air is a concern random failures are rare and the most common problems can be guarded against. If that still seems too risky its time to whip out the airfix kits

[Nigel R]

If you make and maintain these things to a good standard then the likelihood of basic kit failures is minimised, similarly, if you learn enough flying skills then the likelihood of pilot error is minimised.

On the other hand, there are flyers who, in real terms, are permanent beginners.

[Michael Barclay]

Thanks everyone for your interesting replies. As I expected car size and workspace has a lot to do with it.

As I said in my original post I don't have a car, in fact I have not had one since 1999, reason being that living and cruising singlehanded on my yacht I did not need a car. I keep asking myself if I need one now and the answer is no as I now live on my narrowboat which in the flying season I move to a marina which is 10 minutes pleasant stroll in the country to the club field. For me having a car just to move slightly bigger planes a short distance would not make sense. Guess it's the minimalist in me, but that philosophy did allow me to retire at 45.

So for the present it's 50" max for me with the aim to build light as posible for low and slow flying rather than two mistakes high. The sudden death of low flying mistakes just creates room on my boat for another build.