The State of Play

[Ron Gray]

Regarding ancillary parts, in my experience with ARTF offerings, I've gone out and got my own spinners, U/C wheels, pilot, but, yes, I do expect to get the moulded parts such as canopy, cowls. With your offerings I see them as a halfway house between the plan and cut parts yourself / laser cut short kits and the ARTFs and in being so enables a builder to get the model assembled (customised) and into the air in a reasonably short space of time (stall builds excluded).

The problem comes back to supply and demand, or more the other way round, what is the demand that we (you) can supply to? How many replies have you received from different people to your questions? Not that many so somehow a wider audience needs to be engaged to get a better feedback. You may well have already done this but if restricted to this forum, and the past few years has shown this to be true, you, at best get a collective of maybe a dozen responses.

As an aside, for the past 20 years, before I went into semi retirement, I was responsible for some software for the building industry. The software was and is continually being developed with new features but where did the idea for these new features come from? With a handful of exceptions they came from me because, despite having approximately 4000 users the user base were only ever forthcoming if they found a bug in the software!

So maybe it is a case of, I've got this, who wants to buy it.

[Ron Gray]

As for the Defiant, stick a Spit nose onto a Hurri, add a gun turret and there you have it!

[RICHARD WILLS]

I suppose what we are saying here (those that are "speaking " is , digest this information , think about what is involved in producing a kit , as if you had to do it , in order to be realistic . Then consider that the Chinese companies would not even bother asking what a man in Britain wants because we are small fry , consequently you will keep getting the choices of America , whether you like it or not .

You have me ,and probably other British manufacturers , prepared to listen to you , So now may be the time to speak , offer realistic expectations , that you are prepared to back up in order to get what you want both now and in the future . Not many companies would bother asking their customers directly for their dream product ,but that also must come with the understanding of the commitment involved by the provider.

I have bolstered other threads and I'm sure others have , when the the person , who is taking the time to document his build and thought process ,was getting very little back from the audience . We are all guilty of it from time to time , but is a complete wind up from the other side ! Just the odd question is all thats needed .

As Ron said , there are probably lots of people watching this thread but unless we all start communicating with some real honesty about what is involved and expectations , then things are certainly not going to get better.

[SR 71]

Do you offer your kits in America, a very large customer base, they seem to like the British and German planes, i think you would get a large respond from there, you would not have to worry about our little market so much

[Ron Gray]

OK so let's take up the cudgel.

So we're talking scale and 2nd WW scale, prop driven, monoplane. Should be capable of either I/C or electric power. Size, compromise between ease of transport / storage and presence in the air, approx 70" (1700mm)

Type - pros / cons

Multi engined - people like looking at them but very few like owning / building / flying them.

Wing design - lower rather than higher wing loading, broader rather than narrow, good slow flight characteristics.

Tail - decent fin / rudder area.

Fuselage - longer rather than shorter nose for ease of CoG

U/C - short, wide spaced.

Well there are my considerations and what fits (nearly as it was a bit too late for WW2), the Westland Wyvern (forget the contra props though)

[RICHARD WILLS]

We have had some nice threads on RC scale and sold a few Spitfires , but generally the postage on the other kits is crazy . The boxes are large because the foam veneer wings are full size . The Spitfire kit is pure wood , all laser cut and designed to go in a small box . We can post it round the world for £35 , which is way less than we in the UK would pay for say an FMS model from China .

The big problem with the USA is that they get their models incredibly cheap . Even with the exchange rate in their current favour , they find British kits way over priced .

[RICHARD WILLS]

Ron , it will be interesting to see how close (or not ) people's criteria is .

[Richard Ashworth]

Hi All

A couple of days ago after posting my initial musings I started looking though my books for ideas on subjects to suggest for us and Richard to think about.

What I found was that British and US WW2 planes have pretty much been done (I know I said no retracts BUT a 55in Mustang that would fly well without flaps might just give me next years build). There seems to be one area that has shrunk from moderately available (in wood form) to a single offering, 170cm span or larger, the Seagull Zero.

I dont know what others think but there are several Japanese WW2 plane that I always felt looked right and in that the Japanese didn’t do powerful engines had to be built light and manoeuvrable. (Favourite quote on the forum “Build in lightness!)

After a bit of homework here are a list of planes for you to look up

Easy one first - Mitsubishi A6M Zero, then Nakajima Ki 27, Ki 43, Ki 61, Ki 84 and Kawasaki Ki 61 (all low wing, single engine)

Then two for the twin fans Mitsubishi Ki 46 and Nakajima J1N1.

Having just had VE Day and coming up to VJ Day It may not be the best time for this suggestion, but what do you think?

Richard A

Edited By Richard Ashworth on 10/05/2020 20:03:28

Edited By Richard Ashworth on 10/05/2020 20:04:14

Edited By Richard Ashworth on 10/05/2020 20:05:23

Edited By Richard Ashworth on 10/05/2020 20:05:56

[Bruce Collinson]

I’ll elaborate a bit then. For me, a 4 yr returnee working fairly hard, progressed through Wot 4s (plural) and Acrowots and now classic F3A, my closest venture is a Seagull P47 which has yet to maiden. There’s a hardcore warbird element where I fly and I was relishing the chance to participate until the autumn weather was so cruddy.

Everyone knows not to attempt a Spit. However, I picked up on the threads on this forum around WR builds, partly because they seemed to me to lack some of the less relevant/attractive philosophies which seem to gain momentum at times and were nicely positive and techy enough (no “t&rdquo. Richard asked why there were so many hits against the number of sales and to me, everyone likes a sensible and well illustrated build log. I remain captivated by Ken King’s piece on a scale undercart for a big Wellington, half of which is above my amateur engineering aspirations but it’s a tour de force. Ditto the Topflite P51 thread. I’ll never do either, but WR fighters are a different proposition.

What came over to me was that they build relatively well and fly really very well. There’s my opportunity to build and fly a Spit. Having got both wings close to skinning after 3days, I’d have anything else from this stable. Maybe a twin is pushing my luck but a P51, FW 190 etc seems suddenly achievable.

i think there’s a significant minority of us which will pay more for built up, close to scale, flyable and UK produced. Or European anyway. Therefore when there’s a good thread going without a whiff of a moderator, people will bookmark it, or look back, as I am at Ady’s, for clues as to which bit goes where.

Nice planes, nice people.

Whats next please?

BTC

[Bruce Collinson]

I didn’t put the emojo in, incidentally. I merely sought to distinguish between techy and tetchy.

Largely agree with Richard, if it looks right and flies, I’m interested.

BTC

[Jon H]

As much as i hate to say it, i think the days of foam core kits are long behind us.

To be clear, i like foam/veneer wings etc as they are really quick to build, durable and these days they are also very light. I have absolutely no problem with them and would gladly go for it.

Unfortunately i suspect their image has been damaged by kits of yore that ended up weighing a ton and flying like powered manhole covers so the community at large may still see them in that light.

There is also the perception that laser cutting is new and shiny. Die cutting done well does the same job, but again ancient die crushed kits from flair/precedent put people right off so the new laser cutting idea gets people all excited.

Its a paradox really as so many modellers are totally resistant to change in some areas and (20% castor for life!) yet lap up things like laser cutting that are perceived to be better than foam or die cutting. They will also buy a brushless riot or wot4, also foam, but turn their noses up at a traditional foam/veneer model even if it took the same powerplant, cost the same and flew better.

Anyway my 2 cents would be 70 inch (or more!) warbird suited to 90-120 4 stroke or equivalent for single engine model. 55 inch worked well when everyone flew 40's and a 60 was considered big. These days, a 90 is nothing to write home about and i had to really search for a 10x6 the other week when i needed to run a 40. Not needed a prop that small in years! Again from the other side of the counter, the smallest engine laser make is a 70 for a good reason. OS have ditched all of their small engines and priced their 56 at over £300 so that it makes money from limited sales. Our most popular engine sizes are 80-180 and how many DLE30's do you see? The blasted things are everywhere and yet you dont see many irvine 40's any more.

I would also suggest that laser cutting would be cheaper for limited run kits as the computer does all the work. Laser cutting is also seen as more modern so a laser cut kit might have more appeal.

As for a subject i cant help much as i like weird stuff like P39's. I would love a whirlwind, but would want it big. 80 inch at least so i can fit half decent engines to it. Again i think a Petlyakov Pe2 would make an awesome model twin with its nice proportions but its no mosquito in popularity.

As a curiosity though how may here are tired of the same old models? P51, P47, Spitfire, Fw190 etc. We have seen it all before and there are loads of options. Would something unusual be of greater interest? They certainly are to me but then i am a bit strange

[Jon H]

Posted by Bruce Collinson on 10/05/2020 20:09:54:

Everyone knows not to attempt a Spit.

There were some other posts between my ramblings before.

Why? Why is there this myth about spitfires and how they fly?

This is not a jab at you Bruce at all, but there is a general feeling that spitfires (warbirds in general) and twins are difficult tipstalling devil machines that will spin as soon as you look at them.

In 20 years of flying warbirds and twins i have never lost one to a stall/spin so why does this idea persist that they are so difficult? Does it again hark back to morbidly obese aerotech kits of yesteryear?

I am genuinely curious to know why this myth continues.

[martin collins 1]

Any Jap WW2 plane would get my vote, Aichi Val always tempted me, fixed undercarriage, large flaps / dive brakes, several colourful paint schemes, large wing area, radial engine. Was regarded as the best dive bomber of WW2.

Edited By martin collins 1 on 10/05/2020 20:29:07

[Martin_K]

A radical view. (An attempt to expand the potential market).

Don't be limited to warbirds.
Provide a compelling 'story' to go with the model aircraft.
Offer the option of factory tuned electronics.

The Percival Gull

Keep the build simple, the fixed undercarriage helps.

Make the association with Amy Johnson

Put the emphasis on scale flying. Use the prototype to program a factory tuned stabiliser option.

Different ideas!

[martin collins 1]

Love the idea of a Percival Gull or Proctor, i have a gull six but would buy a Gull kit or Proctor, you can have my order now!

[Ron Gray]

Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 10/05/2020 20:16:36:

As a curiosity though how may here are tired of the same old models? P51, P47, Spitfire, Fw190 etc. We have seen it all before and there are loads of options. Would something unusual be of greater interest? They certainly are to me but then i am a bit strange

Well that makes 2 of us then Jon because I would like to see something different too.

[martin collins 1]

Same here, i wouldnt put money into one of the more common types i have always preferred something a bit different

[Tim Flyer]

To be honest I would like a Mustang and a Spitfire in my collection so yes b I like the popular models (I have a P47,La7,Chipmunk, Hurricane)plus a number of Wots.
Jon’s idea on engine sizing is totally true. Larger IC engines are way better value plus handle more easily, sound better and the model is far less fiddly to build .

A 55in wing and 4 cell might be the “sweet spot for electric set ups. but that’s certainly isnt seen as sweet spot size for IC at our club .

For me the engine is as important as the plane (probably more so!)and a major part of the enjoyment of the hobby. I’m not happy running an engine I don’t like, just to suit a particular plane.
Regarding foam wings and fuselages. I must admit I really prefer built up laser cut kits if given a choice

[martin collins 1]

I like built up fuselages but happy with foam decking to speed the build, but foam wings are a definite plus for me due to time constraints. I would rather build two nice planes over a couple of months than one two month build......

[Ron Gray]

Back to a basic question, warbird or doesn't it matter? (despite the name Warbird Replicas)

[RICHARD WILLS]

Ron , I dont think it has to be a warbird. Maybe if everyone just says what they think then we can re assess the info at the end and see if there is any mileage in it .

[martin collins 1]

Doesn`t matter to me, just an interesting subject.............

[Ron Gray]

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 10/05/2020 22:06:42:

Ron , I dont think it has to be a warbird. Maybe if everyone just says what they think then we can re assess the info at the end and see if there is any mileage in it .

Sounds good to me, just hope that a lot more fellow forum members speak up!

[Ron Gray]

@Tim - did you see my post on the Lavochkin thread?

[Bruce Collinson]

Not making life easier for Richard, are we? Is it limited by the patterns, CAD files or whatever drives the laser cutter?

With respect to Jon and Timflier, both of whom have been very helpful to me recently, isn't one of the attractions of the WR range that they're not bigger with 20cc engines or all the trappings, which incidentally seems to be a market sector which is well populated at present?

Jon, look at any newbie thread on here and it never gets beyond half a dozen posts before the wise old heads jump in to exhort the OP NOT to dream of Spits until the apprenticeship is complete. It might be urban myth, although I hardly ever see one in the air at my club. The attraction of Richard's product is that it gives every appearance of being very flyable whilst still being of a more manageable size, and running on sensible electric power. I too like IC 4 strokes but find it significantly quicker, easier and cleaner to have a short flying session if I only need LiPos with me.

Ought we to have a straw poll?

BTC