What makes a good kit ?

[RICHARD WILLS]

All good facts . But we must be influenced by packaging and other factors as Graham suggests . Imagine going into a well stocked model shop, like say , Sussex Models . If all of the ARTF  boxes were plain cardboard with a modest label on , the shop would go from an Alladins cave , a place of wonder , to looking like a parcel force depot . 

The Pilot Spitfire Kit , according to the magazine review was £94 in 1990 . I have a vague memory of it being around £130 in 1994 when my wife bought me one for Christmas .   

In 95 I released my first kits (which were very similar to Mick Reeves gangsters in construction ) for £59.95 .

They flew better , but were semi scale and had none of the wow factor , so it was not like for like . 

But given the extinction pattern of kit manufacturers , have they been offering the wrong thing based on keeping price low or should they have produced a more polished and therefor alluring product and priced it accordingly ?

Chicken and egg ? 

[leccyflyer]

21 minutes ago, Eric Robson said:

I built the Pilot FW190 powered by an OS 25 FSR it was a great flyer, well over 100 flights. After that I bought the Pilot Hurricane as it was on a clearance offer it crashed first flight. I built a Topflight Corsair and on take off it was fine but once in the air the I had to hold up elevator as it dived under power, after surgery on the tail plane it was no better, I changed the wing incidence with packing ,no better  I even altered the engine trust and it still flew down on full power. It would fly reasonable on 1/2 throttle and landings were ok. I never got it sorted . As said in another thread the designer does not always get it right. I have built a few Complete a Pack models from plans but have always used the plans as a guide as they always turned out overweight models.     

That's great to hear that you got a lot of flying out of the Pilot FW190 Eric - how did you get on with the Hurricane? I have one of those in the kit mountain 3/4 built and I sold an unstarted kit many years ago. I love the stringered rear fuselage on the Pilot Hurricane but again, she feels like a heavy model, even unfinished. Here's the fuselage alongside my Cambrian Bf109 and a Bowmans Models Hurricane, which I gave to a clubmate as I couldn't see it ever looking as nice as the Pilot Hurricane and I would probably end up never doing anything with it.

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I reckon the modern world stomped on many a good kit maker, buy it cheap, delivered for nowt is a hard competitor to beat. How many used to go the Nats with a wad to buy your hearts desire ? Those days are gone, pretty packaging never killed them, modellers did. Some want their pound of flesh for 50p and woe betide the seller, if it's a day late arriving.

[Ron Gray]

23 minutes ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

All good facts . But we must be influenced by packaging and other factors as Graham suggests . Imagine going into a well stocked model shop, like say , Sussex Models . If all of the ARTF  boxes were plain cardboard with a modest label on , the shop would go from an Alladins cave , a place of wonder , to looking like a parcel force depot . 

Most model shops I’ve been in over the last few years do not have the boxes in prominent positions due to space restraints, they tend to be stacked up on shelves or in ceiling space above your head! For me what’s on the box is largely not what I want to see, mainly because I know roughly what I want before I go into a shop to buy a kit. Different matter for the occasional dropping into a shop to browse, then I’m looking at all the little bits and pieces (which are conveniently at eye level). No, for me what makes a good kit is good wood selection, nicely moulded parts, nice veneered foam, good quality laser cutting (no excessive burning) and a decent plan. When looking at a ‘major’ investment I will have done a lot of research beforehand and looked for built examples of what I’m after (YouTube vids) which narrows down my targets. 
 

Good examples of the above are purchases of your kits Richard where this forum gave me a great insight into what I would be getting (even if some were ‘pre-production’) both in terms of kit quality and flying quality. A more recent example is the one I’m currently building, the Leprechaun XL from Dane RC but on this one there were very few build vids / blogs so the kit quality was a bit of an unknown. But boy what a pleasant surprise, I have to say that as a ‘trad build’ build, ‘sticks and tissue’, laser cut parts, this kit has got to be the best one I have every attempted. In particular the quality of laser cutting of both ply and balsa is exceptional and the full size plans for this 4.5m WS powered glider are top quality and you even get both port and starboard wing plans on separate sheets. BTW the box it came in only had its name on it, no pictures. But the other thing that makes this kit exceptional is the Dane RC website, as on there you will find build photos and videos (there are no instructions).

[Eric Robson]

As I said the Hurricane crashed first flight, it took off turned right and as I straightened it up it became uncontrollable I never found out why as it hit the concrete runway and it was written off. I suspect the radio may have been the cause the RX was damaged so it was hard to tell. I built the David Boddington one after that, it was about the same size. A free plan in one of the mags. that needed a lot of sorting out as the wing plan was wrong the ribs did not match the main spar. it flew ok but never great. I think it was the size 48" span a Hurricane needs to be 60" up wards to fly reasonably well as the rear gets proportionately lighter as the size increases depending on wood selection.

John I agree with you on the modern world, the trouble is basic skills are not popular now, in our club there are only 5% builders the rest buy off the shelf ARTF.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep, same at ours Eric, seeing us fossils build though, brings a few newcomers to the fold.

[RICHARD WILLS]

So could another conclusion be , something we all expected ? That is that John says we all want model kits for nowt but we want them to be perfect and delivered free of charge ? 

In the next breath Ron enthuses over the Dare RC Glider which although very nicely presented costs £250 . which by British standards is pricey . Why dont we see many German /European kits in the Uk and if our price "thermostat " is set much lower than Europe , why have we never exported many ? 

Could it be that the Germans see British kits as too cheap and perhaps also lacking finesse? But also that their manufacturers with more financial lee way due to higher pricing can develop and advance but still stay in business ?

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, john stones 1 Moderator said:

I reckon the modern world stomped on many a good kit maker, buy it cheap, delivered for nowt is a hard competitor to beat. How many used to go the Nats with a wad to buy your hearts desire ? Those days are gone, pretty packaging never killed them, modellers did. Some want their pound of flesh for 50p and woe betide the seller, if it's a day late arriving.

The last half a dozen shows that I went to with a wad to buy my hearts desire I mostly came away empty handed, sad to say. I think that no small number of kits that were lobbed in the back of the van and trawled round from show to show started to show signs of wear and tear and, as Richard said earlier it was all too common to see water stained cardboard boxes on offer, some of which had been extensively rifled through. In those days with a weekly 700 mile round trip commute rapidly turning into a weekly occurrence I was laying up the kit mountain for the future, rather than actively building, so was definitely in the market for a nice kit.

The example of the Balsacraft funfighters discussed earlier is a good one - these were very comprehensive kits but were IMO priced far too low for that quality and couldn't possibly have made any significant money. When they were discontinued they were selling for £50-60. You would be very lucky to get one for twice that now.

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, Eric Robson said:

As I said the Hurricane crashed first flight, it took off turned right and as I straightened it up it became uncontrollable I never found out why as it hit the concrete runway and it was written off. I suspect the radio may have been the cause the RX was damaged so it was hard to tell. I built the David Boddington one after that, it was about the same size. A free plan in one of the mags. that needed a lot of sorting out as the wing plan was wrong the ribs did not match the main spar. it flew ok but never great. I think it was the size 48" span a Hurricane needs to be 60" up wards to fly reasonably well as the rear gets proportionately lighter as the size increases depending on wood selection.

John I agree with you on the modern world, the trouble is basic skills are not popular now, in our club there are only 5% builders the rest buy off the shelf ARTF.

Sorry Eric, I read it that you had rescued the Hurricane after someone else had crashed it. Thanks for the info on the Boddo Hurricane - I bought the one from the mag at a swapmeet years ago, converted it to electric, removed the bellcrank assembly and fitted an aileron servo in each wing. Then taking it to the field for a maiden flight, I tore the aileron off on the tailgate of the car. I put it back on the bench and when I got home decided that it might be better left hanging from the ceiling. If you reckon the model didn't fly well that might have been the right decision.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep me too Lecky.

Been watching the various threads running on here, some very nice stuff, but not what I fly, the last kit I bought was Glens Cap 232.

 

An FW190 would float my boat though, 20/30cc ish.

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

I totally agree about the model designs stuff . They should have been twice the price . They were lovely kits , well presented and all flew nicely , even with mediocre power trains . 

Below is a picture of what is left of my Pilot 190 from 1994 .  A one mission wonder . It inspired me to do my own version slightly bigger at 52" , it weighed much less and had far simpler construction with foam veneer wings and rear deck . 

No 19 flew like a wardrobe . No 23 flew like a gangster on steroids . 

Unfortunately the pilot , " Count Dickie von Chelmsford"  was not really that reliable in those days , hence the near identical style of crash damage . To be fair , I never reversed into anything , so I have a stack or rear ends if anyone is interested . 

[Phil McCavity]

3 hours ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

What is interesting is that , understandably , you have all spoken of the fit and flying qualities , which as modellers, is expected . Why put in months of work to find out the designer forgot to tell you that his prototype flew like a piano ?

But I wonder how much other factors skew the decision and paint a rosier picture ?

 

I have a part built Chris Sweatman model from the 70s or early 80s, the box is (was) white with a sticker showing the size in comparison to the 'model' holding it. The Solarbo wood is very good, excellent even and mainly sheet, only the ply formers and bearers are pre cut. It has rolled, blue lined plans on beige paper and there is a detailed build booklet devoid of any pictures and 2 seperate sheets with build images on it that are referred to in the build booklet. The booklet also describes the flying characteristics of the prototype and the difference made by adding a more powerful engine. It advises on throws and gives an alternative elevator size if you intend to use it for aerobatics. He even tells you that plan details vary from the original and NOT to alter anything that doesn't match the plan. The model is designed as a trainer and Chris explains why he went this route. All snakes and hardware is (was) included.

The pilot kit I had was different, it had a colourful box, a single sheet, folded plan on white paper with some build photos on it, I guess being it was deemed as "QB" it was deemed unnecessary to go further. All the parts were pre cut using die and stamp and all hardware was included, even an Irvine engine.

Both great kits.

[Piers Bowlan]

I bought Pete Nicholson's Bearcat at a local show as a 'plan pack', there wasn't any box art. Infact there wasn't a box as it was 'all' in a plastic bag. The CNC cut parts were novel and certainly new to me. The plan was beautifully drawn. The model was non-scale having increased wing area and a slimmed fuselage to reduce the wing loading and the model's drag. It still struggled on its buggy motor and 'Sanyo Reds' but was transformed when I swapped out the motor for a BL Jeti Phasor. The model is very strong and still flies to this day but with a 3s LiPo. So when Balsacraft produced Pete's Spitfire design as a kit, it wasn't the box art which attracted me but the knowledge that it would be a very enjoyable build and great flyer. Perhaps it was the proliferation of RTFs from the Far East which killed off these great kits, it certainly wasn't the price that put people off. I picked up a Balsacraft Blenheim for just £30 from Sussex Model Centre some years ago- still unbuilt! They were practically giving them away. By the way, you can still buy the Bearcat kit from SLEC.

 

So I am unconvinced that a kit needs great box art or any art work for that matter, to sell. In this day and age of online sales, I believe a good website with multiple photos of the plan, kit and close ups of the finished model are essential. One fuzzy thumbnail image won't do. You Tube videos of the model build and the finished model flying, with links to the website, are essential if you want the kits to be a success. Exposure on forums like this are pretty vital too in my view.

 

my 2p worth!

Edited March 14, 2021 by Piers Bowlan

[Dave S.]

My most recent kit purchase was a SLEC (ex Apache) PT-19, which came in an unadorned white cardboard box with the name of the model written on one end - but it was mail order, they might paste a picture of the model on the front for show sales. I haven't started the model yet, but the box is crammed with very good quality wood, so I am hopeful that it will be an enjoyable build. These days, if I fancy a kit I buy it - you never know who's going to be the next manufacturer to disappear.

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

Like the Cheshire Cat , I do tend to fade to invisibility on a regular basis . Its a bit like old photos ....

[Piers Bowlan]

1 hour ago, Dave S. said:

My most recent kit purchase was a SLEC (ex Apache) PT-19, which came in an unadorned white cardboard box with the name of the model written on one end - but it was mail order, they might paste a picture of the model on the front for show sales. I haven't started the model yet, but the box is crammed with very good quality wood, so I am hopeful that it will be an enjoyable build. These days, if I fancy a kit I buy it - you never know who's going to be the next manufacturer to disappear.

 

It looks like a very nice model and good value too for a model of this size when you tell us that the box is crammed with really nice wood too. This is what I see as the problem... 

I didn't find the model very easily on SLEC's website. Although the photo of the completed model was well lit and in focus, why only one? How about one in it's uncovered state? A photo of the box contents too? What about a photo detail of part of the plan (fuselage side view?). A flying shot would be good too but if not that, how about a shot of it suspended it from the ceiling for a completely different perspective (the one you will usually see when it is flying). Finally, how about a bit more information;- finished flying weight, wing loading - and who designed it for goodness sake? If you take a look at the link for the Grumman Bearcat in my previous post there is not any description at all. Knowing the span/weight would be useful or a recommended motor? The model shown could even be foam or RTF! Unusually, both these models are in stock- I wonder why?! Perhaps it is just me but if unconvinced take a look at advertisments for some of Aeronaut's kits by comparison. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Piers Bowlan

[Dave S.]

I agree - there is very little incentive to buy the kits from SLEC's website - but I searched previous builders' experiences and all seemed to be positive, so I took the plunge. I hope to build it this year, I've got a couple more ARTFs to get ready, then I'll clear a space for my building board. I will report on the build once I get underway.

 

I just checked SLEC's site for the PT-19 and it does include the following info, not all of which makes sense (lenght? Wing area 730 sp in" ? flaps power?). I do like to support British manufacturers, but they don't make life too easy for themselves! 

 

Wingspan 70"

Wing Area 730 sp in"

Lenght 54"

Radio 5ch with flaps power

Engine 60-90 cu in 4 st

[Piers Bowlan]

Yes, I saw that Dave but I thought a bit more information like the weight, wing loading, - what is included in the kit etc. wouldn't go amiss. As an advertisement it is pretty pitiful compared to the information supplied by Aeronaut in the Leeds Model Shop advertisement I linked to (just as an example). I am certainly not knocking SLEC, far from it, a brilliant company but just inept marketing in my view. You would think that they would notice that the word 'power' should be on the next line, next to engine! Never mind, I am sure your kit will be brilliant. ?   

[leccyflyer]

5 hours ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

I totally agree about the model designs stuff . They should have been twice the price . They were lovely kits , well presented and all flew nicely , even with mediocre power trains . 

Below is a picture of what is left of my Pilot 190 from 1994 .  A one mission wonder . It inspired me to do my own version slightly bigger at 52" , it weighed much less and had far simpler construction with foam veneer wings and rear deck . 

No 19 flew like a wardrobe . No 23 flew like a gangster on steroids . 

Unfortunately the pilot , " Count Dickie von Chelmsford"  was not really that reliable in those days , hence the near identical style of crash damage . To be fair , I never reversed into anything , so I have a stack or rear ends if anyone is interested . 

You could mount those luvverly tail ends disappearing into the workshop wall ?

[Dave S.]

I think we're agreeing with other! Looks like a good kit, but the marketing is poor. I suspect that they sell all they are able to make. My only experience with Aeronaut is with their boat kits, which are indeed high quality and beautifully presented.

[RICHARD WILLS]

More to the point . 

Why have I still got them after 25 years ?

Is it one of those "must get round to that " or is like not wanting to say goodbye to a family pet ?

[leccyflyer]

They definitely look repairable. ?

[Don Fry]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

You could mount those luvverly tail ends disappearing into the workshop wall ?

If the workshop was big enough to cater for tailyends.

 

 My reality, having employed the club idiot to hold onto a, new to me, big hack. I have elected to not fit the hatch, I want to see how much fuel remains after a full power tune. So, we have a 120 size 2 stroke, flat out. The hatch is going to fall off the bench. 
 

He let go, grabbed the hatch, panicked, got two hands  on, and so fed the hatch through the prop.

 

Having retained a natural desire to kill him, I fixed it. 4 hours.

 

Shifting  it off the bench, the tail plane hit (big tail plane) the wing store. A quarter scale mid and upper wing of a Triplane, alongside a set of Yak wings came crashing down. So that’s 12 hours to repair. I dream of tailyend space. 

[Victor Arcudi]

G'day, I'm Richard Will's friend who lives in Italy. I did my own build of a Pilot Spitfire back in the 80's and powered it with a (brushed neodim) Keller 40/8 motor and 2 x 7 cell nicad packs. I modded it with a proper flat center section & mechanical retracts with scale pintle angles. Also gave it a full cockpit interior with a sliding canopy.

It only flew once and in a sprightly fashion (probably a scale mach 3) before my brand new Sanwa excellence tranny intervened. 

Even though the end result was rather poor, the model was thoroughly enjoyable to build and even modify. If I was lucky enough to find one, I'd buy it straight away!

IMHO, it was a beautiful model extremely well presented for the day. 

[Nigel Dell]

On 14/03/2021 at 12:48, RICHARD WILLS said:

I totally agree about the model designs stuff . They should have been twice the price . They were lovely kits , well presented and all flew nicely , even with mediocre power trains . 

Below is a picture of what is left of my Pilot 190 from 1994 .  A one mission wonder . It inspired me to do my own version slightly bigger at 52" , it weighed much less and had far simpler construction with foam veneer wings and rear deck . 

No 19 flew like a wardrobe . No 23 flew like a gangster on steroids . 

Unfortunately the pilot , " Count Dickie von Chelmsford"  was not really that reliable in those days , hence the near identical style of crash damage . To be fair , I never reversed into anything , so I have a stack or rear ends if anyone is interested . 

Do you have a Felicity Kendal in your stock Rich? ??