Jon H Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 Anyone building a Hurricane needs to check the incidence of the wing as mine went super wonkey for some reason and it flew very badly. I dont know why it ended up as it did but once changed to a more sensible position my model is now very much better. It would be much easier to change at the beginning than the end..trust me ? Its also hard as nails. I got caught out by a very turbulent gust a little while ago and the poor Hurricane was slammed into the ground quite abruptly. The assembled crowd were shocked to see only a broken cowl block, broken retract plate and a pair of bent oleo's as the only damage. All agreed an RTF would have turned to dust with an impact like that. Its why i am such a fan of traditional construction methods. Laser cut spider webs are cool n all, but not very strong. I think mine ended up at 9.5lbs and is over powered for scale with a laser 80 fitted, but i think anything smaller might be a bit wimpy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Gray Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 I can certainly testify to the strength of Richard's designs having been caught out in a similar fashion on a landing approach with my LA-7 which resulted in a damaged wing tip and a displaced aerial but more recently I made a stupid mistake of not releasing up elevator on take off which resulted in a vicious tip stall, damage is a torn off nose and a split fuselage, all of which are easy repairs. Wholeheartedly agree to double check a build to make sure that it is as per the plan, my experience of Richard's designs is that they fly superbly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Robson Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 A Hurricane for me and a 110 and if I life long enough, a B17 Mosquito and a Beaufighter. And an endorsement to the durability of Richards designs I badly damaged the Spitfire, my fault and the JU88 not my fault and both were repaired and flying again in a very short time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 47 minutes ago, Eric Robson said: A Hurricane for me and a 110 and if I life long enough, a B17 Mosquito and a Beaufighter. And an endorsement to the durability of Richards designs I badly damaged the Spitfire, my fault and the JU88 not my fault and both were repaired and flying again in a very short time. Mosquito and Beaufighter? I need to go back and read more of the thread! 90 Inch mossie for twin laser 100's? yes please ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Arcudi Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 Here's another B-17! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillyg1 Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 (edited) Now if Richard was to do a Beaufighter , count me in please, but at the moment i've still 2 in the loft waiting, while i finish the 110.( i/c powered - 2x rcv 58 cd's ) some of us are still working ? and have other commitments , perks of being married . Edited August 12, 2021 by gillyg1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan W Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 6 hours ago, RICHARD WILLS said: Jonathan W is floating between Hurricane and La7 . Perhaps a Russian issued Hurricane in snow camo ? I guess I am saying 1st choice La-7 but equally happy with Hurricane if that's what you end up producing! I suppose that the radial cowl on the La-7 is better for accommodating IC power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARD WILLS Posted August 12, 2021 Author Share Posted August 12, 2021 Both aircraft were originally for IC . So makes no odds . Choose your favourite . La7 would be 52 -62 powered . The Hurricane 70-91 Also Rodger Wright has emailed me to say he wants an La7 . So list will be revised in a bit . Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan W Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 22 minutes ago, RICHARD WILLS said: Both aircraft were originally for IC . So makes no odds . Choose your favourite . La7 would be 52 -62 powered . The Hurricane 70-91 Also Rodger Wright has emailed me to say he wants an La7 . So list will be revised in a bit . Richard Thanks Richard, I did not realise that the Hurricane was larger. Usually the big ones fly better! What are the respective wingspans please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARD WILLS Posted August 12, 2021 Author Share Posted August 12, 2021 The Hurricane is 61" and the La7 is closer to 56". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan W Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 OK, will go for 1st choice Hurricane, but will be happy with La-7 as a backup in case the Hurri is not available. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Wolf Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 A Hurricane for me please Richard. Would be interested in the B17 when available also the mossie if you get around to the design.. Regards SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillyg1 Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 So thats 5x for a B17 plus yourself. Getting there for future developements, when you get organised again after the move.? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walts Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) Make that 6 for a B17 when it becomes available,....But I still want a 110 too! ? Edited August 13, 2021 by Walts typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan S Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 What size would the B17 be? I would be up for a Spitfire if your making a list and checking it twice.. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Johnson 4 Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 Wingspan 103' 9".... hope you have a big building board...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin collins 1 Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 Scrub all the other planes and go straight to the B17 ?? My deposit is waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICHARD WILLS Posted August 16, 2021 Author Share Posted August 16, 2021 Well I admire your enthusiasm for a B17 . But it wouldn't be cheap . My kit cutter has been keeping me posted on the price of wood and even when you consider that many of my kits are half foam veneer ,it still increases production costs . ARTF prices have increased dramatically , which , taking into account that they are predominantly EPO foam , begs the question , why ? Realistically , as I am working remotely for the next 9-12 months , I wont be producing the 100" B17 yet . We also have to consider that , only about 50 people bought the Ju88 and 110 . So when you feature the work load of creating a 100" bomber kit /manual + accessories , how many would have the space and funds for such a machine ? Vic and I have had the dream for a while , and I flew a 6ft prototype many years ago which was very successful as a practical , quick build model . I havent looked at Tony Nijhuise's prices for similar sized models , but you get the picture . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillyg1 Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 "No worries mate " as and when . Graham Cornwall ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin collins 1 Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 I flew a 10ft span B-17 for a number of years, plan built i converted it from glow, flew like a big trainer, would love one to build in the same construction technique as your JU88, it may be on the back burner but add my name to a list if one becomes available Richard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Johnson 4 Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 I have an small insight into the workload in producing a kit and the hundreds of hrs required designing, sourcing and acquiring all the required materials, the cost of molds, prototype build and shake down, redesign and then production. For how many? A dozen at most... Guys dreams are one thing but reality is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Arcudi Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 I'm more than willing to wait. The end result will definitely be worth it. For the time being I still have my good old HK B-17. Never crashed even once... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 Very nice Victor. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Johnson 4 Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 6 hours ago, Victor Arcudi said: I'm more than willing to wait. The end result will definitely be worth it. Nice Flight Victor but my point being return on investment. Richards dream of building one I understand but as a commercial venture the time in development and creation versus 5 to 10 sales.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Arcudi Posted August 17, 2021 Share Posted August 17, 2021 Thanks gents, agreed on the commercial venture as well. That's why waiting is not an issue for me. There's also the fact that to warrant such an undertaking you'd want a rather large batch of orders (which I honestly doubt will ever materialise). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.