The Big Question ?

[Don Fry]

Light, simple, tough, please, willing to learn new techniques. Foam, poss printed parts, carbon, brown paper. Don’t care. Get it to 4.5 lbs, 55” ish, less UC, and I’m in.

Hack to enjoy, and wear out. (Last three words are a prayer to a God that does not exist. As it never gets to one mistake high. 

We are stuck on balsa cos grandad used it. No one one sees under the paint, light flies better. 

[Graham Davies 3]

2 hours ago, Don Fry said:

Light, simple, tough, please, willing to learn new techniques. Foam, poss printed parts, carbon, brown paper. Don’t care. Get it to 4.5 lbs, 55” ish, less UC, and I’m in.

Hack to enjoy, and wear out. (Last three words are a prayer to a God that does not exist. As it never gets to one mistake high. 

We are stuck on balsa cos grandad used it. No one one sees under the paint, light flies better. 

Couldn't agree more Don.

 

If it's light, it will fly slower. If it flies slower, it can be made to look very realistic. Win win!

[Glenn Philbrick]

Grandad here. stick with your formula Richard, previous kits can hardly be described as difficult to build and have proved to be quite resiliant, finishing with Brown paper and rattle cans. is fairly straightforward

[Ron Gray]

13 minutes ago, Glenn Philbrick said:

Grandad here. stick with your formula Richard, previous kits can hardly be described as difficult to build and have proved to be quite resiliant, finishing with Brown paper and rattle cans. is fairly straightforward

But there isn't the uptake from 'newbies' so something different has to be tried.

[RICHARD WILLS]

Ron's right really, isnt he ?  I agree with pretty much what everybody says , which sounds weird , but there are so many ways of looking at this . 

If we all go on one of our usual jolly trips , it will probably work out ok , but we will probably get maybe twenty planes made and if that means designing (even on speed dial ) two different but similar models , it really doesnt come near to justifying the effort . 

We could get lucky , perhaps by the time we have flown them a few times at the field , someone might also fancy a go , so get a second round . 

If we are really lucky , the splash on this forum and the models appearing for flight in the spring may cause a mini craze , which does sometimes does happen , but we are probably talking minimal numbers. 

Firstly , let look at the price /perceived value . 

Its true to say that something like Martins blue foam Hellcat will make into a very nice and shapely model . But if you show that box to a newbie , they would view it as about £10 worth . Even though a great deal of thought/ design and process goes into it . 

Conversely , I agree with Kevin B when he says that a conventional 55" balsa and foam veneer kit is good value at around £140 .

The problem is that the only people buying models like the Crescent Bullet , are people just like us . ie already regular builders . That means again the diminishing gene pool . 

Add in the hurdle of a camo finish and you can probably reduce the gene pool by 60%.

We have all experienced (as mentioned by Graham , Ron and Eric) turning up with a newly finished warplane , and everyone very interested and impressed , but none ask if they could get one . Look back at BF110 thread which on the old forum had enormous viewing numbers . But we probably sold just 25 , just to all of my friends here . 

ie ,you guys . 

It is a thankless task trying to persuade anyone in your club to follow you in a build . But really we know that there are barriers to getting into the world of building and finishing . It my club , I noticed there was a small interest in fun fighters , but all of them were finished in sport style finishes . 

Means two things. Maybe they dont really have much interest in scale and just want a fast fun plane . Or two, they are wary of attempting a camo finish . 

The winter lasts for a long time and the village hall with tea and biscuits can get pretty dull . 

The idea of taking for or five models to the hall and helping others may be the only way out of this diminishing market .

I also appreciate that we all have a stash of kits and wood that would probably see us all out . But as the children of the glory years of RC warbird modelling , is that how we really want to fade out ?

 

 

[Flying Squirrel]

16 hours ago, Graham Davies 3 said:

Surely, if it builds into a great looking, tough, reliable and great flying model, does it matter?

 

Those that really love to get their teeth into a big build project are probably not going to be interested anyway. If we get to the correct end result, a lightweight and realistic funfighter upon which we can lavish a bit of scale cleverness, then our work is done here!

 

If it's not cheap but builds in to a great looking foamy that you could just buy 'off the shelf' what's the point? Your not going to tempt the hobbyking generation in my view. There are many people out there that would love to 'build' something but don't have the time, space or tools for a full traditional build.

[Trevor]

As a brush phobic modeller who probably wouldn't be building at all if heat shrink film hadn't been invented, I do still like to build the occasional scale model. Okay, the fantasy Red Bull colour scheme on my Hurricane was a bit tongue in cheek, when I've wanted to replicate a 'real' example, my approach has generally been to track down a meticulously kept museum example, preferably one that is still flown regularly. This sidesteps the wear and tear weathering issue and, particularly if you go for American marques, can result in a scheme that can be rendered fully in film and vinyl, even for warbirds. I've done this for the P38, P47 and most recently for Richard's P51D. I know it won't suit everyone but acknowledging that paint-free finishing is a possibility just might gain you one or two more customers perhaps?

 

Trevor

P.S. Links to all models mentioned are on this page: https://www.bartonhewsons.uk/home/modelflying/scale/electricscale.html

 

P.P.S. In setting up that link I'm reminded that I also did the Welkin so, they don't have to be American!

[Flying Squirrel]

Hmm, hope I can get this across in the right way..

 

There's a distinct theme running right through this (very interesting) thread that's alienating many potential buyers and that's that the finished article absolutely must resemble a traditional warbird, that's not what everybody wants in a model like this. look at Trevors? example, it's simply beautiful and no, you couldn't just use 'any old sport plane' for that type of finish, it just wouldn't work. Personally I love warbirds, be that as scale WWII or 'Reno racer style' and indicating that anybody that doesn't do a 'Camo' finish is the scum of the earth rights off about 50% of your sales straight off the bat.

 

And newbie builders aren't a thing of the past, we're right here 🙂 trying to finish a model a that's proved a challenge before moving on to a much simpler (i hope) Stan Yeo chipmunk..

 

Just my opinion, not meant as a rant

[leccyflyer]

Some good points there Richard and the basic conclusion is that the market for what it being proposed is likely to be small - ie those who would already be interested in a conventional build warbird, who are really looking for something just a bit quicker, cheaper, easier and less "fussy in operation" to get into the air. The hope would be that, by removing the mystique of getting a good individualistic finish on a warbird by an easy to apply process, you might tempt in a portion of those buying ARTF foamie warbirds at the £350-£500 mark.

 

I'm a wee bit dismayed to hear the tale of actually getting folks to build funfighters, only for them to then cover them in shiny film. That's discouraging, but it raises an important issue of the dynamics of how clubs work. My two main clubs couldn't be more different. In one club it's rare to see two members with the same model, the exception being a few of the "bush plane" style depron creations, there's a couple of Twinjets and a couple of Ripmax funfighters. Generally though, everyone is building/assembling very different models.

 

In my other, smaller club, entire squadrons of the same models are present - a typical morning with half a dozen members on site will see multiple examples of the same model, the club is very big on simple depron model builds and templates do the rounds so that there will often be several examples of the same profile foamie or jet. There's at least four Dynam Spitfires, at least four Dynam Hurricanes, and so on and so forth. I think, at the last count there were at least six of the wee Arrows models Hawk 50mm EDFs and at least 15 of the wee Volantex/Sonik/Eachine warbirds. It's just a different dynamic. I'd never seen a "prop in the slot" profile Sukhoi or Mig in action before, but it seems that almost everyone has, or has had at least  one. Those are often scaled up or down as the mood fits.

 

The $64,000 question is how do you persuade a group to follow that group build philosophy - it works for the mass builds, across a number of clubs and that must be down to the publicising of the "event". So it's about promoting the model and., as such, there can't be a huge variety at least to start off, or you can't hope to get the numbers. I'd be interested to see if a D-Day 80th Anniversary even - using the Tempest/FW190 pair proposed - could help to promote uptake of the model, with a long enough timeframe to let the non-builder gently fit into the project.

 

 

 

[leccyflyer]

14 minutes ago, Trevor said:

As a brush phobic modeller who probably wouldn't be building at all if heat shrink film hadn't been invented, I do still like to build the occasional scale model. Okay, the fantasy Red Bull colour scheme on my Hurricane was a bit tongue in cheek, when I've wanted to replicate a 'real' example, my approach has generally been to track down a meticulously kept museum example, preferably one that is still flown regularly. This sidesteps the wear and tear weathering issue and, particularly if you go for American marques, can result in a scheme that can be rendered fully in film and vinyl, even for warbirds. I've done this for the P38, P47 and most recently for Richard's P51D. I know it won't suit everyone but acknowledging that paint-free finishing is a possibility just might gain you one or two more customers perhaps?

 

Trevor

P.S. Links to all models mentioned are on this page: https://www.bartonhewsons.uk/home/modelflying/scale/electricscale.html

 

P.P.S. In setting up that link I'm reminded that I also did the Welkin so, they don't have to be American!

Just to clarify, I've certainly got no objections whatsoever to the use of film in covering a model and it's a great way to get an authentic colour scheme in many examples - the predominantly silver USAAF and USAF examples featured on your link are a case in point. One of my favourite colour schemes for a model aeroplane is the USAAF/USN scheme of yellow wings, dark blue fuselage and read an white striped rudder of the PT-17 and PT-19. Love the look and visibility of that scheme and have used it on several models, scale and non-scale.

[Graham Davies 3]

1 hour ago, Flying Squirrel said:

Hmm, hope I can get this across in the right way..

 

There's a distinct theme running right through this (very interesting) thread that's alienating many potential buyers and that's that the finished article absolutely must resemble a traditional warbird, that's not what everybody wants in a model like this. look at Trevors? example, it's simply beautiful and no, you couldn't just use 'any old sport plane' for that type of finish, it just wouldn't work. Personally I love warbirds, be that as scale WWII or 'Reno racer style' and indicating that anybody that doesn't do a 'Camo' finish is the scum of the earth rights off about 50% of your sales straight off the bat.

 

And newbie builders aren't a thing of the past, we're right here 🙂 trying to finish a model a that's proved a challenge before moving on to a much simpler (i hope) Stan Yeo chipmunk..

 

Just my opinion, not meant as a rant

Valid opinion, FS.

 

I had not built and detailed warbird before I met Richard and always felt they were out of my reach. I have since found that this is not only not true, but it's opened a huge door to a whole area of the hobby that I find hugely enjoyable. 

 

This is regardless of the subject, or the finish style...

 

Like yourself, many in my club prefer 'sport', for want of a better term, schemes. Most are film applied. To this end, I have built 'sport' type models using very similar techniques that Richard and others had shared with me. One being my latest Pitts below. The point is, regardless of your preference, this TYPE of build approach has something for everyone.

 

Trevor; I too was a 'film only' builder. I don't bother now as I find more flexibility in painting, and far more availability. And it really is easy. I'm very much on the learning curve and each model has good and bad aspects. But it is fun!

 

Graham

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

3 hours ago, Flying Squirrel said:

Hmm, hope I can get this across in the right way..

 

There's a distinct theme running right through this (very interesting) thread that's alienating many potential buyers and that's that the finished article absolutely must resemble a traditional warbird, that's not what everybody wants in a model like this. look at Trevors? example, it's simply beautiful and no, you couldn't just use 'any old sport plane' for that type of finish, it just wouldn't work. Personally I love warbirds, be that as scale WWII or 'Reno racer style' and indicating that anybody that doesn't do a 'Camo' finish is the scum of the earth rights off about 50% of your sales straight off the bat.

 

And newbie builders aren't a thing of the past, we're right here 🙂 trying to finish a model a that's proved a challenge before moving on to a much simpler (i hope) Stan Yeo chipmunk..

 

Just my opinion, not meant as a rant

All fair points FS , and I agree with you about the non camo being fine . Red Bull have sponsored many warbirds and they look great , as do the reno racers . 

As "our man on the inside " of the newbies world . Can you explain to us which part of the process you dont like or have reservations about ?

[Flying Squirrel]

Sure, I am new to this so any info is from this perspective only.

 

Just for context, I'm not young, nearer 50 than 40 but have always had interest in pretty much anything RC, Aeroplanes being the most difficult for me as I never seemed to either have the time or finances to dedicate to it properly, I did dabble a bit with some  'bixler' type models but without a decent site or any training it was pretty futile.

 

Roll on up to a couple years ago, kids were getting older, money a little easier to come by and so I joined a club, learnt to fly using ARTF aircraft and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I still do, but I also got the itch to build something, I'm a pretty practical person and like hands on so I bought a short kit of a cub from Sarik....OK so turns out it wasn't as easy as I expected and I needed a lot of pointers from the forum on THIS thread.

 

I know people will say that's not the right kit for a beginner, and it's not, but I couldn't find any thing else that appealed to me, I wanted.....Something that took some thinking about to build......A scale model as appose to a sport 'fictional' model....... something in the 1500mm span range for storage and transportation.....something that I could put my own 'touch' too  and it ticked those boxes.

 

The main issues I had building were the units all being in imperial, not a great deal of detail on the plans and my lack of knowledge of building techniques, I think the latter is the most relevant, in my very average club there are not that many builders so skills just don't get passed on, thank god for youtube and forums like this. Even though I have enjoyed building it and I've learnt a great deal along the way I don't think I'd rush to do another, it just tied up to much time, maybe when I retire I will.

 

Another thing I found difficult was sourcing the various ancillaries, tubes, rods, wheels etc etc...again, I know that's to be expected with a kit like this but it was a pitfall for me.

 

As I've said in a previous post, I've now got a Stan Yeo 'character scale' chipmunk to start on, I think I paid around 130£ and my overwhelming thought opening the box was 'what great value for money' , it has over 200 parts to it that include a vac formed cowl and cockpit, wheels, pre formed undercarriage, laser cut parts, hardware, cut balsa etc and it all feels great quality. The plans are very clear and the build looks much simpler, it also looks like it should be pretty robust. The power train also uses readily available and low cost parts, a 3542 type motor and esc and 3s 2200mah batteries that I already have but are available pretty cheaply.

 

Despite having the Chippy to build next I still have that itch for an 'almost' proper warbird, nothing too fancy or finicky, just something that looks good in ANY finish and not an ARTF foamy.

 

I've looked at the funfighters and although they tick many of the boxes they are simply too fast for what I want, yes I'd like something that can go flat out occasionally but I'd also like something that can cruise around looking pretty, maybe the odd strafing run while going yakkityyakittyyak in my head....

 

Boxes I'd like ticked?

 

Reasonable scale detail

Value for money, doesn't have to be super cheap but would have to include much of whats needed sub £200 would be ideal (exc power train and radio of course. Don't forget, if you can keep the cost nearer birthday or Christmas present range you'll widen the market some more 😉

 

Simple build with a mix of foam curves and built up balsa, no 'intricate' parts to have to deal with, maybe foam wings/tail sections with balsa/ply fuse. 

Replacement foam parts available, ie wings.

1500mm ish span

3s power train with option for 4s for the speed freaks.

Fairly robust, doesn't need to be bomb proof but not made to punish any less than perfect landings

Not the feeling of being frowned upon if it doesn't get finished with scale colour schemes!

The option to built another similar model from the same 'series' would be great.

 

Sorry, bit waffly but hope that gives some insight on a newbies experience, maybe I'm not your target audience, or maybe I am?

 

Don't forget, newbies don't have to be youngsters, it's just not a youngsters game IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rich Griff]

Don said sixteen hours ago about newbies and that something has to change.

 

Probably aimed at the young but an old dog who wants to learn a new trick will do so.

 

An aeromodeling GCSE or what ever they are called this week would be wonderful I feel, encompassing materials ( how does the balsa wood tree grow etc. etc. etc. ), Glues, woodworking ( a skill for life I learned in school and really enjoyed, Mr. Muir would be proud of me, rip sir ), engines, motors, RC kit not to mention aerodynamics and the skill to fly a plane, sail a boat or "pilot" a car/motorcycle and dare I say control a drone/helo.

 

Free flight guys and gals are the real aeromodellers...

 

Of scale models and high detail, if that's your bent, wonderful, absolutely wonderful.

 

They all turn into "a black cross" at hieght.

 

At the age of 50ish you will probably say to your self "sugar, I have more life behind me than I do in front of me"

 

Cease the day.....

 

Kit manufacturers, you chose to buy off hobby king etc., I don't.

 

Will read the whole thread now from beginning to end. I did start to read it when it first appeared but life ( kitchen roof ) got in the way.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Rich Griff

[RICHARD WILLS]

7 hours ago, Flying Squirrel said:

Sure, I am new to this so any info is from this perspective only.

 

Just for context, I'm not young, nearer 50 than 40 but have always had interest in pretty much anything RC, Aeroplanes being the most difficult for me as I never seemed to either have the time or finances to dedicate to it properly, I did dabble a bit with some  'bixler' type models but without a decent site or any training it was pretty futile.

 

Roll on up to a couple years ago, kids were getting older, money a little easier to come by and so I joined a club, learnt to fly using ARTF aircraft and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I still do, but I also got the itch to build something, I'm a pretty practical person and like hands on so I bought a short kit of a cub from Sarik....OK so turns out it wasn't as easy as I expected and I needed a lot of pointers from the forum on THIS thread.

 

I know people will say that's not the right kit for a beginner, and it's not, but I couldn't find any thing else that appealed to me, I wanted.....Something that took some thinking about to build......A scale model as appose to a sport 'fictional' model....... something in the 1500mm span range for storage and transportation.....something that I could put my own 'touch' too  and it ticked those boxes.

 

The main issues I had building were the units all being in imperial, not a great deal of detail on the plans and my lack of knowledge of building techniques, I think the latter is the most relevant, in my very average club there are not that many builders so skills just don't get passed on, thank god for youtube and forums like this. Even though I have enjoyed building it and I've learnt a great deal along the way I don't think I'd rush to do another, it just tied up to much time, maybe when I retire I will.

 

Another thing I found difficult was sourcing the various ancillaries, tubes, rods, wheels etc etc...again, I know that's to be expected with a kit like this but it was a pitfall for me.

 

As I've said in a previous post, I've now got a Stan Yeo 'character scale' chipmunk to start on, I think I paid around 130£ and my overwhelming thought opening the box was 'what great value for money' , it has over 200 parts to it that include a vac formed cowl and cockpit, wheels, pre formed undercarriage, laser cut parts, hardware, cut balsa etc and it all feels great quality. The plans are very clear and the build looks much simpler, it also looks like it should be pretty robust. The power train also uses readily available and low cost parts, a 3542 type motor and esc and 3s 2200mah batteries that I already have but are available pretty cheaply.

 

Despite having the Chippy to build next I still have that itch for an 'almost' proper warbird, nothing too fancy or finicky, just something that looks good in ANY finish and not an ARTF foamy.

 

I've looked at the funfighters and although they tick many of the boxes they are simply too fast for what I want, yes I'd like something that can go flat out occasionally but I'd also like something that can cruise around looking pretty, maybe the odd strafing run while going yakkityyakittyyak in my head....

 

Boxes I'd like ticked?

 

Reasonable scale detail

Value for money, doesn't have to be super cheap but would have to include much of whats needed sub £200 would be ideal (exc power train and radio of course. Don't forget, if you can keep the cost nearer birthday or Christmas present range you'll widen the market some more 😉

 

Simple build with a mix of foam curves and built up balsa, no 'intricate' parts to have to deal with, maybe foam wings/tail sections with balsa/ply fuse. 

Replacement foam parts available, ie wings.

1500mm ish span

3s power train with option for 4s for the speed freaks.

Fairly robust, doesn't need to be bomb proof but not made to punish any less than perfect landings

Not the feeling of being frowned upon if it doesn't get finished with scale colour schemes!

The option to built another similar model from the same 'series' would be great.

 

Sorry, bit waffly but hope that gives some insight on a newbies experience, maybe I'm not your target audience, or maybe I am?

 

Don't forget, newbies don't have to be youngsters, it's just not a youngsters game IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

FS , thanks for explaining your experience . Its great to get a different perspective . If you pop back to the previous page , you can see one of my early kits from around 1998 .The basic idea with that range was to keep the parts count down and use a construction method that needed no special tools , jigs etc or even building board . 

All of the range had a fuselage which was a basic box with just three formers . Foam veneered shapes were then stuck on top to give the shape of a Spitfire /Zero etc . 

The wings were also made of white foam but covered in wood veneer at the factory . So you basically just joined them and added wooden wing tips . 

The tail plane , rudder and elevators were all precut in 5mm balsa . 

A basic hardware set was included . 

In contrast , what you accidently bought was a plan with very little instructions and half the bits required to make a model . I can understand why that would put you off . 

But without guidance , how would a newbie know the difference ?

In hind sight , looking at the pictures of the Spitfire kit , what would you want to change ?

 

[Flying Squirrel]

16 hours ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

looking at the pictures of the Spitfire kit , what would you want to change ?

In all honesty probably not a lot, it looks pretty darn good. I can't see what power train it should have (or the modern equivalent) but maybe if the wings were EPP or something the veneer wouldn't be necessary. Maybe include or make available a 'hints and tips' page that could cover things like finishing?

 

Sorry, not very helpful!

[RICHARD WILLS]

Great , in fact very helpful .  I think we are on the right track . I have some ideas on how to walk everyone through the finishing ways in a simple way that anyone can do . 

As you say , it is worth considering the option of using a dense foam and no veneer . Having said that , I might be right in guessing that people would be happy to pay the extra money for the labour and veneer involved to give a hard skin as before . 

EPP or similar has no surface resilience , where as veneer with brown paper on has a hard , thick , eggshell finish . That means that an electric powered foam veneered model will still look good after five years and 300 flights .    

Brown paper and PVA glue on top of dense foam will give a finish somewhere in between . Probably fine for our purpose , but lets get a democratic decision by allowing the chaps to suggest their preference . 

[Don Fry]

I vaguely see, wings built from 2 mm depron top skin, on a flat crutch, built on the board. Do second bottom half, spars balsa spacers, with caps from carbon strip. Glue together, a wing, with aileron built in to cut away. Repeat for second wing. 
tail surfaces, ditto. Undercarriage need designing in. Ditto hard points for control surface l/e, t/e. Leading edge, balsa. 
Fusalage, light whatever, it’s function is, as always, to hold the lifting surfaces in place. Carbon strip box to form the centre, a crutch, surrounded by the fus shape. Or more trad, or some foam. Here I say, yer average punter, examines the fusalage between the nose and rear of cockpit. Some detail here wins smiles. 
Brown paper, whatever, thereafter. But some instruction on how to do the picture on the box lid. 

That lot is I suspect cheap to buy. Not too bad to cut in bulk. Nice plan, punters pile in. And a profit from the value added.

Yep, the construction technique can be learned, an a cheap cheapscate will know, but I think you will attract a slightly richer, time poor return customer, and as always the less experienced. 
A foam version of the Dancing Wings kits, but without the matchsticks, and with a finished skin. 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

And why not a couple of  3d printing files for the engine mount, wing fixings and u/c to go with Dons ideas.

Engine mount and combined U/C and leading wing fixings ?.

[Graham Davies 3]

22 minutes ago, Don Fry said:

I vaguely see, wings built from 2 mm depron top skin, on a flat crutch, built on the board. Do second bottom half, spars balsa spacers, with caps from carbon strip. Glue together, a wing, with aileron built in to cut away. Repeat for second wing. 
tail surfaces, ditto. Undercarriage need designing in. Ditto hard points for control surface l/e, t/e. Leading edge, balsa. 
Fusalage, light whatever, it’s function is, as always, to hold the lifting surfaces in place. Carbon strip box to form the centre, a crutch, surrounded by the fus shape. Or more trad, or some foam. Here I say, yer average punter, examines the fusalage between the nose and rear of cockpit. Some detail here wins smiles. 
Brown paper, whatever, thereafter. But some instruction on how to do the picture on the box lid. 

That lot is I suspect cheap to buy. Not too bad to cut in bulk. Nice plan, punters pile in. And a profit from the value added.

Yep, the construction technique can be learned, an a cheap cheapscate will know, but I think you will attract a slightly richer, time poor return customer, and as always the less experienced. 
A foam version of the Dancing Wings kits, but without the matchsticks, and with a finished skin. 

This is not dissimilar to how I build Don. The problem is (having built several this way AND a couple of Richard's kits as well), there is a LOT more building to do than there is with Richard's very well thought out kits. That suits me, but from what I hear on here, it's more than many want.

 

If we can spend a bit less time on the build, we can spend more time on the finishing, and that's where the magic happens...

[Don Fry]

I can live with foam wings. But carbon part spars let in. Veneer is expensive weight. 
Richards kits are right nice, but would be nicer if a pound or so got shaved off. 
BTW, I was suggesting Richard cuts the bits, customer just glues them to the crutch on the board. Mass build what you do as one off. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Don Fry

[RICHARD WILLS]

Perhaps to focus in on the question . A very fast and excellent fun fighter is around £95 . That's balsa and foam veneer construction , so what we might call Mick Reeves style.

A Crescent Bullet is around £140 because its a fair bit bigger .  

If we go down to foam board and depron , I think the kits will be dismissed as follies , or not "proper " . I say this as a chap who has built a few nice foam board models . P38 shown . If you look at the flite test stuff , as amusing as it is , they basically disrespect their models from the "get go " as our colonial cousins say . 

Secondly , given the price of things , is £140 very much for a well sorted kit ?  We could probably knock of £25 by removing the veneer . 

Bottom line is , dont make it so pared back that we dont have pride in our project.

We know we can make a plane out of a " For Sale " sign . Doesn't mean we want to . 

[martin collins 1]

Nice P38 Richard, looks like a proper scale model. Speed of build while keeping the `in the air` cost as low as possible, if that means ditching the veneer so be it. I hope to persuade a couple of my club mates to have a go with one of these kits, speed of build and keen price/cheap motor/servos, finishing materials etc will help sell it.

Bring it on Richard 😁

[Ron Gray]

As I’ve said earlier in the thread, I think that foam plus Depron (for tail lightness) and light ply formers / crutch would hit the mark as a good ‘modern era’ rapid assembly kit. I’m not too concerned about veneered foam as it can always be glassed to make it ding proof but for inexperienced builders veneer gives a good base for final covering be that brown paper, covering film or (my fav) lam film. I also like the idea about including any 3D print files with the kits.

 

As an aside, I’m currently throwing together a Galaxy Models Mystic which is trad sheet balsa fuse with ply doublers but the tail is constructed from ½ x ½  balsa sticks, a spruce/balsa/ spruce false TE on the tailplane and as it’s going to be powered by a Laser 150 V twin the destructions insist on the tail components being sheeted with 1/16th balsa. You can imagine the weight! Im going to build an alternative with Depron core, balsa LE / TE  / tips, 5mm CF spar and either glassed or sheeted.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Ron Gray

[leccyflyer]

£140 sounds fine to me for a well sorted kit, as postulated, with foam veneered wings. As Richard pointed out earlier the issue with the perception of value for kits where the model is merely a series of foam blocks or where the wings are constructed of thin skins of depron and ribs is with that price point - when the buyer opens the box and is greeted with some sheets of depron, albeit they might be beautifully cut, might their expectation be for something that should be costing <<£100? 

 

I think back to the Priory Silhouette which was my third model IIR, which had essentially a veneered foam wing, two halves than needed joining, a boxy balsa fuselage and veneered foam turtle deck, with sheet balsa tail surfaces, a fibreglass moulded cowl and cockpit and accessories. It was a very pleasant, quick and easy build. I believe that the original WR kits follow a similar format and it certainly seems to work - the aim being to get q durable scale model in the air for a couple of hundred quid all in - at a fraction of what a similarly specced RTF foamie would be and, as a vehicle for the brown paper and emulsion paint scheme, more robust and longer lasting..