The Big Question ?

[RICHARD WILLS]

So chaps , two votes for ditch the veneer so far . I'm easy either way . I had thought that a dense foam precut tail plane with nicely cut wood edges is probably lighter and more warp resistant than the 5mm balsa sheet . Cheaper too. 

[leccyflyer]

If ditching the veneer making the manufacturing easier and the kits a little cheaper, I'm okay with that - for the bare foam wings is the integrity of the joined wing structure to be provided by ply dihedral braces or the age old glassfibre bandage?

[RICHARD WILLS]

2 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

£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..

Yes Leccy , that is my only concern . Both Ron and Martin (also Eric and Graham D ) have experienced the great results achievable with foam and depron . But they are all at the stage where they can see value because they have all built stuff for years .

I'm just a bit concerned that trying to get newbies to part with even £90 for what is obviously cleverly cut and designed foam , may not look sophisticated enough to tempt them from a used Dynam Spitfire on Facebook .  

[martin collins 1]

Love the Silhouette, got two airframes plus an unbuilt in the box, my flier is my stand by go to model. Spot on post, main fuz structure was pre built with foam turtle decks to be added VERY quick build. My pal and i both bought a kit at the Nats, they must have sold loads of those. A scale type warbird with a keen price point following that formula, you would shift a number if marketed and shown around. Richard's original Spit is close to this idea. Maybe we should talk around a run of tweaked Spit kits, not interested in retracts, would they hand launch? Or fixed gear.... Just a thought! 

[RICHARD WILLS]

I dont mind the subject Martin , only catch with the Spit is all the competition . Tempest is a bit more unique , but either way its the hands up that count . 

[leccyflyer]

Woodvale Rally one of the abiding memory was seeing literally dozens of modellers walking back to their cars with a Silhouette kit under one arm. Marvellous models and the guys at Priory were such lovely chaps too. They did a Lancaster to the same basic formula but it wasn't as popular, for obvious reasons in those days - would be an excellent model now.

[martin collins 1]

If you pushed the button on the Tempest kits once all the dancing on the kit material/spec was done how long would it be before they could be in the post Richard? 😜 

[martin collins 1]

4 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Woodvale Rally one of the abiding memory was seeing literally dozens of modellers walking back to their cars with a Silhouette kit under one arm. Marvellous models and the guys at Priory were such lovely chaps too. They did a Lancaster to the same basic formula but it wasn't as popular, for obvious reasons in those days - would be an excellent model now.

Precisely my point, you opened the box at a show and could immediately see how quick it would go together. They also had a pair of nicely finished ones on raised display stands to show what the finished article looked like👍

[RICHARD WILLS]

I'm still doing the Locomotive kits at the moment and somewhat involved with the Steam Museum in Swindon and their show in September . That has to take priority for a bit because so much spit and polish has gone into it . 

Even with simple kits , I have to design (redesign in this case), build two prototypes from scratch and make sure everything fits and they fly properly . Then ask the kit cutter for a slot , keeping in mind that several other designers are also trying to muscle in . 

Im not going to tie myself in knots based on my material gain verses time usage . 

Realistically , if it goes ahead the kits would be before or after Christmas . Remember that everyone wants stuff for Christmas so this project , even now would be late to the party. having said that , the build time on receiving the kits would be fast . 

[martin collins 1]

Understand other stuff takes priority Richard, i feel we could keep going round in circles over the differing views of what would be best and still be at the same point in 4 weeks time.. You lay down a spec Richard and tell us what the kit will comprise based on the discussion to this point and get some feedback on that. My Mrs is already trying to research ideas for her Christmas present, i have not a clue what i would want. If we can get the ball rolling on something with a release date snuck in before Christmas i will put my name down for a kit and hopefully be unwrapping it on Christmas day. Can it be done? Anyone else want one under their Christmas tree? Could be a selling point. 

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

'm just a bit concerned that trying to get newbies to part with even £90 for what is obviously cleverly cut and designed foam , may not look sophisticated enough to tempt them from a used Dynam Spitfire on Facebook

It’s all about marketing and expectation levels and that is, imo, where we lot come in. Build one, fly one get the wow factor from onlookers then get their buy in. I know it’s not in the same league but my experience with my Hanky Planky Foamy Woamy was just that. If I had just taken my ‘kits’ along to the club meeting then I’m fairly certain that the take up would have been fairly low. Instead I took along my built one, plus I also had a couple of vids on YouTube showing the maiden flight plus one when it was blowing a gale which showed that it was a model for all seasons. The initial round of my Wacky Races certainly drew others in as they wanted to be part of the fun too.

 

The point raised about being underwhelmed finding Depron in a kit I believe only applies to ‘trad builders’ as we expect sheets and strips of balsa along with the associated dust nestling within the cardboard box. A newbie has no such preconceived views.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Ron Gray

[kevin b]

Hi Richard.

 

I have been following this thread with great interest (and a little input).

From my experience with talking to newbies the problem with kit building is not the price.

Nor is it the construction technique, or materials.

The biggest thing that puts them off is the finishing. That is the covering and/or painting, but mainly the covering.

Unfortunately there is no "easy fix".

Most of the contributors to this thread are onboard with your quest and extremely positive (as am I).

As you know, I have had some involvement in kit production and am currently reverse engineering many of the old Marutaka kits (for my own pleasure !).

When I complete them (on the forum) to the covering stage there is usually little, if no interest form anybody wanting to finish them off.

However if I finish off the covering I have no problem finding a new owner.

I have also done some costings generally on producing a scale model.

These are generalisations. 

The cost of covering and painting is usually about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the airframe and the undercarriage can be as much as the rest of the model,

including servos !

So £140.00 for your kit is not expensive.

 

Keep up the good work.  

Edited August 25, 2023 by kevin b

[Ron Gray]

4 minutes ago, kevin b said:

The cost of covering and painting is usually about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the airframe and the undercarriage can be as much as the rest of the model,

Not if you use brown paper or lam film and have a hand tossed model. The covering / finishing is, imo, an educational thing with far too many preconceived ideas about it being expensive and / or difficult. Richard has already eluded to a master class in these and I would certainly advocate a series of ‘In the Air Tonight’ sessions for it.

[Don Fry]

Richard Wills said, “with even £90 for what is obviously cleverly cut and designed foam , may not look sophisticated enough to tempt them from a used Dynam Spitfire on Facebook . “

I say, the seller ain’t gonna get me on that one. I perceive over the ether from a 1000 km away, that’s worn out, scratched dented and tired. Cynic, Moi?

[Nigel R]

On 22/08/2023 at 18:46, Don Fry said:

We are stuck on balsa cos grandad used it

 

Yes, no, maybe. Without being all "it were better back in the days" balsa does have excellent strength to weight, is reasonable weight for us in workable thicknesses, is possible to form by sanding and whatnot. Although its pigging expensive now. Sure foam is lighter. But not even slightly as strong, without covering in something that turns it into a composite. Maybe you don't need the strength. Maybe you do. Clearly, foamie airframes are viable, with the right type of foam and some carbon sticks. I think the real problem is that the amount of fliers who want to build was always quite small, and nowadays they don't have to, because ARTF.

[John Lee]

4 minutes ago, Nigel R said:

I think the real problem is that the amount of fliers who want to build was always quite small, and nowadays they don't have to, because ARTF.

 

True.

 

This is the 'RCM&E Home of Model Flying', we belong to the 'British Model Flying Association' and our local 'Model Flying Club', nowhere is there a reference to 'Model Building & Flying'.

 

I think Model Building is a hobby in its own right, it is one that is associated with Model Flying but nevertheless a separate activity. Great for those that enjoy building but it will have no attraction whatsoever to many for whom the Flying is the beginning & end of the hobby.

[leccyflyer]

The BMFA is most certainly not just about  model flying.

 

Notwithstanding that BMFA is the latest branding of the parent body the Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers, the BMFA's own description of the society begins with

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE BMFA

• The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development in all its aspects in The United Kingdom, through the medium of clubs and individual members; assistance and guidance to model aircraft clubs or individuals; collaboration between members of the Society; and co-operation on behalf of members of the Society with the Civil Aviation Authority or other government departments and any other bodies and organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas.

 

There's that reference to model building and flying, right there in black and white.

[John Lee]

Good point, well made.

 

I was just supporting Nigel's observation that 'the amount of fliers who want to build was always quite small' and hence the branding of the 3 entities mentioned is all about the Flying aspect.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a builder myself, always have been for 50+ years. For much of that period I built because I had to in order to have the models I wanted to fly. But in the last couple of decades that necessity is no longer there.

 

I still build the odd model as the mood takes me but I recognise that I am in a shrinking minority. In many ways I should be a prime candidate for Richard's efforts and I very much admire his tenacity. As Ron has observed, if it was within a Club environment I might be cajoled into having a go but otherwise any of the proposals here will never reach the top of my 'to do' list. Perhaps I'm fortunate, but the cost of ARTF vs building is not a consideration for me.

 

I say this as my personal answer to Richard's Market Research opening question about whether his home grown kits would appeal to me. 

[Don Fry]

3 hours ago, Nigel R said:

 

Yes, no, maybe. Without being all "it were better back in the days" balsa does have excellent strength to weight, is reasonable weight for us in workable thicknesses, is possible to form by sanding and whatnot. Although its pigging expensive now. Sure foam is lighter. But not even slightly as strong, without covering in something that turns it into a composite. Maybe you don't need the strength. Maybe you do. Clearly, foamie airframes are viable, with the right type of foam and some carbon sticks. I think the real problem is that the amount of fliers who want to build was always quite small, and nowadays they don't have to, because ARTF.

Yes, but.

no wing we ever built, needs balsa to form a rib. No loads, it keeps the skin in place. Foam. Even if building a “trad wing”, just do that, save money, time , effort, and no one will even know. 

A trailing edge, a lump of balsa, or two sheets of foam, carbon strip span load carrier, or two foam sheets. Depends here if the back of the wing carries load. Difficult to see a difference when finished. 

Main spar, tradition calls for beech/ pine, held apart by vertical grain balsa. I suggest, the balsa stays, balsa is world class resisting compression loads, but the span loads, use carbon. So a foam carbon composite spar, top/bottom. Again invisible under the paint. 

Leading edge. Lump of balsa, not arguing. Does the job, and it resists dings. 
 

I was drawn to ARTF. Assembled them, happy with how they fly, very poor repairability, and, and the covering falls off/splits off, followed a short while later by the motor, complete with firewall. Don’t last. Great if cheap, but the highly skilled workers building them now get better than starvation wages.

 

I will roll my own in future. Not because I can’t afford them, I’m lucky, by my standards, well off. But with new materials.

 

I am not an engineer. I don’t have the maths. But, glue, carbon, depron ( cos for me it looks like balsa) and some balsa, can do a hooligan wing, less money, less work.

 

edit, hooligan = +,- 10 g loading. Irvine engines break their con rod, gudgeon pins, under the gyroscopic loads. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Don Fry

[RICHARD WILLS]

Fair points by everyone . As my wife often says (and she was brought up being taken to airshows with her very RAF type Dad )" I dont understand why most people who join flying clubs , dont really seem to have any interest in real planes?"    Well , I patiently explain , this hobby is not really all of one kind of member . 

Youve got flyers (who just enjoy the challenge of pushing the boundaries of stick movement without crashing) , Speed freaks , nostalgia or retro flyers , club show offs and Big wigs . The latter are also available in Golf Clubs etc ☺️

 

Right , back to the matter in hand . 

I am thinking at the moment , that it may be best to simply what we all do well here . You've all had a go at one of my foam veneer kits or if not , then one of Darrens or Cambrians. (all grand lads ) .  So , I'm thinking that to get the ball rolling and get kits under the Christmas tree as Martin said , we could stick to the original format but with much improved shape at the front end . Back in the day , we did produce a single, much improved 190 as a one off but were always hampered by the short nose and cowl that was too small for scale. That can now be easily remedied . 

If we get cracking as a group in the winter , we can then perhaps cause a big enough ripple to create a second batch for those that wake up to a good idea . 

In other words , If we can walk through a simple build and cheap and easy , but impressive finish , then maybe like the Pied Piper , others might follow . 

 

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

[Don Fry]

Yea, I can do a 190, modify to the fighter bomber version. Raratataratataratatata. 7 again. 
Tell your missus, real planes are actually very boring. I flew a CAP 2 seater once, OK, but benign, if you wanted to survive. Cessna, 1970 1100 Fiesta OhV. 
 

Motor gliders, magic, 4 hours, lunch in the air, 5 litres of fuel. Bit expensive to buy.

 

Typhoon, lifetime to learn, and if it goes mammary glands up, life expectancy. Exiting granted. 

[leccyflyer]

26 minutes ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

Fair points by everyone . As my wife often says (and she was brought up being taken to airshows with her very RAF type Dad )" I dont understand why most people who join flying clubs , dont really seem to have any interest in real planes?"    Well , I patiently explain , this hobby is not really all of one kind of member . 

Youve got flyers (who just enjoy the challenge of pushing the boundaries of stick movement without crashing) , Speed freaks , nostalgia or retro flyers , club show offs and Big wigs . The latter are also available in Golf Clubs etc ☺️

 

Right , back to the matter in hand . 

I am thinking at the moment , that it may be best to simply what we all do well here . You've all had a go at one of my foam veneer kits or if not , then one of Darrens or Cambrians. (all grand lads ) .  So , I'm thinking that to get the ball rolling and get kits under the Christmas tree as Martin said , we could stick to the original format but with much improved shape at the front end . Back in the day , we did produce a single, much improved 190 as a one off but were always hampered by the short nose and cowl that was too small for scale. That can now be easily remedied . 

If we get cracking as a group in the winter , we can then perhaps cause a big enough ripple to create a second batch for those that wake up to a good idea . 

In other words , If we can walk through a simple build and cheap and easy , but impressive finish , then maybe like the Pied Piper , others might follow . 

 

 

It's my intention to actually start one of my WR models once the nights start drawing in - either the Ju88 or the Hurricane - so an FW190 is similar format would be an ideal follow up. I already have a couple of FW190A5 -A8s in line to be replicated so timewise that would be perfect. I'm looking forward to learning how to apply the fabled brown paper and B&Q tester pots. If vinegar and brown paper was good enough for Jack and Jill...........

[Eric Robson]

1 minute ago, leccyflyer said:

It's my intention to actually start one of my WR models once the nights start drawing in - either the Ju88 or the Hurricane - so an FW190 is similar format would be an ideal follow up. I already have a couple of FW190A5 -A8s in line to be replicated so timewise that would be perfect. I'm looking forward to learning how to apply the fabled brown paper and B&Q tester pots. If vinegar and brown paper was good enough for Jack and Jill...........

It may fix a broken crown but things have improved since the introduction of PVA🤣

[DaveB1]

Count me in Richard - put me down for a 190 please