The Big Question ?

[RICHARD WILLS]

Yes I agree Leccy . I do like the back story . 

But reflecting on what Lipo Man said , I was thinking that I have had thousands of flights on various 55" size warbirds and of course I will have around five operational at any one time . That means that If I want to do a furious fighter beat up and full display , it is readily available , but after a whole day of that I would crave something different . 

Also, I find that if I am on my own perhaps flying first thing in the morning with no wind and warm sunshine , I will want to fly something more exotic then the single engined fighters . ie a twin or multi engined model . 

I think the reason is that when alone you can really fly the model in those huge circuits that allow you to believe that you have your own private display from something like the 110 , Ju88 or Mossie . 

What I am trying to say is that as a relative newbie you cant get enough of fighter displays , but once that menu is always available (and still very enjoyable ) 

you do want something different on special occasions . 

Even the big Bombers cruising round looking majestic give you a terrific high , but I do understand the limitations of such beasts . 

[GrumpyGnome]

That's why I try and take different types for a days flying - a bit of variety.

 

Although my enormous 'to do' list is doing its best to make that...... challenging!

[Eric Robson]

44 minutes ago, Geoff Gardiner said:

I believe that I am correct in saying that the Mosquito had a similar performance as most of the fighter aircraft and was in fact classed as a fighter/bomber.

 

In terms of models, another advantage of a twin is that you can cancel out any torque effect on take-off by having the electric motors rotating in opposite directions.

Hi Geoff,  I have 7 multi engine models all with engines rotating the same way, never been a problem. There is a lot of twin engine fightersto choose from but the Mosquito is always the favourite. 

[Graham Bowers]

I've sort of had a back burner hankering for a twin electric as I've never had a twin of any sort. I suppose the perceived attraction is to try something a bit different, I'm not anticipating a twin to be a better flier. Rightly or wrongly.

 

There's nothing in particular stopping me however equally, there's nothing starting me either. I suppose there are plenty of single prop candidates to keep me occupied. Price and complexity are not negative factors.

 

The prospect of stooging around the sky with a bomber / passenger type craft is a non starter for me. It'd have to be something with aerobatic capability. Sport or warbird.

[Chris Walby]

Mr Odd here, "never have too many Spitfires" well I have never had one and don't intend to, opposed to the 10 or so twins I have!

 

The Mosquito is possible, but if you want a fighter then Hornet or Whirlwind (or alike)

 

The Flightline/motion RC P38 flies really well considering its weight and I am using the motors out of one for the FW190 and Tempest after a motor upgrade. One point with this is that it only has one elevator servo and the wings plug into the nacelles so easy to transport. Perhaps do the same with any twin and it makes transport easy.

 

IMHO its about keeping it main stream but if you want marginal then the Ta154 Moskito or the FW192 (nice big wing, but twin boom) still could go for a P82 if you don't mind doing two fuz's! Plus you get to put two pilots in it!

 

 

Not sure about the quad motor comment as the P38 is 63 inch and has the same motor as the FW190! And the upgrade motor makes it really shift (2 blade prop and higher KV) so it will have to be a big quad donor? or is Richard thinking 4 motors in one model 😉

 

This rolls me back to the Peter Miller GTC (people have made a Tigercat looking version with a few mods) that's 53 inch and flies well on one 4S3300 lipo AUW 4lb11oz. 

 

If whatever twin is kept 54 inch then its powertrain will be a lot less than once you go 64 inch + does it need UC if its kept smaller? The BH Mossie was 63 inch and needs a 4S5000 to give reasonable performance (5 1/2 lbs)

 

PS - another odd fact  -I have had more one out's with electric than with IC, but that's probably due to the additional prep with IC to ensure I don't get in that position in the first place!

 

 

[Graham Davies 3]

I too don't understand the aversion to twins. My first foray into foamboard was a Ki45, and it flies amazingly well. It's around 60" span, weighs about 3lb and flies on a single 3S 2200 pack for around 4 minutes. It's a total pussycat, and is one model that will always get watched at my club. I will be doing more, and would put my name on whatever Richard wanted to produce. No such thing as a bad twin, in my book...

[Futura57]

I did initially put my name down for a FW190 but backed out because I acquired a Brian Taylor BF110. It needs finishing and converting to electric. I really have to keep my build pipeline under control 😉 But if I could put in a word for a single engine warbird it would be the Bolton Paul Defiant. Operationally, not the most successful aircraft, but certainly different from the usual suspects.

[Chris Walby]

14 minutes ago, Graham Davies 3 said:

I too don't understand the aversion to twins. My first foray into foamboard was a Ki45, and it flies amazingly well. It's around 60" span, weighs about 3lb and flies on a single 3S 2200 pack for around 4 minutes. It's a total pussycat, and is one model that will always get watched at my club. I will be doing more, and would put my name on whatever Richard wanted to produce. No such thing as a bad twin, in my book...

Hi Graham, you have answered your own question to some extent. Its not the size of the model that's the issue, its the wing loading and sub sequential power needed to drag it through the air. Try adding another 3 lbs to your Ki45 and see how it performs and you might just find your pussycat has a very nasty bite!

 

Trying to make a kit that people like me won't mess up by adding weight and will retain good flight performance is the goal in my book.

Fancy taming a Moskito? 

 

[David Hazell 1]

I'd also be all over a sea fury like a rash. That thing is pretty.

 

@RICHARD WILLS do you have any FW190 spare and available?

[Graham Davies 3]

1 hour ago, Chris Walby said:

Hi Graham, you have answered your own question to some extent. Its not the size of the model that's the issue, its the wing loading and sub sequential power needed to drag it through the air. Try adding another 3 lbs to your Ki45 and see how it performs and you might just find your pussycat has a very nasty bite!

 

Trying to make a kit that people like me won't mess up by adding weight and will retain good flight performance is the goal in my book.

Fancy taming a Moskito? 

 

Very true Chris; a low loading covers all ills...

 

However, I reckon that Richard's build strategy for these models will also create a very lightly loaded twin. The electrics are very easy. and Richard's models always fly well, so what's not to like?

 

Graham

[RICHARD WILLS]

11 hours ago, David Hazell 1 said:

I'd also be all over a sea fury like a rash. That thing is pretty.

 

@RICHARD WILLS do you have any FW190 spare and available?

David , I have three spares . Dont think they will hang around though . Pm me if you want one with your updated address and phone number . I have your details but always check . 

[leccyflyer]

Sorry, can't let the comment about the Mosquito along the lines of "if you want a fighter then a Whirlwind or a Hornet"  pass without comment. The Mosquito NF nightfighter in it's various marks shot down at least an order of magnitude more aeroplanes than the Whirlwind and Hornet combined and was every bit a real fighter - marginally faster than the contemporary Spitfire and with a considerable punch. The Mosquito certainly didn't just lumber round in bomber-style circuits , as anyone lucky enough to have seen RR299 display through the 80's and early 90's could confirm. Hopefully, at some stage in the not too distant future a British owned and operated Mosquito NF will take to the air, courtesy of The Peoples Mosquito project.

[Edgeflyer]

On 15/08/2023 at 08:49, Peter Miller said:

 

"Leeccy wrote: "anyone who covers a funfighter in glossy film in a completely hideous colour scheme, without paying even the slightest attention to what it is, should be subject to a drumhead court martial, have their covering iron broken over the officer's knee and be ceremonially drummed out of the Brownies.""

 

I have complete and total disdain for anyone who builds a scale model and then does not use a scale colour scheme.

I keep my disdain for important things

[leccyflyer]

For the avoidance of doubt, the comment about disdain, made months ago, was not penned by me - which the highlighting in the previous post could be mistakenly taken that I had made that comment.

[Eric Robson]

 

Sorry Leccy, that is an unfair comparison. The Whirlwind could have been one of the best fighters of WW2 but was marred by development wrangles between the designer and RR. Also the need for operational aircraft put it back. 

The Hornet appeared too late, first reaching squadrons in Feb 1945. so not seeing the level of service as the Mosquito. 

Despite that the Mosquito was a truly great aeroplane. 

[leccyflyer]

25 minutes ago, Eric Robson said:

 

Sorry Leccy, that is an unfair comparison. The Whirlwind could have been one of the best fighters of WW2 but was marred by development wrangles between the designer and RR. Also the need for operational aircraft put it back. 

The Hornet appeared too late, first reaching squadrons in Feb 1945. so not seeing the level of service as the Mosquito. 

Despite that the Mosquito was a truly great aeroplane. 

In making the comparison I was addressing the implication that the Mosquito wasn't a proper fighter, which it clearly was. I'd love a Whirlwind - my mentor Peter Wilson had a marvellous example, which flew superbly on two Sp700s and was a published design in one of the Traplet magazines and I've always wanted one.

 

 

Peter's twin Sp700 powered Sea Hornet was one of my favourite aeroplanes as well, but the numbers don't lie - the Mosquito NF was a superlative night fighter.

 

 

 

 

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

All three subjects Mossie/ Whirlwind / Hornet fascinate me . Ive read everything I can on them . I do think that, but for a few tweaks , the Whirlwind could have changed history. Cannon armed heavy fighters attacking Ju88s and He111 would have been far more decisive rather than sending them home riddled with 303 holes to  be patched up and flown the next day . Eric was correct in saying that had Teddy Petter, the designer listened to Rolls Royce , most of his issues would have disappeared.

 

Anyway, it seems that the Jury is still out on the twins . Perhaps after the Tempest gets rolling we will get some further insight ?

I think the popularity of the Tempest will surprise people . It is little modelled and yet we have Spitfires and Hurricanes in all sorts of sizes . Ok , it only turned up around D.Day but then so did the P51D which people often consider to be a contemporary of the 109 and Spitfire . 

Its starting to look like, me having to guess what will fit most people and then making it practical , quick build and still interesting enough to trump the others on the market . 

...........................should be a doddle then .

I think I'll book myself a long holiday . I'm sure Phil the kit cutter would be up for it too . 

(The Holiday ) 

[DaveB1]

I've been put off twins from those I've seen just not looking realistic in the air. Zooming around too fast and rocking with too high a roll rate. Likely too small and too high a wing loading I guess . As someone said these traits seem less obvious on single engine'd fighters.  I did see a large Mossie at a recent LMA show and that was a whole different kettle of fish though, it flew )and amazingly ! (and sounded great).

Having said that, I'd join in with a Mossie, Whirlwind or I really love that Hornet.

I'd still vote for a Sea Fury next - I've a plan for an 83" Westland Wyvern that I've been aiming at building as a PSS aircraft. It's a big quite complex build and I just can't seen to get started. Might be too unique and post war for most here but it's a heck of an aircraft with a real presence - the Sea Fury would be a simpler and likely more popular alternative

[Ron Gray]

10 minutes ago, DaveB1 said:

Zooming around too fast and rocking with too high a roll rate.

That applies to the vast majority of scale flying, not just twins (Dawn Patrol a brilliant example).

[Chris Walby]

29 minutes ago, DaveB1 said:

  I did see a large Mossie at a recent LMA show and that was a whole different kettle of fish though, it flew )and amazingly ! (and sounded great).

 

If it was Much Marcle then it was Richard's Valach powered mossie and hopefully we will see more of it next year. The Johnsons brothers have a couple of smaller ones that they are planning to show so hopefully more mossies on the LMA circuit. With any luck there might be a nice sounding Tigercat to join them 😉

[Silver Wolf]

If we’re looking for something that is not often modelled then either the Fairey Battle or the Fairey Firefly would fit the bill.

The other question is, what is the objective for the next model?  If the Fw and Tempest is “white label” does the next model need to be a little more complicated to help progress newbies skill level in building/flying. That way as the builds and designs get more complicated, we will eventually get Richard to design the B17 😂

 

[Don Fry]

22 minutes ago, Silver Wolf said:

The other question is, what is the objective for the next model?  If the Fw and Tempest is “white label” does the next model need to be a little more complicated to help progress newbies skill level in building/flying. That way as the builds and designs get more complicated, we will eventually get Richard to design the B17 😂

But perhaps the point of these single engine kits is they are of a size to stick in a car, with others, for flying, bit of hooligan, lowish cost, and not to many tears when the hooligan is a little low and misjudged.

[RICHARD WILLS]

1 minute ago, Don Fry said:

But perhaps the point of these single engine kits is they are of a size to stick in a car, with others, for flying, bit of hooligan, lowish cost, and not to many tears when the hooligan is a little low and misjudged.

That is very true Don . Ive had some of the most fun with my simplest models , because of what you pointed out . 

It may be that if the Tempest and 190 provide that level of entertainment , there will be a need for another "white label" kit rather than the full fat kits that we have been dreaming about . I remember being totally smitten with Ian Peacocks 48" dueling pair about thirty years ago ! I still have the plan for the 109e.

[Ace]

Only Richard will know the % split but I suspect 2/3rds of the FW/Tempest orders will have been to existing WR customers who wish to support his (and others involved) fantastic efforts 👏 However while the easy build will certainly have encouraged new blood the old hands may want/need a little more variety than another single engined WW2 fighter. While they each look different and have markedly different backstories/history  they are flown in a very similar fashion. When I go flying I usually take three completely different aircraft for variety, so my WR 109, LA7, FW & Tempest will be rotated meaning there will be considerable gaps already between usage. I will admit I do also have a WR BF110 with a pair of Laser 70's but a smaller electric twin would be different 🤞

Edited December 18, 2023 by Ace

[Paul Johnson 4]

It's quite a topic. Problem is without a  large enough uptake, development effort far outway the return. Yes a very small run of an exotic model is possible, but, who would like to pay for the hundreds of hours of development, protoyping costs/testing, canopy/vacform moulds....

This is why Richard is trying to get a census of opinion to what is feasible.

That way you'll have access to a good quality kit and support.