The Big Question ?

[Eric Robson]

13 hours ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

I bet they all got shot in the back . Rearward viz is non existent !

Forward view not good either with the pot stove chimney in front of the windscreen,  

[GrumpyGnome]

Character.....

[Flying Squirrel]

Having not documented the build elswhere I thought I'd share my efforts here, was hoping to maiden today but alas, was not to be..

[Ron Gray]

Beautiful! but where's the pilot?

[Lipo Man]

28 minutes ago, Flying Squirrel said:

Having not documented the build elswhere I thought I'd share my efforts here, was hoping to maiden today but alas, was not to be..

Love the spinner in particular. Lovely job!

[Flying Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Beautiful! but where's the pilot?

Hmm, it's now on my list of things to do!

 

[Flying Squirrel]

Not sure why but the wings now look like a pair of nora batties tights, been OK up until now and looks OK in the picture but lots of bubbles now?

 

 

 

Edited April 14 by Flying Squirrel

[RICHARD WILLS]

I really like it . It's funny how other peoples models somehow have more appeal . Perhaps its because without seeing the build up , they sort of enter the stage with a bit more jazz ? Colours look very accurate too.

Anyway , excellent result . 

[Lipo Man]

22 minutes ago, Flying Squirrel said:

Not sure why but the wings now look like a pair of nora batties tights, been OK up until now and looks OK in the picture but lots of bubbles now?

 

 

 

Mine also has quite a few “wrinkles”. Has only had positive comments at the flying club, and no one has noticed the things I keep seeing! I think yours looks brilliant. 

[Flying Squirrel]

Thanks all,  I've utilised (stolen, plagerised, ripped off or whatever you want to call it) lots of ideas from the many that have shared thier build, not least of all Ron for his videos but LM and many others have been a great help.

[Eric Robson]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

Beautiful! but where's the pilot?

Same place as mine, it's remote  controlled so it doesn't need one.

Having said that the canopy is removable to fit one at some time. 

[DaveB1]

Would like to build a Sea Fury - still undecided whether to build the next one as a Tempest or convert.

After that - out of the choices being discussed it's gotta be a Mozzie

😄

[Glenn Philbrick]

Another vote for a mossie.

[Chris Walby]

I'll go along with a Mossie (can never have to many Spitfires Mossies. Either built, unbuilt or needs rebuilding I can can count 5, but half a dozen sounds like a round number to me!

 

Just an observation, but with all the Mossies getting the C of G forward enough is always a challenge. One BH Mossie I bought has larger than required motors, but the correct props, clever as the additional motor weight is about as far forward as possible bearing in mind the 4S5000 lipo is in the nose already (so you can't do a bomber version). All eth servos are very near C of G. Even putting lipos in the nacelles may be a challenge if UC is used.

 

My SG Mossie has 2 Laser 70's, everything else as far forward + extra weight up front to get the C of G and looking at the electric versions the lipo packs are well forward in the fuz. Not sure that's a good place to put a lot of weight if a hard landing takes place as it might break its back.

 

I an sure Richard can iron these challenges out as he has in the past with his other twins 🙂 ...should he accept the challange!

 

[Keith Billinge]

I really like the idea of something Japanese. The German, US and UK WW2 planes are constantly modelled, but there aren't many kits for the Zero or the Nakajima. Maybe instead of the Mosquito a Betty Bomber would be a better subject? I'd like the model to be a belly lander and of similar scale to the FW190. The Japanese had some interesting stuff with fixed undercarriage too. Torpedo bombers and dive bombers. There were also a wide range of colour schemes.

 

KB

 

Edited April 19 by Keith Billinge
Stupid grammar

[martin collins 1]

Keith you and me both, anything Japanese, so rarely modelled but the colour scheme and weathering options make them real standouts in my eyes. I am going to be building a foamboard and depron Sally and a Yokosuka Floatplane once i have another couple of projects out of the way. KI-61 options on schemes take some beating.

[Piers Bowlan]

Richard is in the ‘business’ of selling kits and probably the reason why there aren’t many kits of the Zero or Nakajima is because there isn’t a lot of demand for them? As for the Betty Bomber Keith I think you could be on your own with that one. 
We probably all have our own list of ‘interesting’ (kwerky) or sometimes ugly planes to model but they would not be very successful as kits.

Personally I think a kit of the DH Hornet would be great in preference to a Mosquito but I don’t think there would be many other takers.

[GrumpyGnome]

1 hour ago, Piers Bowlan said:

Personally I think a kit of the DH Hornet would be great in preference to a Mosquito but I don’t think there would be many other takers.

 

Possibly just the two of us.... I keep mentioning it, and the Whirlwind....

[Chris Walby]

2 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

 

Possibly just the two of us.... I keep mentioning it, and the Whirlwind....

Make that 3 of us...just need to find another 35 buyers!

[leccyflyer]

The Betty bomber is way out there - doubt that one in a dozen modellers would recognise one if one rocked up at the field, so would likely be a not very saleable kit. Japanese aeroplanes are rather unrepresented here. I have a few Zeros, but from my Airfix building days, always liked the Mitsubishi Dinah twin - IIRC Hirobo used to do a small ARTF version and Royal did a magnificent Raiden, with a spun aluminium cowl, that I fondled quite a few times in the shop, but never bought. I doubt that any Japanese aeroplane, other than the Zero, would gather enough sales to make it viable.

[Lipo Man]

9 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

The Betty bomber is way out there - doubt that one in a dozen modellers would recognise one if one rocked up at the field, so would likely be a not very saleable kit. Japanese aeroplanes are rather unrepresented here. I have a few Zeros, but from my Airfix building days, always liked the Mitsubishi Dinah twin - IIRC Hirobo used to do a small ARTF version and Royal did a magnificent Raiden, with a spun aluminium cowl, that I fondled quite a few times in the shop, but never bought. I doubt that any Japanese aeroplane, other than the Zero, would gather enough sales to make it viable.

For anyone wanting a Betty Bomber, there is a solution - but you’d have to switch to foamboard. I’m a huge fan of a father/son group of modellers in the US, Steve and Jack Niezgoda. Jack started designing foamboard models as a teenager, and has a real talent. They did a Betty Bomber that looked good and flew really well - the plans are a free download on their website. You can find it at:

https://www.13thsquadron.com/g4m-betty-bomber.html

[Graham Davies 3]

5 hours ago, Lipo Man said:

For anyone wanting a Betty Bomber, there is a solution - but you’d have to switch to foamboard. I’m a huge fan of a father/son group of modellers in the US, Steve and Jack Niezgoda. Jack started designing foamboard models as a teenager, and has a real talent. They did a Betty Bomber that looked good and flew really well - the plans are a free download on their website. You can find it at:

https://www.13thsquadron.com/g4m-betty-bomber.html

Or scratchbuild. The world then, Rodney, is your lobster...

 

Ki45 anyone?

 

Graham

[Eric Robson]

Likewise for a Whirlwind.

[RICHARD WILLS]

Its a conversation we have had many times . As many have said , its also a numbers game . There has to be enough numbers to justify the enormous amount of development .

The problem with that is , you can get stuck on the same subjects for ever . 

However , there are two areas where the background has changed for the better (for us aero modellers ) . 

Firstly , electric propulsion has meant that twin and multi engined subjects are now as viable as single engined aircraft . 

Secondly , I feel that EDF models have also reached a very practical and impressive stage . Anyone that has flown the Arrows Marlin or similar will know that it offers a lot of performance for not a lot of money and still runs on 4s .  I would always try to utilise what we already have in terms of batteries , to save us all a few bob . 

 

The other interesting factor , is what we enjoy the most is not always what we dream of . 

What I mean by that, is that the feed back on the simple Fw190 kit has been 110% positive with many using it as their favourite hack . How would that compare in terms of end result with say a full fat laser cut , masterclass kit of something more exotic ? It would definitely take longer to make and probably cost more as it would have balsa and more parts . 

The P47 , Mossie and then Sea Fury , had reasonable hands up . But I wonder how that would compare with an F86 Sabre with optional retracts all running on 4s ?

Or at the other end of the spectrum , a classic duelling pair for next winter being the Battle of Britain (steady leccy) 109 and Spit in the format of the Tempest and 190 ?

[leccyflyer]

Well, you know my opinion regarding the BoB Richard and that 109/Spitfire Mk1 combo would definitely get my vote. There's a huge gap in my fleet for a 55" Span Emil and nothing on the horizon that could easily fill it.