|Ron Gray||12/05/2020 09:09:42|
|2183 forum posts|
Isn't that the whole point of scale Eric, not only to make them look 'real' but to fly them as 'real' as possible? Flying a B17 low and slow with a smooth banked turn at the end of a flypast - luv it!
|Eric Robson||12/05/2020 09:12:06|
|265 forum posts|
Just looked on TJD website and they have it in stock. the reason I am going electric, on the nose over it broke the exhaust on the RCV which I repaired but once in the air it flies ok the power is marginal for take offs on our grass strip.
|Martyn K||12/05/2020 09:15:33|
5084 forum posts
The Mustang is too small, bigger and an IC option and I would be happier, the B17 too big/complex and expensive to power up so that would leave the Defiant as a right sized model.
The price doesn't frighten me either
|Ron Gray||12/05/2020 09:20:46|
|2183 forum posts|
Defiant - With a powered turret too, that would be cool.
|Tim Flyer||12/05/2020 09:24:08|
1290 forum posts
Our flying field is mostly IC too. A number of modellers fly both but the majority fly IC . As I’m IC only and not a multi engine flyer the only choice above is the Defiant but I’m afraid I will pass on that as In my opinion it’s not pretty enough 😳...sorry . I have never had a Mustang so that will be my next project if I can get one to suit my 80-95 4s engines or maybe I will use my Laser 155 In something larger.
Regarding Hurricanes Spitfires &Mustangs P47s“being tired” I think the reason for that is that many long time modellers already own one of them so they aren’t so keen on buying another. The reason they already own them is that they are great looking planes. I’m my view they are the most attractive and I will try to keep one of each running in my fleet . Having said all that the Mew Gull is rather nice 😉
|Roger Adams||12/05/2020 09:26:01|
|68 forum posts|
I’d almost certainly go for the defiant, it’s been on my want list for a long time. The B17 doesn’t tick enough boxes for me at the moment. I’ve owned several mustangs of various sizes & types, not ready for another one yet.
232 forum posts
I sold my P51D Mustang kit to a well known forum member here last year and bought the Warbirds Hurricane off another member...…...
Haven't started it yet but have bought the i.c. motor
Back on subject, the Defiant would be my choice although if I see an La7 for sale...……………….
|Bob Cotsford||12/05/2020 10:03:55|
8591 forum posts
I'm going to be really awkward here. I wouldn't want a Mustang, especially at 55", but the Defiant would be interesting - except I think 60-65" span is the sweet spot as I like 6S setups.
It's a good job that this is just an intellectual exercise as I already have more than enough projects stocked up to see me through the next five years!
151 forum posts
Going back to the original point, "These threads appear to be huge compared to the average on this forum but that would be expected when people are following a build perhaps for reference to their own progress . however there are other builds which don't tend to get above 25000 views . The other thing is the order of subjects , Why is the Bf110 such a big hit ? In fact the order is nothing like what you would guess . "
I would have thought there's a direct correlation between the build time and the number of views. For example; If a build takes 20 weeks, has an average of 150 people viewing, and the builder posts twice a week, he will get 6,000 views by the time the build is finished. On the other hand, if a build takes 48 months , has an average of 100 followers and he posts on average once a week, he will get 20,800 hits. The subject of the second build is not more popular simply because it got 14,800 more views, it actually had less people interested in it.
Surely it's not the number of views that's important, it's the number of viewers and, from the way the website reports views, that number cannot be calculated.
|Martyn K||12/05/2020 10:10:58|
5084 forum posts
IMHO, the only true measure of the success of a post is the number of interactions, i.e the number of people other than the originator who comment or contribute to the build or topic. This thread is a very good example of a successful topic.
|Eric Robson||12/05/2020 10:17:38|
|265 forum posts|
Yes Ron agreed, many years ago when 60 engines were the limit for the nationals someone had a beautiful Liberator with 4 O.S. 15's but then when flying it screamed around the sky totally spoiling the effect. With reliable electric power scale flying is possible with multi engine aircraft and I wish I still had me 7ft. span Wellington that had 2 40's in it but the dead engine seen it off.
|Martyn K||12/05/2020 10:21:13|
5084 forum posts
|andrew exton||12/05/2020 11:16:05|
|18 forum posts|
i would settle for a defiant with a P51B close second , B17 not sure i could get clearance from the wife but if i could that would be number 1 for me
|RICHARD WILLS||12/05/2020 12:16:44|
527 forum posts
We obviously dont have enough people participating to get a real idea of what would sell . So let me chuck a couple more well used spanners into the works.
As is alluded to earlier , when we were kids , we built lots of different airfix kits . And in the same way , when I visited Ron (for example) a while back , his workshop was full of models ranging right across the board .
The intransient postings above would imply that if possible , the Defiant fans , for example , would have a workshop with half a dozen Defiants hanging on the wall , a lawn mower and a deck chair . Thats it .
This clearly isnt the case . My own Warbirds Replica experiences have shown me that too . My Tempest in the year 2000 out sold my very popular Spitfire at Sandown and for some time after . I had previously thought it may not sell at all . The 109 hit the front page of RCME in 2002 ( I think ) Graham Ashby loved it , and we sold a few but not that many compared with the Spit/ Tempest . Hurricane sold well . But the next big surprise was a model that at that point in 2003 was not modelled at all and one that I made for my own amusement .
The 57" La7 . Wow , at the time a model that was really difficult to get any decent drawings of let alone a plan . People forget that now,since everyone has jumped on the band wagon .
I turned up at my local field with it and everyone started saying , "where can get one those Yaks ?". It sold like hot cakes for a year and then settled into a steady pace . It was my second design to make the front page of RCMe .
Another one that Graham Ashby liked , bless him !
So here is the thing , you have to take the blinkers off to get the most out of scale modelling .
The other thing is that different designs provide different "Kicks" . We wont see many of them now , but the twin fourstroke powered models are the best "wow" factor for the money . Yes , they are a challenge , but for the sound they make and the challenge they present , they are right up there .
For relatively non challenging but enjoyable flying days , a well sorted "almost scale " single engined warbird has to be the go to model (IC or electric) But it has to be so practical that you can rely on it everyday .
The subject can be a lot more academic than you think . For me , the colours available have a large impact on choice of subject . For example , American and German aircraft are massively enhanced by their schemes , where as British aircraft are diminished by theirs . Yellow nosed 109s and P51s verses tan Hurricane ?
I will attend Duxford more than once a year and marvel at the smooth flying of the display pilots . This is what we are trying to achieve . So when it is suggested that Bombers are boring , then I would point out that , firstly, we are are in the "Kit Building" section of the Forum , and secondly , see what kind of reaction you get when you fly a big B17 or Lancaster at your field ! The last time I flew my large lancaster at a scale day , the crowd were all singing the Dambusters theme (I kid you not ) . To present a big bomber well means being able to fly as smoothly as possible and at the same time adding a bit of wow by perhaps "entering the arena" through some trees at low level . The Lanc was running on Four Strokes then , but has since been rebuilt with electric motors and bigger scale props . It will also have its sound system installed once further shakedown flights have been completed .
I dont think we have to compare with foamies elsewhere . It suits the Chinese to sell us those models , they must cost them a tiny proportion of what they charge , and we have all had fun with them . But the simple truth is that if you asked a real aircraft designer what he thought of expanded polystyrene as a structural material , he would laugh . Consequently a hard skinned model should outlive a foamy by a factor of at least three and at the same time look better and be able to fly in worse weather , so value for money is a slippery question .
Ultimately its the age old joy of flying your own creation and the more adventurous the bigger the buzz.
ARTFs are great , but nobody loves somebody else's kid or dog as much as their own .
"There's just something about it ".
|Jon - Laser Engines||12/05/2020 12:39:34|
|5511 forum posts|
Just to echo Richards comments on bombers a bit.
I like Lancasters, B17's etc and would love to own one. The snag as people rightly point out is that they can be a bit dreary. Nice to fly on occasion, but not all the time. That means that they do spend some time as hangar queens and i simply dont have the space for that at the moment which is why i never really consider them.
Perhaps a compromise is in order?
Some time ago i was asked to maiden a H9 B25. 80 inch, twin 70 4 strokes. It was grossly over propped and as i pounded down the runway i did wonder if it would ever take flight. When i got to the point where i thought i stood a chance i gave it a little tug and it ever so slowly rotated and climbed out. It was just stunning, clawing for altitude with the twin 4 strokes growling. Gear up, little more airspeed and trim the throttle back.
What followed was a series of swooping passes designed to retain energy while looking smooth and flowing. It was great fun hoping over the hedge at the end of the field and dropping the wing for a banked pass.
Everyone was very impressed, i was enjoying myself, and the model looked great. Even at 20lbs if floated in to land looking every inch the part along the way.
If the B17 is a bridge too far at 100 inch (and it needs to be 100 inch to really make an impact), would an 80 inch B25 be a possible alternative? Nice proportions, plenty of room, trike gear and only 2 engines/motors?
I know the B25 has been done before, but there are any number of light/meduim bomber twins that would work well at the slightly smaller 80 inch size. And as bombers are all wing the fuselages are not massive so storage would be less of an issue. The smaller medium bombers were also much more nimble than a big heavy so they have a wider range of things you can do with them.
As for mustangs, i want a big'un. Trying to raise the finances for a 90 inch composite jobby so a little one isnt for me
Edited By Jon - Laser Engines on 12/05/2020 12:42:33
|Ron Gray||12/05/2020 13:50:54|
|2183 forum posts|
I suppose that being different does it for me, hence why I’d go for a Defiant rather than a P51, or Spit. I really like my HK foamy Grand Tundra, sure it’s a foamy but it’s a hoot to fly in all weathers and is the only one in my collection which I can fly a vertical landing (coming in vertically from a great height and with flaps fully deployed pulling out to an immediate landing - mad, not scale but great fun). So what else would I like if I had the choice, a Freedom Fox 2m wingspan, a Bronco, a B17, a B25 the list goes on, but nothing really mainstream.
I have more or less resigned myself to either building from plans or a complete scratch build for the Freedom Fox and the Bronco.
|David Holland 2||12/05/2020 14:11:09|
|221 forum posts|
This is a fascinating thread. The only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Nothing non-mainstream seems to attract sufficient enthusiasm to make the design, development and production of a kit a viable proposition. Who was it that said the best way to make a small fortune from aviation was to start with a large one? I suppose that anyone contemplating a sort of cottage industry involvement in model aircraft is doing for the enjoyment and satisfaction rather than an expectation of huge financial rewards, but it cannot be loss making. My take would be that anyone wanting to model a relatively obscure prototype is more likely to go the plan or scratch built route and that the old favourites, Spits, Mustangs, ME 109s, etc. will always be the kits that sell. I really hope that 7 pages of posts have been of some help to Richard.
|Jon - Laser Engines||12/05/2020 14:51:41|
|5511 forum posts|
I know i posted this before but its such a great example of an i/c bomber twin.
Again, this is a huge model and not what we are talking about here exactly, but you can get a similar impression from an 80 inch effort. Smaller than that and it looses its impact.
|Ron Gray||12/05/2020 14:53:52|
|2183 forum posts|
80" for a twin
151 forum posts
"My take would be that anyone wanting to model a relatively obscure prototype is more likely to go the plan or scratch built route and that the old favourites, Spits, Mustangs, ME 109s, etc. will always be the kits that sell."
I wholeheartedly agree. I have a personal interest in a military conversion of a King Air 350 (Twin), for which there is no kit available. Consequently I am doing a scratch build. Is there a market for a King Air kit? Probably not. However, I also have a heavily modified Top Flight GE Corsair. Would I build that from scratch? No, it's far cheaper to buy a kit and modify it.
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!