Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hello RCers,

I have noticed in my 26 years of RC is that many flyers are not interested in WWI planes. Even with ARFs, I see fewer than 5% of planes at the fields are WWI. Even on the market, sellers who wish to sell their WWI war birds have tough time getting buyers. But yet, there is a huge follow of WWII planes. Any thoughts?

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

WW II birds are faster and more aerobatic. I think this is what makes them popular, especially the ARFs.

My flying buddy who is 83 and I have build several WW I planes, but he normally modifies them for me so they will fly like sport planes. Most ofthe kits are not really close to scale anyway, so you may as well make them even better. None were ARF's, by the way.

We have done 3 Balsa USA Eindeckers, 1 large and 2 small. One of the small ones was modified into a Morane Saulnier Type N. Neither of these had ailerons so the kit is not scale and also the nose is too long. We have found that the ailerons all the way out to the tips does not fly all that well. The rolls are sloppy. You need to move the ailerons in from the tip and extend them inward 2 ribs. Also add to the bottom of the rib to make it symmetrical or semi-symmetrical. turns it into a good flying plane.

We have a scratch build Nieuport 27 bipe that flies great.

We also have the Hobby Hangar D-7 and SE-5. These have non-scale ailerons and airfoils. The D-7 had ailerons on the top wing and the kit has them on the bottom so we use 4 ailerons and a semi-symmetrical airfoil nstead of a flat bottom. They also need spruce spars. One has a Mag .52FS and the other a Mag .61FS. Both fly great.

As for the ARFs, I think most of the manufacturers try to make them fly scale, which, in the case of WW I, isn't much fun. The planes I fly will fly scale on particl power, but go full power and they'll roll, loop, snap, spin, stall turn, whatever.

Propwash in Pa

Most of us baby boomers grew up on Spitfires, ME-109s, and Mustangs in the movies and at airshows. It would be interesting to see if the WWII birds have a strong following from the under 30 crowd.

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

To me, WWII warbirds are more fun to fly. It's very gratifying to see the wheels slowly retract into the wheel wells after take off. It's also a blast to do a wheel up high speed, low pass over the runway, which you can't really do with a WWI plane.

* [link=http://www.whitetyphoon.com/rc/dymond_f8f/low_pass_2.wmv]Bearcat Low Pass[/link]
* [link=http://www.whitetyphoon.com/rc/h9_corsair/movies/HighSpeedPass02.mpg]Corsair Low Pass[/link]

bodywerks

My Feedback: (4)

Kind of unfortunately, this hobby has become more about flying R/C planes than building them. I have only been in the hobby for 17 years, but I can honestly say that I lost interest and excitement in building planes and watching them fly after about two months. Lets face it, there is no real mistery, anymore, to the fact that an airplane flies and that you can control it with a radio. And watching a WWI model airplane fly, or flying one, is about as fun as watching paint dry! Unless you, or perhaps your father, flew a plane in WWI, there is no real reason to own a model of one, in my opinion. Personally, I think I'd rather watch a Video about REAL WWI planes and spend my hobby time challenging myself to make my high performance aerobatic plane do things that defy physics or at least challenge my abilities.

Dig it

I'm going to have a WWI plane one of these days. I've been in the hobby for about 5 years and fly just about everything. I'm currently working on a prop pusher F-18, but after that my plan is to work on a SE5a. I'm 30 by the way, so yes there is interest in the younger genearation for WWI planes. I like the slow flying and historic significance of these aircraft. I've had a Piper Cub for quite some time and its rare for me to not take it out to the field. Sure I like speed (F-18) and aerobatics (byron SU-26), along with WWII jobs (P-51) but I like to fly slow, just above a stall, using the rudder for turns and countering with the ailerons, its a challange. Its good fun and a switch from the punch holes in the sky type of aerobatic flying. To each there own but don't fear for the loss of this type of RC aircraft, at my club, when I bring the topic up, its definately one of interest. One guy gets one and everybody else all of a sudden needs one too.

bipeaddict

I have always liked WWI airplanes after doing the research for a paper in 5th grade many years ago. The love was cemented after a trip to Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. So I oogle the Proctor catalog every so often and try to decide which one I want. An Albatross V5 or a Fokker D7.

Bison

My Feedback: (1)

I disagree that WWI planes are not much fun to fly. I have a 60 in ws Sopwith Pup with an OS70S for power. I can do "barrel" rolls, loops, split S and Immelmanns and enjoy doing them. In many ways a WWI bird is more challenging to fly - like landing and not nosing over. The main thing I don't like is the time they take to assemble and disassemble at the field. I also have a couple of WWII warbirds and enjoy flying them as well.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

A kyosho Tiger Moth is on the way to my house, may even arrive today. It's going to get a .61 4 stroke. I think it will be great to have something that's quiet and slow. It'll be a nice change from loud and fast.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

I bought a “Box Kite� (affectionate term for WWI planes, as not to confuse them with “Blow Torch’s�, “Zoomy’s�, and “Swirly’s) this year a GP Fokker Dr1. I still don’t know why? Why I would subject my self to a plane I have to make want to land, or role, or loop, or climb, or well you get the message. See the Key aspect to flying a Box Kite’s is timing, knowing how to land is just not enough, now you have to learn to do it on the planes schedule (I’m not going to use the obvious parallel to women here).

For years I have said that Box Kites were for after I could no longer handle Zoomy’s or Blow Torch’s but I don’t plan to part with any of them. Its just for a different type of flying. I enjoy pulling out the cub on those really windy days when everyone else has their planes set up in the pits but nobody is in the air. As I prepare it to fly they all gather round to see if you are really going to do it or just leave it set up in the pits like every one else. About the time I start recruiting people to hold the wings for the taxi out they come to the realization it’s really going to fly and begin offering excuses to stand down. Once the engine is started the rest start scrambling to get the best view point for the crasssss- takeoff (sorry). Once air born a hush comes over the rest of the pilots as they come to the realization, “he got to land that now�. After the landing which is actually a series of touches with decreasing energy until the plan stops moving (backwards, ground speed) and the wing handlers have the wings in hand again and the engine is turned off. I turn to walk back to the pits to see everyone else fueling their planes. May be that’s why I did it?

No, that can’t be it! Maybe my kids are right, I have lost it?

Have you ever flown a Box Kite?

I hear the nurse coming

Joe

smokingcrater

i don't know, i think that is actually a good thing! i'm not in this hobby to model, i'm in it to fly stuff! given the choice, I would much rather be outside flying then inside inhaling CA. actually i guess it comes down to the fact rc aircraft are two hobbies combined, building and flying. neither is mutually exclusive.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Ed- The WWII birds are definitely faster, but I'd argue the point about more aerobatic than WWI There's quite a few guys in our club who fly bipes (and not Ultimates, etc) but true, wires in the wings WWI and '20's 1/4 scale stuff. I get motion sick on the ground just watching them gyrate around the field, and I can't think of a single WWII plane that could stay with them in a loop or turn.

I think most people just don't care to mess with building two wings for one plane, or assembling it at the field, especially if they've got the flying wires on it. Even the guys in the club who fly them complain about it. I guess it's like anything else in the hobby, though. Some like wood and cloth and slow twisty flying, some like fiberglass and flat-out. I like both, but I'm better at slow.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

I think it is great that you all would rather fly than build. When I'm ready to retire most modelers will have forgotten how to fix them and that will be a fun way to earn a tax free income.

joe

Sneakypete

My Feedback: (5)

Dai Phan,

I have the same concern. I enjoy both and would like to see more WW I types be made available. I don't think that any model leans itself more to four stroke engines than WWI planes.

Thanks,

Sneakypete

Johnny C!

I have been looking for a .25'ish WWI. I like the thoughts of just puttering around
a scale'ish plane with a four stroke, one that you have to fly, & not just point.
.25 size so it's reasonable that you don't have to remove the wings for transport,
etc. I did just buy a used Sig Skybolt ay a great price as my test plane for this type
of aircraft, & my intent was to test my interest of a bipe, & when the SB goes away,
pursue the WWI bird. I haven't found any at all in .25, & few in the .46 range.
I wish there were more options, also...

Johnny C!

grumpE

My Feedback: (6)

33yrs old.

Have been captivated by aviation for as long as I can remember. The thirties through WWII aircraft are my passion. Not sure why but they just "look" right to me. The lines of the airframes. The progression of the engines. The massive leaps in technology that they represented. Think about how fast they evolved. Absolutely incredible.

Now I do like the WWI stuff too. As well as the turbines out there now. But for me it is hands down, no question my favorites are the WWII era birds. I guess I built too many of those plastic kits, sniffed too much Testors glue and paint and trashed too many Guillows kits in the late seventies and early eighties. The WWII planes are also so much easier to find and see fly. Teh hair on my neck stands up everytime I am near a Merlin, Packard or P&W when it roars to life. They spit and sputter. Smoke and roar. They almost seem to be alive.

Eric

Sport Flyer

My Feedback: (10)

I like basically any 'warbird' but dislike a lot of the complexity and cost that go with so many of them. There's a definite appeal to planes like the Stuka or L4. I just recently finished off a Great Planes Fokker DR1 arf . Its my very first arf after close to 20 yrs in the hobby, and I must admit I really like the way it turned out. But then again, that whole 'Red Baron' thing has always been kind of cool to me -- sure hope Snoopy doesn't bounce me when I take it up for for the first flight!

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

The industry has been flooded with every 4th rate company their is soaking us down with cheap crap planes and park flyers are number one on the list. That is whats selling. There was a guy here not long ago who said "when somebody does a stupid trick, they call themselves a 3d pilot. " Park flyers are far from RC pilots. Seems like today , if you want something nobody else has, you need to build it yourself. I even saw this piece of garbage at a hardware store! This industry is supplying what they think we want instead of what we want. I mean how many more stupid warbirds are we going to have to put up with?

Bruno Stachel

My Feedback: (4)

Today I placed an order for a Flair Fokker DVII with Dave at RadicalRC. He said that recently he's been getting an unusual amount of inquiries and orders placed for this model. He asked me if I had any idea why. I don't really know, but I wonder if the movie The Aviator might have influenced some RC'rs to build a DVII. Or maybe the recent release of the Balsa USA DVII may have had a trickle down effect on those not inclined to build 1/4 scale. Whatever the reason, it's a small ray of hope for WWI models.

Calflyer

Would love to see WW1 military and civil airplanes being offered. Absolutely Love Em!!! Although not sure how they will perform because of the peculiar early designs. Any one been to Cole Palen's Old Rhinebeck field in NY? Absolutely wonderful place to see some great WW1 and pre WW1 restorations.

Later!!!

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

For khodges:

I usually don't equate turning ability or turn radius as the same as aerobatic ability. The WW I birds, and I have 3, if built stock with a flat bottom airfoil, need down trim at full power so when they slow down, they pitch down. This hurts you in many maneuvers. Their inverted capability is poor and outsides are dificult, in particular outside squares. For knife edge, they tend to have a great amount of roll and pitch coupling. For rolls, they tend to barrel out instead of doing an axial roll. They do snap and spin well.

My 3 have been modified. Two are Hobby Hangar, 50" span planes, an SE-5 (Magnum .52FS) & a Fokker D-7 (Magnum .61FS). Both have 4 ailerons/4 servos and a semi-symmetrical airfoil in addition to spruce spars-the stock balsa spar tends to break if the wing is covered with cloth instead of film. Both kits had non-scale ailerons to start with, anyway.

My WW II bird, a Northrop A-17-nice long fuselage-has a Magnum 1.08 in it and flies very well. Just from a quality-of-the-maneuver or a precision standpoint, it is considerably better than the bipes. I do fly the bipes more because they are a lot of fun to throw around the sky than the more precise A-17.

As for carrying them around, the A-17 has plug in wings and is a pain to put together. The little 50" bipes rarely get taken apart so they are much easier for me to handle.

khodges

My Feedback: (1)

Ed, I guess it's just a matter of definition. When you said aerobatic ability, I guess you meant precision, like the pattern and 3-D planes, Extras, Cap's ,etc, and what I always think about when I read "aerobatics" is agility and maneuverability. I also guess that with your obvious preference for the performance aspects of the word, that putting a semisymmetrical wing on a WWI plane is Okay, because you want to be able to fly inverted without full down elevator, or knife edge, or fly full throttle without a ton of trim. If I were flying one, though (WWI Plane), I would rather embrace the undercambered wing, and the planes' tendencies to snap to the right at low speed and high power, their ragged rolling performance, and even their proclivities to ground loop. I like scale for what scale is. It's cool, though, to have other preferences; that is one of the things I like best about the hobby, is that there's 1001 ways to enjoy the same thing.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

I have only "flown" a WWI bipe on my G2 RealFlight simulator. I can hardly land it without it nosing over! And that is after lots of practice taking off without nosing over!! lol...

It "is" a challenge.

famousdave

My Feedback: (61)

There are a few good reasons for this...

1> most (all?) of the flyers who actually flew these planes or knew anything about them are dead
2> the planes were haphazard / dangerous to fly designs then as are the R/C versions that are available... when was the last time you saw a WWI bipe NOT do a ground loop on landing ??

3> most (all?) were butt ugly?

I was born well after WWII, but I know all the WWII warbirds as I had the pleasure of restoring some of them. Most are stable fliers, fast, and looked great. I know a few of the WWI planes, they all looked alike, were frail, and flew like crap... ! The old military saying about the WWI planes is " If the enemy doesn't shoot you down, your plane will" .. there is a lot of truth in that!!

I was at the scale masters this past year.. didn't see one good WWI bird scale landing the entire time...
DP

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hello,

It is interesting to see that WWI planes are not common but they do generate lots of curiosity at the flying field! My current fleet is:
1. GP Fokker DR1 (repainted in Richtofen 455/17)
2. 3 See Bees Jenny
3. 3 See Bees SE5A
4. 3 See Bees Sopwith Triplane
5. GP Tiger Moth (repainted in Tiger Scheme)
6. Proctor Nieuport N-11

All in flying condition.