old timers look here must be 50+ years only
#752
My Feedback: (1)
That AHC ad really brings back 1968. I had convinced a flying buddy to go in half of the cost of Testers little 1/2A RC plane from AHC. So we sent in a money order around April, and by the end of summer were having to write threating letters to get our money back. I don't have fond memories of AHC.
#754
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wyoming,
MN
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lil Stinker was another model airplane I couldn't afford way back when. Was it flyable? My Cox 049 powered P40 was a nose heavy hunk of plastic. Hope the Lil Stinker was a memorable success for you.
#755
The thing about the plastic ones, though, is they were so nice looking. I remember some in bright chrome finish, the Wen Mac Corsair, for example that my brother received for Christmas. The Cox Spitfire molded in light green plastic with dark green camoflage pattern painted on the top, official British insignias, .049 engine with 3 bladed prop and spinner, and with clear windows you could see through is what I received for Christmas.
I'd look through the toy sections of Christmas catalogs from Sears, J.C. Penney and Montgomery Ward, at the photos of the various RTF's offered. They were real eye candy to an 11 year old.
Nowadays I guess it is an iPhone.
#756
Thread Starter
That AHC ad really brings back 1968. I had convinced a flying buddy to go in half of the cost of Testers little 1/2A RC plane from AHC. So we sent in a money order around April, and by the end of summer were having to write threating letters to get our money back. I don't have fond memories of AHC.
#757
Thread Starter
Now while I am on this soapbox let me put in some positive words..... I know of two companies (no names) they sell arfs that I would recommend both build 3d birds one of which I own and have seem many others fly absolutely fine. they come in electric and gas. The quality is the best I have seem for this type model and I hope they continue with great success.
There is always two sides to every coin and a flat statement of one kind or the other will usually cause some condescention But my experiences have lead me to the world of scratch/kit building were my failures is due to my own goofs.
I yield the soapbox to my fellow constituents.
#758
Speaking of construction flaws, I received a Great Planes Big Stick 60 from a modeler getting out of the hobby sans engine and radio. It required repairs to restore it to flight worthiness. Fuselage surrounding the main landing gear was weak and had failed from hard landings. I describe these repairs in my blog, http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021307
An additional large lightening hole was added to the fuselage side right above the main landing gear, which weakened structural support. I repaired it, but a simple solution would be to simply eliminate this hole. Also, there was a design flaw in the tail adding weakness, which caused the fuselage to split and empenage to break off the fuselage for some fliers, with catastrophic results. A simple substitution of ply for balsa would fix this.
I don't know if these flaws have been fixed. At $200 for this ARF, I'd rather scratch build or build from a kit.
An additional large lightening hole was added to the fuselage side right above the main landing gear, which weakened structural support. I repaired it, but a simple solution would be to simply eliminate this hole. Also, there was a design flaw in the tail adding weakness, which caused the fuselage to split and empenage to break off the fuselage for some fliers, with catastrophic results. A simple substitution of ply for balsa would fix this.
I don't know if these flaws have been fixed. At $200 for this ARF, I'd rather scratch build or build from a kit.
#759
Moderator
My Feedback: (1)
I completely agree, (yes I remember the lil stinker WELL, and the PT-19 was one of most memorable early CL airplanes, I do have some photos around of that airplane)
but re the never ending debate of stick built vs arf it really does depend on the manufacturer and the airplane IMHO.
there are certainly plenty that are just plain junk, but I have to admit there are also plenty that I could not or would not build myself...
case in point: the ARF's by Precision Aerobatics... (no, I dont work for them )
although I'm an old ballistic pattern guy, I started flying 3D a couple of years ago as a challenge to myself and what a challenge it's turned out to be
The Airframe on the AddictionX is constructed from balsa/lite ply laminated with CF... and just about every piece is riddled with lightening holes.
the structure is ridiculously strong and unbelievably light.... predictable enough that I can ALMOST do rolling circles with my eyes closed.
I do not have fond memories of any arf/arc/factory built airplanes from any companies earlier than ~ 1990,
although i did have a styrofoam (old school white beaded foam) Schwitzer Sailplane with a Cox .09 on a pod when I was 7 or 8... nearly flew the wings off that old thing
It was still a build though, you got the basic parts and that was it, no pre-assembly of any kind.
Sig has recently teamed with Seagull Models (Tower used to carry Seagull) and THEY are talking about possibly offering their ARF's as actual KITS...
THAT might be fun..
but re the never ending debate of stick built vs arf it really does depend on the manufacturer and the airplane IMHO.
there are certainly plenty that are just plain junk, but I have to admit there are also plenty that I could not or would not build myself...
case in point: the ARF's by Precision Aerobatics... (no, I dont work for them )
although I'm an old ballistic pattern guy, I started flying 3D a couple of years ago as a challenge to myself and what a challenge it's turned out to be
The Airframe on the AddictionX is constructed from balsa/lite ply laminated with CF... and just about every piece is riddled with lightening holes.
the structure is ridiculously strong and unbelievably light.... predictable enough that I can ALMOST do rolling circles with my eyes closed.
I do not have fond memories of any arf/arc/factory built airplanes from any companies earlier than ~ 1990,
although i did have a styrofoam (old school white beaded foam) Schwitzer Sailplane with a Cox .09 on a pod when I was 7 or 8... nearly flew the wings off that old thing
It was still a build though, you got the basic parts and that was it, no pre-assembly of any kind.
Sig has recently teamed with Seagull Models (Tower used to carry Seagull) and THEY are talking about possibly offering their ARF's as actual KITS...
THAT might be fun..
#761
Thread Starter
AMA 74894
I think companies should offer their ARF's as kits! It would offer a parts supply for repairs and make us builders happy. and arf's that are not covered so they could be finished as one desires.
Remember when arf's were of very low quality even from the top companies and though it took what seems to be a eternity the quality has improved quite a bit. (New Companies) so for the most part things do have a way of going full circle.
kits are not completely gone and as the ARF flyers get into the hobby I suspect they will try building. At least i hope so!
When one considers the new technologies available to the average person one can only imagine what will arise from it. from design idea to the air in a very short time. CNC cutting was only a dream not to long ago, 3d printing is making fantastic breakthru's................. Batteries now this is a area that put r/c on the map with electronics that stagger the imagination, so small the connectors are huge in comparison to the radios.................Real TURBINE engines that put out gobbs of thrust yet get smaller each year Heck they even had turbine kits, which I wish they would re-introduce. LOVE EM!
I do my share of grumping but when I put my mind to it the future sure looks exciting It ain't all bad!
I think companies should offer their ARF's as kits! It would offer a parts supply for repairs and make us builders happy. and arf's that are not covered so they could be finished as one desires.
Remember when arf's were of very low quality even from the top companies and though it took what seems to be a eternity the quality has improved quite a bit. (New Companies) so for the most part things do have a way of going full circle.
kits are not completely gone and as the ARF flyers get into the hobby I suspect they will try building. At least i hope so!
When one considers the new technologies available to the average person one can only imagine what will arise from it. from design idea to the air in a very short time. CNC cutting was only a dream not to long ago, 3d printing is making fantastic breakthru's................. Batteries now this is a area that put r/c on the map with electronics that stagger the imagination, so small the connectors are huge in comparison to the radios.................Real TURBINE engines that put out gobbs of thrust yet get smaller each year Heck they even had turbine kits, which I wish they would re-introduce. LOVE EM!
I do my share of grumping but when I put my mind to it the future sure looks exciting It ain't all bad!
Last edited by donnyman; 01-08-2015 at 11:27 AM.
#763
My Feedback: (6)
Donny, I don't think you would see many repair parts, except for complete sub assemblies like wings and Fuselage, crossing over from a kit to an ARF. Not many builders would give a kit a second look if it built as cheap and weak as most ARFs. That is why most ARFs have short lifespans. Kit builds have the luxury of time and desire for good clen workmanship instead of building as fast, cheap, and easy for ARF manufacturers with unskilled underpaid workforces.
#764
Thread Starter
Donny, I don't think you would see many repair parts, except for complete sub assemblies like wings and Fuselage, crossing over from a kit to an ARF. Not many builders would give a kit a second look if it built as cheap and weak as most ARFs. That is why most ARFs have short lifespans. Kit builds have the luxury of time and desire for good clen workmanship instead of building as fast, cheap, and easy for ARF manufacturers with unskilled underpaid workforces.
I would not want a sub assembly, but might be interested in the components of that sub assembly. I personally am very skeptical of any assembly built by another, so assemblies are out. as far as I am concerned a KIT does not contain assemblies (wings, fuse, etc)
#765
My Feedback: (6)
I'm the same way, I have several unfinished kits I have been given or received as part of trade and each one has things I will change when I get to them. Some stuff looked just plain dumb, like the filler for the retract air tank reinforced with a scrap of liteply sticking thru the center side of the fuselage on one of them. Still trying to figure out what he was thinking on that one.
#767
My Feedback: (1)
Here is a tip when taking photographs of old magazine covers, you need to be slightly angle away from straight down to avoid the flash from overpowering the image with it's reflection. If taking pictures of old black and white images that are composed of thousands of little dots, you need to use a higher than normal resolution, to avoid aliasing effects which shows up as a repeating pattern of light and dark.
#768
Thread Starter
That was a nice find, I was about 10 YRS. old in 51 and would really like to see what was on the inside of the mag. would you be so kind as to post more pic's from the inside? ad's and features???........PLEASE
I was surprised the McCOY 9 cost $7.99. in 1958 I sold McCOY 35's for $5.99 until the price went to $7.99 Odd. like the pricing of things today.
Last edited by donnyman; 01-09-2015 at 09:08 AM. Reason: corrected my age
#770
Consider that in 2013, average household wage was $40,500 ($778 x 365.25/7, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf ) and an OS Max .15LA is $80 (ref. Tower Hobbies).
In 1951, the McCoy "9" was 0.22% of the one's income. In 2013, the OS .15LA was 0.20% of one's income, not much difference between then and now. As of recent it may seem that one earned more, but I gather that with the effects of inflation and increased levels of taxation all around us including the various sales taxes, we are no better off than when we were back then.
#771
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kingston,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 4,925
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
When I was an apprentice airplane mechanic back around 1954 at the local airport, I was making $45.00 a week and thought I had the world by the arse.
Last edited by Flypaper 2; 01-09-2015 at 08:39 AM.
#773
Thread Starter
The product price to wage factor is always a interesting subject. and looking at G/ghostlers info I now better understand dad telling he could no longer afford my hobby. there was six of us rugrats to feed.
$7.99 in 1951 was a nice piece of change, yet the prices didn't become draconian due to improved manufacturing methods (mass production ETC.) generally speaking the more they can make the cheaper the product....look at the current gasoline prices we make more than we need and the price drops. so I think that is what we see in the pricing of engines.
FLYPAPER............in 1954-9 I was making $1 and hour and felt just like you! Enough cannot be said about having your own.
$7.99 in 1951 was a nice piece of change, yet the prices didn't become draconian due to improved manufacturing methods (mass production ETC.) generally speaking the more they can make the cheaper the product....look at the current gasoline prices we make more than we need and the price drops. so I think that is what we see in the pricing of engines.
FLYPAPER............in 1954-9 I was making $1 and hour and felt just like you! Enough cannot be said about having your own.
Last edited by donnyman; 01-09-2015 at 09:24 AM.
#775
Thread Starter