HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I still have a VOODOO from around 1959 or 60, in the original box in my basement in Wisconsin.

HighPlains

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.

popargr

i had a control line model most wont remember called the LIL STINKER by cox. It was a bi-plane powered by an .020 cox engine

heggen

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.

GallopingGhostler

Sad but true, the balsa planes I flew always flew better than the plastic ones.

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.

donnyman

This is the very reason that even today I am reluctant to purchase through the mail ETC. Things get lost in the shuffle of life and you have to pay the consequence. For the most part people are honest ....But it only takes one low life to mess up the apple cart. Here lately there seems to be a growing number of low lifes out there. ..................I really miss going to the hobbyshop and holding what I want in my hands before purchaseing and having a conversation with others...........................similars to what we do here but face to face. I had a good response from A.H.C. with a order for a Cleveland condor glider kit while stationed in Arizona. sorry to hear about you problem with them but it is bound to occur.

donnyman

Plastic models Another thorn in my side. didn't anyone test fly these things before putting them on the market..."Prominent" companies (which will remain anonimous here) sold lots of pure JUNK! and I paid my hard earned money for a few. the only plastic model that came close to flying good enough was the pt-19 with knock off wings. I had some success with others but they were not worthy of any mention.

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.

GallopingGhostler

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.

AMA 74894

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..

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Best news I have heard all day!

donnyman

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!

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

Out of all the COX planes I found the Stinker to be the best flying of them all. I ended up with two of them over the years. They cost about 10 bucks back in the day.

FlyerInOKC

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.

donnyman

yes I concur, but parts could be made available like the side of a fuse. not the entire assembly just a portion of it. most arf's are built very light is true that is why I say sold as a kit the builder could do what he wants with it
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)

FlyerInOKC

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.

DavidAgar

My Feedback: (108)

I was doing some cleaning up today and found some nostalgia. It is a Model Airplane News, July 1951, which is 2 months after I was born, and it cost .25. It has a McCoy 9 advertised for $7.99 on the back cover. Not bad for an almost 64 year old magazine.....

HighPlains

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.

donnyman

Hello DAVE!

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.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

$7.99 sounds so cheap until you stop and think about what wages were for an hour!

GallopingGhostler

Donnyman, I took a look at what a man made back then to support his family. The McCoy "9" or .098 (1950 Aeromodeller test report: http://www.sceptreflight.net/Model%2...McCoy%209.html ) probably considered an entry level sport engine back then when the average 1951 family wage was $2,700 ( http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-015.pdf ).

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.

Flypaper 2

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.

rt3232

My Feedback: (6)

+1 when I started at the old Convair San Diego plant in 1949 @ 1.19 per hr I was sure I had it by the tail.



Cheers Bob t

donnyman

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.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

When my dad got back in 8/1945 he pumped gas for 25 cents an hour.

donnyman

Gas was 12 to 15 cents a gal. in the mid 50's ........... I Needed it for my tiger jet (pulse jet)