Tee Bee

I've built quite a few stick n tissue type Guillow's planes over the years. The most recent was the Fokker Triplane. I then built a Sig Kadet Senior for my first RC model since it is built up in a similar fashion(but much larger). The Senior took longer to complete due to it's size, complexities of engine and radio installation, etc. but the Guillow's Triplane was a harder model to finish. I'm very pleased with how they both turned out but the Triplane simply hangs in my bedroom on static display where my Sig Senior took to the air yesterday and flew beautifully. It was a larger reward for my efforts. That was very exciting to experience after building it from a box of sticks.

simark

My Feedback: (12)

I'm not sure that Guillow kits have really discouraged many from continuing this hobby. Anyone who has been at this game for longer than about 10 years did it with die mashed kits, often with die cutting no better than Guillows efforts.
It just built character. I don't wish to go back to those days, but it sure taught me a lot about building and fitting parts together. I guess building a stick and tissue planes is a good traing ground for scratch building. If you never venture outside of modern laser cut kits or ARF's than you may elect to skip that step.

mgnostic

Ah memories. I remember lusting over a Guillow's Rumpler biplane ( did anybody ever fly one?) as a ten year old. As a ten year old I thrashed together a Sopwith Camel that never flew and a FW190 that would sort of do a powered glide. I didn't have a clue about balance. I didn't have any dope and with no modelers in the family and the guy at the hardware store didn't have a clue I painted them with shellac. (it worked). In desparation I covered a small Comet Bellanca with Saran Wrap glued on with plastic cement and it actually flew well enough to gain altitude. A milestone moment to this day. My first doped model was a Guillow's Fokker triplane that I found in a junk shop. I had to trace and replace the missing fuselage formers. It was heavy and never flew but it looked nice. My most successful tissue and rubber model was a 36" Sig Interstate Cadet with a hand carved prop. As to the pro's or con's of starting with Guillow's all I can say is that at the time I didn't know there was any better.

Bax

My Feedback: (11)

Between first grade and my freshman year in college, I built quite a few of the rubber-band stick and tissue models from Guillow's, Sterling, and Comet. It wasn't unusual to see 6 and 7-year old children building these models. I still have quite a scar from a knife cut when I was working on a model. I was a second-grader at the time. I was flying small .049 engine-powered models at the ripe old age of 8 years, and building models from kits made by Sterling, Goldberg, and Scientific.

pywackit

Hey mgnostic! Just so happens I did build and fly the Rumpler, granted it wasn't balanced the best so it was a little tail heavy but it still flew with control lines. Wish I still had it....I'd balance it right and put a cox .049 on it instead of the .020. Really wish I could get that covering too, but I built that 30 plus years ago.

I also built a Guillow's Beechcraft Baron for free flight and I even kept the wooden wheels on her. I didn't paint her put just put a clear finish on and she was ready for flight. I maidened her right on the street in front of the house for all too see....I wound her rubber band tight and set her on the pavement and released her! She took off like she had her own pilot and started to climb at about a 30 degree pitch with the wings level as can be! I was amazed as well as everyone else.....the plane got about 100 yards out and well above the trees and wires and just kept going. Then I saw the left wing dip some and knew this flight was about over...LOL! I started running down the street to be close when she did go in....she dipped over into a slight spin dive and hit the road breaking the whole nose of the plane....[&o] No matter I thought since it was such a great flight....I was happy.

I also built some of those Sterling kits and have aquired the Albatros D-3 kit which I have three of them and plan on making one into an RC conversion. Like others here I've been building for years and enjoy it. I'd build a Guillow's again or Sterling easy...if that anwsers your question.

I looked at one Comet kit and said no way....[:-]

dededdie

I just built my first kit, a Guillows Cessna 0-1E Bird-Dog no.902 . It wasn't easy. I'm 41 years old and pretty handy with wood working and most things that are mechanical and I almost did not finish this kit . I tried to be patient and take my time but it was frustrating at times. The instructions are poor and the only building tips I could find were in the back of the catalog that came with the model. I actually built the fusalage upside down ( and no I couldn't just turn it over ...the formers were upside down against the sides ) I had to cut out all of those pieces from new balsa .In the end it looks pretty good from about five feet away ,but the rubber band hangs up on some extra reinforcements I added. After finishing this project I have taken a week off from building and have bought another Guillows kit (this the only brand in stock at my closest rc shop) this on is no. 702 Arrow . I haven't started yet but I have read the instructions several times they are much more informative than in the previuos kit. I'll try to post some pictures ( taken from at least five feet away ) when I get a chance . Also I wanted to say how good all of your planes look and I say congrats to anyone whom buids these kits .

CrateCruncher

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, Guillows were ok when I was a kid in the 70's but I never finished one, much less FLEW it. Man, that is an accomplishment! You should have built the RC kit as practice for the Guillows.

Seriously, balsa framing is a small part of the total build and even most modern full builders kits are designed with interlocking tabs and other goof-proof features. RC kits DO require a bit more attention to alignment at final assembly and reinforcement than most of the instructions discuss however. I think many biplane designs have gotten a bad reputation for this very reason (wing incidence etc). Your best "preparation" for a particular build is to find a relevant build thread in the forum archives and read through it. There are some precision detail types that have come up with some really useful information around here. My building skills improved dramatically after reading these build threads.

Your planes will fly better and last MUCH longer than the typical ARF.

saucerguy

I've been building Guillow's kits all my life, I fondly remember building a little cessna that flew exactly the way it was supposed to, had varied results with other birds. They are not exactly consistant in quality, so those of you that have been turned off by one, have not experienced one of their's that was higher quality.

I made a suggestion to the LHS to pull the shrink wrap off of the boxes to let us see what we are getting contents wise and to check out the quality, I recently picked up a Cessna 172, 34" kit and was floored with the quality and the fact, it's begging for eflight conversion, they already planned in the control surfaces, I have a Javelin kit that is physically impossible to use the stock die cuts since they are so faint, nobody can possibly use the stock for anything. I bought the kit for the plans, of which I enlarged 200% and converted to e-flight. And, going back to my early days, I picked up another Guillow's 108 I blew up the plans on to make it into an rc bird, I may still use the original kit and make it a free flight bird that will get launched from the rc version.

The 34" stuka came out pretty good and wasn't too hard of an eflight conversion, shown, and the current one ready to maiden, SAE5 was much more difficult to convert to eflight due to it's size in spite of the fact it was a lazer cut kit, the build log is http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/show...ewpost&t=19016 I still have mroe details to add to it, but it's ready to take to the air now.

Overall, when you get past the 10-15.00 kits, the quality goes up and it's good practice since you are literally making a scale type of build as per the full size bird. As for covering, I don't do paper any more, I prefer ultracoat or solite.

Also, the Lancer kit I built, no photo's, was not the best in quality, so good job on your's, and even better that you got it flying correctly.

JPerrone

Depends on what kind of practice

Skeet shooting? Absolutely

Golf? Sure why not how could you miss...

tictochouse

Building any die cut Guillow kit takes a lot patience and time,but if you have a lot of models under your belt the rewards are great!.[img][/img] I'm showing a Spitfire that is finished and ready to fly.I have a lot of Guillow kits converted to electric outrunners,plus Comets with outstanding results.[ul][*] [*] [*]
[/ul]

saucerguy

Really nice plane, that one came out well. I took my se5 out a few times, it's too darn nice to fly, this is the draw back to building these kits, you tend to get attached to them once they are complete. I recovered the fuse on mine with Ultracoat "my favorite covering" and started in on the finishing touches. It's going to need some additioinal beefing up, mainly in the wing strut area since those buggars keep dislodging. I'm losing my love for using CA now, it makes really quick work for assembly, but I don't think it's as strong as carpenters glue because it sets up to fast to really soak into the wood, so stress testing prior to covering usually ends up having to re-glue pieces that dislodge.

I assembled the bones to a Guillow's 108 Cessna Jr. Model kit in just one evening, it's a good one for the first time builder to do, due to it's simplicity. I then took the plans, blew them up 200% and used them with plenty of revision and am finishing it up, this time e-flight control wise. I posted a build log at WattFlyer in the builders tips and techniques section in case you wanted to keep up on the progress.