wingnutagencies

hi guys

have you tried the toni-clark web site?

2 nice ones there

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Flair makes/made a 1/4 scale tiggy.. Not sure its still in production but you might try there also.

Gtarling

Bob - Thanks, I was aware of that one. I think they are still available, though maybe not as readily as previously. I had the chance to examine a couple at close quarters recently and it does build into a nice model, so that'd probably be my choice were I to be considering a build.

Daniel-EL

My Feedback: (9)

Jim, Thanks for the Bud Barkley Tiger Moth comments. You reminded me that I still have one of his kits which I bought about 20 years ago along with a Quadra 42 to power it. Both have sat in the attic ever since. I'm going to dust them off now and make the Barkley Tiger Moth my next project.

larrysl

They sure are a beautiful airplane. Not sure I would have the patience to build one. Sorry I didn't buy a full scale one years ago when they were affordable. I did get a ride in Woody Woodpecker owned by the Tiger Boys of Guelph, Canada, When they had it at the Brodhead, WI flyin the last two years.

atron

Jim Messer:

I really will like to have a copy of Bud Barkley´s plans you posted...... Clark Industries kit is too high priced and that is the size/engine convintation i am looking for.

Is there a way to get a copy of the plans?

Where did you get the cowling?

Alexis

bla bla

Tony Clark. 3rd Scale. G38 and reduction drive with super quiet matching muffler system. 36 inch prop. Idle in the mid 100s of RPM. THE most scale looking and SOUNDING RC model available.
I've still never seen or heard anything, even 400cc 4 stroke radial powered models that can be compared. Brilliant.

Something smaller? Flair make a nice 1/4 scale TM. It's not F4C... but it's great for everything else. As normal with Flair, it's completely over constructed, way to many parts, far to much wood etc but for once this actually benefits a model. Moths fly so much better heavy, than light! There's just so much wing.

Cybertom

I don't understand why you would think that the Flair kit is over constructed and has way to much wood weight? The only real weight detraction is the metal landing gear and metal cabane struts. Both of those items can be substituted for some other material that is considerably lighter.

Once you take the metal components out of the picture, it would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to save a significant amount of weight vs. any other construction method. I think the Flair kit is BRILIANT just the way it is.

bla bla

If you'd read the rest of the post before knee jerking you'd see I basically agree with you.
As far as the wood count. A Duncan Huston TM uses far less wood. The Tony Clark, from what I saw in the owner hanger also. Just like a scaled up Huston.

Flairs are totally over engineered... I've had many a laugh with the boys in the UK playing with their CAD software some years back. "Hey, why make a tail plane out of 10 piece when you can design it out off 59 interlocking pieces?!!!" I've built the Moth, metal and all and added a 31 cc gass engine. As it would need the nose weight anyway why add lead?. I also started on the Yakk 55m. Then just stopped. As with the moth, WAY to many pieces, WAY to heavy for an acrobat. Even a "scale " one. I'm currently looking at ways to modify that model to make it usable (in a serious manner) for IMAC.
Nope, heavy Flair bipes are just fine. As started, heavy is good in my book when it come down to biplanes.

Cybertom

Bla Bla,

I read the whole post. It wasn't a knee jerk reaction. I simply disagree with you. I think that the Flair designs in general exhibit a lot of sound engineering. One example is that the fuselage tail section is a "Warren Truss" configuration. Yes it takes time to cut all of the pieces to build a proper Warren Truss but nothing is stronger by weight.

Typically the effort you put in to a project is what you get out in results. You can't say Flair didn't hold up their end of the bargan designing this kit. It's obvious that they invested a lot of time. Anyone who finds this kind of kit construction tedious or overwhelming can always build something less challenging. The rest of us find it rewarding.

Saying that the Flair kit has or that it is or that the designers were are simplistic criticisms. You will need to come up with factual data based on comparisons of other aircraft designs of similar size to be taken seriously.

Now if you were to say that the translucent portion of the plans supplied in the kit is undersized by about 3% and do not match up with the physical parts supplied I would agree. If you were to say that you were disappointed that the elevator bar pivoted on machine screw threads instead of a machined surface like a pin or shoulder bolt I would totally agree.

Buy one of the kits you claim is superior and start a build thread about it here on RC Universe and document the entire build process. Everyone can then see the construction process and make up there own mind as to which design and construction process is superior. That would be far more beneficial to all of us.


Photo of Warren Truss Construction