clam61

ive heard that guillows kits are heavy. ive also heard that they come with poor quality wood?

when people say they are heavy, does this mean they are heavy by design or because of the poor quality wood?

what would be some of the qualities of this poor quality wood compared to good quality wood?

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Simple - Poor quality wood is of poor quality, and good quality wood is of good quality.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


But frankly, Guillows kits are a remnant from the past. I have been in this hobby literally all of my life (Going on 50 years) and I have never seen a guillows plane fly. In fact, I only know one person who had the patience to ever finish one, and he has several hanging from his ceiling, but they don't fly. I'd be afraid to put an engine in one for fear that it would shake the plane to pieces.

Is this something you're building, or something you're thinking of buying?

If you're looking for an RC plane, I would strongly guide you away from Guillows.

skier

If you look in the 1/2a form there are a few posts about people converting them to RC

iowanspctr

I built a half-dozen or so back when, even flew a couple of them with .o49 control line. I appreciate the skills I learned from them. Once you've built with lousy wood and plans that don't really work you really appreciate Sig and Goldberg stuff! I'd recommend them for anyone who isn't sure of their building skills, if you can build one of these, you can build anything.

Balsa Master

i second that having built 2 and almoast hurled it (and possiby myself) of a building more than once durring the building process.

CafeenMan

OK, I've built a lot of Guillows kits and a lot that I couldn't finish. They do fly, but not well as designed. First, the Guillow's airfoil is crap. Second, the wood is crap. Third, the designs aren't that great either.

If you want one to actually fly well, do not beef it up any more than necessary. If you put on the recommended engine then they are strong enough. You do not need to cover them with sheeting and double their weight like some people do.

In fact, what you should do is sand all the sheets to about half their thickness and drill holes anywhere you can. The wood is way heavy. They must be last in line when it comes time to select wood because where contest balsa is 4-6 lbs per cubic foot, Guillow's wood is about 182 lbs per cubic foot.

driverm391

There have been some successful conversions to RC. Check out the post by colmoRc about his 27" Zero in the 1/2 A forum. He has a lot of good information on the conversion.

Phlip

Right on man!

I've built many Guillows kits and they can be alot of fun. They're small enough to handle at a desk on a 24 X 36 cork building board. But as for flying...IMO they are simply designed too heavy for R/C. I've built a few WWII warbirds that fly well as 1/2 A C/L, but they are fast with a Norvel .061. I know my R/C piloting skills wouldn't keep up with them. Maybe a biplane...

kdheath

The Guillowws kits haven't changed much over the years. Printwood, strip wood die-cut from sheets, poor fits and very hard wood, and too much of it. Every successful Guillow's FF or CL scale project I've seen used the kit for a basis only. Replacing the wood, reshaping the formers, strengthening weak places and lightening places that are way over-built. The photo is one of our CL club members, Norm Anderson, with his very pretty Nieport based on the Guillow's kit. It is CL with a Norvel 061. Haven't seen it fly, but I bet it is a handful....
Kelvin

driverm391

I flew my stuka (36") I went well on a .049, but the structure does need to be beefed up. The 1/16 sticks simply can't hold up to a rough landing. I learned that from a rough landing.

Bruno Stachel

My Feedback: (4)

I've built a number of Guillows kits in my youth. All built as rubber powered free flight models, I don't recall any that flew very well. But I loved building them. Ten years ago I got nostalgic, and bought a Guillows Arrow to build. It flew beautifully (as another rubber powered model). I still have it, although the fuse is broke in two, due to trying to fly it in too much breeze. I keep looking at it, thinking it might make a good rc park flyer. I think the Guillows scale kits are difficult to make flight worthy. But the non-scale kits as the Arrow are nice little flyers.

I not sure, but I think Guillow's has some kits that are laser cut now.

taylorcraft1947

Iowanspctr,

I agree, my first plane was a guillows PT-17 stearman. They are a GREAT learning experience! It taught me to read plans, how to work with an Exacto-knife, and also how extremely careful you must be with a model airplane! It never flew, but it taught me a lot.

taylorcraft1947

Boss248

It is only now with the explosion in micro gear and new batteries that the Guillows kits can be taken seriously for a conversion. Hell I bet I built 100 of the fragile things and almost always look at then when in the LHS. I am pleased to the Guillows kits still on the LHS shelves...it kinda takes me back to a much simplier wonderful time in my youth. I might just buy me a Guillows kit...ha why don't we have a best of show here in RCU??? any takers???

Bowfish

I built the rubber-powered ones too and they are not good fliers. I have an old Guillow Cessna kit that I am finishing to hang in the garage but I dont plan on it ever flying. I am rather proud that I got this far with those plans. I never knew that planes were supposed to have instruction books and when I got a Laser 3D and a BLT it was extremely nice. Now working on a GP Perfect Trainer and you can definately see the difference in material and detail.

Phlip

Here are my entries...all 1/2 A C/L.[8D]

The Zero was built first, covered with silkspan and dope, powered by Cox .049 Babe-Bee, built according to Guillows C/L plans. Performance stinks!

Next was the 'Stang. Covered with Monokote, powered by Norvel .061. I put the leadouts inside the wing, but no other mods. Flies good and fast, but the flat bottom wing prevents any outside maneuvers.

Finally, I built the FW190. Covered with Sig Coverall and dope, powered by Norvel, wing modified to make it semi-symmetrical. Flies well, but not very aerobatic. Haven't flown since adding tail weight.

Boss248

Dang Philip...those are really nice...I really like the Stang. I am going to the LHS and get me a plane but I am going to give you best of show right now because there ain't no way mine will come out that nice but since it was my idea I will give it a whrile.
Would you beleive this is a Guillows kit???[sm=spinnyeyes.gif] "NOT"

BTW Philip...how on earth did you get the Monokote on the Guillows frame work without it collapsing?????

Phlip

It didn't take any special work. The frames are built right to the plans, with the many 1/16th stringers, no sheeting. I was very apt to break the stringers with my fingers while handling the frames before they were covered, but afterward it's not as likely.

One other neat trick I did was to make new engine cowlings from soda bottles. I filled the Guillows vacuum formed cowls with plaster of paris. Several days after it hardened and dried, I ripped the vacuum formed plastic off, leaving me with a nice plug. Then I shrank the soda bottle around the plug with a heat gun. It makes a nice little cowl that's much more durable than the thin vacuum formed stuff.

CafeenMan

What I'm curious about is the Coverall. That's some heavy duty stuff. THe covering probably weighs more than the structure. You must have been very careful when shrinking it.

Phlip

I like using the coverall. I don't remember if there is different weights available, I don't think so. I first prepared the frames with Stix-it, then attached the Coverall with my sealing iron. What I like about using the coverall is how easily it goes around compound curves...the weave of the fabric just allows it to follow the contours...so you can cover large areas with one piece of fabric.

Next I shrink the Coverall with the iron...I dont own a heat gun for covering (the one I use for the cowls I mentioned is a little one that my wife has for heat activated ink she uses in stamping greeting cards). Then I put a coat or two of nitrate to fill the fabric, and then airbrush on the butrate colors. On the complete model you can still see the fabric texture and it really doesn't seem to add too much weight. As I mentioned, the FW190 still needed tail weight to be aerobatic.

I've covered two larger airplanes (a GP Pete'n'Poke, and the 1/6 scale Cub in my avatar) with the Coverall as well, but the problem there is the stink from such large amounts of dope. I've decided not to do that again...kills too many brain cells[] I would do a small plane like a Guillows again, though.

Boss248

The dope is smeely...I have used the Nelson Hobbies fabric and paint and it is so easy and no smell. You can brush the paint on with a foam brush (that's right..a foam brush) and when it dries it looks like it was sparyed. The finish is not very glossy but a clear can be used over the color. This is without a doubt the easiest, coolest, and best looking method I have ever used.

Phlip

Is the Nelson Hobbies stuff fuel proof? Does the fabric have adhesive, or do you have to use something like Stix-it? Iron on?

Sounds like an improvement to be rid of dope smell.

PS. What kind of color selection do they have?

Boss248

Click the link below and read all about it. The Nelson lite fab is fuel proof as is but most people will paint it any way. The paint is fuel proof 10 10% nitro but they sell a cross linker that makes the paint good to 40-50% nitro proof. there are some 600 colors to chose from. The paint epoxy based from what I could tell and you will not beleive how good it looks using nothing more than a foam thro away brush. I will be clear coating mine. The only real problem is the cost but the materials and the ease and lack of smell is worth it once you see the professional finish.

www.nelsonhobby.com

CafeenMan

you know... a color wheel and some practice means you can make a heck of a lot of colors and not have to buy a quart of paint that you'll only use 4 ounces of on one model. Of course, that depends on being able to buy uncontaminated primary colors or close enough and not being super picky about the exact shade that gets mixed.

You can also buy (don't ask me where) about 50 different kinds of metal particles if you want to make metallics. A little bit of that stuff goes a long way.

Phlip

Thanks much for that info. The polyurethane based paint looks very intriguing. My next project is the GP RV-4, which I expected to cover with Monokote or Ultracote, but I wanted to use a paint scheme I saw on [link=http://www.vansaircraft.com]the Van's Aircraft website[/link]. It has wide stripes on the side of the fuse that seem to fade from dark to light blue. My dilemma was how to do that without buying 10 rolls of covering and only using a few square inches of each. Perhaps the Nelson color fab with several mixtures of blue and white paint finished with a clear coat will do the trick.

Although I'm not sure if I want the fabric texture on the RV-4, since the full-scale ones are aluminum...

[img][/img]

jessiej

New Guillows kits are lazier cut. Cut parts look really good. Probably still want to replace the stripwood though.