Skybolt hangar and clubhouse
02-09-2014, 06:27 PM
#1851
Banned
Originally Posted by Zor
A kit is built by a hobbyist. It can be glued properly and the frame all cheked prior to covering; then the covering and finishing is at the hobbyist choice.
An ARF is designed for quick manufacturing at minimum cost and likely has a different structural design.
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
Zor
A kit is built by a hobbyist. It can be glued properly and the frame all cheked prior to covering; then the covering and finishing is at the hobbyist choice.
An ARF is designed for quick manufacturing at minimum cost and likely has a different structural design.
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
Zor
Zor,
Because of my position here at RCU I get to have a unique "peek" inside of the hobby industry that many people such as yourself just don't get. I am here to tell you that comments such as your are simple elite-est comments and do nothing but drag down this hobby. Now before I go any further, don't get me wrong, I love building kits. I am only 49 years old and I have been building balsa wood kits since I was 8 years old when my dad introduced me to my first Guillow's kit. I love building them. I am in a kit collecting phase right now, if I know I have a lot of years ahead of me to build kits so if I see a kit I think I may build later on down the road then I will buy and stash it away for later on.
To say that a kit is built by a hobbyist is to lump everybody into a category that simply doesn't exist. In the days before ARF's came along I have seen people trying to build kits that had no right to be trying to build, they simply didn't have to the skills. The same thing exists today. I have seen guys trying to build kits that don't know how to glue two sticks together properly. So for you to sit here and to say that all Skybolts are being built by people who have the skills to inspect and find all the defects in then is saying things that simply don't exist.
As much as I really don't like like ARF (although I do have a few in my trailer right) they have saved this hobby. There is no way we would be as big as we are now without the advent of ARF's. For people to turn up their noses at them is silly. They let guys that don't have the skills to get to properly build a plane get into flying where they would have never been able to before. My dear friend (may he rest in peace) Minnflyer used to say that building planes was the hobby and flying them was the sport, and I fully believe that. I thing that Sig or Great Planes could build a Skybolt that flies just as well as the kit built plane with no problems at all. The only real difference that I have seen between ARF's and kit built planes is how long they last. When was the last time you saw a ARF plane last 5+ years? But to say the performance would differ just because it's an ARF is crazy. I have have a kit built GP Giant Scale P-51 and the same ARF and in the air I really can't tell the difference between the two.
As I have said, the advent of ARF's have saved this hobby. I attend the Toledo show every year to cover it for RCU, and that gives me time to talk to the people at these companies that supply the hobby. They all say the same exact thing. The hobby would not be where it is today without the ARF's and the RTF planes. There are a lot of people that are flying today that wouldn't be flying if they had to sit down and build a kit. So you can sit there and look down on the people that fly ARF's all you want, but you have a lot to be thankful to them for, whether you realize it or not. From my position here at RCU I do realize it and I will never ever look down on any portion of this hobby. The way I look at it, we are all RC flyers and as long as we are all out there wiggling those little sticks we are all the same and nobody should be looked at differently.
So yes, I would like to see a Skybolt ARF. And as a sidenote, where do I stand on the Skybolt front?? I have two GP Skybolt kits stashed away, plus I have a GP Skybolt that belonged to my dear friend Minnflyer coming my way, it's powered with a YS 91 and I will keep it as a memorial of my dear departed friend!!!!
Ken
My post is reproduced above and is as the original (no editing by you or me).
It was short and clear and I did not imply anything else than what I wrote.
I still think that a kit built may differ in performance (and appearance) from an ARF that is or could be supplied by the same supplier.
Regards,
Zor
02-09-2014, 07:23 PM
#1852
Zor,
Well I'm going to disagree with you. As I said in my post, I have flown many of the same planes that were produced in both kit and ARF versions and their performance was no different, or at least not enough different to mention. Your trying to say there is a difference shows and elitist attitude and you are trying to stir up an fight here in the forums. Like I said in my post above, the advent of ARF's have brought in many people to this hobby that wouldn't be here otherwise. So trying to diminish an plane and saying it doesn't perform as well just because it's an ARF is just plain crazy. In fact, I've would content that in some cases ARF's are going to fly BETTER than the a kit built plane. But I'm not going to get into that argument here. I am simply countering your statement that you made because I felt that what you said is putting down the hobby and was out of line and really ranks on a lot of people when it shouldn't have.
Ken
Well I'm going to disagree with you. As I said in my post, I have flown many of the same planes that were produced in both kit and ARF versions and their performance was no different, or at least not enough different to mention. Your trying to say there is a difference shows and elitist attitude and you are trying to stir up an fight here in the forums. Like I said in my post above, the advent of ARF's have brought in many people to this hobby that wouldn't be here otherwise. So trying to diminish an plane and saying it doesn't perform as well just because it's an ARF is just plain crazy. In fact, I've would content that in some cases ARF's are going to fly BETTER than the a kit built plane. But I'm not going to get into that argument here. I am simply countering your statement that you made because I felt that what you said is putting down the hobby and was out of line and really ranks on a lot of people when it shouldn't have.
Ken
02-09-2014, 09:03 PM
#1853
Banned
Blue text written by Zor
I have no idea of your style of flying. The average flyer I see at our site or in the videos in this forum I would agree would be in no position to judge any difference. Rare are the pilots that are interested in studying their model aerodynamic behavior.
What I wrote is _ _ _
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
I never tried to say there is a difference _ _ _ I clearly said "There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical. Any difference if observed could very well be an improvement as well as be a detorioration.
I do not have an elitist attitude. I simply wrote what are quite evident to most experiencd hobbyists.
Arfs have brought in many people to this industry . . . no doubt about that.
I never said or wrote that it doesn't perform as well just because it's an ARF
Agreed that some ARF may fly BETTER than a kit built plane. That is why I wrote _ _ _
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
That DOES NOT mean it will be worst. It means it may be different and noticeable by fellows that are keen (interested) in their model performance or behavior.
Ken,
I regret that you have your reasons to misunderstand or misinterpret what I wrote.
I do not feel it is the general impression of the readers that I am putting down the hobby nor the industry.
Many hobbyists are still building their models from kits or from scratch.
Others enjoy buying an ARF of RTF and enjoy that.
It remains that ARFs of a model that also is available in kit form or built from drawings may have noticeable differences in their flying behavior _ _ _ be it an improvement or a degradation.
I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Best regards as always,
Zor
Your trying to say there is a difference
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
I never tried to say there is a difference _ _ _ I clearly said "There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical. Any difference if observed could very well be an improvement as well as be a detorioration.
shows and elitist attitude and you are trying to stir up an fight here in the forums. Like I said in my post above, the advent of ARF's have brought in many people to this hobby that wouldn't be here otherwise. So trying to diminish an plane and saying it doesn't perform as well just because it's an ARF is just plain crazy.
Arfs have brought in many people to this industry . . . no doubt about that.
I never said or wrote that it doesn't perform as well just because it's an ARF
In fact, I've would content that in some cases ARF's are going to fly BETTER than the a kit built plane. But I'm not going to get into that argument here.
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
That DOES NOT mean it will be worst. It means it may be different and noticeable by fellows that are keen (interested) in their model performance or behavior.
I am simply countering your statement that you made because I felt that what you said is putting down the hobby and was out of line and really ranks on a lot of people when it shouldn't have.
Ken
Ken
I regret that you have your reasons to misunderstand or misinterpret what I wrote.
I do not feel it is the general impression of the readers that I am putting down the hobby nor the industry.
Many hobbyists are still building their models from kits or from scratch.
Others enjoy buying an ARF of RTF and enjoy that.
It remains that ARFs of a model that also is available in kit form or built from drawings may have noticeable differences in their flying behavior _ _ _ be it an improvement or a degradation.
I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Best regards as always,
Zor
02-10-2014, 07:55 AM
#1854
Zor,
There is no misunderstanding or misinterpreting in what you wrote. I am saying that you are wrong. It's just that simple. You can try to spin the words however you want and flower them up, but that's the brass tacks of it. What you have said is wrong.
Many hobbyists are still building their models from kits or from scratch.
Others enjoy buying an ARF of RTF and enjoy that.
It remains that ARFs of a model that also is available in kit form or built from drawings may have noticeable differences in their flying behavior _ _ _ be it an improvement or a degradation.
I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Best regards as always,
Zor
Others enjoy buying an ARF of RTF and enjoy that.
It remains that ARFs of a model that also is available in kit form or built from drawings may have noticeable differences in their flying behavior _ _ _ be it an improvement or a degradation.
I hope this is the end of this discussion.
Best regards as always,
Zor
Ken
02-10-2014, 09:04 AM
#1855
Unless one modifies the original design by changing the airfoil, span, moments, weight, and I mean allot of weight like 3-5 pounds on and airplane this size, then they will fly alike; that is unless the builder builds a warped wing or wings, improper incidence in the wings or tail feathers, wash in, oops, too much wash out and the list goes on. I for one like to build, but there is certainly nothing wrong with owning an ARF, most are pretty straight and the weight of them have gotten lighter over the years, if you follow the direction assembling them, they fly pretty good. So different strokes for different folks.
Bob
Bob
02-10-2014, 09:13 AM
#1856
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure one day I will own and fly ARF's. You know, if I'm working too many hours to allow me to build, or if I can't build for any other reason. I'll still want to fly when I have the chance. Bit right now, building is my passion. To some, flying is there passion. Can't knock em for that. Like it was stated earlier, if not for ARF's, the fields would be like ghost towns. Like you said Bob, different strokes for different folks.
02-10-2014, 09:43 AM
#1857
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I'm sure one day I will own and fly ARF's. You know, if I'm working too many hours to allow me to build, or if I can't build for any other reason. I'll still want to fly when I have the chance. Bit right now, building is my passion. To some, flying is there passion. Can't knock em for that. Like it was stated earlier, if not for ARF's, the fields would be like ghost towns. Like you said Bob, different strokes for different folks.
Ken
02-10-2014, 09:50 AM
#1858
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hoodsport, WA
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, Yes, the Sig Skybolt is very famous for its scale looks and flying qualities. Sig came out with the kit in the 70's and it was very famous at the scale meets and fly-ins. Hale Wallace who is famous in full scale Skybolt circles, said that the Sig model flew very much like the full scale Skybolt. There is really something very special about the model. They still show up for sale here in the classified fourm, and also on #bay quite often. Anyone interested should pick up a kit and built it. I can guarantee you will love it. Lamar Steen who is the designer, (of the full scale Skybolt) had his high school shop class build the very first full scale kit as a school project. Talk about a fun class to take. : )
I remember when Sig introduced their Skybolt kit. I passed on it because I thought nothing could beat my Aeromaster bipe. After seeing several full-size Steen Skybolts one summer at the EAA's Convention, I fell hard for the design. Bigger (and friendlier) than the Pitts, gorgeous lines, this plane had it going-on! There are more than a few sport bipes out there, but I keep measuring them against the 'Bolt. On the R/C hobby side, I continued to ring-out my Aeromaster.
When I returned to the hobby after a twenty-year plus hiatus, I began collecting kits. I kept my eye out for a Sig Skybolt kit. in the meantime, I discovered Wendell Hostetler's plans. Wendell offers a 26.5% (76.5") 'Bolt which is actually based on the Sig kit design. I have a Precision Cut Kit of Wendell's design. I also connected with a Sig kit and have that on hand as well. Another great (and stout) rendition of a 1/4-scale R/C 'Bolt is plans by Dario Brisighella (78"). I was lucky enough to get my hands on a set of these plans as well. I've seen a few Great Planes 'Bolt kits come up here on R/C Uni, R/C Groups, and eBay. I shied-away from adding one to my stash because I'm more impressed with the lines of the Sig kit. Another reason is that the GP kit goes with a one-piece canopy, and to me, an enclosed biplane cockpit is about as natural looking as canopy on a horse. I did finally add a GP 'Bolt to my stash because I plan to challenge myself to build it as light as possible.
My admiration for this design has never wained, and last summer I purchased a set of full-size Skybolt plans from Steen Aero Lab. At the least, being an avid woodworker, I'll build some wing ribs.
I did build the lower wing for my Sig 'Bolt kit. Being that I intend to go with two aileron servos instead of the kit depicted wire and bell crank set-up, I wanted to get an idea of what servos I'd need. I went with Hitech (can't recall the model # offhand) that fit flat in the wing bays. As pointed-out, the Sig hit gives the builder the option to build the model with either full-span lower wing ailerons, or four barn-door type ailerons. I'm going with four.
My wife and I are in the midsts of relocated from the Southwest to the Pacific Northwest, U.S.. A new shop awaits, and so do the 'Bolts.
02-10-2014, 10:15 AM
#1859
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what ya mean about the odd duck thing. I am only 40, and have only been building and flying since my early 30's, long after the ARF's hit the market. What drew me to the hobby was the kits. I've owned a couple of ARF's, and still have one, although I haven't flown it in a couple of years. I'm also not such a purist that I wouldn't fly one. I just like the satisfaction there is to be had after you maiden a plane that you just poured your heart and soul into. You just don't feel that with an arf.
02-10-2014, 10:15 AM
#1860
Banned
Unless one modifies the original design by changing the airfoil, span, moments, weight, and I mean allot of weight like 3-5 pounds on and airplane this size, then they will fly alike; that is unless the builder builds a warped wing or wings, improper incidence in the wings or tail feathers, wash in, oops, too much wash out and the list goes on. I for one like to build, but there is certainly nothing wrong with owning an ARF, most are pretty straight and the weight of them have gotten lighter over the years, if you follow the direction assembling them, they fly pretty good. So different strokes for different folks.
Bob
I wish to thank you for your post.
You are listing quite a few variants that MAY occur while building a kit. Thus, kits built by different builders may have some noticeable differences in their flying behavior.
ARFs and RTFs are built using jigs at the factory and are likely to be more uniform and have more similar behavior.
To be noted is that I wrote MAY have and not WILL have.
I certainly do not question the experience of anyone but I consider that the experience MAY vary depending on the attention people pay to the model behavior while flying them. If, ( notice I say IF ), a flyer is constantly controlling and do not bother checking the stability characteristics, the behavior in stall recoveries, the effect of CG location (within the range limits), the effet of changing the control surfaces travel limits, and so on, then experience can ( MAY ) result in an experience of a highly different nature.
We have no way of knowing the kind of experience a flyer has and stating lots of experience is not defining the kind of experience anyone has. I have not buiilt many models in the last few years but one of the reasons of my still attraction to this hobby is to study and experiment the behavior of the model in flight.
In fact I only fly now for that very purpose.
My Skybolt has only about 15 to 20 hours now and the maiden flight ended landing in the trees about 10 feet off the ground without any damage. I took off again a few minutes later for a second maiden day flight.
My Radian Pro has been considerably modified including aluminum full span wing leading edges (hidden) and rear fuselage and fin reinforcement as well as wing joints and other modifications.
I used a Spectra sailplane kit to add wing area, flaps, ailerons, removable landing gear, brushless outrunner motor and ESC, larger folding blade propeller, and finished with fabric and genuine aircraft dope (like many fabric covered full size airplanes).
Having started to build model airplanes in the mid 1950s and originally building my own radio control including transmitters and receivers and modifying servo from relays to solid state did not prevent some guys posting many times that I know nothing about this hobby. We cannot control what some people post; I have often written that all posts need proper evaluation. Guys that distort the writings and claim we said or implied something that we did not are not rare.
This forum has recently suffered of many difficulties and that is not a surprise. I can only wish management a better luck in solving it all. Some other forums do not and did not experience such difficulties and have facilities such as being able to post captions to attached illustrations and easier process of attaching pictures.
I can easily understand the frustrations of many hobbyists participating in this forum. Many like myself do not participate here anymore. This is the only thread I keep some interest in due to the invitation to post in it the work done on my Skybolt.
Wishing all the enjoyment of model aviation.
Zor
02-10-2014, 10:32 AM
#1861
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hoodsport, WA
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding ARFs.
"ARF": Almost Ready to Fly. Okay. Not the beginning nor the end of this hobby. Used to be that if you wanted to fly an R/C model, you had to become a builder first. *Or*, you had to have someone build a model for you. How is this not an ARF, or more RTF (Ready To Fly) situation? Ever buy a used R/C plane? Yep, you bought an ARF. Personally, I don't see why there needs to be battle lines drawn about this. This builder -vs- ARF is the most childish of topics in this entire hobby.
I was fortunate enough to have a very well stocked and diverse local hobby shop (LHS) when I was growing up. I bought most of my plastic model airplane kits there. I bought all of my stick and tissue rubber-powered kits there. I bought my first control line (Cox 049 PT-19 - ARF!!!) there. And, when I finally earned the resources, I bought my first R/C airplane kit there in 1974 (Goldberg Falcon 56). The owner of shop helped me set-up my plane, and he was my flight instructor at the R/C field. Little did I know that I was under the tutelage of a genuine R/C pioneer, Colby Evett.
Colby was a Sunday afternoon fixture at the flying field. He always brought a few planes to fly for his own enjoyment. A Top Flite P-51B and a Royal B-25 were two of his regulars. But was a Lanier trainer, an ARF, that Colby was well known for. The R/C field would draw a crowd of curious spectators. When someone showed attention in the hobby, Colby would fuel-up the trainer and give them a "familiarization flight". Sure, he was generating business, but not just for himself, but for the manufacturers that supply and support our hobby. Being a radio technician, Colby also used that ARF trainer as a test bed for repaired radio equipment. That ARF was rode hard and put away (oily) wet. So see, even a Master of the hobby had use for an ARF.
I spent many hours in Colby's hobby shop learning about the hobby. I was able to build my Aeromaster bipe under his watchful and selfless eye.
Somewhere I have a photo of Colby posing with one of the last models he flew - a Sig Skybolt.
"ARF": Almost Ready to Fly. Okay. Not the beginning nor the end of this hobby. Used to be that if you wanted to fly an R/C model, you had to become a builder first. *Or*, you had to have someone build a model for you. How is this not an ARF, or more RTF (Ready To Fly) situation? Ever buy a used R/C plane? Yep, you bought an ARF. Personally, I don't see why there needs to be battle lines drawn about this. This builder -vs- ARF is the most childish of topics in this entire hobby.
I was fortunate enough to have a very well stocked and diverse local hobby shop (LHS) when I was growing up. I bought most of my plastic model airplane kits there. I bought all of my stick and tissue rubber-powered kits there. I bought my first control line (Cox 049 PT-19 - ARF!!!) there. And, when I finally earned the resources, I bought my first R/C airplane kit there in 1974 (Goldberg Falcon 56). The owner of shop helped me set-up my plane, and he was my flight instructor at the R/C field. Little did I know that I was under the tutelage of a genuine R/C pioneer, Colby Evett.
Colby was a Sunday afternoon fixture at the flying field. He always brought a few planes to fly for his own enjoyment. A Top Flite P-51B and a Royal B-25 were two of his regulars. But was a Lanier trainer, an ARF, that Colby was well known for. The R/C field would draw a crowd of curious spectators. When someone showed attention in the hobby, Colby would fuel-up the trainer and give them a "familiarization flight". Sure, he was generating business, but not just for himself, but for the manufacturers that supply and support our hobby. Being a radio technician, Colby also used that ARF trainer as a test bed for repaired radio equipment. That ARF was rode hard and put away (oily) wet. So see, even a Master of the hobby had use for an ARF.
I spent many hours in Colby's hobby shop learning about the hobby. I was able to build my Aeromaster bipe under his watchful and selfless eye.
Somewhere I have a photo of Colby posing with one of the last models he flew - a Sig Skybolt.
02-10-2014, 10:38 AM
#1862
ZOR
A kit is built by a hobbyist. It can be glued properly and the frame all cheked prior to covering; then the covering and finishing is at the hobbyist choice.
An ARF is designed for quick manufacturing at minimum cost and likely has a different structural design.
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
A kit is built by a hobbyist. It can be glued properly and the frame all cheked prior to covering; then the covering and finishing is at the hobbyist choice.
An ARF is designed for quick manufacturing at minimum cost and likely has a different structural design.
There is no assurance that the performance will be near identical to the kit built by a hobbyist.
Seems like you are changing your tune now. I quote out your initial post that started this little conversation where you stated that kits were built by hobbyists and could "be glued properly and the frame all checked prior to covering" and you indicated that that ARF's have different structural designs. Now in your post above you are stating just the opposite. You are now saying it's the guy building the kit that is building in variations and ARF's are the constant. So which is it??? Which side of the fence are you going to come down on in discussion??? You can't argue both sides of the point and hope to pick the one that wins.
You are listing quite a few variants that MAY occur while building a kit. Thus, kits built by different builders may have some noticeable differences in their flying behavior.
ARFs and RTFs are built using jigs at the factory and are likely to be more uniform and have more similar behavior.
ARFs and RTFs are built using jigs at the factory and are likely to be more uniform and have more similar behavior.
02-10-2014, 11:11 AM
#1864
I've never had the chance to fly the Sig Skybolt, only the GP version. Does the Sig fly that much different/better than the GP?? Don't get me wrong, I love my GP Skybolt, but reading your guys posts here I get the feeling that I'm missing something here and maybe I should try to find a Sig kit and build one.
Ken
Ken
02-10-2014, 11:26 AM
#1865
Banned
Zor,
Seems like you are changing your tune now. I quote out your initial post that started this little conversation where you stated that kits were built by hobbyists and could "be glued properly and the frame all checked prior to covering" and you indicated that that ARF's have different structural designs. Now in your post above you are stating just the opposite. You are now saying it's the guy building the kit that is building in variations and ARF's are the constant. So which is it??? Which side of the fence are you going to come down on in discussion??? You can't argue both sides of the point and hope to pick the one that wins.
Ken
Seems like you are changing your tune now. I quote out your initial post that started this little conversation where you stated that kits were built by hobbyists and could "be glued properly and the frame all checked prior to covering" and you indicated that that ARF's have different structural designs. Now in your post above you are stating just the opposite. You are now saying it's the guy building the kit that is building in variations and ARF's are the constant. So which is it??? Which side of the fence are you going to come down on in discussion??? You can't argue both sides of the point and hope to pick the one that wins.
Ken
Thus a different weight distribution.
Last edited by RCKen; 02-10-2014 at 11:28 AM.
02-10-2014, 11:42 AM
#1866
Zor,
Unfortunately it's very difficult for any of the readers here to understand what you are trying to say because you are changing the point of your message, and that is what I am trying to point out. I countered your that your initial statements about kits vs. ARF's were wrong and now your latest statements seem to completely contradict your initial statements. You're changing your own statements and then come out and say that the readers know what you mean is a cop out.
So now ARF's have different weight distribution. So you're saying that and ARF is going to have a completely different CG than a Kit built plane?? Is that what you are saying?? I just want to make sure that I completely understand your current viewpoint. I guess if you use your argument then there would have been no way that I could have taken wing kit from a Top Flite P-51 and build it and then use it for the Top Flite P-51 ARF fuselage. I mean with the different weight distribution and everything I'm sure that the plane surely wouldn't fly correctly, right???
Your argument saying that having an ARF built plane will have a different weight distribution is simply being silly. That's like saying what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?? The answer?? Neither, they both weight a pound. In your argument about a kit built plane and an ARF, as long as the planes are set up on the correct CG, balanced laterally, and have the same weight they are going the fly the same, regardless of how they are built. Period. It doesn't matter if the plane was build from a kit, scratch built from in somebodies shop, cut from somebody's plans, or an ARF built on a jig in China. As long as all points I have said above are constant the planes are going to fly the same. Period.
Ken
02-10-2014, 12:27 PM
#1867
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Binghamton,
NY
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Skybolt. OS 91FS, which after a little valve adjustment, runs like a top.
My first bi-plane, might need some bigger wheels however as it sits rather low to the ground.
Great flyer, lands very easily too.
02-10-2014, 12:37 PM
#1869
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Binghamton,
NY
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Nice. GP or SIG?
an OLD Sig!
I updated the servos and clevises.
02-10-2014, 01:43 PM
#1870
Banned
Text in blue written by Zor
I hope a last attempt to straigten things out.
Zor,
Unfortunately it's very difficult for any of the readers here to understand what you are trying to say because you are changing the point of your message, and that is what I am trying to point out.
Ken, you are not a mind reader anymore than anyone else. You and myself do not know what readers are thinking nor how they interpret the postings. We can only write as clearly as we can and I did that.
I countered your that your initial statements about kits vs. ARF's were wrong and now your latest statements seem to completely contradict your initial statements. You're changing your own statements and then come out and say that the readers know what you mean is a cop out.
Again you are the one who is changing interpretation.
I did not write that the readers know what I meant
I wrote _ _ _
So now ARF's have different weight distribution. So you're saying that and ARF is going to have a completely different CG than a Kit built plane?? Is that what you are saying??
No Ken, I am not saying that and you should not think that way.
A CG does not change location when a different mass distribution and their moment arms are such as to balance at the same location. What happens however is that masses that have different moment arms have different inertia to control forces.
Trying to explain _ _ _
If most of the mass is, let us say, within 6 inches of the CG we would have faster rotation around the axes compared to the masses being further out from the CG due to a different design structure such as the structure of an ARF designd for fast economical fabrication compared to the different structure of a kit.
I just want to make sure that I completely understand your current viewpoint.
My viewpoint has not changed. Your interpretation has changed as you try to justify your initial statement that I am (was) wrong.
I guess if you use your argument then there would have been no way that I could have taken wing kit from a Top Flite P-51 and build it and then use it for the Top Flite P-51 ARF fuselage. I mean with the different weight distribution and everything I'm sure that the plane surely wouldn't fly correctly, right???
Not necessarily as the weight distribution of the fuselage was not changed (else perhaps to make a fine adjustment of the CG with the new wings). We have to remember that the aerodynamic forces are not mainly on the fuselage and that the fuselage CG without the wings has not changed else that for the purpose just mentined above.
Your argument saying that having an ARF built plane will have a different weight distribution is simply being silly. That's like saying what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?? The answer?? Neither, they both weight a pound. In your argument about a kit built plane and an ARF, as long as the planes are set up on the correct CG, balanced laterally, and have the same weight they are going the fly the same, regardless of how they are built. Period.
No they WILL NOT because of that changed weight distribution and the inertia of the masses at different moment arms. Admittedly many flyers would not notice any difference and are not flying to study the model behavior anyway but the difference in model behavior is there detected or not by the pilot.
It doesn't matter if the plane was build from a kit, scratch built from in somebodies shop, cut from somebody's plans, or an ARF built on a jig in China. As long as all points I have said above are constant the planes are going to fly the same. Period.
If that satisfies your mind and you are happy to think the way you do that is fine for you.
Personally I have gone further in studying the aerodynamic effects on my models, their response to control inputs, the claim of many advertised statements aimed at sales (such as resolution of command signals) and I do my best to avoid misinterpreting what I read in the forum as well as its advertisements.
Ken
Ken,
I am not trying to change your mind and your understanding.
I am only writing what are my understandings and the experimental work I have done over the years that has resulted in my own outlook.
I have stopped responding to any other threads a while ago. I think you are encouraging me to stop in this thread as well. It is not ethical to remove postings in this forum and I am not saying you are the one who did it. I have stored my screen pictures with my post and after it was removed.
You can keep on going to your pleasure; I will not respond anymore.
Bye and best to you and to all readers.
Zor
I hope a last attempt to straigten things out.
Zor,
Unfortunately it's very difficult for any of the readers here to understand what you are trying to say because you are changing the point of your message, and that is what I am trying to point out.
Ken, you are not a mind reader anymore than anyone else. You and myself do not know what readers are thinking nor how they interpret the postings. We can only write as clearly as we can and I did that.
I countered your that your initial statements about kits vs. ARF's were wrong and now your latest statements seem to completely contradict your initial statements. You're changing your own statements and then come out and say that the readers know what you mean is a cop out.
Again you are the one who is changing interpretation.
I did not write that the readers know what I meant
I wrote _ _ _
Originally Posted by Zor
I think most readers understood that I was saying that ARFs most often have a different structure than the kits had.
I think most readers understood that I was saying that ARFs most often have a different structure than the kits had.
Thus a different weight distribution.
So now ARF's have different weight distribution. So you're saying that and ARF is going to have a completely different CG than a Kit built plane?? Is that what you are saying??
No Ken, I am not saying that and you should not think that way.
A CG does not change location when a different mass distribution and their moment arms are such as to balance at the same location. What happens however is that masses that have different moment arms have different inertia to control forces.
Trying to explain _ _ _
If most of the mass is, let us say, within 6 inches of the CG we would have faster rotation around the axes compared to the masses being further out from the CG due to a different design structure such as the structure of an ARF designd for fast economical fabrication compared to the different structure of a kit.
I just want to make sure that I completely understand your current viewpoint.
My viewpoint has not changed. Your interpretation has changed as you try to justify your initial statement that I am (was) wrong.
I guess if you use your argument then there would have been no way that I could have taken wing kit from a Top Flite P-51 and build it and then use it for the Top Flite P-51 ARF fuselage. I mean with the different weight distribution and everything I'm sure that the plane surely wouldn't fly correctly, right???
Not necessarily as the weight distribution of the fuselage was not changed (else perhaps to make a fine adjustment of the CG with the new wings). We have to remember that the aerodynamic forces are not mainly on the fuselage and that the fuselage CG without the wings has not changed else that for the purpose just mentined above.
Your argument saying that having an ARF built plane will have a different weight distribution is simply being silly. That's like saying what weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?? The answer?? Neither, they both weight a pound. In your argument about a kit built plane and an ARF, as long as the planes are set up on the correct CG, balanced laterally, and have the same weight they are going the fly the same, regardless of how they are built. Period.
No they WILL NOT because of that changed weight distribution and the inertia of the masses at different moment arms. Admittedly many flyers would not notice any difference and are not flying to study the model behavior anyway but the difference in model behavior is there detected or not by the pilot.
It doesn't matter if the plane was build from a kit, scratch built from in somebodies shop, cut from somebody's plans, or an ARF built on a jig in China. As long as all points I have said above are constant the planes are going to fly the same. Period.
If that satisfies your mind and you are happy to think the way you do that is fine for you.
Personally I have gone further in studying the aerodynamic effects on my models, their response to control inputs, the claim of many advertised statements aimed at sales (such as resolution of command signals) and I do my best to avoid misinterpreting what I read in the forum as well as its advertisements.
Ken
I am not trying to change your mind and your understanding.
I am only writing what are my understandings and the experimental work I have done over the years that has resulted in my own outlook.
I have stopped responding to any other threads a while ago. I think you are encouraging me to stop in this thread as well. It is not ethical to remove postings in this forum and I am not saying you are the one who did it. I have stored my screen pictures with my post and after it was removed.
You can keep on going to your pleasure; I will not respond anymore.
Bye and best to you and to all readers.
Zor
02-10-2014, 02:42 PM
#1871
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll just have to agree to disagree. Now, let's get back to super skybolts. They are great planes. No pun intended. I put about 7 or 8 flights on mine yesterday on skis for the first time. It was a blast. I almost didn't take the plane when it was offered to me because I don't usually like to have to fix others mistakes, and there were a lot, but I'm glad I did. Just a complete joy to fly.
02-10-2014, 05:33 PM
#1872
Text in blue written by Zor
I hope a last attempt to straigten things out.
Ken,
I am not trying to change your mind and your understanding.
I am only writing what are my understandings and the experimental work I have done over the years that has resulted in my own outlook.
I have stopped responding to any other threads a while ago. I think you are encouraging me to stop in this thread as well. It is not ethical to remove postings in this forum and I am not saying you are the one who did it. I have stored my screen pictures with my post and after it was removed.
You can keep on going to your pleasure; I will not respond anymore.
Bye and best to you and to all readers.
Zor
I hope a last attempt to straigten things out.
Ken,
I am not trying to change your mind and your understanding.
I am only writing what are my understandings and the experimental work I have done over the years that has resulted in my own outlook.
I have stopped responding to any other threads a while ago. I think you are encouraging me to stop in this thread as well. It is not ethical to remove postings in this forum and I am not saying you are the one who did it. I have stored my screen pictures with my post and after it was removed.
You can keep on going to your pleasure; I will not respond anymore.
Bye and best to you and to all readers.
Zor
I'm going to say one last thing here as and then I'm going not going to waste any more time because you simply will not get the point here. You have made a statement and when that statement was challenged you simply started changing what you said, and then you started simply trying to overwhelm the argument with a vast amount of information. Now I grew up as a simple country guy and we had a saying that goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bulls***!!!" Now I'm not saying that's what you were doing here, but somehow as I read through your last post that saying kept coming to mind. hmmm, not sure why. But I'm not going to say one more word about the difference between an kit and an ARF.
I will apologize to every other member of this thread that I have had to play this out in the open forum, but unfortunately the actions of some members have made that a necessary action. Unfortunately I need to take a few actions here in the open forums so that everything is completely understood. I'm going to say something here in the open forum and then that will be the last time I address it. Over the last little bit of time I have received messages from several different members asking me to looking into the issues going on in this thread. Most all pretty much said the same thing, they all felt like one member had "taken over" this thread and was trying to run the thread his way. And unfortunately it was killing the thread and chasing people away, and that was why this thread was dying and no traffic in it. So I took some time and went through the thread and I pretty much agree with the members that have messaged me. Regardless of what some people may think, threads belong to nobody. Even if a person starts a thread it doesn't "belong" to them. They don't have any right to dictate to the other members what goes on in that thread and they don't get to approve of anything going on there. So I felt it was time for me to take actions. Unfortunately some people have gotten their nose out of joint over this. If those that thought they were going to run this thread can't get over that fact and are going to leave, then that is there loss, but they are always welcome here. Their knowledge is welcome here. But let it be known that nobody runs the threads of RCU. All members of RCU are equal here in the forums and all members will treat each other that way.
Now, with that said, I do hope we can all get back to talking about Skybolts. I do want to ask again. Is the Sig Skybolt better than the GP? I have a GP. Should I be looking for a Sig kit now? or am I good with the GP I have??
thanks for understanding what I am doing here in this thread.
Ken
Last edited by RCKen; 02-10-2014 at 05:38 PM.
02-10-2014, 05:42 PM
#1873
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, I have the GP kit version, and for that reason, I want a SIG kit also. That way I'll know first hand and not just on the opinions of others. Some planes I've built and never wondered if another companies version was better because I just really didn't care for the plane. This is not the case here. I love to fly my bolt so much that I would LOVE another, especially by another kit cutter. So, if anyone knows of a sig kit for sale, let me know, and I'll tell ya. LOL.
02-10-2014, 06:01 PM
#1874
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hoodsport, WA
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So, if anyone knows of a sig kit for sale, let me know, and I'll tell ya. LOL.
02-10-2014, 06:06 PM
#1875
I double what Steve said, if anybody has a Sig kit for sale I'll definitely want to buy it. Or, if anybody has a set of plans that as all of the parts needed for cutting on it I would be more than happy to buy those. I'd be more than happy to cut my own kit if I had to. Won't be the first time I've had to do that!!!
Ken
Ken