RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft >> RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 7:24:38 AM

twinman

Posts: 1628
Joined: 1/19/2002
From: Katy, TX, USA
Status: offline

kahloq:
For all of our enlightenment. Just what do you call scale? Panel lines, rivets, fowler flaps, mechanical rotating turrents, detailed completed decal kits..which for a P-38 I know cost over $150 alone. Pilot cockpit detailed to the last switch? How do you cover the overhang of the engine cowls over the wing...( AND I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT KIT) on the other Kit, arf, whatever, that Cedar eliminated as not scale. The other kit is not in this class of scale masters competitive scale models and I know of NO OTHER arf that is. There used to be an aerotech...NOT THE US COMPANY ..in England that offered a "QUICK BUILD" series and the B-17 cost over $400 for a difficult to build and long hour project..I know I built the P-38. So what do you want and what would you pay for the above up grades? You might want to go over a $1000 for a completly scale arf, of which I know no such model, but FEW others who would like to get into a four engine plane can or could afford it and I will admit in my case be too afraid to fly and enjoy it beyond scale contests.
Forgot complete grease, exhaust, and grease stains and DURABLE,not plastic,retracts.
This for gas or electric will get a modeler into the air quicker than anything else I know of,,Ok I did not know about the other kit, but the statement, unless I am completely unaware of another ARF, stands and let the modeler be proud to fly a four engine bomber...and I bet few to NONE of his buddies will look for rivets.
Twinman

(in reply to kahloq)

Post #: 76

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 7:45:17 AM

William Robison

Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline

Kahloq:

Unless I’m mistaken judging distance for scale models is 15’ in the AMA, and a similar distance expressed in meters for FAI. For a B-17 of this size that’s about 150 scale feet. Maybe only 100, I don’t remember the span of the full size plane.

I don’t know how many “Real” planes you’ve been around, but flush rivets disappear before you get ten feet from the plane, and panel lines are hard to see at fifty feet unless the skin is poorly fitted.

In other words, if you can see flush rivets and panel lines from normal judging distance, the airplane, no matter how much meticulous craftsmanship was put into it, is NOT SCALE. Q.E.D.

Granted, they can look good, but at the same time they do not look “Real.”

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to twinman)

Post #: 77

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 3:10:14 PM

Paul Grubich

Posts: 413
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Cedar Rapids , IA,
Status: offline

I think what we are missing here is the point that this guy wants to bring us some cool arf warbirds that are easy to set up and fly and will look like what they represent while flying by in a low pass.

Hey, if we trash this one will he be motivated to do more? He ownes the factory, he can build us what we want and he is open to your suggetions, give him a break and good things might come from it.

_____________________________

www.rcwarbirds.com

(in reply to William Robison)

Post #: 78

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 4:07:13 PM

jrf

Posts: 2368
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline

Deleted. Sorry.

< Message edited by jrf -- 6/4/2006 4:10:22 PM >

(in reply to William Robison)

Post #: 79

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 5:12:13 PM

nchrome

Posts: 693
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Galesburg, IL, USA
Status: online

I do agree with Paul but I hope that he will take a few suggestions and put them to good use. I love muti-engine planes and if it could be modified a little to help us out then I mite be perswaided to purch one and go my own route of scale. But the cockpit and engine cowel do need some real work to come close to stand off scale. Just a little help to him you mite look at Wing Mfg B-17 engine cowel they added the aircooler flaps and this help the looks 100%. And just guessing I think they will fit on this bird.

(in reply to jrf)

Post #: 80

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 6:04:22 PM

kahloq

Posts: 1697
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nchrome

I do agree with Paul but I hope that he will take a few suggestions and put them to good use. I love muti-engine planes and if it could be modified a little to help us out then I mite be perswaided to purch one and go my own route of scale. But the cockpit and engine cowel do need some real work to come close to stand off scale. Just a little help to him you mite look at Wing Mfg B-17 engine cowel they added the aircooler flaps and this help the looks 100%. And just guessing I think they will fit on this bird.

I agree and thats all I was doing , like you, was pointing out things that could easily be improved. The cowls on the CedarHobbies are my biggest beef...aside from that, other many other things could be modified by the builder if they desired(like adding guns to the turret locations or whatever).

William Robison

What this with "No truce? OK." I said nothing mean at all to you or anyone. All I asked was why you dismissed the eam B-17 due to price...when the eam one costs $275.

Note...if again..this post gets edited by Mods...the below section refers to William R

Also, you stated 150 feet as stand off scale and I believe thats pretty much what I concured on earlier in the thread.
I have been around a significant amount of "real" planes. Many of my family have been ni the Airforce and Navy and I was in the Army(arounf A-10's a lot). I have seen many bombers up front and close(and inside) including B-17's, B-24's, B-25's...etc. I can easily make out panel lines and flush rivits well over 10ft....out to 50ft+ is more like it (this is not an exaggeration at all).

Twinman........I am in complete agreement with you that this plane is a good deal quicker to get in the air. Yes...it also does sacrifice a lot of decent good looks to accomplish that. Can we agree on this?
As I mentioned that I was in the military, that may account for why I am meticulus and stress for at least somewhat close to an accurate representation. A few changes to the cedarhobbies plane will give it a better look(cowls are the biggest issue) and bring it up to snuff to even somewhat more demanding pilots other then casual weekend warriors( I am not a die-hard modeler either...so I am not downgrading anyone). There are many out there that would like to have such a plane...but also don't have the time or space to build a stick kit. So right now...the only real choices are this one and the eam B17(much more time involved here though so that is a drawback for that particular type of modeler).
I have never knocked the concept of cedarhobbies attempt at trying to offer an ARF bomber. It would sell huge amount more if some changes were made. As is, it may do ok, it may do poorly....who will know except cedarhobbies. Make the improvements, and I'd probably look into buying one.

Robby...if your going to edit portions of my posts...then do the same on others. I said nothing mean at all to anyone...yet..you left the post from someone else that I responded to(in a polite way no less)!!!

< Message edited by kahloq -- 6/4/2006 11:11:54 PM >

(in reply to nchrome)

Post #: 81

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 8:58:34 PM

Paul Grubich

Posts: 413
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Cedar Rapids , IA,
Status: offline

I am getting one and I will do all my own improvements. I like to change all the arfs I get a bit here and there. I think a nice paint scheme would sure help. Looking forward to what Cedar has in store next.

_____________________________

www.rcwarbirds.com

(in reply to kahloq)

Post #: 82

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 9:12:12 PM

William Robison

Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline

Paul:

Just look. We should have at least one of the F7F planes at Multis over McDonough at the end of the month, maybe two.

Hope to bring a new 60 size sport twin as well.

Bill.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to Paul Grubich)

Post #: 83

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 9:24:54 PM

Paul Grubich

Posts: 413
Joined: 12/5/2001
From: Cedar Rapids , IA,
Status: offline

There will be a very interesting multi coming from Cedar in the future, a real test for Twinman.

_____________________________

www.rcwarbirds.com

(in reply to William Robison)

Post #: 84

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 11:13:06 PM

kahloq

Posts: 1697
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Grubich

There will be a very interesting multi coming from Cedar in the future, a real test for Twinman.

Isnt it supposed to be an F7F? Something similar to Williams plane?

(in reply to Paul Grubich)

Post #: 85

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 11:20:29 PM

William Robison

Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline

kahloq:

In addition to the F7F. The sport plane I mentioned above, and a medium bomber which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been produced before for R/C flight. And another heavy bomber in the talking stage.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to kahloq)

Post #: 86

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 11:27:40 PM

kahloq

Posts: 1697
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Robison

kahloq:

In addition to the F7F. The sport plane I mentioned above, and a medium bomber which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been produced before for R/C flight. And another heavy bomber in the talking stage.

Bill.

Any hints on the heavy bomber? If its a B-24, then yeah as an ARF it hasnt been done that I know of. The B-24 is also being developed by eam. I think maybe there has been some stick kits for B-24's as well...but am not sure. A B-29 would be nice as an arf, but its not one of my "to build" planes. Hmmm what else might there be........
Lancaster maybe? As an arf...its not been done that I know of...but has been done a lot as far as kit builds.

As far a medium bomber....and having never been done for r/c flight......do you mean as an arf or in general never having been done before?
I'd love to see an HE 111

(in reply to William Robison)

Post #: 87

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/4/2006 11:50:33 PM

William Robison

Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline

kahloq:

Four engines is not a "Lot" of engines. Don't limit yourself. However because the problems seem to go up as the square of the engine count this one is being considered primarily for electric.

The medium? There have been small kits for display models, but never a flying model of any sort that I know of.

Bill.

PS: Count the engines on this one. No, that’s not it. Haw. wr.

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to kahloq)

Post #: 88

RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 6/5/2006 12:01:06 AM

kahloq