TFF

It is back again to the 1%er group to the rest of the 99. What you want is only wanted by 1% of the population. In my opinion, the Proctor kits are the only ones at the level you describe; the only one. The others are still models under the skin no matter how they turn out. With your Dr1, you are proving you dont need a kit; you just need to build bigger to solve the material vs. strength vs. design. You need to build a kit for fun, "scale lite"; you need to to build masterpieces from historical documentation like Replicraft or WW1 Aero.

abufletcher

You're probably right in terms of what >>I

abufletcher

Just for the record, I definitely plan to continue building 1/6 scale models. After all, if you want a larger model, just model a bigger aircraft! But I'd definitely like to try my hand with a 1/4 scale bird or two.

TFF

I read Peter McDurmot's planes take about 5-8 years to make start to finish, but most AMA Scale planes need about 2 years of solid work. 1/4 scale always seems big on paper; when one is next to a 1/3 or bigger, they really can look small. I bashed a Sig Kadet Senior into a 20's plane at 1/6 scale; one piece wing a little long but not unmanageable. Just about the same as a 1/4 Pup wingspan; after handling the size, no big deal. Most WW1 fighters at 1/4 are manageable.

abufletcher

And 1/6 scale models always seem so large in the workshop and so small at the field! It's taken me a couple of months to really start seeing my Snipe as "small" after so many months of looking at it really close up! In fact, I can already see my CI as "small" despite the fact that it will be the largest model I've ever built.

abufletcher

Here's a thought. I have Dave Bonnington's 1/5 scale Sopwith Pup plans, which were drawn to be outline and rib accurate based on the Replicraft plans. In other words these plans represent Dave's attempt to "translate" the Replicraft technical drawings into a building plan for a scale RC model. So I if I enlarge these plans from 1/5 to 1/4 (that's a factor of x1.25) then I'd have a very respectable Pup! And that would call for a 25cm cowl and I've got a perfect 26cm cowl sitting right on the desk in front of me!

Oh, and a Seidel 7-70 with it's 230mm diameter would sit just about perfectly and swing a scale sized prop as well!

Frank Sopwith

largest model I've ever built yet you mean

Frank

abufletcher

Exactly!

ARUP

Hi Don- sometimes you just have to 'roll your own' when a kit isn't available! The 1/4 DH-5 has a 11 1/4" dia. cowl with 'stiffeners' and isn't available commercially. I know you can do this- I've seen some of your nice airplanes! Blue foam bread and butter style, carved, sealed and glassed makes the plug to make a mold so I can pull a part (cowl). Still working on the plug. Datafiles used to generate plans (by hand- not enlarged copies) using Balsa USA techniques for structure, wing attach and etc. So far the only thing to finish is fleshing out the fuse then everything can be assembled, and test rigged before covering.

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

I respectfully disagree with you here Don. Look at the success of Balsa USA with the general modeling population. That's there bread and butter, and why they have been so succesful. IMHO.

abufletcher

There's no doubt that Balsa USA has developed a great business model and runs a tight ship. And they certainly sell a lot of kits. They pride themselves on kits that are "easy to build" and "easy to fly." I don't have any objection to the first. But I question whether all (or even most) of the scale deviations are "purposeful." Or is it just a case of a "close enough is good enough" attitude towards scale modeling? So I remain unconvinced that at larger scales, models fly better if you mess with the original design. But then maybe, yes, they DO fly better...even BETTER than the original.

But if I have to look at another BUSA Eindecker competing in a scale qualifier, I might just lose my mind!!!

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

abufletcher

That's a pretty bold statement, Steve!

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

I know. I differ in opinion and decided to just shut up! For once.

carry on

steve

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

I think the biggest deviation that BUSA makes is nose and tail moments. Theres no question that a lot of WWI Scouts (fighters) had perilously short noses. The mods are made more to make the models easier to balance rather than easier to fly. Of course a model that requires 2lbs less ballast will fly better. Lighter is just plain better when it can be accomplished.
Doc

John Cole

My Feedback: (4)

Good thoughts you guys.

Another factor I've noticed with BUSA kits is the use of that large, flat bottomed foil. From a production standpoint, this is smart. The wings would not require external bracing wires, associated fittings, additional hard points, hardware, etc. (BUSA guys jump in and correct me here, since I've not built one of their kits yet).

There is certainly a market for sport scale WW1 models, and BUSA seems to do this very well.

But I think Don is correct. At qtr scale, ww1 designs can be really good flyers when designed and built per original. The extra work, time, and money this requires goes up exponentially, and perhaps this is the reason sport scale is so vastly popular.

John

TFF

http://www.airdromeairplanes.com/ These people went the route that BUSA did for full size planes. At 1/4 scale design limitations start going away and you can copy, but most people just want a plane to fly. A BUSA pup will fly easer than a scale one, and Spowith would have made it the BUSA way if they understood the technology. Most think a WW1 plane is going to fly like a trainer and a scale one does not; BUSA just made it so it would. A WW1 plane built scale can have strange pitching moments, adverse yaw, ground looping, and abrupt stall. All controlable, but you have to want to rise to the occasion, most dont. They just want right/ left and up and down. There is a need for BUSA planes; they make a good flying plane that can lead to more adventure with a more scale plane. Stepping stones are stepping stones and most only want to go so far. Proctor was just a cottage business when Lou Proctor started making planes just as all the kit companies. Now, no one will do anything if they cant make a living doing it; original kit mfgs made the kits when they came home from work; it was not their work. They days of boutique kits have been over for years, just holdouts left, and I bet every one gets emails every day asking for ARFs.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

TFF not too sure about the ARFs, the ones out there are way on the out side edge. But you're right on the money about BUSA having the right formula for easy to build and fly airplanes and the demand for just that. They can make real good looking models and with some attention to surface detail can be made to look a lot better. I'm building my third and next I'll do one from Glen T. Moving in the right direction I think.
Doc

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

what TFF said.

abufletcher

BUSA has a formula and it's clearly popular:

1. Wings that don't require functional rigging
2. Longer nose and/or tail moments for easy of flying
3. Deep cowls to avoid recessed firewalls
4. Shorter undercarriage for easier take-offs and landings

I can appreciate this and see why the majority of casual modelers would want these changes. And I suppose once you stray from the original on these points, it doesn't much matter whether you end up deviating in other small ways from scale.

Different strokes for different folks.

abufletcher

This is an interesting comment (and probably true) and yet at the same time troubling to me. There are no doubt myriad ways that WWI aircraft could have been (would have been?) designed differently if the designers back then had known what we know now and if they had had access to the technology and materials which we have now.

But of courses if they had had this knowledge, the aircraft we love would not have existed. There would have been no eindecker. There would have been no funky triplanes. For me, a lot of the fun of scale building AND FLYING is to be able to put myself in the mind (and in the pilot seat) of those designers and pilots back in WWI times.

John Cole

My Feedback: (4)

Don, I too strive for the 'feel' of the particular a/c I'm trying to model. For me, building WW1 models is an extension of my life long study of antique and WW1 airplanes. It helps put all of the books, crummy old photos, and research into 3-D.



Current project: deHavilland DH-1a (as mentioned)
Future projects: Lohner B-VII (look that one up!) Proctor Alb D-5, N-28, another HB C-1, etc. etc. bla bla bla..

In other words, continue research, continue building.

Keep it fun.

John

foodstick

I have heard SO MANY rc pilots comment that it is impossible to land a WW1 ...and keep it on the gear. I think that BUSA makes planes that disprove this belief..and possibly encourages more interest in that genre.

There is always room for the UBER-SCALE birds out there !

abufletcher

I just always knew from the very beginning (at about age 10) that I only wanted to build and fly WWI models. I don't mind dinking around with cheap ARFs of other types for some stick time. But I know I'll never build anything but WWI (or fabric covered biplanes). There are the guys who say: "Hey, I think I'd like to try one of those WWI types." And then they build a BUSA eindecker that might as well be an Ugly Stik. That's not WWI. Or the build a "two-wing" model that is so heavily modified that it might as well be an Ultra.

What I'm getting at here is the guys who have to be "seduced" into trying a WWI model probably won't stick with it, and those of us fanatics who have always been obsessed, well we don't particularly care if the aircraft we love are hard to handle. I mean, who want's a triplane that "flies like it's on rails" or lands "as easy as a trainer." Those would be BAD things.

TFF

"I just always knew from the very beginning (at about age 10) that I only wanted to build and fly WWI models."
I dont want this to be as harsh as it sounds, but why debate on the problems of "X"kit when correctness is what you are after? Just build a correct one from what you think is right. I am 100% with you on wanting to build a correct plane, but,"You cant get there from here."
"who want's a triplane that "flies like it's on rails" or lands "as easy as a trainer." Those would be BAD things." 99.9% of the flying population shed tears when they lost a trainer; could you handle loosing 5 great scale planes on first flights without giving up? BUSA would be out of business in 5 minuets if their planes could not fly by mortals; that is where the money is. Exact scale is for omnipotent beings.