JL1

My Feedback: (93)

How about something different like a Macchi 200 or a Japanese Fighter (Raiden, Shoki, Ki100, KI-61, etc.)

FlyingTyger

My Feedback: (2)

How about a Reggaine Re 2001. I've seen alot of documentation on this plane, but have never heard of or seen a model of it.

WhoDaMan

My Feedback: (164)

Hi Leo:
How about a large Raiden,,,,,,,,, none out there

Take Care,,, Dave

Spychalla Aircraft

My Feedback: (34)

The interest in Axis Aircraft sure is strong. Not surprising since they are so under represented in the modeling community. A tally of the responses here yields the following top three contenders: 6 for the Macchi (200 - 205), 4 for the Stuka Ju87D, 3 for the Lavochkin LA 7 - LA 9, and 3 for the Mig-3. This is very un-scientific and a small sampling of 28 posts, yet it sends a message regarding what the unfullfilled demand might be. I'm studying that Macchi and it it growing on me. I have to say that the SB2C Helldiver and the Kingfisher will never make my list. I just have no interest in those airplanes. Spitfires are way over done. I would build a Spit for my own use, but I would never take the time to make a fiberglass fuse for one. The Mig-3 has always looked good in pictures, but then when you see one at the field it looks screwed-up. Strange proportions. The Buffalo is cool and has great history but I turned sour on that after some bad delays on the gear I was waiting for and I didn't like the design I planned to work from. So the Buffalo is off my radar screen.

How come nobody has mentioned the F8F Bearcat? A true scale one. 1/5th scale with the "right" fuse shape. Both Robart and Sierra have commented to me that they are interested in making true scale gear for 1/5th scale Bearcats. Is the Bearcat over done?

Leo

WhoDaMan

My Feedback: (164)

Hi Leo:
I would pick the Bearcat in a heart beat. If Robart was to do the gear they would have to stand up against side loads. My friend Jim Macdonald starte the whole craz on the scale gear. Then Gene Barton got on Board and Frank Tiano. His are very scale but heavy, with up locks.

Dave

carlbecker

My Feedback: (3)

Now you got me looking at the Macchi 200. Its got a lot of caricature. Dave Platt made a Macchi 202 years ago. Should be doable. MAN has detailed plans for an 80" Macchi 200. I think Bearcat's are great but still to common.

Carl

Heavy Date

Leo,
I don't think anyone mentioned civilian aircraft. Since there are not many modeled they should do well in competition.
I for one like the Ryan Navion!
Hans

nemesis4u

My Feedback: (77)

How about a B-26 Marauder...Very Rare..I know it is a Twin but it would be great to have a glass fuse to start with...maybe even glass nacelles to make this build a quick build...

saetta

It's seems to be rather encouraging that many posts seem to like the Macchi 202/05
idea. I like many warbirds (FW190, Spitfires,SM 79).Yet my favorite above all is the Macchi 202. I have an IMP version, also a 60 size scratch built, and a way off scale VQ arf. All 3 gather considerable interest at the local field. Most people don't even know what they are, and are probably surprised that Italy built very competitive airplanes. The Macchi 202/05 has been called the Ferrari of WW2 fighters. It was much more labor intensive to build then its advesaries, but was one the best handling WW2 aircraft. The 205 with the latest Daimler powerplant,
good armament and excellent handling made one it of the premier fighters of that era. Yes I would like if the Macchi 202/05 would be considered..I won't hold my breath, I have been disapointed too many times in this rcworld full of P 51's,Zeros and P40's(very nice machines....but way too popular). Yes I would buy a Macchi in a nanosecond. It took me 5 years of pain and peserverance to have 3 in my stable,
a forth would definetly be the icing on the cake!!!

Spychalla Aircraft

My Feedback: (34)

This Macchi would be 92.6 inch wingspan at 1 / 4.5 scale. That is a nice size for a fighter. 1/5th scale would be a little too small compared to all the other fighters at the field. From the pictures I have it looks like the C.202 and the C.205 could be built from the same basic airframe with just some modifications to scoops and such. I am still suprised that this subject aircraft has recieved such an overwhelming interest.

Leo

RCPROPSNAPPER

My Feedback: (22)

My vote is for the Macchi 205 Veltro. I have a VQ 205 and it gets tons of attention
at the flying field even though it is considered semi-scale. It flys like a dream
as well. Of course I could be biased since I am of Italian heritage. :-)

alochert

3W has the [link=http://www.3w-modellmotoren.de/modelle/3D/Grumman_Bearcat/bearcat.html]Bearcat[/link] and with a 101" wingspan it should be something like 23% scale. A friend is working on one and it looks pretty good. Full panel detailing in both fuse and wings.

They also have a very nice [link=http://www.3w-modellmotoren.de/modelle/3D/Tigercat/tigercat.html]Tigercat[/link]....

-Allan

Flying Elvis

My Feedback: (13)

Leo-

What happened to the "Raiders" airplane idea?

Spychalla Aircraft

My Feedback: (34)

Elvis, that Raiders thing is a separate thread and just a project for goofing off. What we are talking about here is a Warbird that would be constructed as a short kit for the company I have. A raiders wing just doesn't cut it for something like this. This airplane has to be a serious scale subject that would sell between 15 and 20 fuselages the first year, then an handfull each year thereafter. That is what I'm looking for.

Leo

Flying Elvis

My Feedback: (13)

Ok - I vote for a Sea Fury then !

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

Leo,

A Macchi at 1/4.5 would be an ideal size, in my opinion. You're correct that the M.C. 202 and M.C. 205 use the same fuselage. From a mold perspective, the only differences are the chin and the tail cone.

The M.C. 205 chin has indentations for the two round oil coolers. About 15% of each oil cooler recesses into the cowl. There are also a couple of air inlets and blisters in different places, but those probably wouldn't make it onto the mold anyway.

Hasegawa makes an excellent 1/48 scale plastic model of both the Macchi C.202 and C.205. The way they addressed the difference while keeping their mold costs down was to provide a separate chin cowl depending on which version you purchased. They placed the separation line right under the exhaust stacks. It works really well. Another smart thing they did was keep the radiator attached to the wing. That concept would work beautifully on an R/C model that has to be taken apart each time you fly.

The tail cones on the M.C. 202 and M.C. 205 are actually the same shape but the fixed tailwheel Macchi C. 202 has an indentation so that if the pilot bottomed out the tailwheel shock, the tire wouldn't crush the tail cone. The M.C. 205, with its retractable tailwheel, doesn't need the indentation because it has doors that are open when the tailwheel is down. About 1/3 of the wheel protrudes through the doors when the wheel is retracted so it has an opening in a different location. The fuselage mold design will require the tail cone to be made as a separate part like you did on the Wildcat, so I don't see this as a big issue.

If you go forward with this project, I'll definitely buy two, possibly three.

- Jay

Messerschmitt

My Feedback: (28)

Leo, My vote is with the JU 87 "B" model. I happen to like the looks of the Berta, but I also have several logical arguments. Don't re-invent the wheel, Ziroli has a nice set of plans for it. (yes, I know that there is not a great deal of difference between the B & D). However there are several differences that will require you to make more components than just the fuse. If you stick with the B you can produce a fuse & release it for sale (minimal investment) I find it easier to hide the engine in the Berta cowling.
Just my opinions, keep up the good work!
Mike

Spychalla Aircraft

My Feedback: (34)

Mike, I know what your saying, but I also know too much about the Ziroli Stuka to build one per plans. They are OK, but the 6 or more Ziroli Stukas I have seen fly with a bit of float and wander to them. The do not groove and hold a line like my sons. It is just a fact. The difference is the wing and airfoil. Zach's uses a "real" airfoil. An NACA 2416. It has predictable coeficient of lift. Better slow speed and high speed characteristics than and undefined Ziroli foil. We know this because we have flown formation with other Stukas dozens of times and he walks all over them in the sky. Nick unknowingly stood next to me on the line at the Joe Nall about 4 - 5 years ago and said that that was a nice flying Stuka. I think he thought he was complimenting his own design. When I told him I changed the wing to an NACA 2416 he said what did you do that for?.... didn't talk to me anymore and walked away. I am firmly convinced that designers don't like anyone inproving on what they created. Period. Pride of authorship. I am the same way.

The other issue with the Ziroli plan is that it is stand-of-scale. It was never intended for serious competition. We call it stand-way-off-scale. I just can't take that anymore. If I'm going to spend this much effort on an airplane then it has got to be closer to the 3 views. If that effort is going to be expended then I sure don't want the end product to be branded a "Ziroli". It would have to be a new creation and that is what the Ju 87D-5 guarantees, because nobody in their right mind could look at it and call it a "Ziroli". An admitted Pet Peeve of mine.

Leo

SeaHawk-RCU

Hello Leo,

There seems to be a lack of suggestions for late war models of Japanese fighters. These generally had characteristics invaluable for modelling. Wide track, well raked forward undercarriage for good ground handling, radial engines with their large cowls to make installation of a variety engines easy, minimal taper to the wing suggesting gentle stall characteristics and great looks.

I suggest the Nakajima KI-84 Hayate "Frank" as a project. It has all the good qualities mentioned above and should present few problems in manufacture.

Col

Spychalla Aircraft

My Feedback: (34)

It is a cool plane and all the things you say on gear stance, radial cowl and such are true. I have 2 thoughts regarding this suggestion. One is that Wayne Siewert of Aerotech Models already makes a 1/5th scale that is beautiful. See: http://www.aerotechmodels.com/KI84.htm Second is that for whatever reason the Japanese planes just don't capture a lot of peoples interst. A friend of mine, Doug Imes, has a Byron Zero that he flies a lot. He will tell you that people rarely notice the airplane or coment on it even though it is a nice plane. At the same time he has said that people will step right over the top of it to get a look at his F4F Wildcat. They love the Wildcat, could care less about the Zero.

Back on 11/7 "WhoDaMan" suggested the Japanese Raiden. That would be a more likely candidate than the KI-84 because it has not been done. But enthusiam is high for the Macchi 202 & 205. Just yesterday Jay W. "Veltro" sent me gorgeours 5-views of the Macchi from Aero Detail 15. Remarkable! I think he is doing everything he can to influence me and I am vulnerable. Who knows. Next thing might be for a 1/48th scale model to show up at my door.

Leo (following is the Macchi 202 in the Smithsonian Museum)

JackL

My Feedback: (7)

I'm going to have to go with your original idea for the Ju-87D-5. I like your idea of the fuselage and wing center section as one piece. The later series of Stukas have some good possibilities, and with the sleeker fuselage and larger span wings,just look "meaner" than the earlier model. If you start out with the D-5 series airframe, a G-2 with the twin 37mm anti-tank cannons can be modeled. The Macchi 205 is a beautiful aircraft, but the late model Stuka has more "character" with all of the armament hanging underneath. I have a Ziroli Stuka short kit/plans, but keep putting off building it because of the very reasons you mention in your earlier post (Stand-way-off scale).

saetta

Hi Leo,

It seems like the interest on this subject has abated a bit. Still anxious to know if you are considering the Macchi 202/05 for your next kit. Hope you are!

Mike

p-47 razorback pilot

My Feedback: (5)

ill throw my vote in for a 1/4 scale bearcat, something alittle cheaper than 3-w []

JL1

My Feedback: (93)

I vote for the MC 200 or Raiden. I have the MAN plans for the MC-200 and they are impressive, VERY detailed. The model even has the shorter wing on one side that was used to offset torque/P- factor on the full sized one.

Veltro

My Feedback: (1)

Leo,

I have another packet of drawings headed your way as part of my ongoing shameless push for a Macchi C.202/C.205.

Thought the rest of you Macchi fans might like the following photos: Maggiore Baruffi's M.C. 202 taxiing on an airfield in Sicily; the Smithsonian's M.C. 202 right before it was hung in the museum; a restored M.C. 205 at the Italian National Museum of Science and Technology in Milan, Italy; and a restored M.C.205 at the AerMacchi company headquarters in Varese, Italy.

Jay