Should manufactures convert old classic pattern designs such as the Ultra Sport, Kaos, Intruder, etc. into a 3D style plane?

I guess I am alone in thinking that Great Planes should not have converted the Ultra Sport into a 3D aircraft. No one seems to agree with me one the following thread.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/showthread...4&pagenumber=1]

Hi,
Just to throw my ideas into the ring.
If a model is taken from a classic design and turned into a 3D plane this isnt a bad thing. The reason is both precision pilots and 3D pilots can get alot out of it. Just because its 3D capable dosn't mean you have to give 50 degrees on everything!!
Just watch the TOC..3D machines performing precise graceful manouevres. Then if you want to dabble in 3D all you need to do is hit the D/R switch and possibly move the CoG.

BTW i'm currently turning a zen 50 into a 3D machine

Have fun

Great Planes modified an old design to suit the latest trends.

Its a shame that "that's" the most orginal idea that could have been come up with as far as kits go.

But Hey I'll give them credit if I see one fly the way it's advertised.

hey at least it's a kit!

To those of you who miss some of the "old standby" designs, I feel your pain.

Modern companies intent on survival have no choice, though. They either go with the trends, or they fail. (and obviously there's a lot of interest in 3D right now) (Examples: If Leonardo Da Vinci were alive today, he could make a lot more money painting Coca Cola signs than portraits. There's more money in Top 40 music than in classical music or jazz. Computers today must include colored, translucent plastic, or they're not "hip".)

The model airplane business is excessively competitive, but not in the creative sense. Note that almost every successful company makes "a Trainer, a P-51 and a J3 Cub", for example. That's what keeps them in business, and whether we like it or not, it's the nature of this hobby. None of the model companies can afford to continue to support their old kits and keep up with trends at the same time. (If it was profitable, they'd be doing it!)

In defense of Great Planes, I've got to say that I appreciate what they're doing. When I built the Ultra Sport kits, (which were a lot of fun to fly) I always thought they were "overbuilt, (heavy) but sturdy". Last year, I kit-bashed an Ultra Sport .40, to see if moving the stab, straightening the rudder hinge line, and lightening the kit in general would make it fly better. ... It did. ( http://www.nextcraft.com/us40bash.html )

Recently, I assembled and flew their "Venus .40 ARF", and noticed huge improvements. Wood thicknesses were reduced where practical, (lighter!) without sacrificing strength where it's needed. The kit uses excellent materials, traditional building techniques, (easy to repair) and new design concepts that make it a better flier than the Ultra Sport. The included fiberglass cowl and wheel pants are pre-colored, and done very nicely. Rudder response in particular is a LOT better, and the plane is close to a pound lighter than the Ultra Sport, while providing even more wing area. I was so impressed that I actually sat down and emailed Great Planes, with these comments. Ann Marie Cross wrote back to me, and mentioned that, for one thing, improvements in radio technology over the years has enabled them to design kits to FLY, rather than "survive a radio failure". (I posted a review of this kit on my web site - Click the "www" button below.) I'm assuming that the new Ultra Sport includes similar improvements.

If Great Planes (or any other commercially-oriented company) kept manufacturing all their old kits, the overhead and reduced profits would kill them. Time marches on...

My point of view on this is that of an utter newbie to RC'ing.

Having recently taken up a hobby that I have spent my entire life lurking about the edges of, I am thrilled to have recently graduated to flying an R/C plane all by myself.

I have no knowledge of the hallowed planes of yesteryear, I just want an exciting looking low-wing plane that I have a fighting chance of being able to fly sucessfully and begin to learn some of the (goosebump raising) aerobatic maneuvers that I've seen full sized aircraft perform at airshows. The US40+ seems to offer that, and in the process look more like a "real" airplane than the old US40. I was not even aware of "3D" aerobatics until I hit some of the movie links here on RCU...interesting, but not terribly compelling to me...but that may change...if a plane can adapt to that kind of flying with a few setup tweaks then what the hey!

I was/am almost convinced that I should be building something like the SIg 4*40 over the winter, but to me this plane, as great a flyer that it may be, is not all that attractive. Call me shallow, but that is important too! I have seen some modified 4*'s that are knockouts, but I really don't want to be modifying my first kit-built plane.

From a marketing standpoint there will always be new people entering the hobby hopefully, they like me don't have any knowledge of the heritage of R/C planes. In order to survive, the manufacturers must design kits that appeal to this chunk of the market as well as those who value planes that are steeped in history.

I for one can't wait to get my hands on a US 40+!

Well sales of the classic Kaos may have been slow because Mr. Bridi was selling slightly improved versions of his old design. Now that he is closing his doors there won't be any available except the existing Kaos ARF. True there are other kits. But for some reason kit and especially ARF sizes seem to jump from .40 to giant size. My favorite size is .60 and slightly larger. Maybe the economy will make some people with larger planes want .60 size's? Don't know but it does seem strange that this size is not in demand.

3D is a bad name for that type of aerobatics. It doesn't adequately describe the high alpha type aerobatics. Haven't tried it yet, but keep telling myself that I will, if only to see how well I can do them. But then if I wanted to do a lot of hovering type maneuvers I probably would like helicopters

HEY :

CHECK OUT THIS PLANE I TRADED FOR:
IT IS A SIG KADET 40 LT TAIL SECTION AND WING MODIFIED SO BAD YOU CANT RECONIZE IT AS A KADET ALSO IT IS PULLED BY A SATIO 91 GOLDEN KNIGHT AND SWITCHED TO A TAIL DRAGGER I CAN TAKE OFF STRAIGHT UP FROM A PERSONS HANDS AND HOVER IT THERE , I WILL PROBLEY NEVER SELL THIS PLANE.

CHRIS

Maybe the Bridi designs were selling slowly because they weren't modified/updated enough. Not everyone likes old-school.

I believe he quit because of the death of his wife. Though sales may have been slow. But I think they sold fairly well. I have seen a couple of new Dirty Birdy's in the local area.

Actually if a person was wanting one of the classics[and i personally believe that one does oneself a disservice by not at least trying some of the classics] then there is another option.
just set down with an old set of plans and draw up a materials list ,order the wood and start building. I'm not being facetious here it is a blast to build from just the plans and a stack of balsa too. I realize it takes a bit longer but try it you'll like it.

Personally I would like to see new designes that can really perform 3D instead of putting big control surfaces on a old design just to cash in on the craze.

I agree that Great Planes shouldn't have made the Ultra Sport a 3D plane. There is something about a pattern ship torque rolling that turns me off. I am glad that they decided to put it in kit form though.