pittsdriver

My Feedback: (7)

That was a shortcoming of the Pilot kits. I always built in some washout on all of my models at the time. Lots of other kits at that time had the same problem. Also I would balance all of my models at around 25% of cord for the first flight and adjust from there. The Pilot kits had the best die cutting on the balsa wood on the market and about the worst on the plywood. The Dremel jigsaw got a good workout on those kits. Don

thalis69

It is true that many parts have to be trimmed to be fitted in many Pilot kits.Also,what Doug mentioned is true.The wing incidence
has to be checked,but at least,there is always a clear view on the plans that has to be followed carefully anyway.
Now,I wouldn’t say that the die cutting on the plywood was about the worst on the market. In many kits,the cut was not through the thickness,but it was not crunchy also.The cut is so clear,that minimal job is needed to use the parts.
I have seen kits by many other companies that the parts couldn’t just been used at all!
By the way,Don ,do you have any suggestions about Pitts 10?I am about to finish one and your advise will be helpfull.I will take some photos to show you the progress.
Piper Cub 20,Fairchild PT-19 20 and Zlin Abrobat 20 are the kits to be presented today.

Have a nice weekend!
Socrates

W.E. Fan

Socrates,

Yes......the good old days with the die-crunched parts......especially if they were plywood. Like you say, it was not always easy to even tell the shape of the particular part. One of the Classic American made kits, Berkeley, was known for the lousy parts fit. Same goes for Sterling. Then again, at least the Sterling models were indeed very good flyers once they were built. Problem was building them though and above all, building them right.


Doug

LesUyeda

"It is true that many parts have to be trimmed to be fitted in many Pilot kits."

Although my experience was mostly with "in the beginning" Pilot kits, that was not my experience. If it didn't fit properly, I probably had the wrong part in my hand.

Les

W.E. Fan

Les,

I'm with you. The Pilot kits I have built myself always had two things in common:

- Excellent parts fit

and

- Very often an incorrect wing incidence unless you corrected it during the building process

Doug

LesUyeda

" Very often an incorrect wing incidence unless you corrected it during the building process"

I don't even remember that. I just built em and flew em.

Les

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

I built the Akromaster-20 back in 1982. To me at the time, it was a strange kit with the design of the fuselage and wings since I was used to more conventional balsa and "D" tube designs. The fuselage sides were all plywood, and the wing had no sheeting except right at the center. However perhaps the fuselage design was ahead of it's time, since many are designed that way now. It was however a very easy build, the plans were quite good with both English and Japanese. The plans not only detail the wing and fuselage, but have one sheet showing a photo array with instructions. But the surprising thing is that the third sheet of the plans show every single wood part in the kit, down to the 12 spar web's that you would just normally cut from a sheet of balsa to fit. When the part is made of shaped wood (like an aileron or leading edge) the cross section of those parts are also shown.

I would love to tell you how well it flew, but I barely remember that aspect. It turned out perhaps on the heavy side, I think I used a .40 instead of the .19-25. I think I lost it on a landing approach with a tip stall early on. Built light, it might have been a great design.

I also had a Sky Knight which was a .40 sized ARF in the mid-70's. A very nice flying airplane, wouldn't mind having another one.

thalis69

"It is true that many parts have to be trimmed to be fitted in many Pilot kits."
I was not referring to parts fit but actually to the cut through the plywood's thickness.I have experienced,even in one kit, perfectly die cut parts literally fallen down with a touch
and parts not really ready to part off their mother sheetBut at least I could cut it off with minimal work.
Generally,the parts fit was perfect and considered among the best in the market.Also,the wood quality was excellent,both balsa and especially plywood...perfect kits indeed!
Socrates

thalis69

Three more kits to go on with the list, are presented today.
The more I watch all these kits in the catalogues,the more I feel nostalgic to a bygone era...
Pitts S2A 10 and 20 size, Citabria 20 and Piper Tomahawk 20 are four beautifull planes.I am about to finish Pitts 10 and once again
I have to say that it is a very rewarding experience.I will show a few pictures from this built in the near future(gathering photos from my files).

Have a nice weekend!
Socrates

mikmerl

Yasoo
I built and flew a lot of pilot kits in the past and still have a few kits to build.
Currently half built I have a PT-19 kit and a NIB ¼ scale Tiger Moth and some others.
In the photo is a Spinks that I built and flew about 25 years ago. If flew well but really kept you on your toes.

Mike

thalis69

Yassou Mike.
Thank you for sharing your photos.Your experience will be valuable to all of us.Apart from Spinks Akromaster-by the way she is just a beauty-what other PILOT kis have you built?
It is true that PILOT kits were very popular here in Greece,especially during the 80's.Makrygiannis Model Store was the main supplier,a store that many modellers must remember from the good old days.
Socrates

thalis69

Hi everyone.
Three more kits are presented today:Junmeister 20,F16A and Zero Sen.Three wonderfull kits that characterise,once more,the variety and quality of all these planes of that period.

With today's use of electrics,can be really be built as small wonder machines-although I am more nitro oriented!
Have a nice weekend and enjoy your flights!
Socrates

pittsdriver

My Feedback: (7)

One of my favorite Pilot kits was the Jungmeister 20. I had an OS .30 Wankel on mine and flew it for several years. Wore that poor airplane out. One of the best fliers in the Pilot line. Don

fritzke

My Feedback: (1)

Don, I had one of those kits in my sights at a swap meet a couple of years ago, I was $3 short of the asking price, by the time
I had begged $3 off a club pal and got back to the seller it was in the hands of another buyer (elapsed time, maybe two minutes...)
I would love to get a copy of the plans if you still have them!
Dave

Nevermind! it's on OUTERZONE!

http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=2616

WooHoo!

Dave

thalis69

Don,your experience of Jungmeister 20 is valuable.I love this small bipe and your opinion makes me put it in my future projects.
Three more kit are on for today:Cessna 152-20 and two warbirds Me109E and Spitfire MkII.

By the way,don't miss a thread in the Twin & Multi engine airplanes forum about Pilot Twin Ace,by the fellow modeler David Polley.
You may find a lot of information,interesting and unique.
Have a nice weekend to all!
Socrates

thalis69

Three more kits will be posted todaye Havilland Tiger Moth(20-40 version),P-51D Mustang and Stephens Akro.

P-51D is produced even today!But Tiger Moth catches my eyes...
Have a nice weekend.
Socrates

joebahl

My Feedback: (2)

Your like me Dave ,i seen the fancy boxes when they all came out and i could not afford them then(kids in college) i need the plans to build a couple that i wanted . lol joe

pittsdriver

My Feedback: (7)

I might get that plan myself. It could be built lighter and would make a great electric powered model. I think one of the fiberglass cowl companies made a cowl for the Jungmeister. Don

mikmerl

I really cannot remember how many of these kits I have built back in their heyday. I built a lot for friends as well. The parts fit were such that you could complete frame up a typical .20 - .50 size model in around three days. Of course the larger ¼ scale kits were more complicated and needed a lot more work.

These were desirable kits in the 80s. I remember that the norm for most kits on the market was die cutting (see die crunched- die smashed). The cutting in this range of kits was more crisp than most of the competition and the wood (lite ply and balsa) was usually of a good grade.

I seldom found one that would not fly well I really loved the giant scale series, I have a ¼ scale Tiger Moth, a 1/3 scale Pitts and a 1/3 scale Diabolo waiting to be built.

I loved to fly the little Tomahawk (possibly because I have a few hours stick time in a full size one) and the Lake Buccaneer.

Now does anybody have ¼ scale Decathlon that they would be willing to part with? (please, please, please)

mike

dmbaerry

Any one have a Micro Star Kit, they would part with?

thalis69

Mike,I was surprised to read that you have flown Tomahawk and Lake Buccaneer.They are both distinctive flyers and very appealing in appearance.Especially,the comments that I have heard about Lake Buccaneer are rather disappointing about its flying qualities.
It was very difficult to take off from water,not to mention how easy was for water to fill the fuselage.What were your experiences?I believe that many modelers will appreciate your comments.
Three more kits will be presented today:Focke Wulf,Hawker Hurricane and Spinks Acromaster-40.

Happy Easter to all!
Socrates

thalis69

Three more wonderfull planes will be presented:Christen Eagle40/60,Bellanca Decathlon 40/60 and Piper PA-18 Super Cub.

Mike,I am waiting for your Lake Buccaneer experiences.It is a plane that I would love to construct and fly.
Good Day to all and happy landings!

mikmerl

It has been many years since the Lake but I do remember it as it was not just another model.
I recall a weight issue, try to build it as light as possible (substitute balsa wherever you can)
I used an OS FSR .25 (one of my favorite little engines of all time). If you are to fly off water (not easy) use Monokote for covering and do a generous overlap of the pieces.
Mount the wing floats with a small plastic screw so that they can break away if your landing and takeoff is not perfect.
Use tape around the join line of the wing/canopy and the fuselage to prevent water ingress also be careful around the pushrod exit points.
I recommend not to fly off seawater as there is a lot of spray involved during the takeoff run until it comes up on the step. Once it’s on the step things are OK however until you manage to get to that point it will give you a hard time.
Flying around is fine and fun, the flat bottom wing provides a lot of lift but it also has the drawbacks of a flat wing section.
The silhouette of this plane in the air is like no other with that huge lump on its back.
I would love to build one again if I had one.
mike

otrcman

I flew my Buccaneer from both land and water. Seemed to do quite well off water; not so good with wheels. Mine was powered with an OS25. Built pretty much per plans. It came up on the step quite well, ran nice and straight, and didn't porpoise as I recall. And it looked very cool as a seaplane.

Flying off land was a different story. The plane had marginal directional stability, but was satisfactory as a seaplane. The addition of the nose wheel was the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to directional stability. When I throttled back on final approach I never knew which way it was going to go. Aileron control seemed to produce more adverse yaw than favorable roll. Rudder was ultra sensitive at that point. If I'd had a radio with aileron-rudder coupling in those days I think it might have been manageable. But manually mixing rudder ? Forget it. The rudder was just too sensitive for manual mixing and the effect changed with throttle setting.

The end of that plane came one day when I pulled the landing gear off to fly as a seaplane. I forgot to put my usual piece of vinyl tape over the nose gear socket. Taxied out, applied full throttle, and it didn't want to come up on the step. Taxied back for another takeoff attempt and noticed it was riding low in the water. Realizing that I was taking on water, I turned toward shore. Right then all the controls went hard over - full throttle, full rudder aileron & elevator. The plane started making tight circles, each circle riding lower in the water. Fortunately the wind was blowing toward shore, so it was only a matter of time until it hit dry land - if it didn't sink first. My son waded out knee deep and caught it by a wing. You could see by the look on his face that the plane was REALLY heavy when he picked it up. We hurriedly drained the water, then took the plane home to dry the radio. The radio survived, but the plane grew ugly, black mold and was eventually condemned to the trash barrel.

Dick

Ce.Tom

Hello,

i have a few kits of Pilot models.

at time i have three models ready to fly, there flys very good .The models are the Christen Eagle 40, the Big eagle (modifided tio single Canopy) and the Mustang.

The models are built with Plans and the Cowling an wheel pant are self made composite Parts. The Eagle s are modifided with thin wing profile and other EWD.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9E1IwLIhc8

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/9397161/...le_40_Pilot_OK


Tom