You're right. I got two inexpensive Guillows kits for Christmas and they are pretty decent. Much simplified and rationalized. If you wanted the max out of them, some wood would need replacing, but they are still pretty good. I think I will sand the formers and ribs thinner, replace the stick wood and go for it.

I received my first GUILLOW's kit when I was about 10 years old (nuff said about age). Anyway, the kit was a FOKKER DVII and I had a helluva time getting it built to look like the image portrayed on the box. Yes, I was frustrated and the finished product was UGLY! However, that didn't stop me from buying more of 'em! I learned a PILE of stuff building these small models. My son has several hanging from his bedroom ceiling and they make great display, scale models. R/C compatible? - maybe electric but I wouldn't recommend it; not cost effective, eh? Summing up, I have very fond memories of these kits and in the correct context, as tony-the-tiger would say, "they're GREAT"!.

My son still has the Guillows Avenger he built about 15 years ago. He entered it in the local fair anw won 1st place in woodcraft. (There was no model airplane category)

Never seen a Guillow's fly? You just haven't been around much then. Here's my Guillow's Thomas Morse S4C Scout. It's been flying for more than two years. 4 channel electric powered R/C, and weighs 8oz ready to fly. Used all the stock wood from the kit too.[8D]

Here's another that I built about 4 years ago, SE5a. Still flys too. 24" span. Yes, used all the stock kitwood.

Here's a photo of my 28" Guillow's PT-17 from the September 2003 issue of Quiet Flyer magazine. The model was over 3 years old when this photo was taken. All stock kitwood plus extras.

Here's my ill-fated 40" span Guillow's P-38 Lightning before final finish. Unfortunately it was lost on it's 3rd test flight due to spinning in after one of the motors cut out on takeoff.

This one was built from the stock kitwood and then sheeted. Could have been built much lighter but still flew well at 32oz. Had 5 channels, retractable gear, 6 servos, twin motors.

Guillows 36" Cessna 172. Speed 400 electric powered. Yeah, came in heavy at 18oz but I was a newbie back then at building for electric, this was my second electric plane (the first was the SE5a). It still flew great. Covered in monokote. 4 channel.

GeraldO,

Congrats on the beautiful Guillow's conversions! I have a buddy who's converting the stearman with an Os .10. Regarding the Guillow's airfoils, my understanding is that that they are usually the scale airfoil. Many models use non-scale airfoils for better flight performance. I've heard mixed reviews on how they fly.

Nice planes, GeraldO.

How do you think the Stearman would fly, 4 channel R/C with a Norvel for power? Would it slow down pretty good for a novice-to-intermediate flyer to land OK?

I have a Spitfire kit on my shelf that I may have to try R/C as well, but I'm a slimer by nature, not really interested in 'lectric power.

Phil

A small Norvell would fly the stearman well. You won't need full throttle of course. I wouldn't worry about slowing it down because they have so much aerodynamic drag that top speed won't be real fast anyway. The problem with landing the Stearman is that all Stearmans are tough to land. This is because of their landing gear configuration, they like to ground-loop. Just be sure to keep the total weight below about 14-15oz and it will do OK. You'll need to use micro gear of course to do it.

Now everyone please understand, I'm not saying that Guillows kits are easy to build, or that their wood is high quality. I'm only expressing that the wood is 'good enough' to build a flyable R/C model. As far as airfoils go, there's nothing wrong with them. One main thing that I would recommend though is to reduce the wing angle of incidence to neutral. Most of the Guillows designs have a steep angle of incidence which is fine for rubber power but too much for glow or electric.

GERALDO; Great looking planes you have there. I am working on a Guillows P-40 and a Sopwith Camel. Maybe Electric. What did you use it the Thomas Morse Scout? Motor, Batt Gear drive? Think the Sopwith will be a good project.
Guillows older kits did have lousy wood and die cutting but I have built many of them during my modeling days, some flew some didn't.
If they really want a challenge build a Joe Ott kit with cardboard formers and bass wood.

Dasflugmodele

Dasflugmodele, I too have the Guillow's P40 kit and plan to electrify it some day.

The Tommy uses a GWS IPS DXA motor, 8 cells of 370mAH NiMH, a Pixie 7 speed control, and 3 Cirrus CS10 servos. Prop is an APC 9x6 slowflyer clipped to about 8.5"

The Sopwith Camel is a bit bigger than the Tommy, closer to the Stearman in size, so it will need a bigger motor than the Scout.

I think they called those Joe Ott kits "Ott-O-Former" or something like that. I've never built one, got scared away by the promise of a very heavy model that would be very unlikely to ever fly. Now that would be amazing if someone really did get one of those to fly.

Some beautiful work on those! I have an old Guillows Sopwith Camel kit, but that really looks like a challenge for a flyer. I've got a Herr kit Stearman that looks like a real possibility however. Might just have to consider making an r/c out of that one.

I too built Guillows kits years back- their WWI series,Camel, Spad were nice as was the Cessna 170 etc. I too found them all to be heavy due largely as a result of the hard balsa supplied with thier kits;however with a little extra work made terrific display models with accuracy of out line nice indeed. I recollect building the Super Cub for a Cox 020 but don't remember flying it; I found all the Guillows kits too heavy for rubber power: but my knowledge was limited then as to using a rubber winder to pack in the turns and all that. I remember the 'DC Maxie Cutters' were pros in this category ( I wonder-where do we get Guillows kits from?)

Guillows kits are available from Penn Valley Hobby center. Tower lists some also. You can buy them on E Bay at about 30 % more than they list for.