For years I have wanted to build a Monocoupe 90 and finally got an Ikon Kit. Building the wings 5 years ago as such a tedious experience I have not been able to get motivated to finish the kit. Poor choices of wood for some parts, poor fitting parts, plus plans and instructions not up to what I have come to expect from other kits builders has left me cold. The scale on some of the other Ikon kits I have seen is not much better than stand off. Scratch building would be preferable.

I am completing an IKON Monocoupe 90 from a kit that was from the eighties. It is not a simple kit, and requires some planning along the way. One fellow I chatted with called it an 'intense build'. Still, after all the work, it is a very attractive plane. I finished like the Sig rubber kit I built in the seventies. Emil has been great with tips and advice.

I'm currently finishing a Ikon Monocoupe 145 job that I hired out last year. A co-worker (with model ship experience) told me he would frame it for $100. He built the wings, horiz. stabilizer, and elevator. He trashed the fuselage, so I had to take it all back and build the fuse from the plan, cutting parts myself. It didn't go too badly. It's not done yet. I still need to sheet the front of fuse and build the rudder.

My first Ikon kit was a Waco UPF-7. It didn't build well, but I'm happy with the finished product.

Ikon kits don't snap together like some. They take lots of work and some head scratching when trying to figure out the plans. Parts don't always fit.
But when (if) you get it built, it's a thing of beauty, and not often seen at the local field.

Does anyone have an opinion about the more recent kit offerings from Ikon? ...........those that have come out in the past couple of years?.......

I am going to build their GeeBee Y that I purchased from them a year ago once I finish covering my 1/3 scale Pup. I have looked through the kit and other than average looking die cutting everything looks good as far as wood quality hardware etc. I can tell by reading the instructions that it is going to take a lot of planning and thinking it is definitely a " builders kit " .It does not look any more difficult than the BUSA Pup I am finishing up. Matter of fact I can't wait to start it.

Bill

I've built the Beaver and Noseman. Beaver is one of their older kits, Norseman is new. Like above, they are "builders kits." I've enjoyed both and both fly very well. Been building for a long time, so I really never follow the directions with any kit anymore.

I just finished building an IKON N'WST Piper Tri-Pacer. The initial test flight and several more were this past Saturday, 22 March. I began it on 28 Dec 02. It was finished with cloth and dope and rib stitched etc. I could complain that the plans left a bit to the imagination but I thouroghly enjoyed the kit. Maybe it was the dope that I inhaled. I posted a few pictures in the photo gallery. Search for tri-pacer.

If your imagination is limited - your skills are equal to your imagination - and you want a plane that everyone else has............maybe a Top Flight kit is right for you. On the other hand, if you like to build airplanes the Ikon kits are builders kits that fly GREAT.

Challenge yourself. You may find yourself next scratch building that plane you always wanted but isn't available as a "shake-a-box" kit.

I just purchased his (I think) new Stinson. I have been building kits for many years and guess have probably been spoiled by the step by step palns and pictures these enormous companies have been turning out. I purshased this kit from Ikon because I wanted something different and let's face it, kits are getting harder and harder to find. Emil offers something different. I do think he could probably make his instructions easier to understand. This not not cost that much and it would be helpful, espically the 1st time you build a kit. Everything considered, if your up for a challenge give it a shot.

I have a 1/5 scale Piper PA-11 kit I bought from Ikon about 13 years ago. The wings went together very nicely and easily. The tail is basically a scratch build affair since it's all sticks and user created laminated bows. The fuse is a cross between the two. It is very heavily built and I did a lot of re-engineering. The nose is the most intriguing part as the builder is completely left to their own imagination on how to make the PA-11 cowl fit on the J-3 airframe. Very basic suggestions are given and just a little extra work on the kit could have made this part much simpler. OTOH, I have emailed and talked to Emil several times and he has given me direction which resulted in a very good looking end result. The model sat in a corner for nearly 7 years due to the amount of head scratching required to get it to this point, but I am getting ambitious again. Some day, I'll finish it. Right now, all of those sticks look good just framed up

John

I have the Stinson 108 KIT. I pulled it out once. I opened the box and looked at the plans. "Not today", I said. Now I'm building a CG Chipmunk. Now this is a kit for idiots. I think I would rather a Stafford kit or an Ikon to this pathetic joke of a kit. I know they fly very well. But it is so very far from scale and this ridiculous PLYWOOD! A difficult kit can be much more fun than one that is designed for the unskilled masses. But, you do need to be in the mood.

In defense of the CG Chipmunk, it was designed as a good flying sport plane that happens to look like a Chipmunk, not a scale model for the average joe.

There are some good, closer to scale, Chipmunks out there. The defunct Ohio R/C kits come to mind for starters. There was also someone who kitted a glass fuse Chipmunk at some point but the manuf. name escapes me.

John

You are right. I shouldn't slam the CG Chipmunk. It is what it is. IT is a good sturdy sport ship that resembles a Chipmunk. I knew that going into this and I wanted for it's flying characteristics anyway. I'll probably love it once it is complete.
But I have developed a decidedly masochistic tendency to choose more difficult kits that reward the builder for a job well done. The CG chipmunk doesn't get any more realistic, no matter how perfectly you build it. Something like a Stafford kit does tend to get better and better the more time you put into it. I'm just afraid I can't enjoy an easy build anymore. How sad is that?

I'm currently building the ikon beaver. what a piece of crap, none of the parts fit sheeting is crap. The instructions I don't even follow anymore........etc. But It's about half way finished. I'm in the process of sheeting it right now. I'm making it more scale(making scale strut mounts, the corugated metal on the control surfaces ETC.) It is a Builders kit, I'm learning a lot, I'm 15 and It's my forth kit, My buddies say I'm doing the work of someone thats been building for as long as I am old. I'm even adding a scale cockpit with big cargo boxes in the back that will conceal my servos.

wish me luck!!!

I have the stinson SR-8 and the Monocoupe 90. I had the Fairchild Ranger. They all are(were) great airplanes. The Stinson is a showstopper from the word Go. (built by Don Olsen) While none are easy builds, they all were worth the time and effort put into them. I learned more buildingthe Fairchild than I did when I built my Eagle. I never ran into any problems with illfitting parts or bad wood. Just take your time, figure out how Emil does things, and you'll be OK. He's always been available to answer questions. To me, IKON kits are a good experience.

Well if you're only 15 and you're building this beaver then my hat is off to you. I did one and it was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever seen and I have been doing this for 49 years. The wood and cutting was good but that's about it. I feel that no one should have to try and figure out what was in the designers head when he did it. Yes, Emil will answer your questions and that's good but don't disagree with the way he does something, don't ask how I know this. His comment was to go and take some drafting classes, sorry but I have 2 years of drafting and said that the way he did things, well on this one kit made absolutely no sense, oh well, never will buy another one anyway.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of these Ikon
kits. I bought my first and last kit from them
about 4 1/2 years ago, which was the Waco UPF-7.
There was missing balsa, unfinished (not formed)
piano wire landing gear, and cabane struts not
formed to correct shape.

thanks for the encouragement grnbrt
I have past the fustrating stage of building and things are looking better. The only thing I will need help with are , making the landing gear,joining wings to fuse, and engine instalation. luckily I have help that lives not too far away So I don't have to do it on my own.

Keep up the good work RACER. At your age, you have a lifetime of model building satisfaction ahead of you. If you are taking on this kind of challenge now, you'll be designing and building planes others can only dream about, in just a few years.

Hey tom
heres your stinson

Just my opinion guys but after I took this Stinson to toledo Topflight came out with theirs with all the add ons that I did to this one Hidden controls acsess hatches etc etc all in the same place same shapes Coinsidence or is plagerism basic to all mankind? Sorry about bashing By the way I have the topflight Stinson also There is only minor differences in the way it is made. You guys complain too much You only get out of this hobby (read that kits) what you put into it

I finished the Beaver years ago and I liked it very much. Nice flying no problems building it.
I just ordered a Pilatus Porter last week.

Attititude is more important than fact.
Steve

there seems to be alot of people out there that have ikon kits. can any body help me find a set of plans for ikons cessna 135,145? does any body have one of these planes? i have one that is partly built but have no plans. ikon was contacted but did not help. rvwise

rvwise:

Cessna 135 or 145? Never heard of such numbers. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I've never known such model numbrs.

Do you mean a 120 or 140? The only difference in those two was flaps on the 140.

And the only --5 i know of is the 195, the later version of the 190.

Generally, on piston planes, Cessna had the first digit for engine count, second for base model, third number for variant of the base model. An example would be the 172 - 1 engine, 7 series, and 2 indicated the tricycle variant of the taildragger 170. Of course they blew it with the twins. First digit was 3 for them. The 310 and 377 are two examples.

I'm sure they have run out of numbers in this system so I can't speak with authority for anything in the last 20 years or so. Just like Boeing has only two planes to go in the 7x7 series.

Bill.

So a Cessna 150 would be???
1 engine, 5th in a series and 0/no landing gear???

Art:

1 engine, 5 series, 0 variations on the base model. The real 5 series is 1 engine, 5 series, 2 trike gear variant.

But in this case I think they added the 2 without ever having had a taildragger 150, the 2 was used because everybody expected to see a 2 on a Cessna with training wheels.

Bill

PS: I deliberately ignored your feeble joke. Haw. wr.

dear mr. robison, thank you for your reply. cessna had a line of planes which i believe started with the 135. the number would change with an increase in h.p. when they got to 145 ? the added the name airmaster to there logo on the fin. it was dropped some where along the line. the 195 was the last one they built. i am looking for the plans for my ikon kit which could be any model number of 135 to 145. do you have any ideas? thank you rvwise