penceaviation

I'm considering kitting the A-320 just to have something really different available. I want to do it in 1/12 scale, which works out to 111.833 inch wingspan by 123 inches long. Is that too big to be attractive to most jet guys, should I think of doing it smaller?

trioval00

My Feedback: (17)

112 in wing span could be very attractive in the air. what size turbine do you think it would need? 28 lbs? or larger. If it could be kept to a 28-30lb turbine, it would keep the cost reasonable.


Mark

penceaviation

Initial calculations point to 18-20 pound turbines being just right. Of course, since I work in fiberglass it will be a full composite fuse, wings, and tail so that will help keep it light.

trioval00

My Feedback: (17)

what kind of a price for the kit are you looking at? as for me. I like the military jets but I would enjoy building a scale passenger airliner. I took a great liking to the L1011 that a friend had. but those kits are no longer available.

mark

penceaviation

It's hard to ballpark it at this point, not knowing exactly what it will take materials wise, but I'm going to shoot for $1799- $1999 or less for an all composite kit, with wood formers installed, wing spars installed and the like. I plan to have it mostly ready for paint and final assembly, landing gear will be extra but I have a shop I'm working with now that can make the custom parts for me. That price can be plus or minus a bit of course but if I get enough interested people I'll get the plugs made and get a better number pretty quickly.

Erik R

My Feedback: (32)

IMO,it's ugly,made in France,and flies like crap (I have 5000 hours in the real one.)Make a 757.It is by far the sexiest airliner to date,and made right here in the USA.[8D]

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

+1 i'd rather see a 757/767. Would also rather the plane be a bit smaller (14-18lb thrust turbines). Theirs plenty of big jets out there for the 20-28lb thrust turbines. Not all of us can afford one of those (w/o saving forever).

I'd also like to see a nice DC-9 or 727 as well As i'd put money on a DC-9 pretty quickly.

Erik R

My Feedback: (32)

I would've said do a 9,but didn't want to be called biased.If he makes one,I will definitely buy it.I think I already know the colors.

cactusflyer

My Feedback: (4)

Dude I have 8500+ hrs in the bird, most of which are in the left seat and I think it flies awesome..............In fact I'll just be there are at least 155 individuals who are quite satisfied with the Airbus right now!

Tailwinds,

John

warbird51

My Feedback: (12)

How about offering a float option in US Airways livery

Props4ever

OH GOD helPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!, twice in one night is just too muccchhhhh

Sorry can't stop holding my tummy hard enough, i just fell from me bed, laughing so HARD!..hahaha

cactusflyer

My Feedback: (4)

And it would probably still fly better than a Boeing.[:-] OOOOOHHHHH! Did I just type that??? Ha!

Erik R

My Feedback: (32)

John,
I'm glad you're happy on it.I,and most of my friends who have flown both,liked the 757 much better.Are you saying you won't bid the 75 when/if you can hold it,and you don't think the 75 is a much better looking airplane?Not sure what seats have to do with it,but I'm a test and ferry qual,check airman on the 9.Only flew the bus in the right seat.I still think it's ugly.

Tailwinds to you.

Erik

Erik R

My Feedback: (32)

Ok,
Either you never flew one,or it's drug test time.[8D]

And it would probably still fly better than a Boeing.[:-] OOOOOHHHHH! Did I just type that??? Ha!
[/quote]

cactusflyer

My Feedback: (4)

Erik,

From what I have seen, I think that some operators didn't utilize policies and procedures that made full use of the Airbuses awesome capabilities. That's not the airplanes fault just unfamiliarity with the new way of doing the job. Sure the '75 is a good looking airplane..........but an ugly girl can love you real good too! I could have held the '75, left seat three years ago, but I chose to stay on the bus.....It's just too comfortable and quiet to give up.................

John

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

757 is my favorite of all time, but I here the 767 is more fun to fly!!

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

Sean, u build it and they will come! lol

Countryboy

My Feedback: (25)

I know where plugs, moulds, plans and templates are for the 757-200 , along with a RTF version that would give Sean a quick jump start on a turbine version.

SJN

The 320 is a nice looking plane.

pics from the Nobert Rauch kit.
Great kits, but way too much building time for the avarage ARF builder


And a video of en EDF powered kit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KBAC-dLBkc

Props4ever

I would vote for large scale model of B767-200 or 300 series as this type has not been modeled as yet in production. A320, A319 and A321 are all same family with different fuselage lengths, but with slightly different wing on A321 and have been done by Norbert Rouch as we can see in ^^ post. Our Peter/Eicas also built and flew A321 from Norbert's models in Air Canada's livery. There have been some scratchbuilt B757s models also but none for B767 series as yet. I would think 1:16th scale would be great size and comparable to Norbert's scale powered by twin turbines or large EDFs as power plants.

If you do B767-200 then 300 is just the stretched version of it with fuselage plug in front and behind the wing, wing would remain exactly same and same goes for the whole tailplane, engines and landing gears.

Posting picture of C-GAUN Fin# 604 aka Gilmi Glider on it's last ferry flight to MHV airport plus few pictures of Peter Eicas's A321s...

penceaviation

I know where plugs, moulds, plans and templates are for the 757-200 , along with a RTF version that would give Sean a quick jump start on a turbine version.



[/quote]

I'm always up for building something everyone wants. Shoot me a PM about the info above if you would be so kind.

penceaviation

I just checked out Norbert Rouch's site and those are awesome planes, but he uses fiberglass nose and tail cones, the rest of the plane including the body appear to be from foam. I'm talking about a full composite airplane, wings, tail, body, nacelles, all of it that is practical. So, while my kit won't technically be an ARF, it will be a complete airframe ready for engine, radio, retracts and final assembly and paint. So who knows, maybe I can convert a few ARF guys.

CraigG

My Feedback: (40)

Actually, IMHO the 757 is more fun to fly. Light on the controls and a real hot rod on a cold day and light load. One the best thrust to weight ratio airliners out there.

The early 767 (-200) on the other hand, was not so nimble and at my old airline we referred to it as the "dump truck". The later -300, -400 and ER's were better but flew like most jumbos, smooth and solid but certainly not exciting.

I also prefer the look of the 757.

Craig

sideshow

My Feedback: (11)

hawt.....

penceaviation

Ok guys, is the general consensus that no one wants a big A-320 and I should do a Boeing product instead? Or do I have a bunch of Airbus lovers out there not chiming in yet?