Stuka Jon N

My Feedback: (33)

I am building an I-kon kit cut in the mid 80's of the Dehaviland Beaver and it is all wood. Being an old er builder I love the kit. Its no cookie cutter arf. I have found some small area's with minor mistakes but they mean nothing if you are a builder. Lets face it and call a spade a spade. Those who are builders like them. Those that are arf assemblers do not. All I have to say. Stuka Jon

abufletcher

Jon makes a very good point that as kits become more sophisticated, particularly those kits designed from square one via the 3-D CAD process, they become more and more like elaborate puzzles with pieces precisely designed and computer cut to slot into adjoining pieces. So more and more building a modern kit begins to approximate plastic modeling. I'm not sure how I feel about this. In some respects, it seems like a step forward, but in other ways it seems to cheapen the model building experience.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Good engineering is good engineering, be it a bridge or a plane kit. Having an engineering background I can appreciate a good design when I see one. Take a look at a GTM kit or a Proctor kit for some sound engineering

FliteMetal

While we incorporate some interlocking on the CAD conversion and upgrades to the
Effinger designs where it is deemed it would be beneficial, it is kept to a minimum.

We are incorporating modern wing tube alternatives where it is seen as an advantage
for the builder. Still these changes are included on addendum sheets and the original
planset remains as Bill Effinger designed them.

The larger the model is, it is less of an issue considering that even the formers are
assembled : ) Because Bill was an aeronautical and mechanical engineer the designs
are not burdened with huge blocks to be shaped, etc...

pacoflyer

My Feedback: (23)

After all this...
I have a Ikon Monocoupe 90 NIB kit that I have been thinking about selling if anyone is interested..

thanks,
paul [email protected]

FliteMetal

Paco,

The 90A remains a very popular giant scale subject. Doesn't require a lot of flying time to enjoy and could actually make for a good giant scale trainer. After no less than say six years the balsa in that kit could be dried enough to reduce its finished weight by three or four pounds.


Your post reminded me of a Marutaka Zero Sr. kit I bought from Bert Streigler who had stored it in the rafters above his workshop. The summer temperature in Houston is typically 92~94. Typical Zero Sr. weighed 12# properly decked out in scale geegaws...this one weighed 8# complete : )

pacoflyer

My Feedback: (23)

Thanks Ed

Barcandson

My Feedback: (20)

I'll offer to buy the Monocoupe if it is still available. Dave

Barcandson

My Feedback: (20)

What a great forum although it's not happy news about the loss of Ikon and the owners. I'm a born-again modeler, have done a few ARFs, can keep a trainer and simple sport plane in the air and mostly unbroken on landing. But as mentioned, I really want to do scale, and full builds. I'm about to attack a Goldberg Cub and have a couple Top-Flite kits. The descriptions of the Ikon kits I've read sound like just what I have in mind (with a little more experience). The brats are gone, so I've got the time.

Just wondering, are the Ikon plans/documentation still around and available? The now-defunct site mentioned that they were available.

FliteMetal

Don't understand the question... Perhaps I should say as long as Aaron's family holds the copyright to Emil's designs no one else can legally reproduce the plansets for sale...unless the right is obtained by transfer of the power of attorney. There are plans and kits in the hands of modelers. These can be freely resold on a 1:1 exchange basis...but not legally reproduced unless Aaron or his survivors receive compensation equal to whatever they want to charge...

As previously stated by many here...but may not have been clear because the statements were made with great kindness in describing the quality and accuracy of the original Ikon N'west kits...plans...they left a lot to be desired which could and was compensated for by the builder to bring the pieces of wood into compliance aka resemblence of the intended shape aka aircraft.

Barcandson

My Feedback: (20)

Ed

Just wondering if you have any experience with the Royal/Marutaka kits. How would you compare them with the Ikon N'West kits on the completeness, accuracy, buildability that's been discussed in this thread? Thanks. Dave

FliteMetal

Dave,

They were fine back when we had nothing larger than 68 or so inch w/s. Superior to Ikon in every way. Increase the engine size stated on the kit by 20 to 25 percent and it was fine...but as always...had to be flown to the ground.

Stickbuilder

I would be interested in the Monocoupe kit too.

Bill, Waco Brother #1

Fandango2

Ed,

I have a OSMax 120 twin engine and the 144" Aeronca C3 listed in your plan offerings seems to be a good fit. Are the plans still available and do you have lazer cut wood for it?
Thanks, Gary R., Clovis, CA

FliteMetal

Yes

Michaelj2k

I tripped acorss a set of plans for the Waco CTO. Anybody have a set of templates for wing ribs and fuse bulkheads and formers? The plan shows an airfoil for the CSO as well.

ARUP

Hi- I just read this post. Comparing one kit manufacturer to another in terms of buildability, representation of the origional and flyability are very subjective. I have built both (and many other) 'brands'. So, with all due respects to Flite Metal, I think the Ikon kits are a little easier to build. Since the Ikon kits are, in general, bigger they seem easier to fly. They also represent subjects that were, for the most part, easier to fly full scale. Those two items of flyability make comparisons difficult. As far as accuracy there is no difference. I have the Oscar and it has some issues but they are as easily overcome by judicious use of logic, the ruler, the pen and sandpaper as any Ikon kit ever was. I sold the C47 kit because there were more 'issues' about fidelity to scale than I wanted to correct. The Royal kits have lots of blocks to shape. It just boils down to what kind of kits do you like to build. It's an internal question you have to ask yourself as to what abilities you have and what amounts of time are you willing to dedicate to finish the project. Having built these ancient designs (by todays' standards) I fully appreciate CAD and laser cut offerings. I am glad that my skillset includes working on the old designs. It allows me to look at 3 views and quickly determine what techniques will be needed to build an RC model. If a kit is available- I'll buy it. If not- I'll make it, plans and all! The great thing about this hobby is it makes you think. Sincerely, windbag ARUP

FliteMetal

There is no question that Emil's wannabe designs were all over the map. Buildability...Royal had it all over Emil with respect to ease of and consistancy when finished. The minimum skillset required to complete a Royal made it very popular.

In both cases we are speaking of things that will never be again... The Marutaka family had no desire to continue down a craftsman skillset with diminishing returns on investment amidst the computer age...closed their doors without a second thought.

Desirability, emmmmmmmmmmmmm they neither could make it today due to the fact blocks and shape are not in the toy boxes today.

Its nice to remember things we did once upon a time...rarely will you hear or read someone wanting to revisit that if they are holding a fist full of toy money. Builders build better today...answering why could consume twenty pages of thread!

The Effinger Designs permit a builder to achieve the required outline easily and overall it is typically lighter weight. As has always been the case, after you achieve this, the rest is between you and your documentation.

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

Ditto.

Kenemby

There may be worse things than not getting your IKon NW kit. You might get one then when you start building it you can watch your time and money go down the tube.

After much disgust, I put my partially built kit in the burn barrel. I kept the unused balsa that was good and burned the rest of what was left also. I have been been building models for several decades and have never had anything any worse!.
Good luck!!

TomCrump

I don't understand all this IKON bashing. These kits may not have been up to modern standards, but they weren't that difficult to build.

Ed thought they were great, until the new owners didn't follow through with there promises. I can still remember his proud announcement on RCSB, when he thought he was going to carry the IKON product line.

The plans were well laid out. The instruction manual covered any rough spots that the builder might encounter. These kits were designed for the advanced builder, but if a less experienced modeler ran into problems, Emil was only a phone call away.

ARUP

Hi Tom Crump- Your Stinson looks great! I agree with you totally. I don't have any problems building Ikon airplanes and their construction methods are a great template for scratch building- including drawing plans for those who are interested in doing this. I think most folks who are having problems aren't experienced builders and, therefore, can't sovle the problems that might arise with these kits. That's okay- I've been there. With time, patience, the proper tools and attitude any kit can be built. Some kits have build requirements that favor one builder over another and that is where, IMHO, perceived faults arise. The Ikon Rearwin Speedster is a simple box with formers to 'flesh' it out. There is a little head scratching about adding stringers et al to match the former outlines but it isn't an insurmountable task. The Rearwin is an awesome flying model, too! Just like Emil and Neely's advert states! I don't think these designs are any worse (or better) than others from this era. I know. I've built so many kit and plans designs I can't even remember them all. Some I like better than others. I've built Effinger, Reeves, Pepino, Sig, Top Flite, Goldberg, Royal, Guillows, Comet, Sterling, Flyline, Combat, Ikon, VK/ Proctor, Cleveland, and on and on. I draw my own when a kit isn't available. If I was a CAD guru I feel like I could really knock them out but feel time is too short to learn another skill when I could be building.

And to Kenemby- can I have or purchase your Ikon plans (and cowl if available)? I already have: Stinson 108, GeeBee E, Rearwin Speedster, Curtiss Robin, Aeronca Champ, Wedell-Willams 44, Fairchild 22, Piper Tripacer and Mr. Mulligan.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I am presently rebuilding my F-22-I have worn it out, if anyone knows of a Ikon F-22 kit far sale-let me know please, they turn heads at the field and fly like a brick but these are the kind of kits I miss.

TomCrump

Thanks, ARUP

Both you and Jim mention the Fairchild 22. I remember that IKON had two versions of the 24, but I don't remember the 22. I thought that it was a Pilot kit.

ARUP

Hi Tom- here's a page out of their catalogue. Wish I had bought the Cessna 95 and Lockheed Vega while available!