Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Why no .61-.91 (4 stroke) sized ARF WarBirds???

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Why no .61-.91 (4 stroke) sized ARF WarBirds???

Old 08-24-2015, 07:09 PM
  #1  
cmgtech1
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Resaca, GA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Why no .61-.91 (4 stroke) sized ARF WarBirds???

Every Hangar9/Horizon war bird in the 60" - 65" wingspan size (.61 2 stroke - .91 4 stroke) is "on back order" and have been for a while. Top Flite has a multitude of war bird offerings in the "Giant Scale" sizes, but only the P-51, F4U, and AT6 in stock. There are absolutely no viable axis war birds in this size available from anyone. Hangar9 had the Bf-109 (which is a great flyer), but it has been showing a "backorder" status for an extended time, and nobody with Horizon can tell me if the product will ever be back in stock or if it's actually discontinued.

Why is this size warbird receiving such little attention from the ARF manufacturers/distributors? I have no desire for the .46 sized models, and the Giant Scale versions are simply not practical due to size and cost, and because I prefer 4stroke glow engines over the weed eater sounding tone of most gasoline engines.

I can get a stupid foamie of practically any war bird, but they simply don't fly like a proper model, and foam always looks like... foam.

Why the demise of the classic .60 sized war birds?
Old 08-24-2015, 08:20 PM
  #2  
tailskid
My Feedback: (34)
 
tailskid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tolleson, AZ
Posts: 9,452
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

God question!
Old 08-24-2015, 10:28 PM
  #3  
vik
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
vik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well you may just mention why.
From the bottom end you have multiple foamies reaching around 60 and it is relatively simple to run them on a single battery. But I agree they are missing the weight and thus dont have the kinetic energy of build up warbird.
From the above, well we are in the age of internet and internet tells that you need to go bigger and bigger plus availability of radios and gear for better price than lets say 15 years ago.
I find a 120-160 size good compromise in between the too. They have good presence in the air, are relatively inexpensive to build and run and have decent weight.
60 size when fully loaded is highly possible to be slightly overweight.

On the end of the day if companies like Horizon will feel the demand they will introduce it. And there are many good kits/shortkits in this size we can build.
Old 08-25-2015, 02:11 AM
  #4  
Lifer
My Feedback: (1)
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Check out the Seagull warbirds on the Sig site.
Old 08-25-2015, 05:46 PM
  #5  
cmgtech1
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Resaca, GA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks Lifer - the Seagull line up does look pretty nice. Think I may have to get one of those A6M's!!! Hope it's a good flyer.
Old 08-25-2015, 07:04 PM
  #6  
Chris Nicastro
 
Chris Nicastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Its a basic problem. If a company makes a line up of 3 to five planes and supports them well then they will own that product segment. If they go further and introduce purpose built power systems and engines as combos then they will further own that product segment.
a company has to study the market segment and see the potential and then decide to enter that arena full force. Making one or two planes will only tip other companies off to enter that segment and potentially steal it from the first company.
It takes a serious commitment financially and the marketing department has to pull its weight to get the product noticed and desired.

Larger 80-90in planes are hard to live with I agree, they take up a lot of room and cost a lot, around $2500-3500 depending on set up. If you can fly a plane in the 60-70in WS range for half the price and buy quality scale models that would be great.

Ive been an advocate of full composite "60" size war birds for years and still nobody has made them. Were still in the 1980's with all wood planes that sell for top dollar! $999.99 wooden 1/5 Corsair? Really? Im working on a TF GS Corsair right now and still can't believe they get $750 for it.
Old 08-26-2015, 01:25 AM
  #7  
Lifer
My Feedback: (1)
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have always checked for any YouTube videos of any airplane project I am considering. Check out any Seagull Zero videos and see if you like it's flight qualities. It's an easy way to research the product before you buy.
Old 08-26-2015, 04:33 AM
  #8  
David Eichstedt
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I wish I could share the details with you, but unfortunately they're too sensitive to share. Horizon is obviously having supply issues with their warbird supplier in this class. But the underlying cause is that the wood airplane market is much smaller than it used to be, which has put a lot of pressure on the vendor base. Foam has taken over everything smaller than 20cc. 2005-2010 were the golden years, but once China let the yuan get strong prices had to go up. That and massive increases in the minimum wage, which impacts wood airplanes more than foam due to the amount of hand labor required to produce an ARF.
Old 08-26-2015, 07:36 AM
  #9  
JeffH
My Feedback: (43)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, VA
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I would imagine that Chinese wood ARFs will continue to rise in price across all sizes. The Chinese labor force is only going to work but for so long at comparatively pennies an hour. The world is also pressuring China to clean up it's industrial pollutants which as we know from history here in the USA, the EPA has certainly driven up the cost of production.
Kit production may come back in style again!!
Old 08-26-2015, 08:50 AM
  #10  
danpos
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by David Eichstedt View Post
I wish I could share the details with you, but unfortunately they're too sensitive to share. Horizon is obviously having supply issues with their warbird supplier in this class. But the underlying cause is that the wood airplane market is much smaller than it used to be, which has put a lot of pressure on the vendor base. Foam has taken over everything smaller than 20cc. 2005-2010 were the golden years, but once China let the yuan get strong prices had to go up. That and massive increases in the minimum wage, which impacts wood airplanes more than foam due to the amount of hand labor required to produce an ARF.
I have to say I'm not a fan of foam planes any longer. I look at them as a starter plane. There is a couple of us that still fly our 50 size Corsair and P-40B planes every weekend at our local flying field.
My Corsair has a Saito 72 and the P-40B has a Saito 91. In fact I cut up the firewall in my Eflite P-51B and fly it with a Saito 56 All three fly great.
Try to find a balsa warbird that will fly well with a Saito 100. I can't.
The choices to me are to either fly foam and electric. NO! Or jump up in size to the new and heavier 60 size warbirds that require larger engines.

JeffH you mentioned kits coming back in style. The last three planes I built were kits. Two last year and one is on the bench now.
Old 08-26-2015, 09:45 PM
  #11  
vik
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
vik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by David Eichstedt View Post
I wish I could share the details with you, but unfortunately they're too sensitive to share. Horizon is obviously having supply issues with their warbird supplier in this class. But the underlying cause is that the wood airplane market is much smaller than it used to be, which has put a lot of pressure on the vendor base. Foam has taken over everything smaller than 20cc. 2005-2010 were the golden years, but once China let the yuan get strong prices had to go up. That and massive increases in the minimum wage, which impacts wood airplanes more than foam due to the amount of hand labor required to produce an ARF.
And why not?
With the modern CAD design you can make the kit basically to work like a LEGO. Fully framed fuse or wing without single drop of glue and than just use thin CA on most of the places to secure it.
Designers like Rumen (Fokke) and others are showing that it is possible.
For example this company: http://www.therccustomjets.cz/cz/konstrukcni-modely
Old 08-26-2015, 10:18 PM
  #12  
chuckk2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warner Robins, GA
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I got the feeling that taking them off the market will allow them to eventually be re-introduced at a significantly higher price.
Old 08-28-2015, 07:38 AM
  #13  
mikes68charger
My Feedback: (34)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: , OH
Posts: 1,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

it seems like foam is the future, Heck there is a company who has a foam turbine jet modle. They sell it as a ARF - Motor.

I will say thow, I was just at a really nice war bird show last weekend, and a guy had a huge P51 it looked like a Bud Nelson 130in or so, but when he took it apart it was make out of almost all Foam!

he took foam cut and sanded it to shape, then glassed it and from the out side you could not tell, but it was very light, and flew very well.
Old 08-28-2015, 02:08 PM
  #14  
ChrisK-RCU
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quincy, IL
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by danpos View Post
I have to say I'm not a fan of foam planes any longer. I look at them as a starter plane. There is a couple of us that still fly our 50 size Corsair and P-40B planes every weekend at our local flying field.
My Corsair has a Saito 72 and the P-40B has a Saito 91. In fact I cut up the firewall in my Eflite P-51B and fly it with a Saito 56 All three fly great.
Try to find a balsa warbird that will fly well with a Saito 100. I can't.
The choices to me are to either fly foam and electric. NO! Or jump up in size to the new and heavier 60 size warbirds that require larger engines.

JeffH you mentioned kits coming back in style. The last three planes I built were kits. Two last year and one is on the bench now.
I have a Top Flite P-51 with a Saito 100 and it's a great combo.
Old 09-09-2015, 12:37 PM
  #15  
danpos
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ChrisK-RCU View Post
I have a Top Flite P-51 with a Saito 100 and it's a great combo.
I tried a Saito 100 in my Top Flite P-51 and it would have required a lot of lead to balance. Did you have to add much weight to the nose?
Is yours a kit or ARF?
Old 09-09-2015, 04:42 PM
  #16  
ChrisK-RCU
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Quincy, IL
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have the ARF. With the Saito 100 it is slightly nose heavy, I put 1/2 ounce of lead in the tail to balance.
Old 09-10-2015, 12:27 PM
  #17  
JeffH
My Feedback: (43)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, VA
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I had the .60 ARF TF Mustang with a YS 120 on it and it balanced perfectly without any weight added.
I am sure with the highly variable wood weights in the ARFs, I could assemble another one just like it and it would come out nose heavy, or even tail heavy. I just got lucky.
Great flying airplane, I got tired of it nosing over no matter how perfect the landing. I canted the gear forward, moved the CG back some, nothing helped.
It also took LOTS of down trim to stop the climbing. I added down thrust which helped some, but it really needed more positive incidence in the tail, or less positive in the wing.

I did just remember that swapped out the 2-56 pushrods for 4-40 rods. That is probably why I didn't need any tail weight. The extra ounce or so from the added steel took care of it.
It was clocked on radar at 118 mph if I remember correctly. It was plenty fast.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.