BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

Hello, I am considering building a B17. I am not having any success locating any kits. Any web sites of manufacturers or distributors ? Thank you very much. Bob

skull1971

Go to rcwarbirds.com they are building one right now. It's a kit, and there is a link to the company. So far it really looks great, looks like a top quality kit, and the guys building are doing a super job. IMO

wulf190

My Feedback: (19)

The Wing Manufacturing model is an excellent flyer, and a nice size. If you want something bigger try Don Smith Plans and get a kit cut from Mace Gill at the Aeroplaneworks. A Google search of either should net you what you need.

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Electric: http://www.eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/bomber17.htm
Glow medium size: http://www.wingmfg.com/Pages/WingB17.html
Glow / Gas assorted sizes: http://www.wingspanmodels.com/
Early Models: http://members.lycos.co.uk/daviesgarner/
Plans: http://www.bhplans.com/
http://www.donsmithplans.com/

Rickles56

WingSpan models.com have 3 sizes, 1/12th, 1/9th and 1/6th. They are the top scale B17's around and their price reflects this but it is the easiest to assemble and turns out the nicest so worth the cost. Don Smiths design is a close second but you need to have it cut or cut the parts from plans on your own. Prescision Cut Kits and Aeroplane Works both have the Don Smith 1/9th scale B17 in their list. I would go with Mace Gill of Aeroplane Works myself after I had a bad experience with PCK's. Most people have not had any problems with them. I am not familiar with the other kit makes, I know a bunch of people make the Wing Mfg version and it is a stand off scale not real good scale features.

The only problem with a B17 is the cost, you have to figure that it will be 4 times as much as an single engined plane of the same size since it has 4 engines, along with 4 sets of just about everything!

I love B17's and have no problem pouring huge amounts of money into them. I could own a real nice jet for what I have into my Don Smith B17 that is nearing completion.

Good luck and see you on the B17 circuit.

BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

Thank you all very much for the replies and information. My plan is for the B17 (or perhaps a B25) to be my winter project so I hope to order something in the next week or so. Also,.... do any manufacturers/parts cutters offer a fiberglass fuse (figure that may save some time/energy). Yes, I figured it would be 4 times everything .... including the cost .... but they are also 4 times as impressive. Bob

Badge

My Feedback: (21)

You can't beat the wingspanmodels.com kits a friend and I are going to be building his 1/9th scale and 1/6th scale for next year.

Snubpot

Show me a video, a picture or any proof that a Wingspan Models B-17 built by the company has flown before they started selling kits, or even after they started selling kits, and I'll buy one. I would not buy something that has not had a prototype built and thoroughly test flown by the company. I can't find anything on their web site, seems to me they would be talking about and bragging about the flight characteristics and have some video or pictures of the prototype on the site. Does anyone know how it flies? I know several are nearing completion, but these are customer’s planes and to my knowledge none of them have flown at this time. Having customers build the first prototypes is totally arrogant and a sham to consumers in my opinion. I'm not saying it's not a great design, it certainly has the most potential of any B-17 I've ever seen, but that is only skin deep, these models must fly! It could have a structural weakness, CG, incidence problem or something else that may not be know until it has flown for a certain # of hours. Am I wrong on this? If I am why?


Anyone with some proof can chime in at any time,

Snub

BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

Snub, I think your post is very appropriate. As a potential buyer of this package, I would certainly want to know that it is a proven design ........ not just because I would be spening a lot of $$$$, but also because I will be spending most of the winter in the cellar building it. Bob

nemesis4u

My Feedback: (77)

http://www.wingmfg.com/Pages/WingB17.html

drone pilot

I'm easily confused..... I don't have an MBA and I'm pretty much a sucker and believe a lot of what a manufacturer says about his product. Do companys acutally put out products that are junk and either don't fly, or fall aprt in the sky? How long will they stay in business if their idea is to sell crappy product and get bad mouthed by every customer and all their friends? Doesn't make sense to me..... Why would someone buy a product that is going to take a year or more to build if it isn't going to fly? Well of course there was Jim Bede in homebuilts.........

Rickles56

I don't know of any Wingspan models that have actually flown but the plane completed is lighter than the Don Smith B17 (talking 1/9th scale versions here). As long as it's lighter and the wing has as much area it should fly as well if not better. The Don Smith design was not modified to fly better because it's a model. It's roots are off of the original Boeing designs as well. There are many Don Smith B17's flying out there.

But, you do bring up a curious point. I know Greg Hahn is building one, if he has faith in it, so will I.

Snubpot

How much you want to bet that Wingspan gave Greg everything for fee? Seems like it would be a good marketing move. Also Greg gets everything else for fee too like the engines. So, you are telling me that his investment of basically $0 is the same as yours of at least $3,500? I think not! I'd have faith in a free plane too, but I'm not paying for the prototype building and flying for any company. You can do what you want, all I ask is that I see proof of it flying, I don’t care who endorses what.

Where's the beef? Still not one knows!

Snub

BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

I am confused why a company would not make a prototype. A prototype primarily benefits the company...... it is their chance/opportunity to correct a flaw that they just did not think of or plan for. It also gives them the chance to experiment a bit to perhaps even improve upon the design. In this case, if I had seen a clip of a prototype (flying) on their website, ...... they would have had my credit card number a few minutes later.
I also do not want to be unfair to Wingspan. Perhaps they did fly a prototype .... and we just don't know about it. Bob

Rickles56

So get some plans, have a kit cut... I am not at all impressed with the Wing Mfg. B17. Check them out by looking at the number that have been built and how many owners like them.

Even if Greg got it for free, he wouldn't waist his time for something that he didn't think would fly at the TOC.
Ask him...

The Don Smith is a better than average B17, it's a lot more work than one season though. Also before I stated that you should remember that it's the cost of building four planes at once, it's also like building four at once... very hard to do well in one building season, unless it's a WingSpan.

Talk to Mitch Epstein about his DS B17's...you can find him on RCSB or here. He uses Mace Gill for his cutting as well.

Rickles56

I don't know of any available commercially. I know that one guy was making a plug. I am not sure how far he got on it though. He had/has a thread on RCSB.

Snubpot

All I am saying is that I want to see how it flies before I buy, it's just that simple. I have no gods, so it's easy for me to make sound decisions based on facts alone. No fly, no buy. Greg is a great guy and very accomplished, but so was Captain Smith on the Titanic. So my point is that ANYONE can make a mistake, so I make my own decisions based on the facts that I know.

That's the way I do things and I'm offering my opinion, I don't care who is building what. If it turns out to be a great flyer then I'll buy one, so far it looks perfect... so far!

Just my .02 cents (I hate that cliché, but people seem to need to hear it)


Bob, Why would they want to hide the fact that their B-17 has flown? I can see why they would want to hide the fact that one has not flown. Listen to common sense and not hype, trust your gut feelings on this. Look at the plans for the 1/6 scale version, it's just a blown up 1/9 scale. Look at the projected weight and servo requirements, you can tell one has never been built.

It's very simple, I will wait until one has flown and I'll make my decision based on the flight report, period.

Snub

a walk in the park

Guys,

Just to clarify a few things and maybe help a bit. I don't think one of the Wingspan B-17's has been flown to date. I don't think Don Smith didn't build a prototype of his 17 either. I did however, take a good look at the drawings and did look closely at the airfoils and incidents and all seems to fit well into the "rules of thumb" as I've learned them over the years. Also keep in mind that, no airplane was "proven" to fly until a "live pilot" sat in the cockpit and put the thing in the air.

My comment on the question about structural integrity, from what I've done and seen in the past, the majority of this build is overkill (not a bad thing). It has twice the formers and ribs than the DS and he calls for 1/8th sheeting on the wing (I've never used more than 3/32nd on the wings). The reason I say that's not all bad is from my experience I want this plane to weigh as much as possible and still be legal. My DS B-17 from ten years ago weighed in at 45lbs. and needed to weigh 75lbs. The weight is needed to better handle less than ideal wind conditions.

If interested you can see my build on the Wingspan web page. Mine is now primed and getting surface detail. Or if you have questions don't hesitate, I'll answer what I can.

Considering the time and money issue, your time should be the most expensive thing in any build project. We only live once, so time is always the most precious. Don't waste it! I don't

G. Hahn

Rickles56

Thanks Greg...

You make a very good argument for the WingSpan model. I have been watching your build and can't wait to see the plane in the air. I expect you will easily take the top awards again with that model!

I only wish Mike (WingSpan) had put his website up sooner, I would have purchased the Wingspan hands down if I had known it was available. I have a lot of faith in the Don Smith design because I know the design in and out but many have been flown. You guys bring up a very good point about no prototype of the Wingspan having been flown but take a close look at all the designs of what is available in B17's. There is no doubt in my mind that the Wingspan is the best purchase out there. Another point is how well will the plane be built. I have see some very good, proven designs go nose first into the ground because of poor building. The B17 is a fairly complicated aircraft and I would want the best engineering put into the plane and a kit that helps me prevent making mistakes with built in gigs and such. You will need a VERY large, very flat and level building surface for a 1/9th B17 even with gigs. The fuse is around 98" long and the wingspan is 148", even if built in thirds like the DS the center section takes up a huge part of a large, flat and level workbench. Eventually you will have to have the entire wing together for testing and checking alignments.

Taking on a large B17 project is not only fun but very fulfilling and challenging. Some parts of the Don Smith design almost got the best of me. Thankfully there were plently of people that had crossed those sections of the build and could help. There seems to be the same support group for the WingSpan design.

So, Balsa Bob... Which size B17 are you considering for your build?

BalsaBob

My Feedback: (24)

Well, ...... I was initially thinking the 1/12 th ..... but, (from what I have been learning lately from all the posts and threads), the 1/9 th probably wouldn't take much more time or cost. I (personally) also find larger airplanes easier to build. I also would not want to spend all that time/effort/money building the 1/12 th..... and later wished I had built the 1/9 th. Bob

Rickles56

I had the 1/12th Marutaka B17F and it was very small and did not handle well. I helped with a DS 1/9th maiden and they are much more stable and look a whole lot nicer. You can get some details on a 1/9th fairly easily as well. I too like the size for easier building. Even so, A 1/9th is big, much bigger than you may think. I will try to dig up a photo I took of the first time I put the wing on the plane and lowered the gear in my driveway. It was almost as wide as the door on my 2-car garage! I would like to have a 1/12th for weekend flying and the 1/9th for shows and events. I may get the 1/12 WingSpan just for that reason after I finish my DS.

Good luck and I think you will like the 1/9th the best as well. It took me 600 hours to build my first 1/12th, I have almost 2 yrs into the DS build, and a good 1 year of that is steady 8 hour days. The cost difference is substantial also.

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Check out the "Bombers page at:
http://rcwarbirds.com/
for a little motivation, or the photo pages from Bomber Field,
:http://www.bomberfieldusa.com/index01.htm
Lots of B-17's

WingSpan Models

Hi Everyone,

I would like to thank everyone for their input and concerns. I wish I had more time to contribute to these forums as they are a good source of information. Snub you make a very good point and you should do your homework before making any purchase model airplane or other.

I would like to address some of these questions, but as I do please keep in mind that my picking at the poor points of my competitors as anything more than me showing how our product is different. First to answer your question of has a plane flown. Yes and no. The 1/9th has flown albeit a very rough model as at the time many of the detail parts were not fully developed. The main reason you don't see anything of the flight is because, one I am just very limited in time and the other is the model that has flown does not best represent what my model will look like. Also, even if I posted pictures or video of the proto type, would you believe me when I said it flew great? Probably not, you more than likely want to hear from an impartial source. As I have only been in business a little over a year no one who has purchased our kit has finished yet. As for the 1/12th and 1/6th they have not flown. Those who have purchase our kit or plans will tell you that the quality is second to none.

You are correct the proof is in the pudding as it were. What makes a plane fly and why do you think ours won't? A plane flies on its ability to generate lift; lift is dependent on the airfoil. Not that this make a whole lot of difference as we have all seen the flying stop sign and just look at all the flat out fliers with flat wings. Point being almost anything will fly if it has the right power to weight ratio. So my question is why wouldn't our plane fly?

I may be wrong, but I think your main reason for wanting to see the plane fly first is your experience with how others design their planes. The majority hand draw their plans and almost none use computers to analyze their designs. We use state of the art 3D CAD software to analyze strength to weight and to verify assembly technique. We also use other computer tools to analyze lift characteristics and other critical data. The primary reason other designers build proto types is to first see if the plane will assemble. The second is to see if it will fly. Ask anyone who has built a DS and they are likely to tell you that the ribs did not line up all that well. This is because each rib is independently hand drawn with little reference to the rib before it or after it.

Another example the DS B-17 uses no known calculated airfoil cross section. It is a completely arbitrary drawn airfoil and is based off of the drawing below. Were as ours is a known NACA generated airfoil, where its lift characteristics can be charted. Given that the DS flies (and flies well) with an arbitrary airfoil why wouldn't one fly well with a real airfoil? Another example is the DS uses an asymmetrical airfoil set at a 3.5 degree of incidence. One of the reasons a wing is set with incidence is to help it generate lift. This is typically with symmetrical airfoil sections. Asymmetrical airfoils are set with close to 0 degrees of incidence because the airfoil itself generates the lift.

Now some will argue that a scale airfoil will not work on a model airplane. This is completely untrue. In the study of fluid dynamics and aerodynamics there is a principle known as dimensionless analysis. This means one can apply engineering principles to any size body and expect the scaleable performance results relative to the magnitude of the size difference between the models. This is exactly how Boeing and all other aircraft manufacturers design there planes. Here's another example for you. When Boeing designs a new airplane do you think they would commit millions of dollars building the first plane not knowing if it will fly? Absolutely not! They knew exactly how it will fly long before they laid the first rib because they have done the engineering. And even though they put the first airplane through many months and years of testing after the first plane is built is it primarily to comply with industry and federal standards and regulations. Of course a completely new design would require a lot of testing because peoples safety it at risk, but that is not the case with the B-17. The testing has all been done more than 60 years ago. This is not to say I could not improve the flight characteristics of the B-17. The whole reason there is such a long tail moment behind the CG is to counter the weight of the massive radial engines. I could have shortened the tail given that model airplane engines are much lighter given their power, but then it would not look like a B-17.

As to your comment that the 6th scale plane is just a scale up version of the 9th scale; yes it is and no it isn’t. The 6th scale plane uses different wood and thicknesses than the 1/9th to accommodate the differences in size of engines used and overall weigh of the plane. As for the numbers like wing area and such, of course they are going to be straight scale version of each other. If they weren’t than that means they not the same plane.

I don’t have anything to hide. I have done my homework and would not sell something that was not quality. I have been a product design engineer for almost 20 years so I know how to develop quality products. I use the best equipment to design and analyze my aircraft and only the highest quality materials in my kits. I think the evidence is in how well this plane goes together. Compare our plane to the DS you’ll find that the wings, stab and engines are all in the same relative position so from just a quick glance you should be able to deduce the planes flight worthiness. As for waiting for a plane to fly first I don’t blame you, my personal opinion as a scale modeler is that flight performance is not my high priority when looking for an airplane to model. The scale appearance, quality of the kit and how easy it is to assemble are higher priorities for me. After all a true scale plane will only fly as well as the real plane.

Michael Kramer
WingSpan Models
www.wingspanmodels.com
[email protected]

WingSpan Models

By the way sorry for the novel, I can get carried away sometimes.

Michael Kramer
WingSpan Models
www.wingspanmodels.com
[email protected]

turbinelover

Hi all,

I think I will be building a Wing span models 1/9 B-17 after I finish my Ziroli P-51.
The kit look's nice and the kit is not that much.

Regards,
Dan Crawford