samparfitt

My Feedback: (43)

Twinman's review at :

http://www.rcwarbirds.com/

kahloq

Thorough review. I do not like the servos for the elevator being on the outside of the fuse, other things I don't care for have already been mentioned.

Robby

My Feedback: (18)

Allrighttyyy, people...

Seems like some people think this thread is veering off course some..

Please.. may I remind you of the thread title..

B-17 ARF....

Where comparsion is ok,, discussing likes and dislikes is ok,
discussing kit vs ARF is not a comparsion..
And lets try not to degrade anyone or anyones product here....

Thank you,

Robby

Terror Dactyl

It might help to remember that this is possibly a new class of ARF "Sport Scale/ Weekend Warrior Scale" The one we used to say that it was "stand way the heck off scale"

This bird was intended for the flyers that dont need nuts and bolts scale and can remember that it is enjoyed best in the air and moving, which makes ANY FLAWS real hard to spoil the enjoyment.

Robby

My Feedback: (18)

Terror,,
Thank you,,
That is a very good way to put it....

It looks like a B-17..
It flys like a sport plane..
Is <as much as can be> easy for average person to assemble and fly..
Is very affordable for,,, a four engine plane..

Now,, there is no reason why everyone shouldn't go and get one,,
and inpress the hell outta everyone at the field...

Me thinks they will be paying more attention to a four engine plane
than an outta place rivit...

kahloq

The eam.net B17 is not a kit......it is closer to an arf then your giving credit for. There are many levels of ARF kits, some are totally precovered, some have portions that are covered, etc. Comparing a kit(regardless of level of complexity) is valid if the focus of the comparison is what the plane actually looks like when finished. There are many ARF kits that actually entail a great deal of building and prior experience. One example of this is Flying Styro kits and notably, the FSK B-25J fits theis description. It is not a beginner kit, but is an ARF. True, ARFs that are precovered are easier(normally) to put together, and a lot of people like this type of plane...me included. However, I nor most people would not show up to a field to show off a plane that was so drastically out of scale and actually think they'd get great comments about it.

No one is degrading anything. Mentioning flaws of a design is not degrading, but it is pointing out what the manufacturer needs to do to improve it. Stating that you might not like where servos are placed is not degrading anyone or anything. You have to admit this arf plane is not even close to scale. Extreme stand off scale is an accurate assessment. In the air, almost any plane looks fine, but you get all the comments mostly when the plane is on the ground where people actually look at it. There is much more wrong then a rivit.
If you want to buy the plane, great...go ahead. Have you ordered one?

Anyhow, if you want the plane...feel free I hope you enjoy it.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

kahloq:

Two things. First, let’s all go [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519]here[/link] and review the thread on the EAM B-17 build. An ARF? Not by anyone else’s definition, sir. You do have a lot of plastic shells, but you still have to build all the structure. To be an ARF all the structure will be done, and have the shells glued on at the very least.

Second, what sticks out with the Cedar B-17 is the width of the canopy framework – those wide painted lines just “Aint right.”

Spoke to Cedar Hobbies earlier this afternoon, the lines will be changed on later production, and future offerings will have the narrow lines from the start.

As stated, this is a “Fun scale” plane, and as such it fills its role admirably.

Bill.

PE2fan

My Feedback: (8)

Twinman,
Thanks for the build I am still intrigued. Could you get us some more pics of the completed one. It looked to me as if the cowls you were cutting were different than the ones in the rest of the pics. I would love to see some more pics please. Yea, yea, yea I know I'm killing you

twinman

My Feedback: (2)

Just for everyone's interest. The servos in the tail are OPTIONAL build. The mounts are covered and the builder can install them in the forward part of the fuse.
I would LOVE to get more pictures and maybe video....As usual,
the job that supports the hobby,hasme in China on Business..no RCrelated. What REALLY sucks...I saw that Paul over at Rcwarbirds posted my build article...RCWARBIRDS.COM is blocked in China..?????? and I cannot see the story.
Maybe I can even play with this thing..after jet lag is over. NEVER mess with mulit's with jet lag.

kahloq

I see you lact tact by trying to stress an entire post in bold. Good job on that. You are welcome to your own definition if you like....might try double checking that with several professional r/c magazines and you'll find the definition is alot wider then your narrow point of view.

Twinman....good to hear the servo mounts are not required to be on the outside. I think many people will appreciate that flexibility.

Terror Dactyl

That's his story and he's sticking to it,

I do believe that he he has been seen at the field with a trans in hand and a great case of jet lag in his sinus's though.

See ya at the field in a couple of weeks TM

twinman

My Feedback: (2)

That's it Terror..Your flying it!!, while I take pictures...maybe the shutter is fast enough to catch your bony knees shaking!!
Twinman
Remember the VQ A-26 Latest prototype? You squirmed on that one too..Hey, it had three minutes flight before you got it!! quit whineing!!..You know..that front machine gun canopy or bomb site area on the B-17..I guess whichever it was used for...Put in a firewall..Hmmm .15...uh...got to go..oh yeah..wrong continent. Later!!...There is a sport five engine plane born!!!

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Come on now, Twinman. Are you ever going to do it right?

And yes, that's EIGHT engines on this baby. We don't piddle around with just five.

Haw.

Bill.

twinman

My Feedback: (2)

DOUGH!!!!!! as Holmer Simpson would say!!!
Twinman

kahloq

I never stated the eam B-17 was an ARF, I said it was closer to an ARF then your giving credit for compared to an outright stick build kit(which it isn't)
You have a very narrow view of what an ARF comprises and it doesn't match what all the major r/c airplane mags define it as.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Kahloq:

Your post in this thread of 5/23/2006 12:31:44 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: kahloq
Here is build thread for eam.net's ARF B-17
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519

Please note the three letters immediately before “B-17.”
Now, still in this thread, 6/3/2006 4:59:02 PM,

Quote:

ORIGINAL: kahloq
I never stated the eam B-17 was an ARF,

Pardon me if I was confused.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: kahloq
You have a very narrow view of what an ARF comprises and it doesn't match what all the major r/c airplane mags define it as.

Possibly narrower than yours, but far more in line with the mags and the people who buy them.


Bill.

kahloq

Not when the mags say....and I quote(from Flight Ready ARF Guide): "ARF's come in many flavors. Most are precovered, some come with fiberglass parts or plastic pieces, and usually they are not overly difficult to put together. Some have more work to be done then others, but all fall into the ARF category." <--- That last sentence is referring to kits that have prebuilt portions of the plane. Ie...pre-sheeted wings, fiberglass fuse, prebuilt tail and horizontal stablizer.
Flight Ready ARF Guide is published by the same people that publish Model Airplane News and Backyard Flyer.
You are of course welcome to limit yourself to your narrow view.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Kahloq:

Model Airplane News not withstanding, the industry defines an ARF as an assembly kit that requires no covering or painting. If the wings and tail surfaces were fully built and sheeted, your EAM kit might fall into the category called ARC (Almost Ready to Cover), but since they aren't, it's just a kit.

Jim

Edit: It might interest you to know that EAM does not call it an ARF.

kahloq

I agree basically with you I think it is more an ARC then ARF. Yes I did initially put ARF in front of B-17 when I originally mentioned the "eam.net ARF B-17" simply because I was drawing a comparison between it and the Cedarhobbies version AND the eam B-17 is not a stick kit either.....so I had to label it something. Although it could qualify as such since all the surfaces are presheeted(and would only require painting...not acutally using some form of covering...aka foil or monokote or whatever), I did expand upon this and stated I thought it was closer to an ARF then some were giving credit for, but obviosuly more complicated then an standard ARF too. What I meant is that I wasnt necessarily labeling as a tried and true common ARF and it isnt a conventional ARF since it isnt near as factory finished as most ARF's, it could be considered more like what you say as similar to an ARC. Sorry there was a misunderstanding in what I was trying to get across. It is an ARF technically, although a very, very complicated one and so your description better fits it as closer to being an ARC.
Anyhow...enough about this.....back to our regularly scheduled programming

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Kahloq:

Here are some pictures of my F7F that’s waiting for some special engines. I’m glad to know it’s “Almost Ready to Cover.”

Actually, Joe Bridi and I both thought it was just a kit.

Bill.

kahloq

All you are trying to do is incite an argument and keep one going. Do you think you are more important cuz you post in bold?

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Kahloq:

Quote:

ORIGINAL: kahloq
I think it is more an ARC then ARF. Yes I did initially put ARF in front of B-17 when I originally mentioned the "eam.net ARF B-17" simply because I was drawing a comparison between it and the Cedarhobbies version AND the eam B-17 is not a stick kit either.....so I had to label it something.

Not a “Stick kit?” What do you call all those strips of wood you have to glue together?

“Partially prefabricated” would do fine, but it’s nowhere near the point where it could even be called “ARC.”

Not trying to pick a fight, and I don’t want to sound like a fishwife either. But you are being so nit-picky about the CH B-17 I really think you should see how it feels when someone picks at your nits.
Bill.

PS: The bolding is just so I can read it more easily. Wr.

twinman

My Feedback: (2)

Hey, Bill,
There have been comments on the cowls and appearance of such. These cowls are built up,,and so in my book and experience, less likely to crack as the plastic,,which I will give, might look...OK can Look more scale...until they crack. and then you reinforce them. Didn't you once build some very good looking cowls for one of you Kitty Cats that you make from uhhh...Some...uhhh "refreshment" drink cans?
Do you think they could be adapted to this or go over the original cowls...in a short period of time?
Twinman

kahloq

Ummm...are you looking at the correct plane? Here...I provide you with a nice build link for the eam.net plane
( http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519 ).
No where is there "strips" of wood. There are some balsa formers and fuse supports....but those are found in many ARF kits....again...like the FSK B-25.
Here is link to pic of the balsa parts( http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attac...hmentid=458497 )

Also, in case you missed it, the build thread and anything to do with building this plane is centered around prototypes(kinda of like the same deal with the CedarHobbies B-17). They are still working on finishing up the "production" version......but...you can still buy the prototype setup which IS much more like an ARC then an ARF. The goal of the eam B-17, once the final plans are finished....is to be a lot closer to an ARF. I should have mentioned this and this is also partly why I was refering to it as an ARF.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

George:

Good way to get me off the soapbox.

Yes, my Tiggerkitty has aluminum cowls. I’ve forgotten what the six-pack cost, but when I went to the 7-11 to get them Schlitz Malt Liquor was cheaper than the Cokes, so the cowlings are made from the bottoms of beer cans. They are very thin, very light, and very strong.

I made a mandrel from a PVC pipe fitting that was a close fit inside the can, then used a press in the center recess to force reshaping of what became the leading edge of the cowl.

Depending on the nacelle diameter of the B-17 the same source and method could be used, I scaled the Tiggerkitty from the start to use the drink cans.

If the B-17 is the wrong size there are many other containers in your local grocery store that can be used, both larger and smaller, aluminum and plastic.

A good source for your canopies is a one liter soft drink bottle. They’re usually made of Lexan, once formed it’s almost impossible to break.

Enough.

Here are some shots of the Tiggerkitty. The cowl flaps are functional.

Kahloq: Truce? I’m willing if you are…

Bill.