Originally Posted by flyandi

Only single engines or multi-engines possible, too?

Hi flyandi,

Yep, this comp was for single engine aircraft only. The first part of comp was all about nominating aircraft with single engines that flew between 1925 - 1955 as a production or prototype. We got over 80 nominations, then we drew 20 from that for the poll.

However twin engine aircraft are definately a favourite of mine so - watch this space!

What a beauty from any angle...

RF

Would love to see the Red/ black bulldog for indoor sport flying,but the p6e is very cool also!

I have yet to see any video of these flying indoors.

I say that the business side of me says make a P-40 warhawk next, but the lover of rare birds in me wants to see the La-7

^^^^^^^^^^^ Yep, I would prepay for an LA-7 tonight.

I begged and begged Horizon to make one of these but, to no avail.

Okay, I find myself with some clear thoughts and preferences, so I guess it's time for me to chime in. Here goes.

Historical:
MicroAces have focused on aircraft of historical significance. It's part of their sales pitch, and honestly, I like it. What constitutes historical significance? Well, that's a judgment call, and pretty flexible. The super popular subjects tend to be historically significant, but there are a number of historically significant aircraft on this list, which are not commonly modeled. On the other hand, I would argue (and I expect some disagreement here) that the P-6E Hawk, the BV141 and the Bulldog are not very significant in historical terms. That's my opinion, and I'll leave it at that. Interesting airplanes, and cool-looking, but no long-term effect on many people's lives.


Model Performance:
In general, a model of a monoplane will perform better than a model of a biplane, other things being equal. In a MicroAces model, the other things will be pretty much equal, I expect.

Also, a model without landing gear will perform better than a model with wheels hanging down. Honestly, the landing gear on a plane this size doesn't do me much good. I can't land precisely and consistently enough to use it properly. I just glide it into the grass as slowly as possible. Landing gear just guarantees me a nose-over.


Model Fidelity:
I'm still building my first MicroAces model (started last night), so I can't report yet what the finished product looks like in 3D. But I'm very impressed by how good they look in pictures, given that it's basically a profile model. That said, a model with a narrow fuselage will probably look better in 3D than a model with a big radial engine. I've built profile models in the past, and some subjects just seem to translate better into a profile model.


Charisma (for lack of a better word):
Will the model get people's attention, when you bring it out and fly it? As much as I like the P-40, everyone's seen lots of them. Likewise the Zero, to a lesser extent. And a number of candidates are a variation on the theme of low-wing, V-engine, with retractable conventional gear. They would tend to look very similar at a distance in flight.



Conclusion:
So which plane would I most like to see? On balance, I think I like the Stuka. First, it's just dripping with historical significance. It was an important and effective weapon during Germany's blitzkrieg in the early days of WWII.

In design terms, it's a monoplane, with a fairly long wing for good performance. It has a longish, narrowish fuselage, which should translate well into a profile model. On the down side, it has fixed landing gear, so you can't realistically fly it without wheels. That makes for a performance hit, and I guess I'll have to learn to land better. Alternatively, Jon at MicroAces could model the specific aircraft of some poor hapless pilot who never made a good landing. Then my skill level would be authentic. :-)

The inverted gull wing may be a design challenge, but Jon sounds like he's okay with that. Based on the clever designs I've seen from him so far, I'm confident he could come up with a good working design.

And finally, it looks very distinctive, and I don't believe it's been done to death. Not beautiful but functional. To me, it's an airplane that just looks like it means business. It looks different. People will notice it.

So there's my input. We have about 10 more days to vote. Get in there, and let's get a Stuka model in our hands.

PS-- It's a dive bomber, so we'll all need to practice our diving attack maneuvers.

Mr. Hatman,

Your post is so carefully and wonderfully written that I read it several times and reply with all due respect.

I do agree that the Stuka is a significant aeroplane in the history of aviation, but that was not one of the requirements of the original poll. Memories of the damage done by this plane should never be forgotten.

Curtiss P-6E Hawk, is the last bi-plane fighter ever built for the U. S. Army Air Force. The end of an era. Romance. Open cockpit. Goggles and silk scarves. Colourful designs. Art Deco. Champagne. Memories of a simpler time. A handsome airplane to fly.

That's why it is my choice.

RF

The bipes are interesting and I do like the lines of the P-6E. I do wonder though, how much more difficult it will be to design, assemble and maintain one of these two wingers as a Micro Ace?

My old GWS PT-17 was a beast when it came to wing struts. Always an issue with them. On something as small as the Micro Aces, the struts might be problematic?

I envision the stuts to be attached using magnets...though I am not a designer. I recently saw this on a design that I think was called "slow bipe". It seems like a brilliant idea.

RF

I voted totally the wrong one... I think the 141 would have been a very interesting model, and as second choice, the Curtis. Biplanes are all over the place and in all the scales, where as asymetircals are very rare, and especially in this scale!!

If it were for multiprop, then I would have chosen probably the Mosquito in this scale... an iconic british plane. The Lancaster in indoor would be a little too much, and as far as spitfires and hurricanes go, they are everywhere!!

Originally Posted by Epitaph

If it were for multiprop, then I would have chosen probably the Mosquito in this scale...

What is wrong with De Havilland's Hornet?

Is there or will there be a US distributor for your kits???

Don
AMA 384859

Hi Don,

we will be looking at distribution channels worldwide next year, all being well.

In the meantime we do ship directly worldwide ourselves and the payment process through Paypal converts your $ to £ without any issues (usually). Shipping costs are reasonable and it seems to be averaging 7 to 10 days to reach Stateside.

Jon

Just 2 days left to vote for the Stuka!

Seriously, it looks like the P-6E Hawk is probably going to win this thing. And if it does, I'm sure I'll give it a try. I have to admit, It would be a pretty cool model.

But allow me to respectfully suggest following it with a Stuka model . . .

Originally Posted by Hatman

... it looks like the P-6E Hawk is probably going to win this thing.

Less than 12% wins a poll....

Gene K