Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 21, 2012, 11:56 AM
Registered User
kimhey's Avatar
nøtterøy, NORWAY
Joined Mar 2006
1,171 Posts
I would love a twin warbird, but I really think FMS should scale it to their other warbirds...

I sure looks better if the FMS JU88 (if that is the model soon-to-be-released) is bigger than the other 1400mm FMS models. Makes air combats even better looking...
kimhey is offline Find More Posts by kimhey
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Oct 21, 2012, 12:06 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2011
350 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimhey View Post
I would love a twin warbird, but I really think FMS should scale it to their other warbirds...

I sure looks better if the FMS JU88 (if that is the model soon-to-be-released) is bigger than the other 1400mm FMS models. Makes air combats even better looking...
I agree... I like my FMS B25, but it looks odd when flying with other 1400mm fighters. I realize cost is a concern, and the size of the box for shipping, but I would prefer twin engine birds to be larger
warbirdfan2 is online now Find More Posts by warbirdfan2
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 12:17 PM
Closed Account
Joined Apr 2008
3,402 Posts
I agree that it looks cooler to have all planes the same scale. But that would put the ju88 more into the 1700mm size and reports are the 1700mm aren't selling that well. So factor in the additional cost of a twin at that size and the non mainstreamness of the ju88 I don't think it will sell nearly enough to the masses.

Just a thought
BrentP is offline Find More Posts by BrentP
Last edited by BrentP; Oct 21, 2012 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 12:37 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2006
957 Posts
if hump was a misleading clue, as in humpback, than it's probably a razorback, as in P-47.
aferguson is offline Find More Posts by aferguson
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 12:53 PM
Closed Account
Joined Apr 2008
3,402 Posts
The problem is there is no P-47 razorback in the poster and we were told that the plane is on that poster, not the same paint scheme but the same plane.
BrentP is offline Find More Posts by BrentP
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 01:32 PM
Registered User
Canada, BC, Port Coquitlam
Joined Apr 2012
1,184 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrentP View Post
I agree that it looks cooler to have all planes the same scale. But that would put the ju88 more into the 1700mm size and reports are the 1700mm aren't selling that well. So factor in the additional cost of a twin at that size and the non mainstreamness of the ju88 I don't think it will sell nearly enough to the masses. Just a thought
1700 mm class (1600 mm plus class) is definitely less popular than the 1400mm and smaller size. They are the flagship of foamy manufacturers and show the world what quality a manufacturer can offer in a top of the line model. They are the "dream" of most foamy warbird fans, like myself.

1700s are way cooler with lots of detail and the FMS versions are very very close to true scale. They are all around more fun to fly and beautiful in te air, but there are fewer places to fly them, i.e. clubs and wide open country spaces. They are more expensive to buy and require more space to store which can be a detriment for flyers with the smaller housing units being built today.

The overall cost of owning and flying larger foamies is a detriment to their popularity and because of this, I am hoping FMS will focus more on developing their 1100 mm class. They can build them with more detail and features like retracts and flaps. This size class is easy to store, transport, great to fly, easier on the wallet as well.

Their F6F, PT17 and Henschel are beautiful models and deserve more stablemates. JMHO. I think FMS can capture a larger share of the foamie warbird market if they come out with a wider variety, say 1100 versions of their 1400 line-up. All the features of the 1400 class but in a smaller package with a naturally lower price.
easyrider604 is online now Find More Posts by easyrider604
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 02:53 PM
Gentle 'Bella'
gnats82's Avatar
Augusta, KS USA
Joined Dec 2007
4,617 Posts
Post #723 -

The size thing is a little tough to be specific. If we're thinking of twins being in the selection, the size of the current B-25 seems to be satisfactory and I'd think new ones would best be that size or a bit larger.

In the 1700mm size range, it's the fighters that have gone there for the most part and found a soft market. With a bomber or twin though, it makes sense to me that they would be best at this size or a bit larger as it makes their performance more dynamically realistic. The biggest hang-up to me would be the expense of owning such a large multi-engined model. I'd hope the manufacturers aren't looking to quickly recover costs of putting out the larger models. To me, these are good for the 'long haul' and short term profits wouldn't be a realistic expectation.

So true about the practicality of 1100mm sized planes, The FMS Stearman is my 'go to' airplane these days. I just wouldn't like a twin that small.
gnats82 is offline Find More Posts by gnats82
Last edited by gnats82; Oct 21, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 03:15 PM
Shameful Warbirdaholic.
Aros's Avatar
Maple Valley, WA
Joined Apr 2006
8,309 Posts
I admit I am a sucker for the 1700s. The problems of transport and price are very understandable. I just love the look and feel of flying a large warbird. For me personally I would rather have 3 1700's I adore over 10 1400's or 1100's. It's totally a preference thing for sure but I am crossing my fingers that FMS continues - and improves - the 1700 series.
Aros is offline Find More Posts by Aros
RCG Plus Member
Old Oct 21, 2012, 03:22 PM
Thanks Wilber and Orville !.
sonic liner's Avatar
San Jose Cally
Joined Jan 2004
1,036 Posts
My Dart at the chart is the C-46 commando http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-46_Commando

Pete
sonic liner is offline Find More Posts by sonic liner
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 03:24 PM
Gentle 'Bella'
gnats82's Avatar
Augusta, KS USA
Joined Dec 2007
4,617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aros View Post
I admit I am a sucker for the 1700s. The problems of transport and price are very understandable. I just love the look and feel of flying a large warbird. For me personally I would rather have 3 1700's I adore over 10 1400's or 1100's. It's totally a preference thing for sure but I am crossing my fingers that FMS continues - and improves - the 1700 series.
Me too. My A-rc P-40N (H-K) is a prince to fly and watch and they stumbled with it so quickly in marketing - too many second thoughts (..??@?..) about whether it was going to 'pay off' enough to be worthwhile, maybe. I think in the long run, they will have decent support.
gnats82 is offline Find More Posts by gnats82
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 03:58 PM
A Global Force For Good
jmpdgs's Avatar
USA, OH, Cincinnati
Joined Jun 2009
730 Posts
Revelle makes a really nice scale model, but it won't fly far.

Quote:
I am hoping FMS will focus more on developing their 1100 mm class. They can build them with more detail and features like retracts and flaps. This size class is easy to store, transport, great to fly, easier on the wallet as well.
The problem here is inherently wing loading. While features, features and more features are the current wave and that of the foreseeable future the challenge for manufacturers is to produce NOT the molds for new planes but new lighter weight and more durable hardware. Retracts, servos and the EPO itself are responsible for most of the weight currently limiting the production of high feature aircraft in smaller sizes.

A perfect case in point is the Windrider Dauntless SBD I built a couple of years ago. I loaded that sucker up with the lightest components I could find and it was still too heavy to be flown reliably. Every sortie was a nerve wracking coin toss; will she (or I) manage to get her up this time or not, and if so will, I be able to keep her from cartwheeling down the runway upon landing. Stability was great in the air under power, but you had to get her up first and she required such a large power plant that torque was a constant fight on run-up and the high speed of landing constantly over-stressed her pathetically inadequate landing gear which would inevitably twist or collapse even when greased in.

Now a days, with the onset of better, smaller, lighter and stronger E-tracts and micro servo's ,which weren't up to the task in 2010 but now feature metal gears and much stronger torque, I'm very tempted to give that same feature filled model another shot using the larger Freewing platform as my base. But even given the new tech, I'm not sure that the Windrider version could be made nearly as substantive and maintain any dependable flying integrity as the wing is just too small to support much added weight.

So, although small may be seemingly attractive, portable and perceptibly more affordable (only because shipping is so outrageous nowadays) it can't yet compete effectively on features and will therefore remain less attractive to those who are into more than flying in circles.

jmpdgs is offline Find More Posts by jmpdgs
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 04:31 PM
Gentle 'Bella'
gnats82's Avatar
Augusta, KS USA
Joined Dec 2007
4,617 Posts
jmpdgs - post # 731

And, simplicity is the key for the smaller ones to keep them good flyers. The Steaman I refer to has no flaps or retracts or other complications. It's a biplane to boot which has the most amount of wing area crammed into a 1000mm + package.
gnats82 is offline Find More Posts by gnats82
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 04:46 PM
Wilde Sau
Beltpilot's Avatar
Germany
Joined Sep 2009
3,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hunt View Post
Simulating engine sound is easy for any space ship...... there is none! (sound cannot travel through a vacuum no matter how hard George Lucas tries!) you should know better than that!
Good point!

However, if you were a REAL () StarWars-Nerd, you'd know that the various TIE-craft also operate in planetary atmospheres... and there you'd certainly hear them
Beltpilot is offline Find More Posts by Beltpilot
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2012, 05:57 PM
Your Pilot Ryan
ryramZ's Avatar
United States, IN, South Bend
Joined Nov 2008
3,280 Posts
I like the 1400 size cause I can still get them in the car. 1100 is fine but not for grass fields so much. Somewhere between 48 and 52 inches is also fine. My eflite hurricane does fine at 53 some inches and my Texan does good at 51 inches both on grass. My pz jug however only does well when the grass is scorched and short. My hellcat however can mow the lawn.
ryramZ is offline Find More Posts by ryramZ
RCG Plus Member
Old Oct 21, 2012, 06:27 PM
got any foam to bash?
Tom Hunt's Avatar
Lake Grove,LI, NY
Joined Aug 2000
5,355 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beltpilot View Post
and there you'd certainly hear them
I doubt very much that any "drive" system that did not burn fossil fuel would be noisy.. in fact.. in a military vehicle... silence is expected!
Tom Hunt is offline Find More Posts by Tom Hunt
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product New T-28 Trojan 1400mm EPO by FMS jbc Electric Warbirds 7917 Today 03:59 PM
Wanted FMS 1400mm 190,109,F6F or Corsair PNP NEW for Trade Mikemynameis Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 1 Jul 29, 2012 07:07 PM
Poll Choose the new paintscheme for the FMS 1400mm FW190-A8 Beltpilot Electric Warbirds 87 Jul 25, 2012 08:29 AM
Sold FMS 1400mm Zero - LPU in SoCal Inland Empire Justwingit Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 0 Jul 08, 2012 05:27 PM
Question 1400mm FMS Hellcat or 1400mm FMS Zero? lendwaym Electric Warbirds 7 May 13, 2012 09:27 PM