HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Feb 08, 2013, 10:22 AM
Registered User
E-Challenged's Avatar
United States, CA, Garden Grove
Joined Oct 2000
11,948 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Wood View Post
Very cool!

I did hear the owner say that the plans were somewhat...ummm...problematic.

mw
Cleveland plans are not easy to build from and designs were not intended for RC and electric power. They were built for free flight, control line and display. Larger scales are blowups of original plans in smaller scales, so dimensions on drawings are misleading. They are chock full of illustrated details for serious scale builders. They were drawn in the 30's when there was no RC and spark ignition engines or rubber band power were the options for free-flight or control line flying. Many were probably built for display only. Construction is basic balsa stringers balsa sheet, ply and basswood. Serious scale builders will usually want to inlay balsa sheet between stringers to simulate aluminum skin and avoid the "starved horse" look of traditional scale stick models. Starved horse versions are lighter and have their own vintage charm. There are scale designs among Cleveland plans for models that are not otherwise available in plans, kits or "short-kits" today. Definitely not suitable for people who have only built from Guillows or Mountain Models style kits with modeler-friendly instruction books and plans with exploded views and copious helpful notes and recommendations on power systems, where to mount things and building sequence. If you have built some of Pat Tritle's designs, you may be able to build successfully from Cleveland plans.
E-Challenged is online now Find More Posts by E-Challenged
Last edited by E-Challenged; Feb 08, 2013 at 10:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 08, 2013, 10:40 AM
Team of ONE....or...Team Me
DeadTom's Avatar
Reno, Nevada
Joined Oct 2006
789 Posts
Thank you for the offer to build a plane for me for free but I do prefer to build me own.
I see balsa and foam and other materials as just another type of medium to use in the building flying process.
I can appreciate others opinions that they do not have the time, tools, skills or knowledge to build balsa planes and that is their choice.
I do see a huge increase of people flying due to the fact that there are ARF's and RTF's aircraft to choose from and that has helped the hobby tremendously. But I also see an art form disappearing due to lack of interest in building your own aircraft as this is a I want it now society and a wasteful at that. When the foamy has crashed so many times it is just thrown away. I have some balsa planes that are over 30+ years old and have been crashed and repaired. I also have some foam airplanes that have been crashed and glued and taped back together and they still fly also, although they look like a mass of tape and glue
I do prefer building with balsa and have done so since the late 60's as my older brother had a father who introduced us to flying at an early age. Dad would buy us some balsa sheets a few Cox golden bees and some fuel to keep us out of trouble during the summer.
my 2 cents (as long as we still have pennies)
DeadTom is online now Find More Posts by DeadTom
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 11:05 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
7,643 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpress.. View Post
It's a better medium than foam, that's for certain. Unless you've actually flown balsa models (I'm not saying flown someone else's model for a handful of minutes) then you honestly don't have the grounds to speak about it. You can fly a foam airplane all you want, doesn't matter if it's flat, or fully shaped- nothing, and I repeat, nothing flies like a properly built up balsa airplane. And another thing, why do you think large scale model aircraft are only built out of wood? Foam simply does not have the mass required to fly properly. It's just goofy at those sizes, feels like one giant slow park flyer.

IMO, the main reason there aren't more large or giant-sized foamies is that a) it's hard to keep foam rigid enough, and b) due to wing-cubed effect, the lightness of foam just isn't any benefit at those sizes. I see this just comparing my two Snipers, one that's just under 40", and the other 48", and from having seen the huge XL-sized Sniper at close hand (I never did see the XL fly right.)

I take issue with the "nothing flies like balsa" claim, and I think I've flown enough of both to have an informed opinion on the matter. I can see that in large airframes and for competition, you need the rigidity of wood, but in parkflyer sizes? Nah. There's no flex of significance in a modern, well-constructed 40" EPP parkflyer, if used within its intended flight mission.
rafe_b is offline Find More Posts by rafe_b
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 11:13 AM
Promoting Model Aviation...
Murocflyer's Avatar
United States, CA, Tehachapi
Joined Nov 2005
24,959 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillM View Post
Frank
I don't want to read every post on this thread so I'll just give you a short report on my experience.
There was a time when I built planes for a LHS. I did it for quite a number of years. I don't really know how many I built exactly but I'm certain the number was over 1000. They were of course all wood and Monokote covered. Most were Goldberg kits though I also did others as well.
Today I still prefer wood over foam. This is not to say that I don't have a few foam planes in my hanger. I do but I enjoy the building and that is why I prefer wood.
There are those who buy rather than build for many reasons and there isn't a darn thing wrong with that.
As I write this I have about 100 kits in my shop which by the way is being remodeled. I now have two work benches. I still spend at least two hours a day at the bench--more if I can.

BM
That is amazing! Over 1,000 planes. Hard to imagine what it is like to build that many planes.

And I agree about the building part. I think there are a lot of folks like me who think that building planes is more enjoyable than than flying them. That's why I think this idea is a win-win for all involved. There are people that can't build for many reasons so getting the people who like to build with the guys who want to learn to build or can't build will benefit both.

This idea came to me a long time ago, but do to personal commitments (read real life issues) I felt I did not have the time or energy to devote to this project. But I came to the realization that I will always have conflicting time constraints so I needed to up the priority on this.

Frank
Murocflyer is offline Find More Posts by Murocflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 04:52 PM
Registered User
THESANDMAN's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2010
1,667 Posts
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1767479


murocflyer;
i would love to have this plane in my hangar . what do i need to supply you with in order to get this plane mailed to my house .
THESANDMAN is offline Find More Posts by THESANDMAN
Last edited by THESANDMAN; Feb 08, 2013 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 07:08 PM
I'm Addicted Already
Charlotte, NC
Joined Feb 2011
1,848 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpress..
It's a better medium than foam, that's for certain. Unless you've actually flown balsa models (I'm not saying flown someone else's model for a handful of minutes) then you honestly don't have the grounds to speak about it. You can fly a foam airplane all you want, doesn't matter if it's flat, or fully shaped- nothing, and I repeat, nothing flies like a properly built up balsa airplane. And another thing, why do you think large scale model aircraft are only built out of wood? Foam simply does not have the mass required to fly properly. It's just goofy at those sizes, feels like one giant slow park flyer.


IMO, the main reason there aren't more large or giant-sized foamies is that a) it's hard to keep foam rigid enough, and b) due to wing-cubed effect, the lightness of foam just isn't any benefit at those sizes. I see this just comparing my two Snipers, one that's just under 40", and the other 48", and from having seen the huge XL-sized Sniper at close hand (I never did see the XL fly right.)

I take issue with the "nothing flies like balsa" claim, and I think I've flown enough of both to have an informed opinion on the matter. I can see that in large airframes and for competition, you need the rigidity of wood, but in parkflyer sizes? Nah. There's no flex of significance in a modern, well-constructed 40" EPP parkflyer, if used within its intended flight mission.
I beg to differ... take a look at post #146. Almost 60 inch span and can hold a 100 pound woman sitting on the center of the wing with no flex. The limiting factor is not the foam, but the price one is willing to pay to have foam that is built up smartly for no flexing.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...761712&page=10
NCRealEstateGuy is offline Find More Posts by NCRealEstateGuy
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 09:52 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
7,643 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCRealEstateGuy View Post
I beg to differ... take a look at post #146. Almost 60 inch span and can hold a 100 pound woman sitting on the center of the wing with no flex. The limiting factor is not the foam, but the price one is willing to pay to have foam that is built up smartly for no flexing.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...761712&page=10
By the time you've built it up to that sort of strength, foam has no advantage over wood, other than the ability to be shaped and molded into beautiful curves. Ie., the weight advantage is gone.

I've got a 50" sport trainer with balsa-sheeted foam wings, that's as close as I can relate. Those 50" wings are good and strong, but heavier than a comparable hollow balsa rib-and-spar wing. From what little I know of composite airframes, they're generally not light.
rafe_b is offline Find More Posts by rafe_b
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 08, 2013, 10:56 PM
Closed Account
Joined Aug 2007
4,497 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafe_b View Post
Build a plane for someone else to fly? Maybe if I was retired or unable to work, with too much time on my hands. Otherwise, no. As in, no way. Call me selfish, I don't care. I'm very selective about how I waste kill utilize my free time.

Under the right conditions, I'd be OK "teaching" how to build but nobody's ever asked.
I could build one or a few, but I am not really interested any more. I've built a couple planes from Goldberg and Guillows, and a couple Stevens kits, but I don't get that rush from building a plane from sticks.
I still have a half finished Telemaster, a HL Cub, and an EP warmliner designed in the mid 90s that is 10% finished. I did finish a balsa RET from plans on this group from a few years ago. I even have a building board and two different types of pins.

It takes so much time. I think I have ADD sometimes, I get bored halfway through a 1.5 hour movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfwd View Post
I am retired and i still don't want to build, now i did build quite a few great planes models in the late 1980,s early 1990. Hundreds of hours of work, the results were rewarding, but i just want to fly now, time is a wastin !
I think the ARF foam or balsa is OK myself... I might recover a balsa ARF if I'm feeling ambitious.
eagle777 is offline Find More Posts by eagle777
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 03:32 AM
Promoting Model Aviation...
Murocflyer's Avatar
United States, CA, Tehachapi
Joined Nov 2005
24,959 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by THESANDMAN View Post
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1767479


murocflyer;
i would love to have this plane in my hangar . what do i need to supply you with in order to get this plane mailed to my house .
If you will, post want you want in my blog thread and your location. Hopefully we'll have someone close to you volunteer and get back with you.

Thanks,

Frank
Murocflyer is offline Find More Posts by Murocflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 05:28 AM
Jim in the Desert
cloud_9's Avatar
United States, NM, Las Cruces
Joined Aug 2007
1,263 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by THESANDMAN View Post
to me its more of a space ,. tools and equiptment, i dont have the space to have rolls of monokote ,shelves for balsa ,a work bench exc,exc. i dont want to bother with buying the tools or equiptment either.since i dont have the space . its just so much easier to just buy an arf .as for getting someone to do it for me i dont like to put time restraints on another person, espicially if there doing it for me, for free . and "knowing me," i buy something i want it done asap not at there leasure , and besides "to me" it takes away the fun of saying i built it . one more thing i would hate to spend hours and hours on a built just to have it crash "lets say on a maiden "at least with a arf , i can just saay , ahhh well time to buy another one
on a side note i build alot of scratch built plane out of foam .so i woud enjoy building a balsa plane .. as for the foam planes.all i need is a box cutter . a ruler, glue and colored tape and there not even in the same ball park as a balsa , so to me no one can say its the same thing buiding a foamy or balsa .i honestly think that balsa kits are a thing of the past . with foam planes dominating the market, and arf balsa kits right behind . balsa builders are artist since balsa building is an art in itself.
Balsa kits fly better than ARFs. They are lighter. A SIG Kadet kit is better than a SIG Kadet ARF (from China).
So I think there will always be a market for SIG kits, Mountain Models, Stevens Aero, and my favorite, Pat's Custom Models. You will never find an ARF that is remotely as wonderful at a Pat's Super Cub. Just ain't even close to possible.

Jim
cloud_9 is offline Find More Posts by cloud_9
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Drill Sizes
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 06:36 AM
Registered User
THESANDMAN's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2010
1,667 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud_9 View Post
Balsa kits fly better than ARFs. They are lighter. A SIG Kadet kit is better than a SIG Kadet ARF (from China).
So I think there will always be a market for SIG kits, Mountain Models, Stevens Aero, and my favorite, Pat's Custom Models. You will never find an ARF that is remotely as wonderful at a Pat's Super Cub. Just ain't even close to possible.

Jim
i have never built a kit .so i cannot say that they are better,but i will agree with you since . im sure if i where to build one it would be better made that arf ,that was made in "say china" and i purchased . i also agree there wil always be a market for kits, but they in my opinion ,i see them as a thing of the past. i have to do a specific search onlne to find a balsa kit and at the local hobby shop they are usually located on some bottom shelf in the back of the store collecting dust ,with the box turning yellowish ,like some very old book.
THESANDMAN is offline Find More Posts by THESANDMAN
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 06:37 AM
Registered User
THESANDMAN's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2010
1,667 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murocflyer View Post
If you will, post want you want in my blog thread and your location. Hopefully we'll have someone close to you volunteer and get back with you.

Thanks,

Frank
will do thanks.
THESANDMAN is offline Find More Posts by THESANDMAN
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 06:51 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2009
7,643 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud_9 View Post
Balsa kits fly better than ARFs. They are lighter. A SIG Kadet kit is better than a SIG Kadet ARF (from China).
So I think there will always be a market for SIG kits, Mountain Models, Stevens Aero, and my favorite, Pat's Custom Models. You will never find an ARF that is remotely as wonderful at a Pat's Super Cub. Just ain't even close to possible.

Jim
Agreed, Pat's stuff is pretty amazing. But... one must be very patient (not to mention skilled, resourceful, etc.) to build a Tritle kit. And not for windy-day flying, or strenuous acrobatics. The wonderful thing about an ARF is that there's no emotional attachment -- you can buy another one, unless it's gone out of stock or out of production.

A few years back I built a 1/2A Herr AT-6 from a kit. My building and flying skills weren't so good at the time. It looked pretty but it would not fly, probably too heavy, or not enough dihedral or pitch speed, or whatever. After giving up on it, and as a "consolation" I bought myself a "Plug N Play" Parkzone T-28, which went from box to the air in about an hour, flew great, and is still part of my fleet, still 100% stock.

I've had other kits that turned out poorly. Building kits is a labor of love.
rafe_b is offline Find More Posts by rafe_b
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 11:58 AM
Registered User
DustBen's Avatar
United States, NE, Kearney
Joined Dec 2011
2,232 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafe_b View Post
Agreed, Pat's stuff is pretty amazing. But... one must be very patient (not to mention skilled, resourceful, etc.) to build a Tritle kit. And not for windy-day flying, or strenuous acrobatics. The wonderful thing about an ARF is that there's no emotional attachment -- you can buy another one, unless it's gone out of stock or out of production.

A few years back I built a 1/2A Herr AT-6 from a kit. My building and flying skills weren't so good at the time. It looked pretty but it would not fly, probably too heavy, or not enough dihedral or pitch speed, or whatever. After giving up on it, and as a "consolation" I bought myself a "Plug N Play" Parkzone T-28, which went from box to the air in about an hour, flew great, and is still part of my fleet, still 100% stock.

I've had other kits that turned out poorly. Building kits is a labor of love.
I agree.
But I love how well my planes fly and how long they last.

I'm in a real "love" project right now.
My dad built a Corbin Baby Ace to win the 1955, "Best Homebuilt" award at the EAA Fly-In.

I found a kit sort of close to what the real Corbin was and currently building it (kit was a "D" model, dad's was a "C" model). I found a set of the original full size plans... plus lots of other valuable information as to how the plane was built.

It'll be done in three phases.
1) Build just enough for flight.
2) Finish build with "revisions" to eliminate bad flight characteristics and begin detail. Re-fly.
3) Ultra-Scale detail "dress-out" including sound system.
DustBen is offline Find More Posts by DustBen
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 09, 2013, 12:15 PM
Electric Coolhunter
Thomas B's Avatar
United States, TX, Fort Worth
Joined Jun 2000
14,515 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud_9 View Post
Balsa kits fly better than ARFs. They are lighter. A SIG Kadet kit is better than a SIG Kadet ARF (from China).
So I think there will always be a market for SIG kits, Mountain Models, Stevens Aero, and my favorite, Pat's Custom Models. You will never find an ARF that is remotely as wonderful at a Pat's Super Cub. Just ain't even close to possible.

Jim
While there is more than a little truth in what you say, there are endless exceptions to that generalization that kits are always better than ARFs.

First of all, not all ARFs are created equal. There are lots of different quality ARFs around, from poor to excellent.

I have had and built a number of kits that were of extremely poor quality and design. One that springs to mind is the older Pica .60 size Jungmiester. Terribly over designed, crappy wood and needlessly heavy and complex.

The other day , a flying buddy had his kit built 1/5 scale Pica Waco YMF biplane at the field the same day I had my ARF Cox/Pica 1/5 scale Waco YMF there as well. Both were covered with film. We compared weights and it turned out my ARF empty weight was about 2 lbs lighter than his model (not counting equipment. His was glow and mine was electric) Plus he had a warped wing due to a building error and poor wood and my ARF did not.

Typically, modern ARFs are built in production assembly jigs and tooling that gives better build precision than the average modeler building by hand on his workbench at home.

I go to a number of area swap meets and it is always interesting to see the flotsam and jetsam of peoples abandoned kit building projects and the array of poor quality workmanship shown therein. . Just as true 25 years ago at swap meets then as it is today....).

I have a large and varied collection of ARFs and have had very very few structural quality issues. I do survey areas like landing gear mounts and motor mounts and add glue and reinforcement if needed.

Not all ARFs are junk and not all kits are perfect.
Thomas B is offline Find More Posts by Thomas B
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Thomas B; Feb 09, 2013 at 01:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion First Balsa plane built from the kit igorgoga Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 73 Dec 05, 2009 07:17 AM
Discussion My scratch built "STICK" balsa plane molenjin Parkflyers 29 Oct 27, 2009 03:58 PM
Build Log Hansa S5A float plane, balsa plans foam built!?! Water Boy Foamies (Scratchbuilt) 65 Dec 03, 2007 03:30 PM
Discussion any foamies out there that fly like a built up balsa plane? epoweredrc 3D Flying 30 Aug 11, 2007 06:21 AM
Minor crash during the maiden of my second scratch-built balsa plane, the Tail Dancer Hogster Crash Discussion 3 Sep 05, 2004 02:10 PM