|
|
Thread OP
|
Discussion
Minimum RC New Generation Sopwith Camel from Banggood
Banggood have sent me the MinimumRC New Generation Sopwith Camel and SE5a for review, along with some tiny servos to use in the build.
As usual, I will give my honest opinion on these kits and won't be influenced at all by the fact I got them free from BG. Here are the relevant Banggood links: MinimumRC New Generation 380mm Wingspan Sopwith Camel MinimumRC New Generation SE5a Set of 2x1.7g Low Voltage Micro Digital Servos (As I mention below, I didn't actually use these, but I have for other builds, and I can recommend them) 2.4G 4CH Micro Low Voltage Receiver (Didn't use that either, but it would appear to be a suitable option - do your own research though) I have built a number of the MinimumRC balsa kits and have enjoyed them all. Some flew better than others, with the very short nosed ones such as the Sopwith Pup presenting the biggest challenges. I have great respect for the person who designed them, who is creative and ingenious, and I believe is the same person who designed the New Generation kits. I decided to start with the Camel rather than the SE5a, as I was keen to see how it compares with the balsa Pup. I have to confess I made a number of mistakes and bad decisions in the build, but I can't really blame that on the kits. It was more a case of learning a new and very different build technique, and making some wrong assumptions. However, hopefully others can learn from my mistakes. The kits came in strong corrugated cardboard boxes, and the contents were in perfect condition. I was sent the versions that come with a power system based on an 8x20 motor, but you can also buy them without the power system. The rest of the electronics is up to the builder. There is a link on the BG product page to a manual in pdf form, and I found the manual for the Camel excellent overall, but for one reservation I will mention later. I didn't bother to print the manual, but just used my iPad to have it at hand while I built. Most of the model is made from foam, with bulkheads from 2mm foam and wings, wing ribs, fuselage skin etc from 1mm foam. Some of the foam has been preprinted but there are also sticky decals. Parts such as wing struts, undercarriage legs, tail skid are made from a very thin tough plastic material. There are also some parts made of three-ply wood, in either 2mm (motor mount, wheels etc.) or 1mm thickness (control horns). Unlike the balsa kits, there are no locating tabs, e.g. for slotting wing ribs into the wings. This greatly improves the appearance but does put the onus on the builder to be very accurate. As there are a number of curved surfaces, it is important to precurve the parts such as the fuselage skin, so that they can be located easily and accurately for gluing. I found it a good idea to curve such pieces at a much tighter radius than was required and leave them overnight to take up the necessary shape. The manual does mention the need for precurving but doesn't say how to do it. I've attached a couple of photos that show what I did. I can't over emphasize the importance of this curving and the accurate location of the curved pieces. For example, slots in the curved pieces are the location points for the wing struts, and any inaccuracy in the location of the curved piece will result in a model that is not straight. I also found choice of glue is important. At first I thought that a slow curing glue such as BSI Foamcure would be ideal because it would allow time to locate pieces accurately. However, about three quarters of the way through I realised that the opposite was the case, and a fast grabbing glue such as UHU Por would be better. Things went much better after that. The wing pieces came out of the kit already curved, and instead of consulting the manual carefully I assumed that the curve was in the correct direction for the wing camber. I now realise that is wrong, and the curve is probably just a result of the preprinting process. Actually you should put a crease in the wing and fold them the opposite way, and the manual clearly shows this. The manual shows how to position the servos, but doesn't give any further information on receiver placement, choice of receiver etc, so you are on your own. I decided not to use a separate receiver and servos, but instead to fit a WLToys all in one F949 brick. I have used this brick and the very similar F929 one, now unavailable, in many kits and scratch builds and I like it. However, I made the very bad mistake of failing to test the brick before I installed it. When I went to fit the push rods for elevator and rudder, I found that one of the servos on the brick wouldn't work. So now I have to carefully cut away some of the model in order to replace the brick, so a flight video may be some time away. However, this brick does fit very easily in the model, and the servos on it fit neatly into the cutouts provided for the standalone servos. I've extended the cutouts a bit so I can fit the brick further forward, as I feel this model will have the same problem as the Pup - not enough weight in the nose. The piece of lead supplied with the kit is a clue! One puzzling thing is that as the model nears completion I find that I have several pieces of 1mm carbon fibre rod that came with the kit that don't seem to be used. There are 8 pieces of varying length, but after using one for the undercarriage axle and two for push rods, I have 5 remaining. I am wondering if I should have used some as strengtheners in the wing or horizontal stabilizer, but there is no mention of them in the manual. Perhaps they put the same set in all the kits and you use whatever is required for the particular model. I'm hoping to fit a replacement brick in the next few days, and then should be able to do a flight video. It certainly appears that this model will be much lighter than the Pup, and about the same size, so I am expecting it to fly well with the 8x20 motor. My opinion overall is that this construction method takes a bit of getting used to, compared with the balsa models. However, it results in a nice looking very much lighter model. The proof will be in the flying though. The kits themselves are well done, accurately cut like the balsa ones, and the manual is good. |
|
Last edited by 1auriec; Jul 08, 2019 at 02:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
MinimumRC
A few comments about MinimumRC and its kits. (Comments, not accusations of any sort. Peace.)
1. The Banggood "sale price" for the new foam version of the Sopwith Camel is $23.50; the price on the MinimumRC web site https://www.minimumrc.com/allproducts is $21.99. So Banggood's claim that its price is 58% off is bogus (as usual). However, Banggood does give you free shipping, while MinimumRC does not. (On the other hand, MinimumRC gives you a sort of progress report on the transit of your package, telling you when it arrives in your country. After that, if you live in the US, anyway, you have a USPS tracking number.) Worth the reasonable shipping charge, to me. 2. The apparent owner of MinimumRC, Ocean Chueng, responded within a few hours to my question about their DSM2 receiver. 3. The new MinimumRC kits seem to be what I'd call Microaces East. I read the pdf instructions for the Camel and was struck by the strong resemblance of the kit's design (including the fold in the wing to provide a sort of undercamber) and components to the Microaces Aero kits. If you're nostalgic for the original Microaces (profile) kits, MinimumRC has some very similar to those, too, like this J-3 Cub: https://www.minimumrc.com/productinfo/238151.html (Note that you won't be able to use a brick in this model, at least not unless you do some cutting of the fuselage and re-mounting.) 4. There is no way that Jon Porter can compete with the MInimumRC prices. Harvey |
|
|
|
|
|
1auriec and Harvey
Thanks for writing a review on the new Minimum RC foam birds. I was interested in these when they were first announced as I like the micro WWI kits that are appearing. I have bought most of the Micro Aces offerings and even built and flown a few. I have also built and flown many of the Minimum RC balsa offerings and am building some of Tony Ray's new models as well. All great stuff - I thought the Minimum RC Pup was one of the finest kits i have ever built although its a bit heavy after i added Callie's markings and balanced it to get the cg right. Anyway, after looking over the Minimum RC Camel and SE5A kits when they arrived, i doubt that I will ever build them. The price is certainly right, but comparing these models to the Micro Aces, its a real case of "you get what you pay for". The Minimum RC models are very simplistic in construction and finish. For example, the cowling of the Camel is almost comical in its simplicity. It takes a lot of time, money and effort to build one of these models, even though they are highly pre-fabricated. Most of the charm (for me) of the WW I aircraft is in accurate shape and the colorful markings. If I am going to put in the effort to build something like this and get it flying, I would rather spend a bit more up front and get a model kit that duplicated the original in shape and markings so that the end result is worth the time and money I put into the model. None of these models are perfect. I wish the Micro Aces kits had a bit more molding because I don't like the finish I get when applying paste-on stickers to compound curves. I do see that Jon is moving toward a more realistic wing section. I like the balsa Minimum RC kits but am happier with the realistic built-up wing that Tony Ray's models offers. Still, unless it is a very early pioneer type aircraft, (Bleriot, etc.) its a big job to try to duplicate WW I era markings on the built-up balsa models and the weight goes up. Micro Aces is by far the leader in duplicating accurate shape and WW I markings and finish with little weight gain. For now, I will continue with the Micro Aces models for WW I and Tony Ray's kits for the early and pioneer era. Gerry |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the additional information, Gerry. I was actually tempted to buy the MinimumRC Sopwith Camel, but you've persuaded me that my time and $ would be better spent on the pricier Microaces kit. The big advantages of the Microaces series are Jon's incredible attention to scale detail and the range of interesting aircraft he offers. Unless you check things out in detail, though, you might choose the MinimumRC SE5a, say, rather than one of the Microaces SE5as.
Harvey |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the really comprehensive review of the Camel, Laurie. The Minimum RC foam models should be considerably lighter than the lock-together balsa kits but as you point out the construction technique is more challenging for the builder. I’m looking forward to seeing the Camel flying soon.
Peter |
|
|
|
||
Thread OP
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
As concerns Tony Ray, I wish he'd participate again on RCGroups. He has some great designs, including WWII kits like the Zero and Mustang ... and I keep hoping he finally releases his Ki-61. His designs are more scale and quite different than the "old" Minimum RC (or the numerous names thereof). Great review, 1aurec. Thanks. Gene K |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Thanks Gene
I hate to say anything bad about the Minimum RC printed foam kits. They are probably a good bet for someone who wants to try this form of construction without spending a large amount up front on the kit. They just do't look like something i want to spend a lot of time on when there are so many better offerings to tempt me. I have definitely enjoyed Minimum RC's small balsa offerings and was flying 2 of them yesterday. Great kits that fly well. I'm currently working on Tony's Eindecker. I love this kit although it takes a steady hand and good eyesight (both of which i am losing). I am covering it with tan Litespan. I was a bit nervous about the Litespan being too aggressive for this light structure but it is working out just fine. I like Tony's kits too but am more interested in the early, pioneer stuff he is doing. Not to much else available in that category. Gerry |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the new MinimumRC foam kits are great. I have just completed the SE5 and have the Sopwith up next. They are at price point and level of difficulty that hopefully will bring more into the hobby...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had started the Sopwith and then set it aside. I just recently got started with it again. It was a little more difficult in the nose and I had to do some infills in the area just behind the cowl. If you are doing just one model, I would favor the SE-5. I do like the Sopwith thou and will give a flight report eventually...
I have been to Auckland once or twice many years ago for simulator training on the Fokker F-27, very nice country... |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Jeffrey Runnels, for showing that this thread still has some life in it!
My interest in seeing it continue is that I've made a start on the Camel myself and will post some comments on the build within the next week or so. I chose the Camel over the S.E5a because I've got the MicroAces S.E5a, which I haven't started yet. I thought the MinimumRC Camel might prove a useful test build before I tackle the S.E5a, and it's proving to be just that. Thanks for your compliments on my country! I had a number of pleasant flights in the F-27 when our national airline was flying them. With its high wing, it made for great passenger viewing of the country beneath! |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to let you know that I have given up on the Sopwith. The SE-5 was a much easier airplane. I think because it is more rectangular with fewer compound curves. I do have Jon's SE-5 as well... can't have too many SE-5s. It went together easy also and makes a nice looking and flying model. Too bad a bout the Sopwith thou, a pretty airplane and had nice colors..
|
|
|
|
||
Thread OP
|
Quote:
A question: The Camel came with some mystifying carbon rods, that do not seem to be accounted for in the build instructions. There were two required for the push rods, and one small one for the undercarriage, but there were several more, I think about 5, that seemed to have no purpose. After completing the model and finding it lacked rigidity, I wondered if they had been intended to go along the folds in the wings to strengthen them. Do you have any thoughts on this? |
|
|
||
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Product | MinimumRC New Generation S.E.5A /Sopwith Camel 360mm Wingspan And other Micro's | scousethief | Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models | 44 | Aug 04, 2022 02:44 AM |
Mini-Review | New Powerline Hobbies/Green RC Micro Sopwith Camel | Thomas B | Parkflyers | 12 | Apr 01, 2020 10:03 PM |
Discussion | green rc sopwith camel | tfbowen | Electric Warbirds | 0 | Apr 04, 2016 04:01 PM |
Discussion | Free plan: Sopwith Camel - WW-1 fighter by Paul Lindberg, from Popular Aviation | planeman | Free Flight | 4 | Jun 26, 2010 01:03 PM |
Discussion | New Phoenix Rc Sopwith Camel model | Flying Elvis | Simulators | 5 | Sep 16, 2009 07:08 AM |