Silly Questions

.

Here are a couple of Question regarding a Classic Ship ....

you have a set of magazine purchased plans that show a built up wing

But you know that the Original was not built up.... it had a foam wing

my Questions are

how would y'all prefer to build it or see it built?

and

could there be a possibility for a loss of ANY points

I'm just testing the waters here on a future kit

Van Loo Chipmunk for example?

I would prefer foam over built up.

One of Jack Sheeks many foam winged magazine designs, shown as built-up all balsa on the plans? Just say "No" to foam. For one thing, the price of a foam wing, including box and shipping is worse. Steve

Heres my two cents...

If an original design has a foam wing, why not kit it with the same wing? There are plenty of classic planes and planes just a little too young to be classic legal, that were constructed both ways.(How about a Silhavy Gipsy?)

Converting a design to a built up wing is easily possible but at this point we have plenty of BU kit offerings and few-to-none that have foam wings.

I don't think that expense is much of an issue. Considering the cost of kits these days ($150. to $200. for a hand made kit), a savvy kitter should be able to make a profit either way. Lazer cut wing ribs are not any (Or much.) cheaper than a foam wing at dealers cost, so financialy it may be a wash.

Give me a foam wing for a change.

BIGS

" What constitutes the dignity of a craft is that it creates a fellowship, that it binds men together and fashions for them a common language. For there is but one problem - the problem of human relations."

>Here are a couple of Question regarding a Classic Ship ....
>
>you have a set of magazine purchased plans that show a built
>up wing. But you know that the Original was not built up....
>it had a foam wing. My Questions are
>
>How would y'all prefer to build it or see it built?
>
>and
>
>Could there be a possibility for a loss of ANY points
>
>I'm just testing the waters here on a future kit

I think a lot of these were shown both ways in the early magazines because foam wings at the time were new and a novelty. The thinking was most people could duplicate the plane easier as a built up rather than as a foam wing. There weren't a lot of foam wing cutters in those days and it seemed rather self-serving for the designer to say, "If you need a foam wing core, you can order it from me." Once these were more common place, then the plans merely showed a foam wing if that is what was originally used.

Now, that said, if you were going to kit it, your added cost is going to be the foam core and the additional sheeting. Your cost savings are going to be in the lazer cutting (or hand cutting) of the ribs and the additional wood for these. There won't be a lot of difference.

If the original had a foam core, you will stay true to the design, but there shouldn't be any fidelity points lost if it was published as a built-up. However, the foam wing is faster to build, easier to build straight, and MUCH faster to finish (I hate sanding between the bays on the ribs). It may be an ounce or two heavier due to construction techniques. But remember, the Stunt Machine (billed as the "ultimate" design at the time) weighed 47 ounces, and the Genesis, a year later, weighed only 42 ounces. And the designer of the Stunt Machine, along with Bob Hunt, was now flying a Genesis. It is all a matter of how it is built and how it is finished.

Yeah, go foam wing.

Hi Walter,

>Here are a couple of Question regarding a Classic Ship ....
>
>you have a set of magazine purchased plans that show a built
>up wing
>
>But you know that the Original was not built up.... it had a
>foam wing

Very common occurance with the first of the foam wing ships.....

>
>my Questions are
>
>how would y'all prefer to build it or see it built?

I would actually like to see a good Classic design with a foam wing available.

>
>and
>
>could there be a possibility for a loss of ANY points

NO.

>I'm just testing the waters here on a future kit

C'ya in Huntersville!
Bill <><

Do the rules on classic really specify that the design must be built exactly as the plans internally. I thought the outward appearance is what mattered, as well as size. If you think foam wing kit is better, go for it. DOC

LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-04 AT 11:00 AM (CDT)
 
The "rules" allow "internal" modifications. Like's been said on other posts to this subject of *allowability* (is that a word??hahaha), the spirit of the event is the controlling factor.
Tom Dixon offers what he refers to as "kept foam" (a *reverse* of Bob Hunt's *lost foam*) kits of several classic planes. These have a foam core, but only the LE and TE sheeting, and cap strips applied. When covered with Coverite, they look exactly like a built up wing. I have never seen any of these questioned, nor have I ever had any of my planes questioned as to what type of wong they were supposed to have.
Since some original Classic planes had true foam wings, but were published as built up wings, and the plans/articles often stated where to get a foam wing while showing ribs. Either style is legal.
My Werwage Vulcan (1956) is legal as either a D-tube or I-Beam since Billy built both at the time.
The related Van Loo Chipmunk (original) had a foam wing, but plans and the subsequent Sig kit had a built up wing.
I guess I would say it's a "run what ya brung" event controlled by our ethics or principles..... meant to be fun!

As to "Fidelity Points", I have only been to one meet where they were used (a big meet). I had a replica of a WC winning Russian ship with the exact construction, paint scheme and all. I used a block canopy instead of clear, and used a different engine. The "fidelity" was judged to be 14 out of 20. Not a problem with me but it goes to show that in reality *fidelity* is often in the "eye of the beholder". Maybe I should have brought the pics of the real plane and taped them to the wing!! hahahahaha!!
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-04 AT 08:35 PM (CDT)
 
>The "rules" allow "internal" modifications. Like's been
>said on other posts to this subject of *allowability* (is
>that a word??hahaha), the spirit of the event is the
>controlling factor.

>Since some original Classic planes had true foam wings, but
>were published as built up wings, and the plans/articles
>often stated where to get a foam wing while showing ribs.
>Either style is legal.

>The related Van Loo Chipmunk (original) had a foam wing, but
>plans and the subsequent Sig kit had a built up wing.
>I guess I would say it's a "run what ya brung" event
>controlled by our ethics or principles..... meant to be fun!
>

>Bill <><

the questions are not referencing the JVL Chipmunk
but in mentioning it lets note that the JVL not only had a foam wing but it's wing was also larger(my kit is true to the JVL's model) and the Sig kitted version was changed not only to a built up wing but a smaller wing at that

what I am refering to is Bob Lampione's
Model shown belongs to Henry(Hank)Forbes

Hi Walter,
I knew you were not referring to the JVL Chip.
I also had an idea that you were referring to the United, but I wasn't gonna say anything.......
If the original had a foam wing (), and the printed article had a built up, either one is perfectly legal, acceptable, etc., etc.,
Yep, Sig DID change Jim's plane. I like the "prototype" kit you do much better.
C'ya at Huntersville, and bring some fresh fuel and new lines...... 'cause if you don't fly......... hahahahaha!
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-04 AT 07:15 PM (CDT)
 
>Hi Walter,
>I knew you were not referring to the JVL Chip.
>I also had an idea that you were referring to the United,
>but I wasn't gonna say anything.......
>If the original had a foam wing (), and the printed
>article had a built up, either one is perfectly legal,
>acceptable, etc., etc.,
>Yep, Sig DID change Jim's plane. I like the "prototype" kit
>you do much better.
>C'ya at Huntersville, and bring some fresh fuel and new
>lines...... 'cause if you don't fly......... hahahahaha!
>Bill <><
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

thanks for not letting that out

if you've never seen the Original you will there because Bob said he will be coming to the contest and he's bringing the Original United for me to take and use as a reference

Walter

According to Mr, '69 Nats the United and the F-86 were both built on the same table at the same time and are aerodynamic copies of one another. You can change the canopy and a few things on the United and it becomes an F-86. Do you plan to produce the kit and show the required changes to create either version? That would be a great kit!!!

>Walter
>
>According to Mr, '69 Nats the United and the F-86 were both
>built on the same table at the same time and are aerodynamic
>copies of one another. You can change the canopy and a few
>things on the United and it becomes an F-86. Do you plan to
>produce the kit and show the required changes to create
>either version? That would be a great kit!!!
>
>
>Jim Pollock

Ah Duh! I never thought of that.....

He said the same thing to me also so what you are saying is a very [photo not recovered: [email protected]] idea

I didnt talk with Bob about that and I am not even sure if we will do that but it sure will be a topic when I see him

I had the thought you might be going to do the Miss Poppy. DOC

>I had the thought you might be going to do the Miss Poppy.
>DOC

Hi Doc,

that was a thought earlier in the year but changed that one for a few others.

Just recently I was thinking of the Kenhi Cougar and even located a kit right here on the forum, then talked to a few friends and got to thinking about it some more and now I'm not sure if I will add that one or not

So........ many to choose from