Intermediate RTF???

Received the Ukey 35 I ordered today. I ordered this mainly to have another good beater available. Dakota and I are going to start the inverted stuff this summer and I wanted a plane like this to practice with. Very happy with it, with a couple of minor complaints.

First I immediately reset the controls because all three of us are a little past raw beginner. We are doing the beginner pattern, so I see no need for the restriction on the controls.

Second, I'm making the following additions
a. adding doublers to the nose
b. Adding a wire to trailing edge of wing for crash strength
c. dual landing gear...I hate mono wheel LG's like some people hate blue engines ...

Third I was a little disapointed in the amount of tank space, but will live with it.

It then dawned on me that this is still an excellent beginners model, most of my complaints have to do with the fact that my sons and I have progressed just past the true beginner stage for which this design truely shines.

What the next step should be for J&J Sales or anybody else that is involved in this CL RTF market is a plane for the beginner who needs to learn how to trim. A plane with a weight box, adjustable leadouts, room for an adjustable tank...you know stuff to tinker with so you can learn what happens when you change things like tip wt. and line rake.

Does this line of thinking make any sense? Is there a need for an intermidiate RTF kit? Just wondering what anybody else thought.

Hey Catdaddy,

Here is where the divergence begins. Because what you are describing are components of an airplane that are whats considered fine tuning. For fine tuning to be effective and noticeable, the airplane has to be a more refined design.

And there you have bridged the gap from Trainer design to a standard aerobatic design. And at that point you have a whole gaggle of airplane kits to choose from. It would cost the same amount to manufacture one of these as it would to say go to builditright and have him build you an airplane.

My suggestion, is that you build your own at this point. If you can find a SIG mustang stunter that you pick one up. It has a ABS top deck and cowl, sheeted Foam wing and it builds easily.

Put a stong 35 or regular 40 engine in it. Make a weight box and buy a set of adjustible leadouts and install them. I really liked this kit and it flew very well. It was durable and survived with little damage 2 or 3 meetings with the ground. It builds out a little heavy but thats OK for learning the finer points. Plus it is a full fuse neat looking airplane.

And one of the easiest to throw together. And if you go hog wild and replace the heavy kit wood and do some custom coreing the airplane can really shine. I had two of these and it was one of my favorites for many years.

You want a bigger tank on a Ukey?

Dig out the foam from the l/e and fuel proof it and lo! you canfit a bigger tank.

You want a weight box?

Dig out the foam on the o/b wing and fit one - or just epoxy it to the tip!

You want adjustable leadouts - glue it to the inboard wing (you could also move the crank to under the fuse iinstead of on top).

>You want a bigger tank on
>a Ukey?
>
>Dig out the foam from the
>l/e and fuel proof it
>and lo! you canfit a
>bigger tank.
>
>You want a weight box?
>
>Dig out the foam on the
>o/b wing and fit one
>- or just epoxy it
>to the tip!
>
>You want adjustable leadouts - glue
>it to the inboard wing
>(you could also move the
>crank to under the fuse
>iinstead of on top).
>
>Tony 'buildem,flyem,crashem,mendem,flyem' Elmore

Tony,
Everything you suggested I've already thought of and started to do. My point was I would have liked all these items to have come with the kit.
As well as the instructions for these modifications for those that wouldn't know how to do them. Thanks for the thought though.

I guess I didn't make myself very clear on what kind of response I was looking for. Is there any reason to supply a basic RTF like the Ukey with the additional hardware and instructions to make it more than it is.

I see Fubar says no. Apparently you have to build a full bodied stunter to learn about weight boxes and adjustable items like leadouts and fuel tanks.

>Apparently you have to build a
>full bodied stunter to learn
>about weight boxes and adjustable
>items like leadouts and fuel
>tanks.
>
>catdaddy

Certainly not, and I don't think anybody is implying that, either. You can build a Twister or a Pathfinder with a straight (not tapered) wing quite easily. Some have built these as quickly as in one week end. (Not a fancy finish--maybe not even a lot of sanding. But if flies.)

Do a little more shaping, sanding, and work on the finish, and you can still get it in the air in a reasonable amount of time. A kit like a Twister will still need the additions of tip weight box and adjustable leadouts. Set up your tank mount to make this adjustable, and you are in business.

Go to any Intermediate contest and there are bound to be several Twisters there. If people take care in building (straight and light) and make proper trim adjustments, it is competitive in expert circles. (Oh, it may not win the Nats, but I am talking true 500 plus score capability.)

>>Apparently you have to build a
>>full bodied stunter to learn
>>about weight boxes and adjustable
>>items like leadouts and fuel
>>tanks.
>>
>>catdaddy
>
>Certainly not, and I don't think
>anybody is implying that, either.
> You can build a
>Twister or a Pathfinder with
>a straight (not tapered) wing
>quite easily. Some have
>built these as quickly as
>in one week end.
>(Not a fancy finish--maybe not
>even a lot of sanding.
> But if flies.)
>
>Do a little more shaping, sanding,
>and work on the finish,
>and you can still get
>it in the air in
>a reasonable amount of time.
> A kit like a
>Twister will still need the
>additions of tip weight box
>and adjustable leadouts. Set
>up your tank mount to
>make this adjustable, and you
>are in business.
>
>Go to any Intermediate contest and
>there are bound to be
>several Twisters there. If
>people take care in building
>(straight and light) and make
>proper trim adjustments, it is
>competitive in expert circles.
>(Oh, it may not win
>the Nats, but I am
>talking true 500 plus score
>capability.)
>
>
>Leonard Neumann

I was being just a little sarcastic here...sorry Fubar

Twister is a great kit. I'm in the same club as Bob Reeves so I know what a Twister can be turned into and he flies it quite well. He also built it in about a week or two I believe. That is reasonable too. However, it's not any where near an RTF or ARF WHICH is WHAT I was talking about!!!!!!!

Look everybody, I can build a Twister, actually I'm not afraid to build anything now that I've wet my feet again and built a few 15 size planes. I did not NEED a Ukey but I wanted one, I would not NEED a slightly more advanced Ukey, but I might want one. I just thought I'd show that there might be some intrest in an intermediate type of ARF.

I'll shut up now, because I can't seem to get my point across

>>>Apparently you have to build a full bodied stunter
>>>to learn about weight boxes and adjustable items
>>>like leadouts and fuel tanks.
>>>
>>Certainly not, and I don't think anybody is implying
>>that, either.
>>
>>Go to any Intermediate contest and there are bound
>>to be several Twisters there. If people take care
>>in building (straight and light) and make proper
>>trim adjustments, it is competitive in expert circles.
>
>I was being just a little sarcastic here...sorry Fubar
>
>Twister is a great kit. I'm in the same club as
>Bob Reeves so I know what a Twister can be turned
>into and he flies it quite well. He also built it
>in about a week or two I believe. That is reason-
>able too. However, it's not any where near an RTF
>or ARF WHICH is WHAT I was talking about!!!!!!!
>
The market for the ARF CL is still quite new, the numbers of active CL people remains small, and I feel sure that neither Joe Just nor the Ogrens are in any position to give up their "day jobs" to concentrate on making kits for sale. I have no idea right now what kind of RTF market might exist; we can see that the Estes outfit, ignorant as they seem to be, have re-released some type of Cox PT-19, and Bratco sells some planes as well. Only if a sizable number of potential sales starts appearing is there a likelihood of either an ARF/RTF Intermediate market.

>Look everybody, I can build a Twister, actually I'm not
>afraid to build anything now that I've wet my feet again
>and built a few 15 size planes. I did not NEED a Ukey but
>I wanted one, I would not NEED a slightly more advanced
>Ukey, but I might want one. I just thought I'd show that
>there might be some intrest in an intermediate type of ARF.
>
>I'll shut up now, because I can't seem to get my point across
>
As an additional comment, it's my understanding that all of the "intermediate type" Brodak kits do include weight boxes and lead out adjuster hardware (various coupled-flap profiles, such as the several Warbirds, profile Oriental, Tanager, etc.)

The K.

No yo do not need a full bodied airplane, I ment that those design features are most effective on a plane more specificaly designed for aerobatics. There are some good profie kits that make use of these features but they are no longer considered trainers.

I suggested the mustang stunter because for a built up airplane it is one of the easiest to put together. And a real fun airplane to fly.

Joe has sold over 500 of these critters.... !

Adding doublers probably isn't necessary... I think the nose is pine and ply as it is?

Use a "chicken hopper" tank... they're stubby, and available in sizes to 6 oz.s, I believe.

Although I have only 30 or so flights on mine, I have watched others fly it about 100 times and it seems to me that there is very little need to adjust the leadout position....you could gain some by running both lines through the front hole, I guess.

A screw through one of the popular weights and into the spar works well, although I wonder at the need for tip weight?

Phil Cartier makes a "Streak 2000" kit that he and Gil Reedy have flown very successfully through Intermediate..... Gill even has one that looks nice!
http://home.earthlink.net/~philcartier/catalog.html

See Ya

>Joe has sold over 500 of
>these critters.... !
>
>Adding doublers probably isn't necessary... I
>think the nose is pine
>and ply as it is?
>
>
>Use a "chicken hopper" tank... they're
>stubby, and available in sizes
>to 6 oz.s, I believe.
>
>
>Although I have only 30 or
>so flights on mine, I
>have watched others fly it
>about 100 times and it
>seems to me that there
>is very little need to
>adjust the leadout position....you could
>gain some by running both
>lines through the front hole,
>I guess.
>
>A screw through one of the
>popular weights and into the
>spar works well, although I
>wonder at the need for
>tip weight?
>
>Phil Cartier makes a "Streak 2000"
>kit that he and Gil
>Reedy have flown very successfully
>through Intermediate..... Gill even has
>one that looks nice!
>http://home.earthlink.net/~philcartier/catalog.html
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Mine came with nothing on the nose except the engine mounts.
I've read other people who also put doublers on theirs, some all the way back past the wing, because after a few crashes the cedar fuse begins to split. I was told that Joe use to put ply on the front over the engine mounts but now it appears to be an option. I can't see just bolting a 35 to the maple mounts that are basically just notched into the front of the fuse. With a stock Fox 35 the vibration alone could shake the mounts right out eventually.

I have since read where some people have drilled additional holes between the stock leadout holes to make that adjustable.

Anyway, again I know all this. Does anybody out there besides Fubar understand what I was asking?

I stated in the orginal post that I thought the ukey was great for what it is, I was just wondering if there should be a Ukie II if you will. An RTF for someone between a raw beginner and an intermediate flyer. Kapish????

Catdaddy,

Quite honestly, you would be much better off to replace the Fox 35 with "modern" 25 size engine. I have been messing around trying to get a good run with both a Fox 25 (1980 version), a Fox35ABC, and a Fox 35 normal. I hate to admit it , but I at least cannot get any of these to run worth a da**n on two separate profile planes (CG Shoestring and Sig Skyray- the plain Fox 35 almost shook the nose off the Skyray). I also have some good help at the field--right Fred?

Finally I broke down, swallowed my pride, and bought an OS LA25s at G&D hobbies. The difference is dramatic. I will save the Foxes for a full fuse plane.

With the LA 25, you don't have to worry about the plywood doublers. I am sure the TT25 and others will work well too.

Also I am not sure what you mean by "beginner" and "intermediate". I think the Ukey is certainly capable of getting you thru the full pattern. It is probably easier to trim a plane (like a flapped plane) after you get better at flying the pattern.

My 2 cents.

>Catdaddy,
>
>Quite honestly, you would be much
>better off to replace the
>Fox 35 with "modern" 25
>size engine. >
>My 2 cents.
>
>Alan

Allen,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I already have several Modern 15s,25s, and a couple of 46's I have a Silver Foxx 40 and a couple of McCoy RH's as well. But my favorite engines are my Fox 35's and I have absolutely NO trouble running mine on a profile. My Stock ones are a little goosey, but the three reworked 35 ABC's are as good as they come as far as I'm concerned. They 4-2-4 just like they're suppose to. I'm currently flying a Sterling P-51 with an ABC Fox 35 and we have a Sig Skyray with a stock Fox 35 both of which run great NO problems what so ever. I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with yours. If you'd like to sell them let me know I've only got 8, all of which have been on a profile plane and run just fine. All the other guys in my club run them as well with no problems.

I was just wondering
>if there should be a
>Ukie II if you will.
>An RTF for someone between
>a raw beginner and an
>intermediate flyer. Kapish????
>
>catdaddy

Rick, if there was enough market for the "Ukie II", there would be lots of ukies out there, in many colors, sizes, etc. Look at the RC market - exploded with ARFs, RTCs, RTFs, etc. in the last few years. But notice - not much in the "pro" category. Why? Not many people who are potential ARF/RTF buyers make it that far. As stated in some previous threads, statistics shows that ARFs/RTFs are treated as toys by most of their buyers (now, don't take this personally), get crashed, and.... on to the next hobby (golf, boating, whatever). Read Bob Hunt's editorial in the last Model Aviation. He talks about those "hobby passers-by". They are still welcomed, but they don't stick around for too long to make it to Intermediate, Advanced, etc. Thus, not enough incentive for the manufacturers to get involved. Currently, I bet you the number of RTF Intermediate/ Advanced / Expert C/L stunt planes that have potential to be sold would not even cover the expenses to design, manufacture, stock, advertise, and distribute them. What's even worse, in 10-15 years what little C/L market there is right now (little compared to RC) will collapse to virtual zero.

Catdaddy, I really understand your thoughts, and will try to keep to the subject Personally, I think your idea has merrit, but it is all we can do to keep up with orders now without trying to come up with a Ukey II. Also, I really don't think there is a market for your ideas. I will however take into consideration the idea of adding a "customizing your Ukey" instruction sheet. That idea is very welcome.
Joe

I don't normally get involved in these discussion parts of the forum, but what I'm getting from this is that the point is be missed here, So! Catdaddy, draw the plans and I'll kit the thing and I'll put in a weight box and adjustable leadouts and instuctions as to where to place everything to start and make note to leave it until they need to "MAKE USE" of the options or if the guy just like you who has excelled just past beginner can also "MAKE USE" of what your asking for. And for those who will see this as sucking up, think again my friend because I've already been paid, LOL! so I dont have to kiss up and besides I don't what we really need on this forum other than a bunch of critics,(this is not the way to help people) is supporters of the beginner stage after all the experts are gone there will be no one other than the beginners, so lets help them and guide them threw the early stages and ween them out from being a beginner with the options that Rick is suggesting be put in the kit
Oh! and we desperately need a SPEll check
Get it LEONARD

I think all that stuff is already available in several really fine intermediate kits.

Sounds like what he is looking for is a ready to fly version of a twister or similar.

FWIW

>I don't normally get involved in
>these discussion parts of the
>forum, but what I'm getting
>from this is that the
>point is be missed here,
> So! Catdaddy,
>draw the plans and I'll
>kit the thing and I'll
>put in a weight box
>and adjustable leadouts and instuctions
>as to where to place
>everything to start and make
>note to leave it until
>they need to "MAKE USE"
>of the options or if
>the guy just like you
>who has excelled just past
>beginner can also "MAKE USE"
>of what your asking for.
>And for those who will
>see this as sucking up,
> think again my friend
>because I've already been paid,
>LOL! so I dont have
>to kiss up and besides
>I don't what
>we really need on this
>forum other than a bunch
>of critics,(this is not the
>way to help people) is
>supporters of the beginner stage
>after all the experts are
>gone there will be no
>one other than the beginners,
> so lets help them
>and guide them threw the
>early stages and ween them
>out from being a beginner
>with the options that Rick
>is suggesting be put in
>the kit
>Oh! and we desperately need
>a SPEll check
>Get it LEONARD

Huh?

Where did all the animosity on this thread come from anyway?

Shoot, one of the neat things about a forum is that a subject is introduced and the responses can and often do lead to a variety of discussions relevant to the initial theme but in divergent areas. I think there has been valuable input from pretty much everyone who has responded. If it hasn't all been as direct to the point as catdaddy wished he might look first at how succinct his initial input/topic/query/suggestion/complaint/pontification or whatever was phrased in the first place.

The only critics I perceive in this thread are those who complain about the attempts of others to submit what they felt were helpful and informative descriptions of their own experiences and opinions on the subject. Why their input should be put down because it isn't what the originator wanted to hear is beyond me.

And I sure as heck don't think it is Leonard's responsibility to provide us with some prosthetic means to allow us to communicate clearly in our mother tongue.

Finally, as to catdaddy's specific (I think) original thought...

Sure, we should have an intermediate ARF/RTF and, since you've gone out of your way to make it clear you've got the low down on all the things necessary to do so, I think you are the perfect fellow to get it done. Go for it!

> If it hasn't
>all been as direct to
>the point as catdaddy wished
>he might look first at
>how succinct his initial >input/topic/query/suggestion/complaint/pontification
>or whatever was phrased in
>the first place.

Ted the orginal question was "Is there a need for an intermidiate RTF kit?" that's it exactly, you can go back to the post and check it out. I don't know how much more "succinct" it could be unless your "mother tongue" is more complicated than mine.

I can't speak for Walter, but I think he was just as frustrated as I was in the fact that nobody was really answering the question at the time. That has since changed and there have been several really good responses. I wish you could have been more creative in your suggestion as to what could be done to provide RTF/ARF to the hobby.

best regards,
catdaddy

>> If it hasn't
>>all been as direct to
>>the point as catdaddy wished
>>he might look first at
>>how succinct his initial >input/topic/query/suggestion/complaint/pontification
>>or whatever was phrased in
>>the first place.
>
>Ted the orginal question was "Is
>there a need for an
>intermidiate RTF kit?" that's it
>exactly, you can go back
>to the post and check
>it out. I don't know
>how much more "succinct" it
>could be unless your "mother
>tongue" is more complicated than
>mine.
>
>I can't speak for Walter, but
>I think he was just
>as frustrated as I was
>in the fact that nobody
>was really answering the question
>at the time. That has
>since changed and there have
>been several really good responses.
>I wish you could have
>been more creative in your
>suggestion as to what could
>be done to provide RTF/ARF
>to the hobby.
>
>best regards,
>catdaddy

Well, not quite, Catdaddy.

As a matter of fact your initial comments on your thread touched on numerous issues and actually asked a couple of questions. Let me quote your final paragraph:

"Does this line of thinking make any sense? Is there a need for an intermidiate RTF kit? Just wondering what anybody else thought."

Your original question was a very open ended one..."Does this line of thinking make any sense"...and the paragraph ended with..."Just wondering what anybody else thought."

If you can somehow reduce those two parts of your input to limiting respondents to a simple "yes or no" on the question you chose to ask in the second sentence you are more Machievelian than me. In other words, if you only want responses to one question...ask only one. Don't get bent out of shape because respondents can't read your mind.

Forums such as this exist for the purpose of exchanging points of view on subjects of mutual interest. Your intitial input was a perfect example and, if you had simply granted your respondents the courtesy of expressing their feelings relative to the questions you did, in fact, ask without castigating them for their temerity to do so it would have been a very interesting and non-acrimonious exchange of opinions on a timely subject.

Instead, for whatever reason, you chose to attack those who responded to "your own" questions. Questions that you, apparently, didn't want responses to.

I'm curious, why on earth would either you or Walter be "frustrated" by the inputs of others who found the subject of interest? This forum is a discussion, not an oral exam. There are no "correct" or "incorrect" responses. We exchange points of view as we do in a conversation...except we can't be interrupted if our response isn't the one the questioner is looking for.

If you're looking for responses to only one of the questions you pose, ignore the responses to those you don't. Apparently, many considered the latter of more interest than the former.

Finally, don't take offense when I suggest you undertake the production of the Intermediate ARF. You quite clearly made it known that all the suggestions others made had already been considered and implemented by yourself. Who better to produce the ship than the one who has already filled the squares.

WOW! I was right, your "mother tongue" is more complicated than mine.

>WOW! I was right, your "mother
>tongue" is more complicated than
>mine.

I thought I was going read an enlightening reply to Ted's comments.

I know that I am a little slow, but I do not understand the above response.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! The Ukey can challange flyers of Intermediate and even Advanced enough to be a successful campaign aircraft in those classes.

Flaps, fancy paint, tip weight boxes, adjustable leadouts seem to confuse more folks (especially at the Int. / Adv. level) than they help.

See Ya

>That's my story and I'm sticking
>to it! The Ukey
>can challange flyers of Intermediate
>and even Advanced enough to
>be a successful campaign aircraft
>in those classes.
>
>Flaps, fancy paint, tip weight boxes,
>adjustable leadouts seem to confuse
>more folks (especially at the
>Int. / Adv. level) than
>they help.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

You are definetly missing the point and I will try one more time to explain.
First I'm neither an intermediate or an advance flier, but I'd like to advance to that stage. So I'll be flying the ukey to learn more of the pattern and I assume in order to advance I'll have to learn about advanced items on a stunter, which the Ukey lacks.

Now your second statement totally loses me. How does fancy paint confuse anybody, fancy paint and finishes wasn't even part of the question, was it? And are you trying to say that it's only until you advance to the Expert level that you should try and learn about adjustable items? You say that most guys that fly Advanced and Intermediate are confused by these items? Hmmmmmmmm really?

No offense to rocket scientists, but do I have to be a rocket scientist to learn about stunt? I'm not trying to offend you Mr Peabody, but I find your response as arrogant and flippant as Ted's. Maybe neither of you mean to convey this, but I'm not the only one who seems to think so. Apparently I'm going to be the only one to point it out though.

The control line community has a reputation of being very helpful. I have recieved incredible amounts of help from a number of very nice people, both here and from across the country.

From you I recieve a very condescending attitude of..."don't you fret any about all the fancy stuff, you are no where near ready to learn about the complicated theories of stunt flying!"

Now it's been pointed out that forums are for exchanges of ideas and information and Peabody has given me his opinion. Before I become bombarded with emails on my rudness I'll just say that the above is just my opinion of Mr. Peabody's opinion and if he was not trying to be impertinent as it appeared to me then I'll offer my apology right now.

Relax Rick - I see where you are heading - perhaps it's just that all the ace fliers out there think that by the time you're starting to get worried about trimming a model for the best performance - you should also not be worried about crashing.

I've not even got past the crashing stage yet.

I would guess most planes eventually crash. Even most of the "famous" ones I've read about (wasn't Nobler 1 recently rebuilt?). I've never retired a plane. I have several that haven't crashed yet, but it's only a matter of time. Seriously, I would love to be able to spend about $100 for an intermediate plane I could just put an engine, wheels and tank on and go fly. Something not quite as tough or (excuse me Joe) homely (I'm still gonna buy one, promise) as a Ukey. It would have to be a foam wing in order to meet that price, but if you can sell a Ukey for $45-$65 and make any profit at all, it seems to me you could make a balsa fuse with a foam wing for not much more. Of course any finishing and painting would be up to the buyer. You can't expect a front-row finish for that price. Just the thoughts of a guy who sometimes doesn't see the ground until it is too late, no matter how much "up" is left to use.

A lot of people seem to be losing sight of what the Ukey was designed for which was "buy it today and fly it tomorrow" and if you crash it put it back together with some epoxy and fly it some more. This airplane lets you practice every stunt in the book and make lots of mistakes while you're learning; as far as modifing it to fly better, that's entirely up to the owner. When you're to the point of needing an intermediate airplane, you would probably be better off with a Brodak's Cardinal which has adjustable leadouts and weight box, flaps, etc.
But unlike the Ukey, the Cardinal, the Sig's Twister and any other built up, they are one hit airplanes, and not only take a lot of time to build but also a lot of expense involved. I think the Ukey does a fine job for what it was intended for, quick and easy sport plane!!

I've never seen a ukey 35 so I can't comment on them. I think I have seen Corehouse ads for an airplane for the flyer who is a bit more advanced. Again, I've not seen one fly, so maybe someone who actually knows something can chime in.

To anyone who thinks I don't know what I'm talking about let me clue you in on a little of my history. First I designed the Ukey and then Big Joe worked for over a year trying to figure out the best way to produce an ARF C/L airplane that would sell at a reasonable rate. The first year Joe was trying to build a production workshop and gather the proper tools for production and contacting manufacturers for parts, shipping boxes, covering, paint and hardware; it's not easy! After several proto-types we started shipping from both Wa and NH until Joe's workshop was finished (I just do not have the room for production purposes). Between Joe and I, we have over 100 years of experience combined, we have both competed at National events and hundreds of local events; I still fly speed limit combat and have a top east coast design that will match anything in the country. I also have over 45 airplanes ready to go, stunt, combat and racing and I have 400+ engines, from an M5 to a 40k rpm speed engines (Russian). I also can fly most of the stunt pattern without looking at my airplane so I do think I know what I'm talking about!

Old Rusty Lines,I enjoyed flying my Uky35,it served its purpose for me which was to get a plane in the air after a fatal crash with my Oriental. Now if one wanted a more advanced Uki, it would of course be a regular Uki with flaps. Whatcha think? Is it possible? The R/C planes with foam wings have alerons. I would even pop for another Uki like that.That would be after I get my Gotsha xs done.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-02 AT 09:16 PM (CST)

I think in the end it boils down to trade offs. In order to package a ready to fly CL plane. One needs to take into consideration two things. First Price and second ease of manufacture.

RTF's by their nature take all sorts of shortcuts. Parts are molded together and the fewer parts the better. Now this impacts heavily on the possible performance envelope. On airplanes like this the addition of tip weight box or adjustable leadouts may or may not make noticeable difference because other compromises impact the flight characteristics even greater.

Also these additional items, mean more parts, greater degrees of manufactureing complexity. Adjustable leadouts and wing tip weight boxes were not even the norm until the mid 60's. Most flyers had no use for such so the kits were not fitted with them.

The ability to adjust these parameters, were only important to competition flyers. And Competition flyers were not going to use an ARF or RTF anyway. See it just makes no manufacturing sense to incorporate such items in a plane who's purpose is to learn basic flight. It adds to the cost and I can actually confuse the neophyte who should at this stage concentrate on learning to fly.

At even an Inermediate stage these adjustable features are not critical. Build or fly the plane to the origional specs and you really do not have to muck with these items. The plane will pretty much fly as advertised. The pilot still has enough to learn and worry about without having to meddle with another set of adjustments.

The placement of Weight boxes and adjustible leadouts on a trainer or RTF is akin to putting carbon fiber racing wheels on a kids tricycle. While slick you just do not get the benefit.

One the biggest draw back to all of this adjustibility, is the trap of never being satisfied with a setting and or ending up fiddleing with too much at the same time and ending up worse off than when you started.

My advice and it's the same I'd give anyone, is to build a regular profile something easy to build and not obsess over adjustible this or that. Learn to fly it in the envelope that the designer intended it to fly. Most fly quite well as is out of the box.

One you get past the performance envelope of the design and are ready to move on then, You will have found that you really did not need those features earlier, and will be ready to decide whether you wish to incorporate them in the next airplane.

This is like everything else. Modern Sport bikes come with tuneable suspensions. So the rider can finely adjust the suspension to current road conditions. Now 90% of every one who buys these never even give this a second look. And 50% of those who do, do not know the difference between compression damping and rebound damping.

But they just had to have the ability to fully adjust the suspension for maximum performance. I say relax and don't get too caught up with the experts discussing handle overhang, leadout adjustment, weight fine tuning, line spacing etc etc etc.

Right now just build and enjoy the hobby. And leave the ajusto-plane for the future.

All Foam wings have an adjustable tip "box". A nickel, knife, 5min.epoxy, apiece of tape. A pair of pliers if ya got too much.03,
Maybe he needs one of the RC RTF stuff converted. I posted a conversion for 150$ and no one came (FunTiger) It works out to be almost 200$ for a simple RTF. MM

>At even an Inermediate stage these
>adjustable features are not critical.
>Build or fly the plane to the origional
>specs and you really do not have to
>muck with these items. The plane will
>pretty much fly as advertised. The
>pilot still has enough to learn and
>worry about without having to meddle
>with another set of adjustments...
>
>My advice and it's the same
>I'd give anyone, is to
>build a regular profile something
>easy to build and not
>obsess over adjustible this or
>that. Learn to fly it
>in the envelope that the
>designer intended it to fly.
>Most fly quite well as
>is out of the box.
>
>
>One you get past the performance
>envelope of the design and
>are ready to move on
>then, You will have found
>that you really did not
>need those features earlier, and
>will be ready to decide
>whether you wish to incorporate
>them in the next airplane....
>
>Right now just build and enjoy
>the hobby. And leave the
>ajusto-plane for the future.

I am going to take the other side of the argument. I would much rather have the adjustables and never touch them than not have them and never have the plane in trim. Once you get over the fear of crashing, you will learn a lot faster and be a lot happier with a plane that is in trim than with one that is not. In the "good old days" we had adjustables, but we had to use a knife to do it. Not enough tip weight? Cut into the tip and add some. Leadouts in the wrong spot? Cut into that tip and move them. Trouble is, you couldn't make fine adjustments, and in the end you flew a compromise--sometimes a big compromise.

It is nice, if you don't have enough line tension, to add some tip weight. Or if the tip is dropping, to be able to take some out. But the amount of tip weight you use will be dependent, not only on construction (heavier wood on the outboard wing, leadout weights, etc.) but on the diameter and length of your lines, and even such things as your power and lap speed. Leadout location is definitely determined by speed, line size, CG location, yaw, etc. No matter what the plans say, it is a compromise, even if you could duplicate the designers plane exactly.

Now if you fly your plane and are able to move your leadout position just slightly and improve things, won't you be happier? The key is to make one adjustment at a time. Did it improve, or did it go the other way? If it improved things, how about tryhing a little more? If it hurt, go back, and then maybe go back a little further. If you have an adjustable rudder, it is much better than gluing in a half inch of offset because you think you need it. Now you will never know how much better the plane might have flown if you hadn't put that rudder offset in.

Even for a beginner or intermediate flyer, make your plane as adjustable as you can. Then try out each adjustment one at a time. You can still fly a practice pattern while you do this. And when you do that, you can see how much better you can make the plane by doing the finer things that make an airplane a super flyer.

Learning to build and learning to trim are all a part of this hobby. It is not just buy and fly.

After reading all the replys, I feel the answer is no. I have built trainers for my three kids & for the kids in the club and after they get the hang of it, then they want to build a bigger plane. This is assuming they stuck around to go to the next step. I feel once you have learned to fly upright, inverted, do loops, overhead eights, wingovers, the the rest is just practice, all of which can be done with a .35 Ukey. I have seen only two and the first thought that popped into my head was "Mongoose". That is what it reminds me of. That was a hot combat ship back when. So in analagy, the Ukey is a fighter that never saw combat, was turned down by the USAF,USN, USMC, and instead became a trainer. Look at the 30's. This happened a lot and many fighters became advanced trainers. So we have a "fighter" that can do it all without a lot of whistles, bells and sirens. That's because there is no bureacrats involved. Just two guys with an idea that works. If you want a real profile to practice with, build a Flite Streak. That is without a doubt the very best trainer, slo combat, stunter rolled into one I have ever built and flown. I have one on the boards now. Also the cost would be prohibitive. Besides, once you have flown a Ukie, it's time to build your own. Unless you can find someone to sell you a ready to fly ftunter for 100.00. I have found two like that, and use them for practice, but to say there is a market, no, not really.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-02 AT 09:32 AM (CST)

09:28 AM (CST)

>Besides, once you
>have flown a Ukie, it's
>time to build your own.
>Unless you can find someone
>to sell you a ready
>to fly ftunter for 100.00.
> I have found two
>like that, and use them
>for practice, but to say
>there is a market, no,
>not really.

I've already built my own, several of them. My next one will certainly not be a streak.

I find it interesting that you state there is no market yet the previous sentence you say you've bought TWO ready to fly stunters for under 100.00. Hmmmmmm come to think of it, almost every modeler that I've known has bought a used plane, which is at the very basic level an RTF! Is there a market? I think there is we just don't want to admit it or can't see it!

I've got two sons, one is 16 the other is 10. The 16 yr. old is an excellent flyer and has already won a contest. He hates building because he's no good at it. He says he'd rather buy a good plane. My other boy is only ten but is so entusiastic about both flying and building he reminds me of myself. He will probably be a good builder (better than me I hope). Is there a market for CL RTF/ATF? There always has been... to EVERYONE I pose this question...How many used stunters have you bought? I know one individual who has a whole garage full of stunters he purchased, not built.

I hate to say this for fear of bringing down the wrath of the pro BOM (of which I'm one), but this some how seems related to the attitude that RTF/ARF are some how not very important or needed at any level other than the trainer level. I don't understand this???

BTW I liked my Ukey so much I bought another one yesterday before I even completed the first one. Is there a market? I guess there is and I seem to be it:)

>...Hmmmmmm come to think
>of it, almost every modeler
>that I've known has bought
>a used plane, which is
>at the very basic level
>an RTF! Is there a
>market? I think there is
>we just don't want to
>admit it or can't see
>it!
>
>... Is there
>a market for CL RTF/ATF?
>There always has been... to
>EVERYONE I pose this question...How
>many used stunters have you
>bought? I know one individual
>who has a whole garage
>full of stunters he purchased,
>not built.
>
>I hate to say this for
>fear of bringing down the
>wrath of the pro BOM
>(of which I'm one), but
>this some how seems related
>to the attitude that RTF/ARF
>are some how not very
>important or needed at any
>level other than the trainer
>level. I don't understand this???
>
>catdaddy

Buying models for training purposes or sport flying is a totally different subject than buying them for competition. There will probably always be used castoffs that people can acquire from those who are "moving on". But it is a little tough to get even a quality ARF intermediate profile plane with all the adjustables on it for $100 when kits are approaching that these days. And the kit dowsn't include the finish, the wheels, the tank. I think this is the problem. They are too labor intensive and no method of mass production will bring the cost down to make it cost effective. Sure, a few people will buy one at a higher price, but not enough to make it feasable to set it up for production. And if you want a really well-built, good flying plane, be prepared to spend the big bucks. And there are people who will build them if you want.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-02 AT 02:49 PM (CST)

Yes there is certainly a market, I agree with you 100%. The question should be though is there a market for a $300 RTF?

Now this one is tougher to answer. Because to put together a Quality Intermediate RTF, I am figureing you will get close to that number.

There is available assembly and manufactureing in Asia, You can have pretty much any thing built for reasonable cost but then you have to deal with quality control and of course shipping and import duties. Finally you would have to order up in large quantities, with no idea if you will be able to sell them all.

Most of the RC ARF's are made this way, except in RC there is a large market. So ordering up 1000 or two is no big deal. If you were to do it that way you probably could get the price down to around $100 less engine. But who here wants to lay out $50K to $80K + to have a run of 1000 CL ARF's.

We would need the AMA and PAMPA bringing a lot more marketing efforts to the hobby to make that type of investment worth while.

A used stunt plane, oily, been broken, etc. is ok for fooling around with, but not competition. I never, ever, enter some one elses plane, with one exception, no BOM points as it was in beginner, and I had wrecked mine. I too am a stickler for BOM, at least in this event (PA). One of the planes is for engine testing, not competiton. The other is for practice until I get mine finished. But at 100.00 I got a steal. These same planes come in kits that exceed that amount. Built to the same level, $1000.00, no exageration as I have been quoted that price by two builders. I got my two built up used planes from two different friends. A stranger might not have even been offered them nor been sold to them. Some of those ready to fly older planes are from estate sales and are one way to help out the widow. Think about it. Those planes may never fly again out of respect or nostalgia. (Fear of wrecking them is part of it). So again I think not on a ready market. There is only about 3,500 ucontrollers out there that are active, so I hear. Many can't afford the lower priced kits let alone an RTF. Yes everyone says there is a market, but I don't think the term "Market" is really understood. Market means demand and demand means money in hand for said item, not wishful thinking. First reaction to the question is always yes, but with a better undertanding of what it entails from design to raw materials to production, labor, packaging, advertising, shipping, labels, legal fees, well if you can handle all that then go for it. And forget having them made in China or Taiwan or South Korea. I have discussed model trains with knowlegeble folks in that industry and you can not believe the stuff that goes on in dealing with the orient. In other words, for get it, in my opinion.

I've been doing business and have lived in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. Yes there are things involved in dealing with manufacturers there. But like any business you have to know what you are doing and not go in with the expectation that things will work like in the USA.

First off you will need a local partner, one you can trust and knows what they are doing over there. If you can not get a local in the country of manufactuer, then you may as well hang it up unless you wish to move to the country for the duration of the product run. Oh it can be done and it is done everyday.

I wonder where the 3,500 active number comes from. Personaly I only joined the AMA once and was only active for 2 years. I stopped renewing because I could not see what benefit I was getting out of the membership. I did not compete. The club I belonged to folded. And the Magazine was certainly not worth the admission price.

One only can guestimate how many people like me there are. I am certainly not in that 3500 number. And if it is the case that many of the membership can not afford even a $100 RTF then I would imagine there is a large number of silent flyers out there who do not wish to waste the cost of the anual AMA membership. Let alone the additional cost of then again the PAMPA membership.

Because other than needing AMA membership to compete or be a member of a club, What is the benefit? Maybe when I see the organizations make some serious effort in promoting and aiding the membership then I may fell inclined to send them my money. I can afford it but then I usually expect someting for my money. Else I'll just contribute that amount to the charities.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-02 AT 00:19 AM (CST)

"Buying models for training purposes or sport flying is a totally different subject than buying them for competition."
Leonard Neumann

You're correct Mr. Neumann it's a totally different subject, but it's the same hobby! As long as men at your level of the hobby insist that it's foolish to think that RTF/ARF at anything above $100.00 are impractable then yes it will probably be hard to get someone to invest the time and money to accomplish what J&J Sales has done. You guys that compete and provide major services at the national level influence what direction this hobby goes whether you want to admit it or not. The underlying bias that most have against RTF is obvious to me. It is this attitude that keeps people leary of trying.

"A used stunt plane, oily, been broken, etc. is ok for fooling around with, but not competition. I never, ever, enter some one elses plane, with one exception, no BOM points as it was in beginner, and I had wrecked mine"
TY M.

Hey you know what Ty, maybe, just maybe, more beginners would enter contests if they could buy a $100-$300 RTF?
I never was talking about anything for competition anyway, just a little more advanced stunter than the Ukey to LEARN with, that's all.
What does the average sport plane cost without motor? I spend around 100 to 150 with out engine in materials alone. Then there is the time involved. Time has always been money to me. If I can get a plane ready to fly in a weekend I'm a very happy guy because it hasn't cost me a lot of time!

I'll close this post with a big, and I mean a BIG thank you to J&J Sales for giving something back to the hobby. These fellows aren't getting rich from the sale of these ukeys. I'm glad they ignored anyone who told them there was no market for the Ukey if in fact anyone did. They saw a need and they developed a plan that worked and they have done a great service to the hobby! I just finished up my first ukey and I'm looking forward to flying it with my sons and that's what is most important to me.

We're going to fly and have fun!!!

I am having trouble with the term "a little more advanced". I would like to see a drawing or more complete description of the plane you have in mind. Is this a step one, two, three type of system you are talking about? What type construction? Is the U-key a step one? Again, there be a percieved market and I hope there is, but the cost for a plane beyond the U-key and the actual numbers that would be sold would put it in the "labor of love" type builder and I can't think of very many of those. I like your idea, but I believe the reality is not going to support it. Those two I bought were far from an ARF for a beginner. I entered the beginner event out of lack of confidence. Silly as I had just flown OTS and did ok until the wind got my Barnstormer. I did not need the plane I bought, but it was for sale to me, and I liked it, mine was not ready, so I bought it. Now the guy I got it from is a very old friend, since 1970, and he never offered it to anyone else, so, no, there was no market. This was deal between two friends. I fly in Intermediate and I am not a beginner, just had been away for 25 years. Don't give up on this idea, but it is a hard sell I think. Bratco has 2 nice 1/2A RTFs out there and Cox has brought back the PT-19. I believe your proposal would be in the .29 to .35 range with 350 plus squares, flaps, gear, profile? Right? Later, Ty

Ty M, The term "little more advanced" by catdaddy meant he would simply like to see an airplane with more refined adjustments (such as wing tip weight box and adjustable leadouts), some people even suggested the addition of flaps; all this would cause a lot of production problems (we're not just making one airplane but hundreds). These airplanes are not meant for competition and have been well tested with 25+ different types of engines so they will fly well with anything that J&J recommends. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the Barnstormer (one of the better old time stunt airplanes) and it was designed by a personal friend, Lou Andrews and I have built many Barnstormers, has nothing to do with the Ukey. As far as the mall hobby shop 1/2A RTFs, you can't learn much from these things and after Jr. has cut his finger on the prop they end up in the trash barrel anyways. So if you want to learn how to fly on something that's 400 or 500 sq. in. with a 25 to a 40 engine and 60 foot lines, try a Ukey you just might learn something! Thanks to all you guys for the input about J&J from Jim and Joe.

Hi Rusty old lines. The reference to the Barnstormer, my first ever u/c plane that I built and flew, was that I had wrecked it at a contest when I lost it in the overheads due to the wind shear at that site. I was one of three. As to flying a plane with lots of wing area, I have built and flown Thunderbirds, (original up right engine), Noblers, Ares, Magician, Shark 45, Sky Lark,Chipmunk, Super Chipmunk, Genesis 35, etc. I have seen but never flown the UKey and it has a great place for the beginner, that was not my point. Once you learn to fly them, whats next? I feel a kit like the Magician or Oriental would be a good step up. But to buy one of these new in an ARF set up would be too expensive for most new flyers. Not all, most. So what exactly would be a good next plane and what price range and who is going to manufacture and sell it? What exactly is the market for this type "trainer"? PS, I have been building and flying since early 1948.

I went and looked at the cost of the Sig Mustang stunter.

At $84 I would suspect someone could use that kit as the basis of making a RTF, The pain of course is boxing and shipping.

Kit $84
Brodak 40 $99
Spinner, Wheels and assorted stuff $20
Then say another $150 for assembly and finish Thats if you can find someone to assemble and cover the plane for $150.

And you have a RTF for $354 less shipping complete with engine. Now if you can get the kit, engine, accessories, covering at dealer cost the profit margin would be higher.

Since this is a foam wing airplane solid tail airplane a assembly line operation would be workable, And since the cowl and the top deck are made of ABS plastic there is not much needing sanding or shapeing.

Other than covering building 5 of these would not take much longer than building 1. As long as proper fuselage jugs were made for the basic layup. Actually the longest period of waiting would be for the Epoxy to set up on some critical areas.

Obviously just building one for $100-$125 or so for your labor is dodgy at best. But as I said that building 5 0r 10 would not take much longer than building one, well then it may be worth while. But then you need to know you have 10 or more that will sell. Of couse then you would have to market them your self as you do not have enough margin to afford much of a retail markup.

My suggestion would be to ask buildit right to make a Mustang Stunter for you and see what he will charge.

Or as I mentioned before, Get one and toss it together yourself.
This kit can go together easily in one week of spare time. By a novice builder.

Using Monokote a experienced builder could probably knock one out in a weekend.
Only Dangerous when Bored!

Fubar your posts are always so colorful.

5 takes as long as 1. I think you need to put your building tips into an article and submitt it to PAMPA!

I have been building two scratch built full size stunters at once.

I started the third week of Jan. I now have one on the paint stand in color awaiting letters and clear. The other is a wing a fuse and stab and all blocks cowls and tipas are completed. Just needs final assembly. This has been one heck of a task.

Two at once is deffinently a good way to build. I will probably go this route from now on when it comes to full sizers unless I have a kit of what I am building.

But if you can do 5 in the time it takes to do one and for only 125 bucks in one weekend I would like to see that on video.

DMoon

PS you should do some reading about the AMA membership. Flying without one is NOT smart. We were flying in dallas on a marked circle and a child (7 years old) road his bike into the circle while Mike Scott was doing overhead eights. I was working on my plane so I didnt even see it until mike started yelling at the kid to get away. I saw this and helped heard him out while Mike stayed up there. Luckily Mike saw him coming before he exited. If that had been in level flight it would have been big trouble for sure. The AMA would have been backing us up the whole way. Without a membership it would have been "Good luck, you're on your own" from the AMA. Besides you get to read some cool articles and alot of letters to the editor from Lance Novack always complaining about something.

We were flying
>in dallas on a marked
>circle and a child (7
>years old) road his bike
>into the circle while Mike
>Scott was doing overhead eights.
>...If that had
>been in level flight it
>would have been big trouble
>for sure.

We had a similar incident happen a few years back. We were flying in the back of a church parking lot--away from the street--no entrance except to the lot itself, when a kit on a bicycle showed up and actually tried to catch the plane while flying. Matt was at the handle and pulled up high, but the idiot kept riding underneath the plane hoping to catch it. I finally got him out of there and we left.

Another time we were flying in the back of a paved lot, with permission, while a car rally was going on in front. A father, with his teenage girl learning to drive at the wheel, came into the lot from the front, drove through the car rally at the front, to the back, and into the circle while Matt was flying because he was going to use that area to teach her how to park.

If either of the above incidents had resulted in an "accident", and especially if there had been property damage or someone getting hurt (or killed) you can imagine what might have been the result. Of course, we would be accused of being to blame.

Fortunately, there was no "accident", but on both occasions, although we were the ones using the area by permission, we were forced to leave because of someone else's stupidity.

But, yes, fly with insurance.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-02 AT 04:05 PM (CST)

I built a couple of the Mustang Stunter kits. I am specifically talking about this KIT nothing else.

If one were to build a jig specifically for it, and finished it to just a plain rudimentary plane. This kit can go thogether really fast. It has a foam wing, Plastic decks and solid sheet tail feathers. Using CA, 3M spray adhesive, and 1 hour epoxy, and Monokote this KIT can be put together in a weekend. Easily.

In this thread we are not talking about building a contest winning airplane but rather exploring the construction of a ARM that is a step above The UKey. This need not be finished to win appearance points nor does one need to obsess over weight and the latest technology.

And if you were to streamline the construction process of thei KIT you can slap together 5 in almost the same time as one. But you have to be set up with assembly line construction as the final goal.

I was not describing turning out works of art here, Just a plainly finished airplane that is a step above the Ukey.

As for the AMA membership to count for anything in the court of law? You are out of luck any way you cut it. It will still boil down to neglegence. Why? Because we do not require a formal training process and certification.

There is a hugh big hole in any case if the case brings up competence. And the proper use of any safety devices. If you are flying in anything but a designated flying field. One that is fenced off and has a gate with a big sign that says in tree languages FLYERS ONLY! And that gate is secured that only flyers can have access. Then you are basicaly open to what ever the litagating party wants.

Perhaps if you are a well documented competition pilot, you can defend against the allegation that you were not qualified to operate the model in the area that you were. That the situation that led to the accident was beyond your control in any fashion.

The very fact that an individual was able to get that close to the activity is grounds to claim negligence. And there is nothing the AMA can do in response. And since we by our activity are creating a potentially hazardous condition. In any court we would be liable for makeing sure that we address the safety conditions. We as the individuals that create the hazard, and the AMA would have little to say about it.

This of course is a bit different for AMA sanctioned contests, there the involvement is different and the AMA could deflect or take some of the heat. But for daily flying activities, the onus is on us and no one else.

In the 15 years or so of active flying I have never had any incident happen. Not even close. May be I'm lucky or perhaps I chose my flying area with more care. Fortunately I live not far form an official flying area, and allways have. I think I can count on both hands the amount of times I flew in areas that were not specifically designated for CL flying.

I would still dispute this myself. Even assuming you were going to set up a jig to build one, you can eliminate the time to set up the jig. But, after that, gluing, cutting, even sanding, takes the same amount of time. adding the controls, the tank, the finish, ah, yes the finish. It all takes the same amount of time. The only thing you would save is the time cleaning the paint sprayer, assuming you were able to spray paint them all at the same time.

Building one plane takes X number of hours.

Building 5 planes takes 5 times X number of hours.

But a Mustang kit may go together faster than a Thunderbird, I will grant you. However, since the original premise was to add adjustables, now we have to add an adjustable tip weight (cut it out of the foam) and we have to core the in board wing (which should have been done anyway) or there is no room for the leadouts to adjust. I have done this and I have got the bow and the plywood templates to do it again (I still have two more kits). But I am not going to build one of these for near what you are expecting to get the ARF for.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-02 AT 11:33 PM (CST)

>Then there is the time involved. Time has always been money to
>me. If I can get a plane ready to fly in a weekend I'm a very
>happy guy because it hasn't cost me a lot of time!

That hits the nail on the head. A lot of people
have the desire & skills to build kits, but not the
time. I know that is true in my case, even a "quick
build" kit like the Brodak Buster dragged out into
a 2 month project.

But I agree that the market for C/L ARF's probably just
isn't big enough to be profitable.

However, there are some superb laser cut RC kits
which practically "fall together" using self-interlocking
components which make it practically impossible to
build crooked, and don't need fancy jigs.
The TCI Firecat is the closest thing I've seen
to that in a C/L kit. Many kits, such as RSM's,
assume you are already an experienced builder.
A modern laser cut kit with innovative features
along the lines of the SR Batteries RC kits would
be the next best thing to "intermediate" ARF's.

While there are some excellent laser-cut C/L kits available
that are "high end," those are probably more suited
for advanced flyers.

>One only can guestimate how many
>people like me there are.
>I am certainly not in
>that 3500 number. And if
>it is the case that
>many of the membership can
>not afford even a $100
>RTF then I would imagine
>there is a large number
>of silent flyers out there
>who do not wish to
>waste the cost of the
>anual AMA membership. Let alone
>the additional cost of then
>again the PAMPA membership.
>
>Because other than needing AMA membership
>to compete or be a
>member of a club, What
>is the benefit? Maybe
>when I see the organizations
>make some serious effort in
>promoting and aiding the membership
>then I may fell inclined
>to send them my money.
>I can afford it but
>then I usually expect someting
>for my money. Else I'll
>just contribute that amount to
>the charities.
>
>Only Dangerous when Bored!

FUBAR, when you fly at a field, any field, what liability insurance do you rely on to cover you and others if something unforseen should happen as has happened last year in model aviation? If you are not insured, I certainly do not want you flying at any AMA field or any field at all. Thank the Lord that the several accidents last year were with AMA members and the insurance covered the outcome. That is the benefit of AMA.

I'm an AMA member and truly believe everyone in the hobby should join. However, I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about AMA insurance. It is not primary insurance, and will only pay in the absence of other coverage. If you are out flying and you get hurt, AMA expects your insurance to cover it. Not many of us have insurance that covers us for liability away from home and this is where the AMA insurance really helps. Who else will be on your side when you get sued by the person that gets hit by your model.

Bill Mitchell

>>
>FUBAR, when you fly at a
>field, any field, what liability
>insurance do you rely on
>to cover you and others
>if something unforseen should happen
>as has happened last year
>in model aviation? If
>you are not insured, I
>certainly do not want you
>flying at any AMA field
>or any field at all.
> Thank the Lord that
>the several accidents last year
>were with AMA members and
>the insurance covered the outcome.
> That is the benefit
>of AMA.
>
>Tom McClain

The subject of the *value* of AMA and/or PAMPA arises from time to time and IMO the most valuable reason for supporting both is almost never addressed. I think the following is the most important single aspect of such groups and decisively argues for the *value* in each and every one of us providing our support, both in $$$$ and in our time and and effort.

Modeling...even RC, but most importantly, smaller disciplines such as CL and smaller yet, CLPA...are not a significant commercial demographic in terms of actual numbers. If each and every modeler on earth stood on the street corner and shouted "send me your ARFS and your Precision Aero .61s" the noise of so doing wouldn't rise above the background static.

As individuals we have essentially zero standing in the world of commerce. There is simply no convenient, cost effective means for potential producers of products we need to get the word out to the *one out of tens of millions* human consumers that each modeler represents.

In addition, simply communicating with one another would become equally difficult and, for all practical purposes, impossible simply because you can't just start at the front of the phone book and call every number from A to Z in hopes of finding someone who flys model airplanes...let alone stunt specifically.

What small groups of committed people of common interest need is a "community campfire" around which we can gather to share information, bartar goods and services and generate ideas and wherewithall to encourage both more enjoyable levels of involvement for ourselves and to spread our influence to the uninitiated who don't even know they want to be one of us until we let them know what they're missing.

At the heart of such a campfire, the embers from which the flames and smoke most visible orginate, is an agency which facilitates communication amongst the family. In our case these agencies are the AMA and PAMPA (or other Special Interest Group for other sub disciplines of major categories), most specifically MODEL AVIATION magazine and STUNT NEWS.

Like 'em or hate 'em, without 'em there simply isn't a modeling world as we know it to enjoy. Our magazines and newsletters provide a marketing medium (when's the last time you saw a Brodak ad in the New York Times?) for our potential suppliers that is both demographic specific and cost effective for them. This is the means whereby our voices in the wildnerness become a valuable source of communication with those who would supply and nurture our rare avocation.

Without MODEL AVIATION, STUNT NEWS and their counterparts in others disciplines there would be now such thing as: Brodak Models; Aero Products; Windy Urtnowski (well, there would always be Windy but don't think you'd be buying videos from him); RSM Products; Stalker engines; Corehouse models; Ukies or any of the dozens of other Cottage industries which supply us and reach their customers through the good offices of our agencies...AMA and PAMPA, etc.

Without those community campfires there wouldn't be a Stuka Stunt Forum or an Isky's or an RC-Online for us to "tiss" about.

Without them we wouldn't have contests or fun-flies or VSC or flying sites or world wide competition between our home families and our cousins around the world.

The bottom line is that without these agencies which can only exist with our support we *lose* the support of all those entities that depend on our campfire to provide them with the means to effectively and efficiently communicate and support us.

I once used the term myopic on this forum to describe an individual's inability to perceive the above without having it spelled out to him. I've since come to realize that many, including this individual, have never known modeling without the "community" provided them by these agents of our avocation.

Although it seems to an old geezer like me that the foregoing should be obvious I sense my reality through the prism of a personal history which encompasses the majority of stunt's history. I've witnessed and survived the fits and throes of the event with and without the support group provided for us by a handful of individuals willing to put lots of time, effort and their own resources into keeping the campfire lit for the rest of us.

Guys, make no mistake, imperfect though they may be in many of our eyes, without AMA and PAMPA most of our lives (and all of our leisure lives) would have been dramatically different. Had they (more importantly the people who support and make them run) not existed, this conversation would not be taking place.

That pretty much makes them a good investment...in my humble opinion.

Ted

(Applause) yea, what Ted said.

I read with interest Joe Just's post showing iterest in putting together a mod sheet for the Ukey based on Catdaddy's input. As a very satisfied Ukey owner, may I suggest incorporating Nil's modifications (which I truly appreciated!) along with some changes to go to adjustable leadouts, adjustable tip weight, and maybe a bigger adjustable rudder? (maybe even sell an accessory kit???) I understand that Joe has the initial set-up very close to as good as it can get. And I understand that it will never trim out like a true Stunt ship. But it seems to me that adjusting the various parameters would react the same as a purpose designed Stunt ship and you could learn the ropes of trimming a plane for Stunt without the fear of going too far one way and breaking the plane. Or am I all wet?
And I for one like the idea of a Ukey like plane with flaps. I would buy one. I have very little time to build and my only real interest in the Pattern is to finally get all the way through one just to say I did. There are only a few C/L fliers around here (only one true Stunt flier) and no competitions within several hundred miles. But it is fun and since I became bored with R/C it has made the hobby much more interesting by coming back to my roots so to speak.

Way more than I intended to say.....

Why weren't you at the field today!! There must have been 15 people out there! BB

Why weren't you at the field today? Beautiful day no wind. There must have been 15 people out there today. BB

Catdaddy,

Why don't you stick to more non controversial subjects such as religion or politics? (snicker)

I guess if you want a nice CL ARF/RTF you'll have to build it yourself!

Seriously, which would be most preferable in a intermediate ARF/RTF if it were available. Something less expensive like the U-Key but more finished, or something like a Skyray or Buster that looks like a conventional profile but costs more. Maybe not a huge amount more but definitely more expensive. How about a simple box fuselage similar to Sigs Somethin' Extra, in a take apart with available replacement parts, if that costs just a little more still? Painted or clear dope finish?

Bill Mitchell
CL ARF/RTF advocate

Bill Mitchell wrote:

"Seriously, which would be most preferable in a intermediate ARF/RTF if it were available. Something less expensive like the U-Key but more finished, or something like a Skyray or Buster that looks like a conventional profile but costs more. Maybe not a huge amount more but definitely more expensive. How about a simple box fuselage similar to Sigs Somethin' Extra, in a take apart with available replacement parts, if that costs just a little more still? Painted or clear dope finish?"

A Dixon Time Machine 40 would be a good canidate for ARFizing. Box fuselage,no cowl, foam wing, drop in engine and would work fine on an out of the box LA 40. The effort to build one is about the same as a simple profile like a Twister. Trouble is, short of using Chinese political prisoners to do the work on assembly and covering, I don't think it will ever be cost effective like R/C ARF's are. The closest I think you could come would be if clubs started club building projects and mass produced a dozen or so for the club member use. Without being negative I think the kits currently offered by the various manufacturers are as good a balance between already built and reasonable cost as the market can create.

>Without being
>negative I think the kits
>currently offered by the various
>manufacturers are as good a
>balance between already built and
>reasonable cost as the market
>can create.
>
>
>Steve

And that has been my opinion. I have nothing against ARFs for those who want them. There are lots of sport flyers and "learners" who would love to have them--but only at a price that for most would be unattainable.

As to the comment earlier that it doesn't take longer to make five than one, other than setting up jigs, I don't see any time savings. Did you ever try sanding? Masking? Painting? Sanding? Painting? OK, I can spray paint five planes the same color (one color, no masking) and don't have to clean the paint gun in between. But that is about it for additional time savings. And if you monokote, you are back to square one in time. How many of you guys paint your plane one color? Even the newbies like a little Pizzazz.

There is really no getting around it. The next step, after the basic trainer, is going to involve more work--for somebody.

Still, there are a lot of nice kits that will build in a reasonable amount of time if the person does not spend a lot of time on the finish. The finish on a tip notch plane takes about 2/3 of the total construction time.

Hi Len,

I was meaning minimum sanding, Thats why I specificly mentioned the Sig Mustang Stunter, Not much there to sand. And if they want pizazz well you supply a peel and stick decal sheet. Monokoteing the plane would probably take the most time.

What I am saying that if the RC manufacturers can knock out a RTF with radio and engine, for $300 then there is no reason that it can not be done for the CL community.

FUBAR,

Who are you? I mean what is your name?

Are you going to build this quick build mustang? If so please video it.

I hear you talking about building fast. I can build fast, real fast but getting a mustang stunter ready for the air in one weekend would be a stretch. Even if you opt out completley on the sanding. Even if you monokote it in one color only. I built a lost foam wing in 4 hours. I had the skeleton done in 45 minutes. Big deal. You still got to put the plane together. Foam wings they build fast sure but once the wing is done you are right back to conventional building.

Please dont take me wrong. I am not saying you cant do it. I am just questioning how you can just throw out these assumptions about building superfast and selling it at a reasonable price. Remember every hour you go past your two day assumtion you are eating into your profits. Your hourly pay goes down fast.

By the way I think your price is reasonable.

If you were doing 5 painting would be faster. You could do it in a assembly line style. Monokoting will be a one by one job.

I am ready to see these planes.

Get to work!

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-02 AT 11:52 AM (CST)

Thanks for all the responses, I think it's apparent that at the very least there is a small market for CL RTF/ARF. Perhaps all we have to do is wait until someone with the right idea using todays technology decides he will take the plunge. Just as J&J has done. I hope J&J include some kind of additional instruction sheet and or mod kit as someone else suggested.

There was another idea put forth by Ty, and that was maybe having 3 levels of an RTF. Level I could be something like a Ukey, Level II could be something similar to a ukey, but for a little more money you get flaps a better fuse and some of the adjustable stuff. Several people like me wanted to see the adjustable stuff just so we could play with it. We don't care if it's not needed, we just want to experiment with it. It's not that we don't appreciate the advice from the "experts" we just want to see for ourselves what certain things do. You retain it longer if you actually DO it. Level III could be an actual built up plane like the Mustang Fubar suggested. of course each level gets more expensive but as you progress up the ladder of experience most are willing to pay more.

Please note than I'm just a retread who was never involved with clubs and organizations like AMA & PAMPA. Now I'm a member of both and so are my boys. We also belong to a local club and I feel very lucky to be able to tap into the knowledge that exists inside this club. I'm very concerned that not enough is being done by the AMA to promote CL. It's apparent that we as a group had better come up with some ideas to help keep this hobby alive.
This was the main reason I posed the orginal question.

regards
catdaddy

Catdaddy, and others, Both J's of J & J say thanks for the kudos! It just gives us reason to work harder.