Sterling vs RSM Ruffy

Larry Richards of Richards Custom Kits is going to be selling some of his duplicate kits from his collection. Don’t miss out on some mint condition vintage kits. I picked up a Sterling Ruffy. I don’t know how the Sterling kit compares to the RSM version, are they same? Did RSM duplicate the kit exactly or make some minor changes to it? I suppose the RSM kit would have better wood than the Sterling kit.

The RSM kit could be made from solid oak and still have better wood than the Sterling!

All joking aside, RSM wood is really good. I have four of their kits, and all are stocked with primo wood.

One can only hope they didn't duplicate the Sterling kit!
The Ruffy suffered seriously from the "tryng to stuff a big airplane into a box three sizes too small for it syndrome". Sterling was famous for this feat and I think the Skylark is another that suffered from this same malady. The wood quality is yet another issue.

Jake

ebay item 3180683788

Currell

Eric Rule who is RSM is a competition stunt flyer. His kits are intended for competition. My kit has very light wood and although I haven't started it yet, I'm comfortable that it is many times better than the Sterling kit. This is a similar situation to the Larry Richards reproductions of Veco and Midwest kits. If you are a collector, the original is significant. If you want to build and fly, the reproductions are vastly better.
Steve

The older I get, the better I used to fly!

The seller of this item is one of the few on whose auctions I bid despite the fact that he does not accept PayPal. I have absolutely no concern about receiving goods from him. The lack of PayPal usage is only a slight inconvenience.

>One can only hope they didn't duplicate the Sterling kit!
>The Ruffy suffered seriously from
>the "tryng to stuff a big airplane into a box three sizes
>too small for it syndrome". Sterling was famous for this
>feat and I think the Skylark is another that suffered from
>this same malady. The wood quality is yet another issue.
>
>Jake


Jake,

The Southwick Skylark did indeed suffer from the above mentioned syndrome. Ed and I came to the conclusion that Sterling bought the boxes first and then redesigned the airplanes to fit.

Friend of mine gave me a Sterling Skylark kit and I intend to build it and present it to him as a gift- just as a display model. However, everytime I get the box out I'm so discouraged that I find something else to do.

It's funny to watch the Sterling kits selling for well over 100 bucks on the bay. I wouldn't give you 10 bucks for any Sterling kit!

The only reason to buy a Sterling kit today is to be able carefully clone the parts for those kits that are not commercially available in a better form. Then, one resells the kit. I have purchased quite a few kits for that purpose. I won't build the kits because of their current value.

I don't know about you Old SD, you know rjbob and I have been building and flying these Sterling kits as long as you've known us and most of them fly well and are lite also. This Ruffy is built from a Sterling kit and weighs in at 38 oz with a Fox 35 and muffler. My old 50 year old Ringmaster only weighs 27 oz since recovering.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

CR,

Some of the Sterling kits had reasonable wood. I think that there was always the chance that one may have gotten a light kit. However, I'll bet if you built the Ruffy or Ringmaster from an average RSM kit, you'd have models that are lighter and whose parts fit better than those built from an average Sterling kit.

My previous statement did not apply to these two planes specifically, but to the fact that the value of some of the older kits seems to be getting so high that it doesn't make sense to build them. This is especially true of kits with less than decent wood. Carefully replicating them and building them with better wood, thereby saving the kit for a desirous collector, is the only reason to buy one of the older Sterling (SIG, Berkeley, Midwest, Berkeley, Top Flite, Veco, etc.) kit today.

By the way, I don't want to talk about your Ruffy! You were supposed to fly it here rather than taking it to Sparks before its maiden flight. I was highly disappointed that I didn't get to see it fly, since I watched it being built and gathering dust since it was built!

:'(

Which one of your Ringmasters is the one pictured, Scuz, Mutt, or another? That black trim certainly does change the look of the plan form, at least in the picture you posted here.

Never paid to much attention to the Ruffy, but it's cool looking. Looks like a good match for a new Brodak 40 I have. The RSM kit would make it a nice build.

John

Circle: Surely you know the arc of decline that Sterling experienced.

In the 50s and early 60s, their wood was of high quality, if not the lightest available. Worlds ahead of Berkeley and PDQ (although the latter, though aged looking, was light).

Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s, the die cutting sequewayed to a crunching mode, and the fuselage doublers ended up like those hollow core doors. Perhaps these are the Sterling kits that you remember.

Even at the very end, when Sterling was making generic blank box versions of the Ringmaster just prior to the Estes buyout, you could get some very nice, light wood in that kit. Don't know why, but it is a fact. I had two of these kits.

I guess I'm puzzled by your "$10" comment, then. The scale kits, especially the bipes, were and are pretty nice. And I'm not even mentioning the R. Imperial, Skylark, etc. Are you critical of the concepts that Sterling presented, or their execution? Or both?


Currell

The comment is easy to explain, it's based on lack of kit quality not designs. Although the designs did suffer from having to fit in the small boxes. However, I do realize the high prices are going to collectors on ebay and they can have them. The Ringmaster series is one of my favorites. After seeing the Ruffy EddyR posted, I'm thinking about building one from a RSM kit....of course.

Some of the Sterling designs are great flyers, but ultimately the company and designs suffered from poor quality. It's a shame that Sterling isn't around anymore.

OK, after reading the posts I would bet the RSM kit has better would. But the question I was most interested in was, "Did RSM copy exactly the Sterling kit and if not what is different compared to the Sterling version?" I have never seen a Sterling Ruffy let alone the RSM kit. What did Sterling do to make 5lbs of stuff fit in a 3lb sack?


PS: CR you have a very nice looking Ruffy.

PSS: I'll probably use the kit for templates only, make my own parts from it

>OK, after reading the posts I would bet the RSM kit has
>better would. But the question I was most interested in
>was, "Did RSM copy exactly the Sterling kit and if not what
>is different compared to the Sterling version?" I have
>never seen a Sterling Ruffy let alone the RSM kit. What did
>Sterling do to make 5lbs of stuff fit in a 3lb sack?
>
>
>PS: CR you have a very nice looking Ruffy.
>
>PSS: I'll probably use the kit for templates only, make my
>own parts from it

How do you get 5lbs of stuff into a 3lb box? By making small parts! If you could make a wing tip out of two parts, Sterling (and Berkley) could do it in fifteen!

Rich_I

Paul, That's the old "54" My oldest plane I still fly built in 1954 and redone last year. originally had a McCoy 36 Super Stunt, This now has an rjbob McCoy Redhead 29 on it.

Kurt, I'm going to talk to Eric tomorrow and find out if it's a exact copy. I'll let you know.

John

Sterling Ruffy was a good plane if you got a kit with good wood. the problem that i noiced the most was the amount of parts you had to glue togather just to build the fuseloge and the the tail parts almost took a full tube of glue just for that. On the Skylark none of the notches on the stab and elevators lined up. After you bought these kits you had to buy wood to do things right and still you usually had a heavy plane when done RSM kit is much lighter