You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What New FlightlineRC or FreeWing Model would you like to see come next!

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • At this point, the question isn't what, it's when?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JamesonC View Post

      I don't know if FW has any planes going bigger than the 90mm. Maybe I am wrong, but it kind of seems like the 64-90mm range is the area they want to stay in.
      If ya never ask, youll never get a YES!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DaleP View Post

        If ya never ask, youll never get a YES!
        You make a valid point for sure! Maybe Alpha will chime in on his thoughts on the 100+mm EDF market. I always love to hear his insight on stuff like that, even if it isn't just MRC business.

        Comment


        • I love the HSD F-16 105mm (had two of them) but sold both due to a lack of area to fly it properly without obstructions around. Not an issue for many but you get into the 105 size and it's quite a big difference.
          My YouTube RC videos:
          https://www.youtube.com/@toddbreda

          Comment


          • What I'd like to know, is why there was a radio-controlled Kaman helicopter way back in 1953, but there isn't a good model readily available today?

            You gotta hand it to them "serious" modelers back then - 12"=1' scale is mighty ambitious, particularly with the radio technology in the early 50s!

             

            Comment


            • Valkpilot, for all intents and purposes if all continues according to plan, you're quite right about that. ;)


              To answer the question to me regarding size, bigger birds cost more to produce and more to ship, and "Free Shipping" for our customers obviously isn't free for us. Shipping cost is a sizable consideration, as is the production cost of molding an airplane that exceeds the maximum standard mold size that many industrial molding machines are designed to handle. One could chop up a larger airplane's design into more puzzle pieces, but the overall volume would still have to be distributed across more molds, which, again, raises costs considerably. And so I must often restate that there are, unfortunately, clear reasons beyond market demand why there do not exists many foam models beyond a certain overall displacement (not just length or wingspan but total volume). Mold frames are fixed, and maximal dimension limitations from shipping carriers are often brutal. Eflite's Carbon Z T-28 was one of my favorite Horizon planes in any material because it was such a wonderful flyer and I'm certain it was popular with most of its owners, yet it was cancelled after, what, just a couple of years? LX's beautiful 2200mm B-25 (retracts aside) cost $100+ to ship, and far more per unit to mold. Starmax's 1800mm girthy A-1 Skyraider, was about the same with ordnance. The cost/quantity just isn't there for foamies approaching true Giant Scale. For obvious reasons we can't get too deep into costs, but we've summarized in the past that it takes six figures to get a model off the ground. Imagine that. These are high hills to climb in a hobby this size, and making two or even one miscalculated big model can lead to... well... look at how many foam RC manufacturers are still growing.


              Meanwhile, we've tried to push the boundaries of what we can fit in a box that still costs less than $60 to ship. That doesn't just mean making models bigger such as with our 90mm series of jets, but also in optimizing cheaper 80mm size jets to fly 90mm-sized airplanes, such that the user's overall value of size/cost increases. Getting creative with puzzle pieces has become our unintended specialty, also, with the boxes for the A-10 and F-22 being notable examples of big birds in small-but-safe boxes.

              Bottom line is that there are multiple levers to balance before, during, and after an actual subject matter is selected. We do our best to balance them all for you.



              And for the record, I would also like a Jaguar (although considering its complex undercarriage we might as well do a Flogger or Aardvark)
              Live Q&A every Tuesday and Friday at 9pm EST on my Twitch Livestream

              Live chat with me and other RC Nuts on my Discord

              Camp my Instagram @Alpha.Makes

              Comment


              • Its always a pleasure reading your posts Alpha :), well put, well explained, impossible not to follow even for us non naitives.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=And for the record, I would also like a Jaguar (although considering its complex undercarriage we might as well do a Flogger or Aardvark)[/QUOTE]

                  Thank you for the reply Alpha and sharing your insights on the challenges of the market. While shipping costs may not come down, maybe the price of the manufacturing equipment will and that may help offset some costs and hurdles.

                  I don't believe anybody is doing any of those planes you listed properly! The Aardvark has a sweeping wing design, like the F-14, I'm sure that would be pretty awesome. I was thinking Jaguar as its design with the stout landing gear would make it very grass field capable. Plus I don't think anyone is making a model of that right now. Especially in 8s!

                  or..... you could do a F-35 with VTOL capability!... now that.... would be a bad mamma jamma!


                  Again, thanks for the insights!

                  Comment


                  • People talk about VTOL edfs a good bit but I just don't think power systems are there yet. The one thing I always think about is trying to make a VTOL landing and hitting LVC... :Scared:

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JamesonC View Post
                      People talk about VTOL edfs a good bit but I just don't think power systems are there yet. The one thing I always think about is trying to make a VTOL landing and hitting LVC... :Scared:
                      Just for the record JamesonC, I will not be participating in scratch building servos, LOL. Just in case you were wondering. I am getting set up for scratch building planes though, never figured I would go back to building. I have discovered it's actually the development and building I like the most in this hobby.

                      There was someone that posted a video of a pretty nice VTOL F-35. I watch the vid, and was impressed to say the least. This plane did better than any Harrier model I've seen. Maybe if someone remembers they could re-post the Vid.

                      Best Regards
                      Woodcock

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Petronio View Post
                        Its always a pleasure reading your posts Alpha :), well put, well explained, impossible not to follow even for us non naitives.
                        That's why I made his comment an article. He's a walking Knowledge Blog! :)
                        My YouTube RC videos:
                        https://www.youtube.com/@toddbreda

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DaleP View Post

                          Thank you for the reply Alpha and sharing your insights on the challenges of the market. While shipping costs may not come down, maybe the price of the manufacturing equipment will and that may help offset some costs and hurdles.

                          I don't believe anybody is doing any of those planes you listed properly! The Aardvark has a sweeping wing design, like the F-14, I'm sure that would be pretty awesome. I was thinking Jaguar as its design with the stout landing gear would make it very grass field capable. Plus I don't think anyone is making a model of that right now. Especially in 8s!

                          or..... you could do a F-35 with VTOL capability!... now that.... would be a bad mamma jamma!


                          Again, thanks for the insights!
                          I feel that one of the problems is that people want too much authenticity and detail. For example, if doing a B-52, they want not only retracts, but the ability to "crab" the gear, or if the wing has seventeen rivet spots, they want to be able to see them. I myself like it when it flies and looks close enough for government work. But I do have some aesthetics. For example, I prefer the scale look of the Freewing F-8 over the "fishmouth" of the Sky Angel A-7. The same for the Freewing A-6 vs the "cartoon like" Sky Angel A-6.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Valkpilot View Post

                            I feel that one of the problems is that people want too much authenticity and detail. For example, if doing a B-52, they want not only retracts, but the ability to "crab" the gear, or if the wing has seventeen rivet spots, they want to be able to see them. I myself like it when it flies and looks close enough for government work. But I do have some aesthetics. For example, I prefer the scale look of the Freewing F-8 over the "fishmouth" of the Sky Angel A-7. The same for the Freewing A-6 vs the "cartoon like" Sky Angel A-6.
                            Imagine that on the A-10 model. To equip a Warthog matching the prototype, I think you'd need at least eight, if not ten, channels of control. The ailerons are split and can work as ailerons, spoilers, and speed-brakes. While it looks awesome, and the real plane makes the most of the additional elements of control, for a medium sized model, it would be prohibitive at best. I've seen large scale models with all the controls, but since it also sported two actual jet engines, you can bet the owner had a LOT of money invested in that model. Few of us would be able or willing to sink that much into that expensive of a toy.

                            Detail is nice, and I certainly appreciate a model that looks realistic. I've put some work into making a couple of my planes look more prototype, but the real kicker will always be how it flies. I think nearly all of us would rather have a plane that looks less perfect, but flies great, than one that looks great, but flies lousy.

                            Especially since all that incredible detail is going to look like crap when it augers in because it flies poorly.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alpha.MotionRC View Post
                              Valkpilot, for all intents and purposes if all continues according to plan, you're quite right about that. ;)


                              To answer the question to me regarding size, bigger birds cost more to produce and more to ship, and "Free Shipping" for our customers obviously isn't free for us. Shipping cost is a sizable consideration, as is the production cost of molding an airplane that exceeds the maximum standard mold size that many industrial molding machines are designed to handle. One could chop up a larger airplane's design into more puzzle pieces, but the overall volume would still have to be distributed across more molds, which, again, raises costs considerably. And so I must often restate that there are, unfortunately, clear reasons beyond market demand why there do not exists many foam models beyond a certain overall displacement (not just length or wingspan but total volume). Mold frames are fixed, and maximal dimension limitations from shipping carriers are often brutal. Eflite's Carbon Z T-28 was one of my favorite Horizon planes in any material because it was such a wonderful flyer and I'm certain it was popular with most of its owners, yet it was cancelled after, what, just a couple of years? LX's beautiful 2200mm B-25 (retracts aside) cost $100+ to ship, and far more per unit to mold. Starmax's 1800mm girthy A-1 Skyraider, was about the same with ordnance. The cost/quantity just isn't there for foamies approaching true Giant Scale. For obvious reasons we can't get too deep into costs, but we've summarized in the past that it takes six figures to get a model off the ground. Imagine that. These are high hills to climb in a hobby this size, and making two or even one miscalculated big model can lead to... well... look at how many foam RC manufacturers are still growing.


                              Meanwhile, we've tried to push the boundaries of what we can fit in a box that still costs less than $60 to ship. That doesn't just mean making models bigger such as with our 90mm series of jets, but also in optimizing cheaper 80mm size jets to fly 90mm-sized airplanes, such that the user's overall value of size/cost increases. Getting creative with puzzle pieces has become our unintended specialty, also, with the boxes for the A-10 and F-22 being notable examples of big birds in small-but-safe boxes.

                              Bottom line is that there are multiple levers to balance before, during, and after an actual subject matter is selected. We do our best to balance them all for you.



                              And for the record, I would also like a Jaguar (although considering its complex undercarriage we might as well do a Flogger or Aardvark)
                              I was having many of the same thoughts about how these critters arrive in our hands, I appreciate your expanding some of those details. In my previous life I helped create traveling museum and trade show exhibits. We had many many of the same concerns, both in accepting delivery and shipping of many pieces. The Nike Supershow took 35 Mayflower moving vans to get it from Portland Or. to Atlanta each year - it was 385,000 sq. ft. One particular archeological exhibit from China was a really ticklish delivery and set up. I’ve had loopholes and delays averted by USAF C-5 Galaxies and Antonov cargo planes, thanks to some very influential benefactors. You just never knew sometimes where the next hurdle would develop, in spite of meticulous planning.
                              It is truly a thin tight rope...
                              keep up the good work guys - I’m a Balsa Scale prop jock, but I do enjoy watching those foam jets for those who chose to fly them. I have been tempted to try one, but I have more than enough on my plate right now.
                              Thanks again to you and all the MRC staff...pass it along.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hoomi View Post

                                Imagine that on the A-10 model. To equip a Warthog matching the prototype, I think you'd need at least eight, if not ten, channels of control. The ailerons are split and can work as ailerons, spoilers, and speed-brakes. While it looks awesome, and the real plane makes the most of the additional elements of control, for a medium sized model, it would be prohibitive at best. I've seen large scale models with all the controls, but since it also sported two actual jet engines, you can bet the owner had a LOT of money invested in that model. Few of us would be able or willing to sink that much into that expensive of a toy.

                                Detail is nice, and I certainly appreciate a model that looks realistic. I've put some work into making a couple of my planes look more prototype, but the real kicker will always be how it flies. I think nearly all of us would rather have a plane that looks less perfect, but flies great, than one that looks great, but flies lousy.

                                Especially since all that incredible detail is going to look like crap when it augers in because it flies poorly.
                                You forgot a scaled down working version of the GAU-8 Avenger cannon.:)

                                Comment


                                • Does anyone make a working 1.875 mm Gatling gun?

                                  If they did, could any of us afford it?

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Hoomi View Post
                                    Does anyone make a working 1.875 mm Gatling gun?

                                    If they did, could any of us afford it?
                                    I'm sure Alpha will get right on it!:Cool:

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Alpha.MotionRC View Post
                                      Valkpilot, for all intents and purposes if all continues according to plan, you're quite right about that. ;)


                                      To answer the question to me regarding size, bigger birds cost more to produce and more to ship, and "Free Shipping" for our customers obviously isn't free for us. Shipping cost is a sizable consideration, as is the production cost of molding an airplane that exceeds the maximum standard mold size that many industrial molding machines are designed to handle. One could chop up a larger airplane's design into more puzzle pieces, but the overall volume would still have to be distributed across more molds, which, again, raises costs considerably. And so I must often restate that there are, unfortunately, clear reasons beyond market demand why there do not exists many foam models beyond a certain overall displacement (not just length or wingspan but total volume). Mold frames are fixed, and maximal dimension limitations from shipping carriers are often brutal. Eflite's Carbon Z T-28 was one of my favorite Horizon planes in any material because it was such a wonderful flyer and I'm certain it was popular with most of its owners, yet it was cancelled after, what, just a couple of years? LX's beautiful 2200mm B-25 (retracts aside) cost $100+ to ship, and far more per unit to mold. Starmax's 1800mm girthy A-1 Skyraider, was about the same with ordnance. The cost/quantity just isn't there for foamies approaching true Giant Scale. For obvious reasons we can't get too deep into costs, but we've summarized in the past that it takes six figures to get a model off the ground. Imagine that. These are high hills to climb in a hobby this size, and making two or even one miscalculated big model can lead to... well... look at how many foam RC manufacturers are still growing.


                                      Meanwhile, we've tried to push the boundaries of what we can fit in a box that still costs less than $60 to ship. That doesn't just mean making models bigger such as with our 90mm series of jets, but also in optimizing cheaper 80mm size jets to fly 90mm-sized airplanes, such that the user's overall value of size/cost increases. Getting creative with puzzle pieces has become our unintended specialty, also, with the boxes for the A-10 and F-22 being notable examples of big birds in small-but-safe boxes.

                                      Bottom line is that there are multiple levers to balance before, during, and after an actual subject matter is selected. We do our best to balance them all for you.



                                      And for the record, I would also like a Jaguar (although considering its complex undercarriage we might as well do a Flogger or Aardvark)
                                      Motion RC and Freewing are doing a stellar job of trying to do exactly what you have explained here in terms of getting the best products to us. I was once a 3D and Industrial Designer back in the 80's and the challenge is what you said in your reply. The real science of marketing is packaging and trying to compress size, but then afford bigger size upon assembly of product! The packing foam that all the airplane parts sit in, kind of dictates the total shipping size due to the need of cushioning of the airplane parts. I work in electronics now and when we get stuff from China; Japan and America; it comes in huge cardboard boxes with huge foam waste and plastic. When we get products from Germany; Austria and Switzerland; the boxes are smaller; tighter; quite different and less foam. Sometimes even thin plywood installed, to act as a "hard wall" against shifting. The idea of a smaller, more compressed "hard shell" box, would reduce overall size and allow for tighter packing of airplane parts; but, the hard shell could be much more expensive seeing as though cheap cardboard and foam will be jettisoned for recycling anyway. I once read that Henry Ford made custom wooden crates that were to be used at the other end for vehicle floorboards. Shipping and packaging is truly an art. In any event, we appreciate the amount of effort going into product design and creation. Leaps and bounds have proven themselves in your products! If I had the dough, I'd retire and buy everything you sell and have lots of fun for many moons!!!!....

                                      Comment


                                      • After reading Alphas post that's bigger planes are going to cause bigger headaches I understand that bigger is not always better in some situations like in the RC Market hopefully this airplane won't be too much of a headache to recreate Market ship and sell
                                        the de Havilland sea vixen it looks to be a pretty straightforward design motion RC already makes a twin Boom Jet, this would just be a little bit bigger. I hope this plane sees the light of day

                                        Comment


                                        • Also let me add that I don't think there are not enough British Jets out there because the Brits know how to make a pretty looking airplane that can perform so here are a few of my suggestions the Hawker Hunter, supermarine scimitar, English electric lightning, supermarine Swift, and Hawker Sea Hawk
                                          Attached Files

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X