Civilian Planes

[OV10]

A nice low wing twin with GOOD landing gear that can handle grass . There are quite a few high wing singles on the market to choose from but a low wing twin with power would be great. I feel like the MFGS may have over looked that many of us only have grass for runways .


Bryan

Hey Hippie..............exactly. Now you should be expressing your desire for that Lockheed Electra I was nudging Alpha on earlier. ;) or a Ventura ;);)

[Hippie 64]

Charlie you are hitting the nail on the head . Forgive me for not knowing the names of the planes your speaking of . I can look at it and say that's what I want but can't name it .


Bryan

[Alpha]

I love a good low wing twin, too!

I wouldn't say overlooking grass operators is the MFR's intentional doing so much as it is they're confined by the limitations inherent in the size range we're talking about for most foam electric aircraft. Most any warbird or scale plane (aside from a swamper wheeled Cub style plane) with 1400mm or less wingspan typically uses wheels under 3" tall, most in the ~2.5" range, if MFRs are to keep the scale close.

Low wing twins, in the context of this size range (1400mm and under) aren't the best for grass simply due to ground clearance. If grass is 1" tall, for example, and a fuselage and low wing has, say, 5" of ground clearance to the bottom of the wheels for a plane in this scale, that leaves 4" from the bottom of the grass to the leading edge of the wing. A centrally mounted motor would limit that aircraft to an 8" prop, and that would still nip the top of the grass during compression upon landing, and any other imperfect depression in the surface.

This is a big reason why MFRs have modeled mid-wing twins instead, like the P-38 and Mosquito, and why among all the foam electric foam MFRs there are so few low wing twins. I can't think of a single low wing electric twin from Horizon or FMS or Freewing, or Durafly. The Dynam Sky Cruiser has undersized props, and yet mine is still a lawnmower on very short grass! Their 1500mm BF-110 and 1500mm C-47 are better on grass due to their tail dragger configuration. But even then, it could stand to be 1700mm wingspan and have larger wheels. We all understand that a larger wingspan airplane would be able to run larger wheels, which would be better suited for taller grass. But at that point, past figures would project that a move from 1500mm to 1700mm or larger would result in plummeting sales. Bigger is better for grass, but bigger simply doesn't sell. The Carbon Z T-28 is a fantastic example. I love that plane. Flap hinges aside, it's an excellent flying aircraft. Huge, and eats up grass like any comparably sized balsa plane (and better in fact because it's usually lighter, comparatively). But I can tell you that the smaller Eflite T-28 sells circles around the big one.

As a slightly related topic, this ground clearance on grass issue is another contributing factor to why there are so few airliners in this size range. Their scale wheels are tiny! Xplaneguy has an A320 from Supreme Hobbies that flies amazingly, truly thrilling, but those tiny wheels wouldn't have a chance on anything other than pavement or the flattest golfing green of a couple millimeters, nevermind the grass of most pilots' RC fields. It's not Supreme Hobbies' fault; but it is an unavoidable limitation when building aircraft this size.

The alternative: Make 'em BIG. Which, personally I wouldn't mind.

[OV10]

Hello Alpha,
My take away of your post #23 comments................
I don't believe that the mainstream serious buyer of a twin for grass operations is really looking for anything under 1400mm, whereas they are wanting the 1500 to 1600 size. The undoubtedly popular support to the FL P-38 must tell you and the manufacturer that this size is very much a viable format that has shown that the consumer will support it, so slightly bigger does sell. Very few civilian airframes are viable candidates as you mentioned by your reference to the Dynam Sky Cruiser as an example to be able to perform satisfactorily on grass strips. The manufacturer has to be able to smartly choose an airframe to model that can do the basics of what I indicated in my comments of post #16. An overtly overlooked airframe that could handle anything we modelers could throw at it is the Bronco ;) but since this IS a thread on civilian aircraft the choices to pick from are very limited because the majority where designed with smaller wheels for concrete usage. Aircraft that where capable of(or possibly even designed for) unimproved strip operations makes things like the Electra a no brainer because of those traits and it is nostalgic looking and has history. The manufacturers have to start thinking outside the box of the half dozen modeled to exhausted lengths and I am one that is still championing the cause that Flight Line will do that for us guys in the next size up range.
Best regards,

[Alpha]

So if we develop a 1600mm Beechcraft Baron or Lockheed Electra, and pay the [significant] royalties to those companies, you guys will buy 'em in the quantities of the P-38? Yes, please! :) Your Bronco is a great example of a high wing twin that would be great in 1600mm AND be able to eat up grass with less trouble than a low wing twin. But I'm still unsure of its popularity at $349. Crystal ball, crystal ball.... Joking aside, developing a model that doesn't sell well is no laughing matter. I've said it before and I'll say it again, our efforts in brands like FlightLineRC to do never before or rarely modeled aircraft in foam electric is a massive effort. As everyone's deeply valued support continues, we're able to keep the doors open for more aircraft that fit that mold.

See what I did there? :)

[dkalwishky]

So if we develop a 1600mm Beechcraft Baron or Lockheed Electra, and pay the [significant] royalties to those companies, you guys will buy 'em in the quantities of the P-38? Yes, please! :)

I would.

(These are more characters to get to the 10 character minimum on posting a reply)

[F106DeltaDart]

I may catch some flak for saying this, but what about starting off with a Flightline C-47/DC-3 in 1600? Yes it has been done over by GWS, Dynam, and hobbyking but none where really well done full house models. The hobbyking was the closest, but had the wrong canopy shape, exploding props, motor issues, weak gear, and very boring and unrealistic paint schemes. I think a DC-3/C-47 with a scale outline, good paint scheme, and accurate retracts would sell out at a $349 price point, and make a nice testbed for trying to see how civilian planes sell. And, it could be released easily in multiple versions, maybe civilian, D-Day, and an AC-47.

[OV10]

Your Bronco is a great example of a high wing twin that would be great in 1600mm AND be able to eat up grass with less trouble than a low wing twin. But I'm still unsure of its popularity at $349
See what I did there? :)

Actually a more conducive size of 1500mm for 1/8 scale would be the ticket for transport management with a possibly smaller price ticket($325;)) which helps entice fence sitters. You might even believe that North American Rockwell would be receptive to non exorbitant royalties than say the civilian airframe manufactures especially if the cause helps them exploit the media for the latest efforts in the past couple years to use the Bronco as a Special Forces CAS platform against ISIS.
I hear ya on the popularity because there is STILL those that are stuck in the middle of the box and want yet another Spitty done. :dodgy:

[OV10]

I may catch some flak for saying this, but what about starting off with a Flightline C-47/DC-3 in 1600? Yes it has been done over by GWS, Dynam, and hobbyking but none where really well done full house models. The hobbyking was the closest, but had the wrong canopy shape, exploding props, motor issues, weak gear, and very boring and unrealistic paint schemes. I think a DC-3/C-47 with a scale outline, good paint scheme, and accurate retracts would sell out at a $349 price point, and make a nice testbed for trying to see hoe civilian planes sell. And, it could be released easily in multiple versions, maybe civilian, D-Day, and an AC-47.

What he said!!

[dkalwishky]

I may catch some flak for saying this, but what about starting off with a Flightline C-47/DC-3 in 1600?

You won't catch flak from me, I'd love to see a good quality one for the same reasons you mentioned.

[PappaBear]

I would love to see an Shrike Commander as a tribute to Bob Hoover. Although Bob flew almost every thing with wings, but he is very well known for his performances in the Shrike Commander.

Martin.

[Alpha]

What are some schemes for the C-47/DC-3 that you guys would want to see? There are SO MANY. Callie would love a basic scheme with just a couple liveries and from there she can take care of everyone.

[F106DeltaDart]

I would definitely want the lead plane on D-Day, "That's all Brother" that is currently under restoration to flying condition by the CAF.

[F106DeltaDart]

Here's a couple of ideas for civilian schemes as well.

[Bajora]

I LIKE the way Martin and Alpha think ... an Aero Commander would be way cool IMO!

[Hippie 64]

Well I can say this from experience that YES a really well built C-47 DC-3 with nice features and gear would be great . I did get the HK one and the size is nice but quality sucks !!! Callie as some very nice schemes for that plane from HK already done . Here is mine .

I have made two purchases from them and regret ever finding their site .

I a few months back said I mentioned how much I would like to see Dynam add retracts to their version but the replies were not very positive.

I too love all of the Warbirds and get a joy out of them but at the same time it would be nice to see something that in our present day I could point out to my Grandsons , Look we just saw this one at the airport , then give it throttle and up it goes .


Bryan

[Westsider]

Civilian, two too many engines for this thread, but I'm seeing double right now...how about a good sized Connie or Super Connie. Don't know how they would do on grass though. Love that plane.

[wvrailfan]

I'd like a C-47, or in NAVY speak an R-4D, in the later high visibility colors. They are good looking and really easy to see. A nice historic plane would be the NAVY plane named Que Sera Sera, the first plane to land at the South Pole! Including skis would be cool, but most of us can likely engineer a set if we want them bad enough.

There was also a one off Army C-47, acquired second hand from the Navy used for the Ethiopian Mapping Mission in the 1960s. The Army simply repainted it into the Navy scheme but substituted the word ARMY for NAVY.

The up side of the DC-3/C-47 is the paint and lettering scheme options, both civilian and military are almost endless. Which would make an undecorated version a plus for those inclined to wrap or paint their own;-)

Jim

[boomer108]

I definitely would like to see the Viet Nam era C-47 Spooky aka Puff the Magic Dragon.

[OV10]

I definitely would like to see the Viet Nam era C-47 Spooky aka Puff the Magic Dragon.

I had the very same thought but then held back saying it because we could easily hijack the 'civi' nature of this thread with our passion for warbirds.