What's next from Motion RC?

[Aros]

I definitely side with the PNP camp and like MotionJB said, I am not a builder, don't have the tools, space and patience for building. I just love to detail, paint and fly. As for the build process PNP is the way to go for me personally. I too however have incredible admiration for hardcore builders, especially scratch. The time, talent and tools is remarkable to me.

[RCjetdude]

I can build with wood and fiberjglass and one day hope to be able to put together a JHH Mirage done as an F-21A Lion now that I have a place that I could fly such but today's foam planes are hard to beat and only getting better. Getting in the air and staying there with minimal effort is not a bad thing and makes for more/better pilots. Building is not a talent that everyone has wether it be with wood or foam and building with foam does not make one less of a craftsman than someone who builds with wood. They are just different mediums.

[RickVB]

I can build with wood and fiberjglass and one day hope to be able to put together a JHH Mirage done as an F-21A Lion now that I have a place that I could fly such but today's foam planes are hard to beat and only getting better. Getting in the air and staying there with minimal effort is not a bad thing and makes for more/better pilots. Building is not a talent that everyone has wether it be with wood or foam and building with foam does not make one less of a craftsman than someone who builds with wood. They are just different mediums.

Agreed, but what people discuss in this forum is not building. It is assembling. Building is using a set of plans and balsa/ply/fiberglass/foam to create an aircraft.

I am not denigrating foamies - I am using them as many of you are to keep flying scale models during a busy time in my life where I can't both build and fly. I just feel like people are deluding themselves when they call taking 10 parts out of a box and screwing them together "building". Even when I take 20 hours doing this adding details/pilots/custom decor/correcting design defects, I don't call it "building".

[RCjetdude]

Agreed. Building or assembling either way you are still a craftsman especially the moment you start making those 20 hours of modifications or repairs. That was my point.

[Twowingtj]

There is the matter of economy in terms of both time and money that are certainly a plus with the ARF/PNP platforms. You really can't build one for what a nice quality foamy costs. And most look really nice too. I get a lot of enjoyment flying the ones I have.

My wife and I both also still build from kits and from scratch. There is an element of fun and accomplishment from building. The main reason that we build though is because some of the planes we want to have/fly are not available as ARFs escpecially in the size we want. We have some with wingspans of 147". When you build, you also know every square inch of the plane and every component that went into it.

There is a place for both and the ultimate goal of each is to have a plane that you enjoy flying because it looks good and flys well.

[RRHandy]

There is the matter of economy in terms of both time and money that are certainly a plus with the ARF/PNP platforms. You really can't build one for what a nice quality foamy costs. And most look really nice too. I get a lot of enjoyment flying the ones I have.

My wife and I both also still build from kits and from scratch. There is an element of fun and accomplishment from building. The main reason that we build though is because some of the planes we want to have/fly are not available as ARFs escpecially in the size we want. We have some with wingspans of 147". When you build, you also know every square inch of the plane and every component that went into it.

There is a place for both and the ultimate goal of each is to have a plane that you enjoy flying because it looks good and flys well.

Well said, I too build both ways, and Happy Thanksgiving to all. R

[Grossman56]

After listening to Alpha on the pod cast, I have two planes that I think are coming down the pipes.
One:
Alpha kept calling the Liberator the Lancaster, which we all know was Britain's mainstay heavy bomber in WWII. Four motors and seldom modeled.
The other thought was that since they are the officially licensed Northrup Grumman models, the Grumman Avenger is a logical choice as well.

Grossman56

[Alpha]

Is there an "Eating Popcorn" Emoji on this forum? I need two of them, side by side. Thanks.

[Grossman56]

Like these??

Grossman56

[Grossman56]

As he sits there with a great big grin on his face :)

[Alpha]

As he sits there with a great big grin on his face :)

More like, "As he sits there with the next two prototypes within arm's reach" :D

[OV10]

More like, "As he sits there with the next two prototypes within arm's reach" :D

And what hotel name and room # ??? :Devil:

[T-CAT]

More like, "As he sits there with the next two prototypes within arm's reach" :D

LOL Are they Transformers aircraft? That would be something!

[OV10]

More like, "As he sits there with the next two prototypes within arm's reach" :D

OK Alpha.......now on to a real question. ;)
What are the next two Project names to get us moving mentally forward with our analysis/rationale gambit that you've gotten us hooked into. :Cool:

[T-CAT]

Project Turkey Leg? :)

[Alpha]

Project Foil is coming in 2018. :)

[T-CAT]

That must be the delicious left overs from Thanksgiving Project Turkey Leg. LOL:Cool:

[Alpha]

Timely thanksgiving jokes aside, Project Foil is actually a real project. :D

[Wesnc]

Please, please, please let project foil be a Lancaster or de Havilland Mosquito ..the link being "window" the thin tin FOIL strips dropped as a radar countermeasure:)
haha.....I'm still trying Alpha:Silly:

[Boots Whirlygig]

Project Foil. My brain hurts like a warehouse with no room to spare. :Confused: