-
And an OV10 Bronco. Agree 100% but how do these small Chinese fly by night ops put out the bizarre like the YF-23 and the popular F-22? Seems like they universally have major issues but people always buy them and then exchange everything out to make it flyable. After reading your prototype narrative above, it seems the mold is the most expensive part of model making. If that’s true, how do these little guys make it? Do they steal the molds as some have mentioned on other forums? Also, agree with a community comment. When you release a 64mm, I simply say, “how nice...” and move on. When you release something Russian, I do the same thing. Now, when you release a 90mm heavy metal plane, I sit up and take notice. Other people may be completely opposite so I understand the need for a wide ranging inventory. -
Sorry friends, while the Convair B-58 Hustler is one my top three favorite bombers of all time, it is not Project Foil. I had the privilege of watching Dorian Anderson's scratchbuilt 4x70mm B-58 come to life a few years ago, eventually watching it fly in 2013, and having crawled all over that model I can safely say I'd rather develop a Blackbird or Concorde or Lancer or Spirit or Vulcan if I'm going to attempt "crazy/big/expensive/limited". The only other commonly requested models more difficult to *cost-effectively* execute in foam EDF PNP than a Hustler would be a BUFF, XB-70, or Harrier/VTOL'd F-35. All of these are on my personal dreamlist as a modeler for sure, but far from cost-effective as a developer. Every year we do include a curveball Project in the mix to test market appetites, and in general I'd say we push the "New" envelope more than most, but overall the fundamental priority is to stay alive by wisely managing risk.
While a stunning and gorgeous aircraft to watch in the sky, Dorian's 4x70mm B-58 presented a host of challenges in composite/wood that would be expensive to execute in foam. I consider Dorian a Master Builder far more skilled than I and we mulled over some of those challenges he overcame, while the whole time in my head I'm thinking down the list from a mass-production standpoint: "bad, expensive, bad, bad, expensive, bad, expensive...." As an example, the nacelles would be about the length of the 64mm F-105, and there'd be four of them, and the length of the sharp lipped duct would rob efficiency. Necessarily thickening the nacelles and long pylons so they'd be strong enough to bear the nacelle's loads would change the overall proportions of the original aircraft to being thicker and more rounded, which for a sleek delta like the Hustler would seem a crime. The look of the aircraft would begin to change, and on an aircraft like this at this scale, it would be more noticeable than some of us realize. I drew a quick dimensioning analysis in 2015 to see what the actual proportions would be for the Hustler in foam, and it looked "off". Ground clearance is a huge concern also, and judging from the flak we get about oversizing A-10 wheels for grass ops I'm certain I'd get hung for how non-scale the Hustler's undercarriage would have to be :). I can't put 1.5" wheels on a 70" long PNP.
The model's size, even at 4x70mm, actually isn't a concern in my book. I think the size would be great! But that size would directly translate to cost. Fitting it in a mold, then fitting it in a shippable box, then us paying for that shipping cost out to customers. The adage that bigger flies better is true, but bigger is also more expensive and I'd openly wonder about the mass market appeal of a 4x70mm bomber that required four 6s 4000s to fly well and easily cost north of $600. Could a six figure investment be recouped? If we're honest with the data, probably not.
In another attempt to try to put this guessing thread back on track, Project Foil isn't bare aluminum, either. :-P
Instead of sidetracking this Project Foil guessing game thread, someone should start a separate Wishlist thread or Poll thread so we can keep better track of people's wishlists for aircraft of all sizes/types/formats. They're always fun to see, and do contribute to our internal discussions, so keep the lists coming! The one thing I'd ask is please don't set one model in your mind as the only thing that would make you happy. We're part of a community and part of my dream is for us as a community to support the advancement of the community at large. That means that sometimes a small warbird is going to hit shelves for guys with smaller budgets or fields, sometimes it's going to be that big scale jet, sometimes it's going to be a trainer because new pilots are critical to growing the hobby, and on and on. Sometimes we're going to release something right up your alley, which is great, but sometimes we won't, and we hope that's okay, too. I hope more of us can root for the expansion of the hobby as a concept unrooted from any single product. "Something for everyone" is key. As a modeler, and as a developer, I have come to embrace the realization that even if every single full size aircraft ever made had a well flying, well priced, well serviced RC model counterpart for people to buy, this Hobby *still* wouldn't be growing in the way it should be. It's not about making a Hustler and a Concorde and a Starship and a Mars and a Hun and an Owl and a Gannet and a Swoose Goose and a Flying Pancake and a Pfeil and a Fulcrum and a Lancer and a Fishbed and Dragon Rapide and a Short Stirling and an Eagle and a Voodoo and a Viggen and a Horten and another F-16 and a Beaufighter and a Dart and Hayate and a Shinryu and Lancaster and a Lancair and a Libellula and a Tomcat and a Foxbat and a Moonbat, and, and, and, and, and, and, AND, and, and.... Rather, it's about inspiring and engaging people of all ages to fly something, and keep flying, and do so safely, while having lots of fun, and hopefully sharing that fun with someone new. We each have a bigger role to play in the proliferation of our beloved Hobby, my friends. It's us, not the planes, that will do it.
Actually on second thought I do need to make a Moonbat.Leave a comment:
-
Definitely a sweet looking bomber! Needs an equally good looking fighter to escort it!Originally posted by MANFRED View PostLeave a comment:
-
Just think quad 70s are just a little high on the current draw. Twin 70s or 80s would be greatLeave a comment:
-
64s are too whiney, The biggest issue with this ship would be the long nose gear and main gear complexity. Can you imagine this ship covered in flite metal or metal tape?Leave a comment:
-
I would say twin 80s or quad 64mm. Any larger would make it overpricedLeave a comment:
-
In order for the Hustler to work, it would need four edfs and balloon tires, IMO!Leave a comment:
-
Who wouldn't buy one of these? Gotta be twin 90s with dummies on outboardLeave a comment:
-
That would be awesome!!Originally posted by MANFRED View PostLeave a comment:
You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments
Leave a comment: