An open letter

[scigs30]

Im just happy to have good quality laser cut balsa. Im hoping to buy my own laser cutter soon. If Guillows re engineered their kits, well they wouldn't be a Guillows kit. These are great kits as designed, just know they won't win any contest except the Hellcat. I have built them all and they all fly with no major modifications other than replace the rubber. A remove able nose block makes flying and trimming easier but no need to re design their kits. I like building these kits for nostalgia, and they are easy builds. Good job Guillows keep up the good work.

[David Lewis]

You're bringing up a good point. Whatever modernization is done, that special Guillow's nostalgia and mystique we all know and love must be preserved. What's your opinion on improving the scale fidelity, as long as it doesn't detract from flight performance, or make it harder to build?

[PsyberPhlier]

Im just happy to have good quality laser cut balsa. Im hoping to buy my own laser cutter soon. If Guillows re engineered their kits, well they wouldn't be a Guillows kit. These are great kits as designed, just know they won't win any contest except the Hellcat. I have built them all and they all fly with no major modifications other than replace the rubber. A remove able nose block makes flying and trimming easier but no need to re design their kits. I like building these kits for nostalgia, and they are easy builds. Good job Guillows keep up the good work.

Maybe with better balsa and better fitting parts, Guillows kits could win a contest...

Just because the parts fit better is not enough reason to say they would not "be a Guillows kit".

Ted

[kittyfritters]

What's your opinion on improving the scale fidelity, as long as it doesn't detract from flight performance, or make it any harder to build?

Scale fidelity is one of those things were "your mileage may vary" depending on who drew it, when it was drawn, the conditions under which the kit is to be produced, and what set of references were used. With some real aircraft there can be noticeable, and sometimes even radical, differences from one version of the same aircraft to another. You have to decide on which version you are going to model and which set of references you are going to use for that version. The 400 series, Fw-190 has be called by scale modeler magazines (Yes, the ones that cater to the guys that super detail plastic models!) as the finest representation of that aircraft available in a rubber powered flying model. The 400 series Bf-109, on the other hand, has brought out guesses that it was referenced from one of the notoriously inaccurate pre-WW2 solid model plans.

For example: the Turbo-Beaver, with its longer nose, would make a much better flying model than the round engined Beaver, but to most people the old, round engined Beaver is what they think of as a "Beaver". That's why the version was chosen, a simple sales decision. The references for it were the best I could find, old DeHavilland of Canada drawings that go back almost to the prototype and why the model is of the original "port hole" version. The fact that the carb air scoop is the "upper induction" type was purely and aesthetic decision made after several people involved viewed prototypes with that and the original under the cowl air scoop. The addition of the float plans and kit was done, again, because many people think that without floats, it's not a "Beaver".

The kit has parts for both a scale sized and an oversize elevator for flying. My tests with prototypes showed that the model will fly (It was tested as a rubber powered, free-flight model only.) with the scale elevator. It is, however, much easier to trim with the oversize elevator which is why both are supplied in the kit (and the Porter and Edge 540.) The flying dihedral was determined by starting out with a prototype that had dihedral determined by a common "rule of thumb" and then reducing the dihedral over a test flying program (Simply shortening the struts in this case. Carry a sharp blade and lots of C/A to the flying field!) until it became unstable. The dihedral the prototype started with actually caused "Dutch Roll" and the minimum dihedral it could fly with was not that far off scale. The strut length chosen is the one that made the model trim most easily and reliably and, as in other Guillow's kits, you simply cut it to scale length for a static model. There are several Beaver kits on the market that have simple box fuselages ignoring the fact that the "corners" of the Beaver's fuselage are round. This model needed to have more scale fidelity which is why the tight cluster of stringers, to define the curve, at the corners of the fuselage. The Porter has the same thing for the same reasons.

I could go on for pages about the decisions that are made in a design, and why they are made, but I think that you get the idea. If I were designing the same model as a one-off, scratch build for myself many of the decisions would have been different, but when you are doing a design that is for a production kit that is to advance, but still fit in an existing product line there are constraints. The trick is to maintain a good balance between scale fidelity, producibility, and flyability while observing those constraints.

Keep 'Em Flying!

Howard

[David Lewis]

Thanks, Howard, your contributions are always pithy and insightful. Some models designed 50 or more years ago are grievously out of scale because 1. the customer base (primarily boys) was not terribly discriminating, 2. modelers' attitudes, demands and expectations have made quantum leaps in the meantime, 3. photos and 3-views were scarce, non-existent, or of poor quality, and 4. some model designers were unskilled, poorly supervised, careless or working to deadline.

kittyfritters wrote: "You have to decide on which version you are going to model and which set of references you are going to use for that version."

True. When I started out years ago, I assumed I would simply get a 3-view or maybe a plastic model kit and I'm ready to go. Wrong! I wish it were that easy. I'm amazed how many discrepancies and contradictions are uncovered when I compare different 3-views of the same airplane. Fortunately, photos help determine which parts of which drawings are correct, so the final documentation ends up being a composite that has been cross checked against different sources. Before the Internet, collecting information could consume many dollars and hours of research, and not everything you'd like to have could be found.

[Mitch]

Hi all... I know you are talking about 500 series. But Guillows was also working on 1000 series and the 2000 Lightning. I built the beta version P-47. Are the 1000 series almost ready soon also... and is it just the P-47 or all the 1000's? As far as I know only the P-47 went though the beta version test phase.

Mitch

[scigs30]

Mitch,
I have another Beta P-47 that I am starting to build next week. Will be built per the plans and I am trying to set her up for Rubber powered with no attempts to make her lighter. Of course I will make it so it is easy to convert to electric freeflight if rubber does not work. Scale? If I cared that much about scale I would build a plastic model.....I am happy if the rubber powered model I am building just looks like the real plane from ground. These builds are straight from the box, and they fly with and look ok up in the air. These were old die crushed kits.
viewtopic.php?t=1611

[Mitch]

So is that a Beta 2? Mine is still in skeleton. I would have built it different for rubber... but it is what it is. We can compare notes!
Mitch

[woundedbear]

Someone on this post said that Guillow's were milling their own wood, "OK", does that mean that Guillow's is cutting their own stock from large planks of balsa wood ? If so that would explain the improvement of the wood in the newer kits.

[kittyfritters]

Someone on this post said that Guillow's were milling their own wood, "OK", does that mean that Guillow's is cutting their own stock from large planks of balsa wood ? If so that would explain the improvement of the wood in the newer kits.

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

Howard

[Johnny ace]

I think that it is great that Guillows is improving their product.I really like the 400 series and am waiting for the other improved kits.

[NcGunny]

I wish they would have a premium kit or even a add on. I know alot of you guys fly your planes,but I build for show.The thought of vacuum formed canopies and those skinny tires is revolting..lol. My first model ever was a DR-1 from Guillows and then I went to styrene. I would gladly pay for a ...lets call it "premium hop up set" . Die cut or LC makes no difference to me..i enjoy the build. I do believe a loss of business or sales can be contributed to the simple fact that for years it was shoddy wood,die crunching messes and the kits are targeted at youths....how do you compete with PS4 or Wii's? I would really like to see the sales comparison to say Guillows Spitfire to Tamiya Spitfire. I have both on the shelf atm and I can honestly say I would grab Tamiya first because of the additional details. Yes I can make alot of premium stuff myself,alot of people cant. Make a $10.00 premium addition box for detailing and I am sure the styrene junky will buy.

[woundedbear]

I agree with johnny ace, about the 400 series kits. They all have the fuselage formers grouped together left side and right side, or port to starboard if you like, on a two sheets. That way you don't have heavier fuselage fomers on one side than the other. Now if Guillow's would cut the 1/4" x 1/4" wing spars from the same piece of 1/4" x 1/4" stock. All three of my 400 series kits came with the wing spars that all have different weights, and two of the 1/4" x 1/4" stock spars are curved, that just ain't right.

[SteveM]

My local hardwood store sells balsa timbers, I get absolutely giddy when I see them and toss a large beam into the air with one hand.

I built the 2000 series laser cut P-38 and it was very nice going together. There were a few minor issues with a couple parts not cut properly, but they have my feedback and it is up to them to incorporate it as they wish and release the kit to production when the time is right.

[Bill Gaylord]

I agree with johnny ace, about the 400 series kits. They all have the fuselage formers grouped together left side and right side, or port to starboard if you like, on a two sheets. That way you don't have heavier fuselage fomers on one side than the other. Now if Guillow's would cut the 1/4" x 1/4" wing spars from the same piece of 1/4" x 1/4" stock. All three of my 400 series kits came with the wing spars that all have different weights, and two of the 1/4" x 1/4" stock spars are curved, that just ain't right.

Yeah I've ran into that with Guillows, Sterling, Comet, whatever, with the 1/4" square stock, along with widely varying density. If a builder doesn't keep their own stock of sparring, they'll have a difficult time building an efficient model.