The Brodak T-Rex Lives

[Bradley Walker]

I received the first prototype of my T-Rex 60 design the other day.  This is the factory's initial offeringfor the new "component kit" that should be available from Brodak in late 2008. 

Not bad for a first stab it!   

I think it looks sweet in bare bones.





PS:  The T-Rex 40 (for Brodak 40, LA, MAgnum, TT,etc) and T-Rex Jr (for the Brodak .25) are coming next.  So stay tuned!!!


-675 sq inches elliptical wing (for PA 61-75, ST 60, Saito 56-72, OS Max 52, TT 54) 




-RC engine mount of any brand (2 stroke or 4 stroke type) side mount, inverted mount, 45 degree mount, etc




-Designed to accept RE engine, SE engine, tuned pipe, etc



-3 1/4 wide front end for inboard tank mounting (like a Yatsenko Shark)



Room for pipe if you want it.



-All laser cut





-Tom Morris completely bushed style double suspended bellcrank



-Finished canopy, ready for detail



-Central Hobbies style pushrods
-All ball link controls
-Tom Morris style control horns
-Laser cut hingle slots for heavy duty hinges

-Lucky box control horn insertions
-Control hatch access to rear control horn and pushrod





-Completely covered in Phil Cartier's SLC film (very light laminating film etched for adhesion) ready for application of silkspan for traditional dope/tissue finish or direct finish onto film

-40 oz with everything on the scale.  If this were covered in $Kote (as in the case of an ARF) it would be about 2 oz heavier, so that would equal about 60-62 oz with a full pipe or 4 stroke in ARF form.  It would weigh less with a standard SE or RE on muffler setup.

I have some details to work on (like replacing the rudder---which I hate, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) and I need to work on the cowl fit, the nose ring shape,  but all in all I am 98% there.  I will add more pics when I take it back apart---it is sitting on the kitchen table so I can "think" on it)

[john e. holliday]

Hi Brad,  I agree the rudder has to go.  It does not meet the pleasing lines of the total airplane.  Reminds me of the Palmer Thunderbirds which I still think are the prettiest planes in the world.  I will wait for the 40 and 25 size.  Gave up on the Cardinette and ordered the plans.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Bradley Walker]

Hi Brad,  I agree the rudder has to go.  It does not meet the pleasing lines of the total airplane.  Reminds me of the Palmer Thunderbirds which I still think are the prettiest planes in the world.  I will wait for the 40 and 25 size.  Gave up on the Cardinette and ordered the plans.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

The Cardinette is in the works too.  Bob Z and I compared notes on the .25/35 designs.  Both are *kewl* full fuselage, full blown stunt planes just smaller!!!

Please be patient.  Many of the initial offerings for the ARF/ARC market were rushed.  We do not want to do this any more.  We want to get it right and blow everyone away!  I can tell you this, the newest airplanes are INCREDIBLE.  The factory is really getting this stunt plane construction down...

[Bradley Walker]

It does not meet the pleasing lines of the total airplane.  Reminds me of the Palmer Thunderbirds which I still think are the prettiest planes in the world. 

Hey, it is SUPPOSED to...

T-Rex/T-Bird...  get it?

The T-Rex is my tribute to the Palmer designs (and Dixon's T-Bird 60) for the new millennium.

[wwwarbird]

Looking good so far! I also agree with the rudder change, that's the first thing I noticed. Along with the rudder change, I would suggest also giving the elevator an elliptical outline to match the T/E of the wing. Can we see a profile shot?

[Bootlegger]

  Price and availability ??

[Tom Taylor]

I want one!

[John Paris]

Brad,
The airplane looks very nice and I am sure will look better with a tail modification.  You mention that the controls are from Morris.  What is the plan for use on the elevator side?  A slider or holes?  For the RC mount, I assume that the firewall is blank so that you can drill your own to match the mounting angle and engine you want-is this the case?  Will the tank compartment accept a plastic clunk tank or is it more designed around the 2" metal tanks?  Thanks in advance for the info.
John

[Bradley Walker]

Brad,
The airplane looks very nice and I am sure will look better with a tail modification.  You mention that the controls are from Morris.  What is the plan for use on the elevator side?  A slider or holes?  For the RC mount, I assume that the firewall is blank so that you can drill your own to match the mounting angle and engine you want-is this the case?  Will the tank compartment accept a plastic clunk tank or is it more designed around the 2" metal tanks?  Thanks in advance for the info.
John

1.  Tom Morris style.  The controls look almost identical.  They are manufactured by the factory.  I will take some pics, you will see what I mean.
2.  Use a hole.  Most people would be better off to use 1/1 and not mess with elevator throws.
3.  Yes.  The firewall is blank, and I plan to include an additional piece of ply to attach to that firewall once the holes are drilled for whatever mounts the user wishes to choose (in whatever location also, in case you which to so side mount, you may wish to center the thrustline).  Since there is no spinner to align the world is your oyster, you can put the engine wherever you wish.
4.  The tank compartment is set up for plastic clunk tanks.  I recommend the Sullivan standard 6 or  8 oz.

[Bradley Walker]

More pics

[Wynn Robins]

Late 2008???  Sheesh - you mean I have to wait a WHOLE year? 

looks cool

[Steve Hand]

That is a very, very nice build. Who did the work in China or is that a company secret? That is a superb kit>

[Bradley Walker]

We all agree the rudder has to go.  I think I heard that before, where?  Anyway...  I think I can come up with something a little more sexy.

All of Brodak's pre-built kits are done by the same company.  I am not sure of their independent name.

The T-Rex may possibly be in the next container from China after the Christmas container.  Which means summer (maybe).  If it flies like I think it is going to fly, we should be able to go right into production.

It should sell for a price similar to Brodak's other designs.

[Bob Zambelli]

Brad - GREAT JOB!!! 

To all reading this, from what I've seen of the preliminary plans for this design, it really looks like a winner.

For those who are into 4-stroke engines, the Jr. version should be perfect for a Surpass .26 or SAITO .30.

Bob Z.

[Doug Moon]

I went and saw the plane yesterday morning.

I noticed right away the construction is superb.  Everything is laser cut.  It all fits very tight there are no gaps.  Where you can see glue, not very often by the way, the amounts used are even and the same on those types of joints throughout the plane.  For example, there are longerons(sp) that support the top and bottom sheeting and you can see the glue seem and it is even and the same all the way down the peices. (Yep top and bottom sheeting, no blocks here!)  There are no extra unwanted glue beads.  Brad's design is excellent and makes construction like a puzzle.  It all locks together.  I-Beam support and the dual tank floor to support the firewall mount for the motor will make the structure very strong.  Double thick firewall will assure you the motor is going nowhere and vibration will be nil.  The wing is straight as an arrow and all the seems are very tight.  The LE radius (VERY IMPORTANT) is even across the entire wing.  The covering application is very good.  Controls, one word, Tom Morris.  It is very evident that they DO have a clue!  They are also listening to input from the designer.  I have seen other models they have produced and the construction was different.  Very good but different. 

I think this will be another great addition to the line of products already offered.  Just another option for the stunt flier to take advantage of.  I find it very promising that at this early stage in ARF development for CLPA that the models are already so advanced.  We are still in its infancy.  The companies work with the designers to put out a good product and that is most promising of all!!!

Look for more of this as time goes on.

[Larry Renger]

I noticed that the wing is covered in a clear film.  What is that all about?

The plane looks great, and I would be extremely interested in the .25 version!

[Bill Little]

I noticed that the wing is covered in a clear film.  What is that all about?

The plane looks great, and I would be extremely interested in the .25 version!

-Completely covered in Phil Cartier's SLC film (very light laminating film etched for adhesion) ready for application of silkspan for traditional dope/tissue finish or direct finish onto film

[John Paris]

Will Brodak add this to his kit line as well or will it be an ARF/ARC only offering?  Is the SLC covering on the parts considered ARF or ARC?
John

[Bradley Walker]

Double thick firewall will assure you the motor is going nowhere and vibration will be nil.  The wing is straight as an arrow and all the seems are very tight. 

Well, it would be difficult to install the mounts through the nose (drilling the holes, etc).  As you might have noticed the entire nose is one piece.  I wanted the nose to be a one piece SOLID AND SEAMLESS unit and not “put together” or capped like the current ARF’s.  I figured we would include another firewall piece of plywood with the kit.  Then the user could go to the hobby shop and buy the mounts the user wants to use for the particular engine (one piece, two piece, long (4 stroke), short (2 stroke), of whatever brand you like.  Then the user could position the mounts in whatever configuration desired (side mount, inverted mount, 45 degree mount), install the mounts, drill the holes outside of the plane using your drill press, set the blind nuts, and test fit the engine without any interference.  Then all that would be required would be to attach the firewall to the reference firewall provided in the plane with epoxy or poly glue.  I think this would make for a much, much easier and more accurate installation.

The tank floor has also been omitted.  I am not sure if it would help to install your own tank floor.  I think it might.  Then you could build the tank installation outside of the plane (depending on whatever tank YOU CHOOSE to use) then just glue the tank floor in as an after thought.

[Bradley Walker]

Will Brodak add this to his kit line as well or will it be an ARF/ARC only offering?  Is the SLC covering on the parts considered ARF or ARC?

I guess it will be up to John, but I assume there will be a $Kote version.

The way you see it is the "Pre-Assembled Component Kit" (PAC Kit) version.   This is the "kit" by the modern definition.   It is ready for covering with tissue (which I suggest) or painting directly onto the film.  If I have it my way, there will be no ARC at all.  I do not think there will ever be a "box of parts" kit, there is no need.  Brodak is selling pre-built part kits to box of parts kits about 5 to 1.

I am almost finished covering the model in tissue.  I will post pics when I get done.  Covering the plane in tissue is a snap!!!  I used Polycrylic and standard Peck Polymer tissue and the PC sticks like crazy to the film and it barely takes any at all to entirely fill the tissue as none of the liquid penetrates the wood (there is also no wood grain at all to deal with). 

Once the plane is covered in tissue it can be finished as "normal" without any regard to the film at all.  The main difference being that the entire plane is FLAT AND FINISHED without any need for fill (especially in the open bays), and you basically cannot puncture the open bays.

[RC Storick]

I guess it will be up to John, but I assume there will be a $Kote version.
I do not think there will ever be a "box of parts" kit, there is no need.  Brodak is selling pre-built part kits to box of parts kits about 5 to 1.

I am sure John will follow the money. If you want to see this plane fly in competition you should hope it will be available in kit form.

[Bradley Walker]

I am sure John will follow the money. If you want to see this plane fly in competition you should hope it will be available in kit form.

It is available in kit form.  You are looking at it.

There certainly is no difference between this kit and a Tom Morris Quick Build Kit which has already been used at the highest levels of competition.  Even if there were any argument (which always seems to enter into it), by the current definition, all that is required to compete at the highest levels of competition is to apply the covering.  I suggest the user should apply the covering as I said.

I am not sure what your "follow the money" is meant to mean, but it is typically not a positive term.

John does not make people buy ARF's.  People buy ARF's because they want them. 

John makes money on kits, but the DEMAND for ARF's is out pacing "old school" kits 5 to 1.  The last run of ARF Stregas lasted only a few weeks.  Those are just the facts.  Laser cut Strega kits are sitting on the shelf and ARF's are flying out the door.  That is just the way it is.  John has no control over it.

BTW, John is probably happy to have sales that are not losing money (like the dope business), so my guess is that pre-assembled kits and ARF's will be very common in the future.

Keep in mind, the SV-11 and Legacy are also coming out in ARF and ARC form this next year, both are obviously competition ships and I guarantee that people are going to want to fly them in competition and not be penalized.

[Bill Morell]

Brad, it is a good looking design. I am a little surprised that it is not set up for a spinner. With the complex construction that has already been done it does not seem that this would have been to hard to have done. While I understand that alot of people embrace ARFS I simply can't relate to them. Building is more than half the joy in this hobby for me.

[Bradley Walker]

Brad, it is a good looking design. I am a little surprised that it is not set up for a spinner. With the complex construction that has already been done it does not seem that this would have been to hard to have done.

Spinner = 2 plus oz of stuff (edited from "crap" for clarity) you don't need and serves no purpose at all.

Here are pics of the wing covered in Peck Polymer tissue.  I attached the tissue with Polycrylic with zinc stearate. 

Shown here it has been sanded and is ready for primer.

[Randy Powell]

My old dad used to say, when you don't understand something (people's actions or whatever), follow the money. That usually makes everything clear. I don't see this as a bad thing. Seems neither good nor bad. John runs a business. I would expect him to do what is most profitable for his company. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Bradley Walker]

My old dad used to say, when you don't understand something (people's actions or whatever), follow the money. That usually makes everything clear. I don't see this as a bad thing. Seems neither good nor bad. John runs a business. I would expect him to do what is most profitable for his company. I see nothing wrong with that.

Not to pick, but John does not make any higher percentage on ARF's than he does on kits .  Just so you know he sells everything at the same markup.

The difference is that the PUBLIC wants 5 times as many ARF's as kits.

As old Kevin Costner said "if you build it they will come".

[Marvin Denny]

   Lets see now---HMMM--- Wing already assembled and COVERED,  Fuselage already assembled and COVERED,  Tail feathers  already assembled and COVERED.  HMMM   That seems to me to be an ARF--- not a kit.  Just because one CHOOSES to add aditional covering or additional paint does not make it a kit as I see it. I don't THINK that you could paint over the $cote on an ARF Nobler and call it a KIT and get by with it.
  I do like the appearance though (except the Blob nose)
  Good luck with the sales  of it Brad.

  Bigiron  (Any Eliptical wing plane is pretty)

[Doug Moon]

I am sorry but that covering stipulation in the rule is CRAP!  It says coverwhere needed right?  So if the plane comes fully sheeted then there is no covering needed and it complies, but this one wouldnt makes no sense to me.  NONE.  Anyone who opens an ARC knows full well it would not and never would ever comply with the rule and its intent to keep people building.  So drop the thing already and move on. 

ARC's promotes learning to cover and not learning to build.  Seems pretty pointless. 

[RC Storick]

This plane is a ARF. Plain and simple. ALMOST READY TO FLY.  Along with the noblers and other things that you guys are working on. It says in the rules already covered out of the box. Is the covered out of the box? Hum. Nice practice plane tho. Follow the money is because he is in business, not derogatory.

I'm sure it will be at least another 2 years before you can take a stab at changing the rule again.

[RC Storick]

So drop the thing already and move on. 

No lets make the rule more stringent. Have your documentation of building the plane in hand and every contest goes by the AMA rules of appearance points or subject themselves from not receiving a charter.

[peabody]

Robert...
I sanction several stunt events annually.....NOT because the Academy does a terrific job promoting contests, but because I support our AMA......

I have a mailing list of 900 people, mostly local, and with the Internet it seems as if sanctioning something is becoming less and less important to turn out......

The rules also state that a CD may add or delete events or portions of them as long as these are posted in the sanction....

I think that this latest batch of flyer assembled kits is a HUGE step...

[RC Storick]

Rich what I mean is if they don't follow the AMA rule book the don't get a charter for the contest. That would put an end to the sketchy rules that someone dreams up. If it aint by the book you dont get a charter.

In the old days when you went to a stock car race everyone had a stock car the you could by from a dealer. later on when NASCAR took over you cant find a stock part on todays stock car. I has become a sport of who has the most money wins. Is this how you want our hobby to go? And it will!

RC patten is that way now.

[wwwarbird]

No politics on this site, right?

Now, about the airplane...

[Bradley Walker]

Rich what I mean is if they don't follow the AMA rule book the don't get a charter for the contest. That would put an end to the sketchy rules that someone dreams up. If it aint by the book you dont get a charter.

Rich is right, the BOM can be dropped in any contest.  Heck, Robert, you just flew in a contest a few months ago with no BOM.

It appears that the rules board has ratified the "interpretation" to the BOM (i had not read it yet)  It is as follows:

Interpreted rule:

6. Builder of Model. The CD shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely “constructed’ the model(s) he uses in competition, including the covering where used, with “constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model starting with no more prefabrication than the amount used in the average kit (“average kit” is interpreted by Control Line Aerobatics as a model that may consist of precut, unassembled parts or assembled (uncovered) subcomponents such as wings, horizontal and vertical stab, fuselage; requiring a few hours of assembly time and covering). Models which are completely prefabricated (“completely prefabricated” is interpreted as the model is ready to fly out of the box or in a few minutes (less than an hour) of assembly time.) and require only a few minutes (less than an hour) of unskilled effort for their completion shall be excluded from competition. (Control Aerobatics additionally interprets that any model, that is pre-covered in the box is excluded from competition). In the case of rubber-powered models (excluding Indoor duration models), commercially available balsa, plastic, and hardwood propellers may be used. Materials and design may be obtained from any source, including kits. The builder-of-the-model rule applies to every AMA event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event.

So, that means we will not ship planes like this for competition use with the covering applied.  Uncovered assembled components are legal, so I guess you will have to apply your own film or have the plane shipped in a bag not a box!!!

Too bad though, the factory does a wonderful job applying this really neat mylar as a base for a traditional "dope and tissue" finish.  I know I have spent just as much time applying covering TISSUE OVER the mylar, as I would have spent if it were not there.  No problem as far as I am concerned, I would still do the same plane with the same finish as shown here, I would just apply the film myself.  The film is so wonderful to work with it still makes for a very easy and rugged system.

I do not see how they can say that a ship that is covered in the box is excluded from competition.  What about a Yatsenko plane that is completely molded in the box???!!!  By definition it is covered.  Crazy...  but hey, I can live with it...

[Bill Morell]

I agree with Robert on this 1000%. A guy that lives across the street from me is a R/C flyer. When he comes over to see what I am working on he is completely confused as to why do I bother? "Why don't you get one of those ARFS from the hobby store where my daughter works? So much easier and a faster way to fly" He doesn't know how to build anything. Only knows how to assemble parts somebody else built. Thats where we are headed but I won't be a part of it.

[Will Hinton]

I'm rather confused by the statement that a spinner is a 2 oz piece of crap.  Can you give me the reasoning behind that?
It's possible you have never had an engine saved from extra damage because of the spinner providing the progressive collapse in a less than straight in crash as I have.
My full scale Piper Pawnee was built with progressive collapse as a deliberate safety design - engine compartment/ built for four g's - fuel tank compartment/6 g's - spray compartment/10 g's - cockpit-/12+ g's.
I had a stunter crash in Columbus several years ago and the resulting damage was nil on my PA61 and all there agreed it was the progressive collapse of the spinner that saved it.  (It wasn't a straight in crash.) I refuse to fly without a spinner, and you can bet it has to be a metal one to provide the crunch factor needed, not a shattering plastic.
Blessings,
Will

[Bill Morell]

No spinner on the front of a good looking plane is kinda the "DUH" factor to me. Looks unfinished.

[Bradley Walker]

I agree with Robert on this 1000%. A guy that lives across the street from me is a R/C flyer. When he comes over to see what I am working on he is completely confused as to why do I bother? "Why don't you get one of those ARFS from the hobby store where my daughter works? So much easier and a faster way to fly" He doesn't know how to build anything. Only knows how to assemble parts somebody else built. Thats where we are headed but I won't be a part of it.

You do not have to be a part of it, but the numbers do not lie.  All of the newest kits will be pre-fabricated, and they are selling faster than they can be delivered.  So, somebody is willing to be part of it.  As the cottage industry guys start to find suppliers they will start doing models like these also, it is just a matter of time. 

I am so over it.  I have never competed with any airplane with ANY pre-fabricated components, but I am over it, and I am going to keep working on new projects like these.  I am having a blast with it!!! 

I remember being told less than 5 years ago that ARF'S would *never happen* for stunt as there would be no interest.  Well, here they are, and fliers are interested. 

[Will Hinton]

So what about the spinner question? 
Will

[gary tultz]

What Warbird said.

[Bill Morell]

Brad, I am happy that you are "having a blast". I am just intrigued that a guy that has the building and finishing skills that you have would promote this. I have seen pictures of other planes you have built and just can't see you embracing this. I realize that building from the ground up may be headed to exstinction but I don't have to help encourage it.

[Doug Moon]

This plane was designed not to have a spinner from the get go.  Look at a P-47 or a Corsair they dont have spinners and look just fine. 

Yes spinners can save a motor on impact.  They also cant sometimes.  Ask me how I know.  Spinners are used to look good and add style on stunt planes.  They are added weight for style and "some" protection.  This one just doesnt have one.   From the post it easy to see that Brad feels spinners are extra weight that he didnt want to account for, that's all. 

[Steve Hand]

Ya know,

I made a mistake on my previous post saying that this was a "kit". I did say that it looked very good. I basically congratulated you on it's production. But, do you know what seems to always follow your post's, Brad? Contentious, arguementative BS. Also, as you bring in again, the future of the state of "cottage manufacturers". Let me just say you need to speak for yourself and not the rest of us. You can "hype til the cows come home", but keep it in your own arena. I will not answer your (or your buddies) retorts. It just seems a little strange sometimes that we both use Kyle as our "real kits" manufacturer. I hope you sell a lot of them.

[Bradley Walker]

So what about the spinner question? 
Will

Billy Werwage-P-47
Al Rabe-Bearcat

Nuff said...

Actually, Robert got me thinking about the barbell effect, and I figured he was right.  The modern planes carry a lot of stuff!!!

If you are going to build a plane out of non contest wood, you have to get rid of all the stuff that adds weight.  As planes get bigger, they get inherently harder to build with the proper wing loading.  Ever wonder why a Vector 40 ARF, or Brodak Smoothie ARF are alsmost *light by modern standards but making a Strega light would be tough?  It is because weight is cubic relationship to the linear dimension.  Spinners are weight and for looks, period.  Other than have a convenient place to put the starter, it has no function in the sense of flying a pattern except to cost extra money.  So, in the case of a non-contest wood airplane you need to look the thing over carefully and get rid of as much hardware as possible.

I also hate the fact that the standard lawn darts require spinner fits that make it hard to use various types of engines, mountings, thrustlines etc.  The idea here is to let the user decide where and how he would like to place the engine.  Bill Wilson dropped the spinner look on his latest planes and he can mess with the out thrust and vertical CG at will without have to worry about aesthetics.

As a side not I have also dropped the pipe (as large 4 stroke) for the same reason.  I just did not see enough competitive advantage to add the extra 3 oz for the tuned pipe (while many would disagree).  On my Mr. Hyde/Dr. Jekyll the drive train was 22 oz with a clunk tank!!!  22 oz!!!  That includes carbon prop, spinner, PA, aluminum engine pads, header, coupler, and tuned pipe.  Now I run a header muffler with a light prop.  On the T-Rex you could even drop the spinner and the pads.  That is a drop in weight of like 7 oz total!!!

The idea is "think simple first" and remove all the non essentials as possible.

[Bradley Walker]

Ya know,

I made a mistake on my previous post saying that this was a "kit". I did say that it looked very good. I basically congratulated you on it's production. But, do you know what seems to always follow your post's, Brad? Contentious, arguementative BS. Also, as you bring in again, the future of the state of "cottage manufacturers".

Ya know, all *I* did was post pics on my plane and try to answer all of the questions directed to me.

As far as your status as a "cottage manufacturer" accept my apologies as the state of your business.  I have no idea who you are at all.  I was talking about *other* cottage manufacturers.  Sorry about that.

As far as being argumentative, I believe your post may be, by far, the most inflammatory (and personal I might add) of the bunch.

[Doug Moon]

>>>snip<<<
 It just seems a little strange sometimes that we both use Kyle as our "real kits" manufacturer.
>>>snip<<<

What on earth are you talking about?

[Bradley Walker]

What on earth are you talking about?

I think Steve has me confused with someone who produces kits.

[SteveMoon]

Berenger Sportster - no spinner

Steve H.: From what I've read here, Brad is just responding to the questions
being asked. Your post contains the contentious and snide remarks. "Real" kits;
please. Why do the hardcore BOMers always get their panties in a wad when
something other than what was common in '53 (or whenever) is presented? ARFs,
ARCs, Pre-assembled component kits, all of these things that are being added
to our hobby are a good thing. MORE is BETTER. Why are so many people
fighting this so hard. If you want to build, then BUILD away. What do I care?
To those who want to fly ARFs, I say FLY ARFS. What do I care?

At Ultra Hobby Products we will be offering Component kits, as well as regular
kits in the future. People can buy whatever they want, I DON'T CARE! Why any
of these developments are so offensive to you puzzles me. Why are you so
offended? Why do you seem to think you are so superior because you only offer
"real" kits?

Later, Steve (someone who doesn't really give a crap what others do)

[Bill Little]

Hey guys,  This is a good looking plane in many respects.  There is some innovation shown, and the model really does look like it would be highly competitive.  This model is going to be here with a lot more designs on the way from other people.  I have been a huge BOM advocate but I do know what's going on in our hobby.  I so wish it was 1964 again, but I know it will never be that way.

There is going to be a huge influx of ARF/ARC models in our event.  This is fact, so we had all better get used to that.  And, if anyone doesn't like the ARF/ARC models, well no one has to buy one.  But, don't anyone think that they have not already flown against a similar model, or even a completely built model.  That would be way too naive!

This particular model looks like it has a LOT of promise for many guys who will not build, or could not build, a plane of this caliber.  I know that there are way too many guys coming up who couldn't build this plane (and others like it), at this level, if they had all the time in the world.  So whether or not these models see contest usage isn't even the point.  And with so many areas dropping the BOM rule for their local contests, then there will be a lot in competition.  And to be quite honest (I might get myself kicked off for this) there have been planes flown in the NATS that were more finished than this when bought by the pilot.  That's a fact.

So let's keep the comments to what is good or bad about the model, *itself*.  And what could be improved and what is not necessary to change.  Whether or not it meets the BOM rule is not what this post was about, in my *opinion*.  I see it more as a looking glass to the future of what we will see available, and this will even be improved upon.  And yes, unfortunately, it will probably mean the demise of some of my dear friends' cottage industries.  But, I don't believe we can blame any one person or group for it.  It is simply where we are headed. 

Our microscopic community of competitive CLPA *stunt pilots* is simply a microcosm of society in general.  We all need to remember that.

[Iskandar Taib]

No politics on this site, right?

That ain't politics, that's BOM!   

Would this count as a ARF?



RTF combined with a scratch built fuselage = ARF, since it's halfway down the middle?  Or is the uncovered, scratch built fuselage the saving grace, and it could be considered a BOM? Wing IS pre-covered, though. Check out the "Beringer flaps"...