Everything Old Is New Again

Surfer_kris wrote:Haha, yes nothing has changed in the way people think and act...

PS. I actually prefer die-cut now over the black and smelly laser cut stuff, but no pre-cutting at all is still the best of coarse

A couple of problems with die-cutting back in the fifties was when the wrong balsa was used or when they tried to run too many kits before sharpening the dies. Both resulted in what we called... die-crunching. :-) It was common to replace a few parts that didn't fit or were defective.

Both problems were caused by trying to keep kit costs down. There were also times when balsa was scarce and the companies had to use what they could get. I would imagine that sometimes the person who sorts and selects balsa for kit parts was missing and the fill-in was not so good at it.

Even when we cut our own parts, some guys did not know about the different grains of balsa (A,B, C, etc.) and where to use them. Even fewer were aware of different weights. You could (can) tell us balsa butchers from the guys who are really good at it by the planes that we fly. :-)

George

Yeah,

It's funny how perspective depends on how you THINK things should be. With my initial kit build attempts as a kid (a lot of it with the scale Guillows products)...I came to think that gluing your broken bulkheads and ribs back together before gluing them to the frame was just business as usual. The same was true with my Goldberg Cosmic Wind, and later, a Jetco Navigator.

The were the occasional exceptions, but with many, 'die-crunching' would have been an almost generous tag. Somehow, I got them built without X-actos and my now-mandatory Dremel.

Life IS Good !!!!

I remember getting an old rubber kit one time that was made before die cutting. The sticks were die cut (all but the last 1/2 inch so they remained together). All the sheeted parts were just printed on the balsa so that you cut the parts out yourself. I think those were referred to as "print-wood" kits. I'm not sure of the brand, but I THINK it was Comet (hey, it was ~65 years ago).

Ever build from magazine plans? I mean, the ones IN the magazine. I remember using the scale that was printed on the plans to redraw parts. The magazines were old ones (~1950) a friend had given me. My next step was to buy full-size plans from current magazines.

George

Yes, Comet had a lot of die printed sheets in many of their kits, its how they kept down costs as long as people were willing to buy them. Regarding die crunching, I learn from a magazine article to dampen edges and hit with a hot iron. The balsa would swell and overall, most the die crunching was gone. If one did this before cutting the pieces out of the sheet coupled with a good, sharp razor blade or Exacto knife could have decent pieces. (Except for unacceptable wood to soft to use. Then one used the parts as patterns and cut out of new balsa.)

Sterling was particularly prone to die crunching, Comet, too. Perhaps best was Scientific, they seemed to have better quality control. Thus, die printed parts, although more work, I found acceptable to do.

gcb wrote:I remember getting an old rubber kit one time that was made before die cutting. The sticks were die cut (all but the last 1/2 inch so they remained together). All the sheeted parts were just printed on the balsa so that you cut the parts out yourself. I think those were referred to as "print-wood" kits. I'm not sure of the brand, but I THINK it was Comet (hey, it was ~65 years ago).

Ever build from magazine plans? I mean, the ones IN the magazine. I remember using the scale that was printed on the plans to redraw parts. The magazines were old ones (~1950) a friend had given me. My next step was to buy full-size plans from current magazines.

All the old Finnish-made kits were print-wood, but the sticks were loose and OK as far as I could tell. All the sticks had rectangular cross sections, no pre-shaped leading or trailing edges. A lot of them had pine for leading edge and main spar.

I did build many planes from magazine plans or borrowed/copied kit plans. That was a cheaper than buying kits back then. I had a cutter to make sticks from sheet and the models did not have pre-formed plastic parts so it was just the same to scratch build them. Only extra work was transferring the outlines from paper to balsa. None of them had decals anyway. This was in the '80s.

Getting my first Guillows kits was a real eye opener. Die cut parts, plastic canopies and cowls, clear step-by-step instructions, quick to build, big beautiful decals. Loved it.

I built a 44 inch version of the "Heron Gas Buggy" from a one page magazine plan. I sweet-talked (as well as a 14-year old boy could) the lady who ran the Office at my High School, and she copied the plan page on a transparent slide of the same size. My dad brought home a portable overhead projector and some big obsolete design sheets. At home I'd hang the big sheet on the wall, fired up the projector, adjusted the size to match my engine and radio gear and then traced the plan on the paper.

And many of us consider printing a PDF plan from outerzone.com in small sheets and then taping it all together is a lot of work

With a laser printer you can print all the parts and then iron them on balsa or plywood and make your own print-wood in no time. Easy. I wonder why I still can't get as many planes built in a year as I used to in a month  

KariFS wrote:I built a 44 inch version of the "Heron Gas Buggy" from a one page magazine plan. I sweet-talked (as well as a 14-year old boy could) the lady who ran the Office at my High School, and she copied the plan page on a transparent slide of the same size. My dad brought home a portable overhead projector and some big obsolete design sheets. At home I'd hang the big sheet on the wall, fired up the projector, adjusted the size to match my engine and radio gear and then traced the plan on the paper.

And many of us consider printing a PDF plan from outerzone.com in small sheets and then taping it all together is a lot of work

With a laser printer you can print all the parts and then oron them on balsa or plywood and make your own print-wood in no time. Easy. I wonder why I still can't get as many planes built in a year as I used to in a month  

KariFS, I think the difference then is we didn't have computers, so there was less distraction. Phone didn't have video, it was wall or corner table/desk mounted. Games were pinball and bowling machines at a local arcade or department store. Those cost money, so one didn't frequent them much.

In essence we had more time on our hands because we didn't have the distractions. Now life is more cluttered with "stuff". I've started throwing away "good stuff", because the trouble to say, give it away is more trouble than it is worth. No one reads books any more. Old software and games are obsolete.

George if I hadn't already Greened you for

I learn from a magazine article to dampen edges and hit with a hot iron. The balsa would swell and overall, most the die crunching was gone. If one did this before cutting the pieces out of the sheet coupled with a good, sharp razor blade or Exacto knife could have decent pieces. (Except for unacceptable wood to soft to use. Then one used the parts as patterns and cut out of new balsa.) wrote:

I would for the last statement of the good old days when times were a little more difficult but much better and you did things not wasting time on the garbage that is out there now ( you would actually talk to people instead of the Text, Twik , Tap a Imo or some thing like that (( My son Mowed the fly field and said something about us getting out early in the morning and doing some flying !?!?!?! Now the old man has to get some planes in order and everthing ready for a morning out ))) Eric

You're right about that, Eric, human face-to-face or telephone conversation is a lost art.

Nearly all the kit manufacturers were famous for rock hard balsa that approached the toughness and weight of white pine. I don't know how many Exacto knife blades I dulled as a result. Stick wood was cut from the same stuff, too. In general, lighter airframes like most the Comets would still fly better. Guillow kits were very heavy framed with all the wood. I had a gliding rocket with a Guillow F6F Hellcat and Aeronca Sedan. Glide was fast and life expectancy as a result was short lived.

Best flier was Comet 18" P-51A, it was very lightly framed. I built that one in 1965 as a 5th grader.

Outerzone: Comet kit P-51A plans

On the other hand, without the internet, I for one would most likely be all alone with my engines... If I even had them on the first place, not to mention parts and access to all the know how.

So let's hear it for the friendliest little forum on the 'net



EDIT: Added the bolded italic words

gcb wrote:I remember getting an old rubber kit one time that was made before die cutting. The sticks were die cut (all but the last 1/2 inch so they remained together). All the sheeted parts were just printed on the balsa so that you cut the parts out yourself. I think those were referred to as "print-wood" kits. I'm not sure of the brand, but I THINK it was Comet (hey, it was ~65 years ago).

George

I bought a Comet kit from Tower Hobbies back in 1993; a 34" P38 Lightning that fits that description. It's still NIB.. and cost $13.19 back then. I didn't realize before ordering it, that it was a "printed-wood" kit. .. The plan (back then..) was to power it with a pair of Cox .049's for radio-control. These days, it would be very possible to install a pair of small brushless motors with a micro ESC/Rx, nano-servos and a LiPo flight battery. I need more "stick" building experience before I tackle something like that.

I wish I could say that it's been a life-long hobby for me.. but I became interested in my mid-30's; when I started building my own 1/2A sheet-wing designs for control-line. It was a lot of fun.. and I had good luck with my model-designs balancing well enough to fly. That only lasted for 2 or 3 years, at which point my 1st marriage fell apart. Apartment-living (shared with a roommate) put a real damper on any building.. and all my model-building materials were in a storage-unit for almost a decade. Fast-forward to 2014.. when I found "CEF"... and my interest has been rekindled . Although my progress has been at a snail's pace.. I still remain very interested in building and hopefully flying this late Summer/Fall. Wish me luck!

Here is what I believe is one of the last Scientific produced kits, a die printed 32" (813mm) wingspan Sparky endurance cabin model aeroplane. Notice the plastic prop. One I built in 1965 had a carved balsa prop and hardwood wheels were uncolored. Other than that, kit didn't change much over the years.



Here is a Scientific hollow log Piper Cub Cruiser.



Scientific die cutting was clean.

Berkeley kits had their share of perhaps the worst die crunching. Following are 2 fuselage formers for my 46" Impulse R/C kit.



Fuselage splicing was very rough indeed.



Need to get back to finishing this one. In spite of the mediocre wood and die cutting, it will still finish out nicely.

That's Pretty messed up with the Berkeley Kit , I remember the print U cut kits probably a Comet ? George I didn't know you did FF too /// a lot of that on HPB and Outter Zone but I am sure you know that , There is some making there own Balsa props and I watched a tutorial on it once looked like something I would screw up a the end and have a pis tantrum Maybe one day I will try and build me a FF and see how far it will fly ? Eric

getback wrote:That's Pretty messed up with the Berkeley Kit , I remember the print U cut kits probably a Comet ? George I didn't know you did FF too /// a lot of that on HPB and Outter Zone but I am sure you know that , There is some making there own Balsa props and I watched a tutorial on it once looked like something I would screw up a the end and have a pis tantrum Maybe one day I will try and build me a FF and see how far it will fly ? Eric  

If you are going to build props, start with rubber power. Less stress, softer wood, balance is less critical (but not less important) so a less intense experience with more likely success.

Phil

Eric, I build rubber power FF. Haven't done it in a while, back in the 1960's and 1970's was very prolific with them. Building stick and tissue helped me with building RC and CL aircraft. There are a lot of things to learn. It also prepared me for trimming rudder only RC aircraft. Today, people don't know one can fully control a rudder only aircraft and do stunts with them. This is without throttle. Nothing more fun than on a lazy day, to get 2 dozen flights on an RO aircraft.

GallopingGhostler wrote: ...It also prepared me for trimming rudder only RC aircraft. Today, people don't know one can fully control a rudder only aircraft and do stunts with them. This is without throttle. Nothing more fun than on a lazy day, to get 2 dozen flights on an RO aircraft.

Hopefully not using an old rubber powered escapement!

George

gcb wrote:

GallopingGhostler wrote: ...It also prepared me for trimming rudder only RC aircraft. Today, people don't know one can fully control a rudder only aircraft and do stunts with them. This is without throttle. Nothing more fun than on a lazy day, to get 2 dozen flights on an RO aircraft.

Hopefully not using an old rubber powered escapement! George

George, while in high school, I was looking at the AHC (America's Hobby Center of NYC) ads in model mags (FM, MAN, RCM, AAM, etc.) There was an intriguing transistorized lightweight single channel escapement system they were selling for $40. I think they had a special for a little more that bundled a Sterling Minnie Mambo and an 049 engine.) I was tempted to buy that. When I graduated and entered the working world, after a few months salary, I opted for the Ace Pulse Commander on Brown (26.995 MHz) with Adams Baby Twin Actuator, rechargeable 250 mAH nicad pack.

I don't know how well I would have handled essentially what was equivalent to continuous command texting on a 9 key pad cell phone. I've watched those folks in UK fly single channel escapement maintaining full control on YouTube, and yes it is amazing how they do it.
I'm simplistic but not a masochist.