Flying for Fun
909 North Maize Road, Townhouse 734, Wichita, KS 67212
SAMENESS
Throughout the long history of model airplane building and flying, there has been a tendency for modelers to construct look-alikes.
This used to be the result of a design doing well in competition and everyone jumping on its bandwagon. Lately it seems that what you see at the flying fields are cookie-cutter examples of what is available in kit form. Plan-built models are becoming more and more rare, while self-designs are almost unheard of.
Some modelers avoid this "sameness" trend by changing the appearance of kit designs, and my hat goes off to them. This "kit-bashing" was illustrated in an article called "Just Imagine" in the June 1993 Model Aviation.
One of the most enriching aspects of modeling is the creation of something well out of the rut, but a likely reason for contemporary builders' hesitation is a "mystique of difficulty" surrounding plan-built models — an unrealistic presumption of required skills beyond the average builder's.
Many people have a desire to be different, and I thought I'd take a look at ways to build models that don't look like everyone else's. For those of you who are only comfortable with kits, building from plans will add an enjoyable and fulfilling aspect to your hobby.
SEMANTICS
English as written and spoken in Great Britain, Australia, and the rest of the world is not necessarily the same English used in the U.S.
English as taught throughout the world is unable to adjust quickly enough to the propensity for changing words and phrases' meanings by making idioms (popular usage) of them. Words' meanings can change so much that they are rendered nonsensical to a foreign listener. I have no ideas for correcting the problem, except to be sensitive to the idiom issue when communicating.
I wonder if printed literature shouldn't put some sort of mark on words when used outside of the traditional meaning. To illustrate, the 19th-century Christmas carol "Deck the Halls" has a line, "Don we now our gay apparel." Somehow that doesn't quite seem to carry the same meaning it did at its writing. There are hundreds of other examples. It's little wonder that exchange students and travelers to the U.S. know English well as a second language, but are totally baffled by the language spoken in the U.S.
A frequently used modeling term causing much consternation and confusion for many writers and modelers is "scratch-built." While the term used to mean developing a model design from blank paper up, in contemporary usage it no longer does.
Editor’s note: Scale modelers may disagree; it is often asserted that the only true scratch-built models are those that start with a blank piece of paper.
Actually, common usage often changes the definition of words; hence "scratch-built" has changed to what used to be referred to as "plan-built," and even "kit-bashing." I've experienced several instances in which letters reveal some confusion about sources of plans to build models. One letter related a situation where someone unsuccessfully attempted to develop 1941 Buzzard Bombshell three-views — that's much effort when drawings are easily obtainable.
Why would this be of any importance? For the sake of improved communication, perhaps the term "scratch-built" should be discarded, and descriptions of a model's source should be changed to "self-designed," "plan-built," or "kit-built." It would certainly be an improvement over the current confusion.
The Experimental Aircraft Association's (EAA) journal, Sport Aviation, captions its photos and articles using those terms, but adds "factory-built," which applies to the acronym group of models seen more and more frequently: ARF (Almost Ready-to-Fly), RTF (Ready-to-Fly), etc. I've never seen the term "scratch-built" in that publication.
PLANS SUPPLIERS
All of the magazines that publish designs and construction articles have full-size drawings for sale. Publications typically have catalogs from which you can select plans; several will take phone orders and accept credit cards. Full-size drawings are also available for some subjects published in now-defunct magazines.
Suppliers I know with superb-quality drawings:
- Bill Northrop — 2019 Doral Court, Henderson, NV 89014. Can supply designs published in Model Builder, plus never-published modernized versions of earlier designs.
- Gleason Enterprises — 705 10th Ave. S.W., Austin, MN 55912. Has a huge listing of plans and designs from old Air Trails, American Modeler, and RC Sportsman magazines; many Free Flight (FF), Control Line (CL), and Radio Control (RC) kit designs from domestic and foreign sources (1920s–1970s).
- John Pond, Old Time Plans Service — 252 N. 4th St., San Jose, CA 95109-3310. Thousands of subjects divided by categories (Scale, FF, CL, early RC). Note: some suppliers' plans do not include patterns for shaped parts. If developing wing ribs and fuselage formers is out of your league, call (408) 292-3392 before ordering to make sure the plan includes patterns.
- Jim O'Reilly — 4760 N. Battin Ave., Wichita, KS 67220. Developed a group of plans (primarily Old-Timer and contemporary FF designs), including out-of-the-rut subjects and classics reduced or enlarged. These CAD plans are exceptionally well done and suitable for framing. Recommended for those seeking someone to translate drawings into commercial-quality plans.
- Bob Holman Plans — Box 741, San Bernardino, CA 92402. A well-known source of high-quality plans for British RC scale projects; imports thousands of plans published in Aeromodeller and other British magazines.
- Wise Owl Worldwide Publications — 4214 W. 238th St., Suite C, Torrance, CA 90505. If you want to receive British magazines such as Aviation Modeller, RC Models & Electronics, Aeromodeller, etc., contact them.
- Other well-known plan producers include Nick Ziroli, Wendell Hostetler, Don Smith, and many others. These plans are frequently advertised, often built, and well thought-of.
A few plans suppliers expect the first buyer to also build the first prototype, and thus should be avoided. That is unacceptable. Almost anyone can sit down to a drawing board and draw plans; the responsibility of building and test-flying must rest with the designer, not the buyer. Ask around and look through magazines for examples built from a supplier's plans. If there aren't any, something may be wrong. Feel free to return any plans that are not up to standard.
Fellow Model Aviation columnist Bill Baker frequently mentions sources of Old-Timer rubber, Scale, and power FF plans. Look through your back issues of Model Aviation for information.
Next time I'll take a quick look at suppliers for precut parts, fiberglass accessories, landing gear, canopies, and graphics for plan-built projects. Actually, I'm contradicting myself; if a model is built from plans but the parts are purchased premade, is it plan-built or a kit?
MORE TRIVIA
Many people know that Phil Kraft designed the original Das Ugly Stik, but did you know that it was published in 1966 as a construction article with full-size plans available? Even more amazing is where the article was run: in a magazine published by Ace RC/L called Grid Leaks. And the editor? Bill Winter!
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
