Control Line Models

Roundel · 8 February 2002, 04:41 PM

I'm old enough to have been around for the latter days of the golden age of the plastic, ready-to-fly (RTF), gas-powered, control line (CL) planes. While Cox and Testors recreated many of the WWII fighters in such form, I can recall only three such WWI planes, all by Cox: Sopwith Camel (light blue and tan), Fokker DrI (Red Baron livery), and Fokker DVII (pseudo-Red Baron). They were pretty small, maybe .020 rather than .049. All were apparently dropped by the late 1970's.

I saw a DrI at a train show a few years ago. In mint condition, the asking price was $50, which seems par for the course.

Question: Were any other WWI RTF CL planes made by Cox or anybody else?

Also: Why so few?

Note: Cox also made a tiny .020 biplane it called The Red Baron, but it was really just a red Pitts Special (or something like that).

chip55 · 8 February 2002, 05:03 PM

Hello
I recall aurora making a Fokker DVII uc model,
Testors and cox both made DVII and Camels
Testors also made an Albatros.
Most of these I had (i think... and that hurts me to do that, were .049 powered )
the Cox red baron was indeed a pitts powered by an underpowered 020 * *>

I still have some of these stored somewhere ???)

be well
chip55

Roundel · 9 February 2002, 01:28 PM

Chip55:

I knew somebody in grammar school who had a Cox Red Baron. It did everything except fly right! He pointed to a small crater in the side of a steel temporary classroom and claimed that his plane's spinner made it.

I've thought of several reasons why more WWI RTF CL planes weren't made:

1 -- WWI is more remote in time than WWII. Given the enduring interest in WWI aviation, this isn't too convincing, although it sounds like an excuse that upper management would give.

2 -- WWII planes are more efficient aerodynamically and so fly better with the modest power from an .020 or an .049. More convincing; it sounds like a reason that mid-level management would give.

3 -- WWI planes are more expensive to produce with their extra wings, struts, pilot figures, and so forth. This is most convincing explanation to me.

One period that was almost totally ignored by the RTF CL makers was the interwar period, 1919-39. Cox made a Ryan ST and I once saw a picture of an AMF Wen-Mac Boeing P-26. And that's it as far as I know, except for Cox's big Piper Super Cub, which was actually a post-WWII plane.

dpcmodels · 12 February 2002, 05:04 AM

Roundel,
* * *While I did have the cox and testor RTF models, they were actually bad flyers. All being unstable and in some cases, being Over powered. The wing areas were small and just didn't grab the air like they should.

After several crashes, I changed over to the wooden models
put out by Scientific. These were much better and the beauty was that you had a range of motors to choose from.
Generally between .020 to .074 (or 1/2A)

The other advantage was that you could paint it anyway you wanted unlike the plastic jobs by cox and testors (out of scale)

Testor and cox models (WW-1) now list on ebay for over $100. I've seen some go into the $200 range. Why, I don't know. They are more of a collectors item rather than anything else.

Cheers,
* * Dave

DJ · 12 February 2002, 09:06 AM

Testors had a DR1, a Camel and a Albatross. When I was a kid we would fly those out on the lawn until dark all summer. Much to the joy of the neighbors. They did fly horribly but you could crash and crash and crash without any real damage.

Roundel · 12 February 2002, 02:29 PM

Why did Cox and Testors make two German planes for every Camel? Seems a little unfair, especially to Spad and Nieuport fans.

In some ways, the plastic CL planes seemed to have been a two edge sword. It got lots of kids into the hobby, but a lot left after being disappointed and frustrated with cranky engines and poor handling. A friend who had the Cox Camel said that its tail surfaces had a way of popping out in mid-air.

Regarding the Scientific solids, I remember ads for them covering half a page or more in magazines. Scientific dropped them about 20 years ago, but I believe that you can still get the plans from Walter Musciano.

Were any WWI solids made? The JN-4D, N.17, and SE.5A would seem like naturals.

dpcmodels · 14 February 2002, 01:50 AM

Roundel,
* * * *Scientific did produce the SE5, Fokker Triplane, Fokker D-7, Fokker D8, Spad 13 (profile) and Nieuport 17 (profile).

I have the kits of the Fokker models and plans for the SE5.
I'm currently waiting on a copy of the Spad profile plan and I also got a lead on the nieuport kit.

It was my intention to re-introduce these into the modelling
world by re-kitting them, complete with the plastic parts. I'm currently working with a fellow in SC and walt on this project.

I have done some canopy work for walt on a dauntless bomber, once thought to be long gone.

As for the cox models, I don't know why only 2 german and 1
british. There are plenty of other choices that could have been made.

Dave

chip55 · 14 February 2002, 11:43 AM

Hello
The only thing I can think of why they didn't do more WWI uc models is that they didn't sell to well be cause they flew like crap, and with one crack up the top wing was usually broke at the struts.(Personal experience here) and they were unfixable no matter how much glue ya used, A lot of lawn mowing money was gone with one Thud.

. And sometimes the plastic melted around the engine. :P

be well

chip55

chip55 · 15 February 2002, 04:54 PM

Hello

I found this on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?V...item=1703348403

ideal models

be well
chip55

Roundel · 15 February 2002, 05:35 PM

Chip55:

Thanks for the tip. The model is a Sterling all-sheet profile Fokker DVIII on eBay. The bidding on it is now up to $30. So much for my old daydream of buying a squadron of them and painting them to recreate all of those near color profiles in the Profile booklet on it. Sterling also sold a similar model of the Fokker EI (or EII or EIII; I forget which). Sterling offered quite a range of profile kits. If you had built all of them, you would have had a nice museum of the history of aviation. Estes bought Sterling some years and its profile kits soon disappeared. In fact, so did most of the Sterling line.

Regarding the repair of cracked up plastic CL planes, my recollection is that a cracked or broken plastic part usually had to be replaced. The thin moldings gave little surface area for good joints. Besides, what kind of glue was suitable before Krazy Glue? I think that some people patched them up with extra wide plastic packing tape.

Around 1971, I saw a Cox PT-19 stall and crash on blacktop from a height of about 25 to 30 feet. It practically shattered upon impact, with the stabilator broken in two and the wing and fuselage getting pretty banged up, too. Worse, the guy who cracked it up had borrowed it from a younger kid. The older kid claimed that a "little glue will fix it," but I suspect that it ended up in the landfill.

DPC Models:

Its good to hear that some of the Scientific solids are coming back. That was also a pretty broad range from what I remember and have read. If CL's comeback is to take hold, it'll need some solid and/or plank profile kits for the beginners (or those who like to build a lot of planes). In recent years, only DARE Design's plank profiles seem to be common and they get snatched up pretty quickly.

Two questions re the reissues:

1 - Will the solids have the "carved body, shaped wing"?

2 - Will they be adaptable to electric power, such as a Speed 400? (I live in an apartment and will probably soon move into a condo or a townhouse, none particularly suitable to breaking in a 1/2A engine.)

Thanks for the information, gang!