DRAFT Flite Fest 2018 WWII Community Design & Build Off Discussion
- Thread starter rockyboy
- Start date
Sir Fly
New member
Last edited:
LOL! The other Bob! 
Second in this list if anyone hasn't seen this epic creation:
https://www.flitetest.com/articles/2016-top-10-diy-planes
Every time he took off for combat you could hear the cheering and "Bob" chanting back in the camp.
Second in this list if anyone hasn't seen this epic creation:https://www.flitetest.com/articles/2016-top-10-diy-planes
Every time he took off for combat you could hear the cheering and "Bob" chanting back in the camp.
I just ran across the Fowler Flaps article. I also seem to remember someone else pointing these out in a build thread in the last couple days, but figured I'd share here in the current main discussion for anyone who hasn't seen them. They are pretty epic!
https://www.flitetest.com/articles/p-38-fowler-flaps
SlingShot
Maneuvering With Purpose
Just think of it like if the Ki-83 did come to the front, they probably would have hooked up the guided munitions to it - even if the lifting capacity might be getting a little sketchy at that point
OK.
1) I'm in in some capacity.
2) By all means let's collaborate. The fastest weapon should be escorted by the fastest fighter. Additionally we'll try to come up with some sort of universal hardpoint in order for the fighter to carry the weapon. Perhaps the "Paper Blossom" ultra-light weight version.
3) I'm starting to view the Ohka has a reasonably simple undertaking. Nevertheless, I am actively soliciting design/CAD help on this.
4) I recently saw some video of Josh Bixler launching some Sparrows from his Sea Duck in the 747/space shuttle style. This aircraft would likewise be launchable in this manner by anyone.
5) My interest lies more with the mother ship. I will be auditioning for the role of "Mini-Mack" Hodges and I'll be looking for a Japanese bomber.
Now, if only there were someone who had experience designing small, simple to build airplanes and had EDF experience.....
Michael9865
Elite member
Is Andres Lu going to design the universal hard point release mechanism and build a suitable mother ship for those that need it (and our entertainment?) LOL After I saw the P-38 and his X-29, I think he can design a hard point release mechanism.
Hai-Lee
Old and Bold RC PILOT
Rockyboy, Whilst I applaud the response to the challenge for FF2018 I do wish to raise the question of build ownership.
By that I mean persons claiming a particular as their own for their build team whereas I would have thought anyone building any design they wished would be more friendly and perhaps even more competitive. I understand it is a competition!
Others who might be interested in building a particular model to their own design of a qualifying aircraft might withdraw or not enter if they get the impression that each qualifying design was being allocated to a particular team of builders.
As it appears now there would be a number of different aircraft but one of each type, (some teams will fade out and fail to participate in ff2018). I wish to clarify if the entry of different teams all doing their own design, or rendering, of a qualifying aircraft is acceptable or is their some form of first come first served clause in the proposed rules.
Really it comes down to inclusive or exclusive rules! There are a finite number of qualifying aircraft and a large number of possible participants including some of the "Guests" who have yet to register on the forums. Do you want 10 aircraft, (all different aircraft), to judge or possibly 100+ aircraft of all types, (and multiples of a particular aircraft), albeit that all entries are unique/original designs/renditions!
Finally I would like you to consider a scoring system for complexity. As an example if 2 designs appear identical but one has 10 pieces of FB and 5 of card and the other has 30 pieces and 2 of card surely the 30 pieces is a more complex build and should either be rewarded or penalized for the piece count. Size considerations not withstanding.
Just a few points I would like clarified!
Have fun!
By that I mean persons claiming a particular as their own for their build team whereas I would have thought anyone building any design they wished would be more friendly and perhaps even more competitive. I understand it is a competition!
Others who might be interested in building a particular model to their own design of a qualifying aircraft might withdraw or not enter if they get the impression that each qualifying design was being allocated to a particular team of builders.
As it appears now there would be a number of different aircraft but one of each type, (some teams will fade out and fail to participate in ff2018). I wish to clarify if the entry of different teams all doing their own design, or rendering, of a qualifying aircraft is acceptable or is their some form of first come first served clause in the proposed rules.
Really it comes down to inclusive or exclusive rules! There are a finite number of qualifying aircraft and a large number of possible participants including some of the "Guests" who have yet to register on the forums. Do you want 10 aircraft, (all different aircraft), to judge or possibly 100+ aircraft of all types, (and multiples of a particular aircraft), albeit that all entries are unique/original designs/renditions!
Finally I would like you to consider a scoring system for complexity. As an example if 2 designs appear identical but one has 10 pieces of FB and 5 of card and the other has 30 pieces and 2 of card surely the 30 pieces is a more complex build and should either be rewarded or penalized for the piece count. Size considerations not withstanding.
Just a few points I would like clarified!
Have fun!
Maxstudio
New member
Yeah! I want to know that too...lol I am already gathering info and had planned to built a WW2 troop transport/cargo plane. It saw service all through the war but wasn't primarily a combat plane. Hitler's private transport. Junkers JU52 just haven't decided on which variation to build as it changed over the years of service from 39-52
Yeah, a lot of people seem to be exuberantly 'claiming' planes, but this is meant to be inclusive to create both the most participation, and the most variety of learning & solutions. From the 1st post guidelines, number ten addresses this:
10. Participants may submit more than one entry, and multiple entries for the same design from different participants are acceptable.
No two people working on the same plane are going to do everything the same - and in those differences (and friendly competition) we'll all benefit as a community. People will chose different scales for the same model, or folding vs. formers construction methods, or simplistic vs. highly detailed, etc. I learned that watching the four different builders and pilots just following the same set of plans I released for the Caudron C.460 in the last challenge - everyone brought new ideas and techniques and we all benefited.
So 'claim' on - but be aware that claim jumping is both allowed and encouraged. And it'll make you step up your game even more. If we get 10 fully finished designs that meet criteria for scoring, that would be awesome. If we get 100, I'll be over the moon!! And recruiting a whole lot more scoring panel members too!
And yes, all planes intended for WW2 use - including military transport - which was practically everything in that time period - if someone thought of using it to carry soldiers or equipment and it wasn't used in combat - and you can find that documented somehow (we'll even count wikipedia for this ) it meets that criteria.
On the scoring complexity, I like the idea - but I'm not sure if I'd rate the higher number of pieces/detail as higher score or lower score. There is a lot of advantage in simplicity of build in enabling others to use the plans to have good results. There is also a lot that can be done with additional pieces to really get complex shapes to turn out right - and it's necessary in some building methods. Maybe there's another way we can look at complexity? Thoughts?
10. Participants may submit more than one entry, and multiple entries for the same design from different participants are acceptable.
No two people working on the same plane are going to do everything the same - and in those differences (and friendly competition) we'll all benefit as a community. People will chose different scales for the same model, or folding vs. formers construction methods, or simplistic vs. highly detailed, etc. I learned that watching the four different builders and pilots just following the same set of plans I released for the Caudron C.460 in the last challenge - everyone brought new ideas and techniques and we all benefited.
So 'claim' on - but be aware that claim jumping is both allowed and encouraged. And it'll make you step up your game even more.
If we get 10 fully finished designs that meet criteria for scoring, that would be awesome. If we get 100, I'll be over the moon!! And recruiting a whole lot more scoring panel members too! And yes, all planes intended for WW2 use - including military transport - which was practically everything in that time period - if someone thought of using it to carry soldiers or equipment and it wasn't used in combat - and you can find that documented somehow (we'll even count wikipedia for this
) it meets that criteria.On the scoring complexity, I like the idea - but I'm not sure if I'd rate the higher number of pieces/detail as higher score or lower score. There is a lot of advantage in simplicity of build in enabling others to use the plans to have good results. There is also a lot that can be done with additional pieces to really get complex shapes to turn out right - and it's necessary in some building methods. Maybe there's another way we can look at complexity? Thoughts?
Last edited:
Sir Fly
New member
Well, you could always just score that area qualitatively instead of quantitatively. If you make a scoring area for "Compelxity/Simplicity" and then have the creator declare if they were aiming for complexity or simplicity. Then each judge can score them on a scale of, say, 1- 5 and average the results.
Maybe if the creator said what their target builder was: Beginner, intermediate, or advanced, and then they were scored on how well the plans, techniques, and instructions in summary met the needs of the intended builder? This way the people who really want to hit the fiberglass covered fancy stuff aren't penalized for aiming for a more advanced audience? I'd need to tweak some of the other scoring elements that encourage FT build techniques - those are really targeted at the beginner builder, and for someone designing an advanced craft they wouldn't always be appropriate.
Sir Fly
New member
Yeah I think that's a good idea.
BTW, I started the thread for the Vought V- 173 "Flying Pancake!"
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?35984-FTCC-18-WWII-Vought-V-173-quot-Flying-Pancake-quot
Last edited:
Also collaborating on a project would make me less lazy
Yeah, it's a huge motivator to have others working with you, cheering you on, helping solve problems, and counting on your help.
These forum challenges can get a whole lot of people who say "I'd like to try and design something... someday" to make that leap into actually designing something. And if you have a team of folks to interact with, it can really help get through the mid-project slump to the finish line.
For anyone looking to get started but don't know much about CAD or drawing software, an excellent option is the Free DoubleCAD XT - LocalFiend shared his Flite Test style templates and a video about designing foam board airplanes using this software a while back.
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?25514-FT-Style-CAD-Templates
http://forum.flitetest.com/showthread.php?25514-FT-Style-CAD-Templates
PsyBorg
Wake up! Time to fly!
I just read the parts where Hai Lee and Rocky are talking about complexity being a judging point. Flite Test is about making things simplistic and they are going back and redesigning things with less parts and better wing designs. I would think that complexity would have to be sub categorized into two different directions. First less pieces. Keeping a build simple for newer builders. Second Complicated pieces. Like using advanced folding and cutting techniques like how Andrus did on that fighter he just designed.
That being said I think basic structure... number of pieces.. is one catagory
Complexity with the more elaborate technique for assembly. as another.
Then other stuff that falls under the judging for things like Video Systems, Bomb Bays, moving Gun Turrets, etc.
I know that makes judging harder but lumping all that in one group would hinder creativity and want to do fancy stuff but on the other hand not help the guys trying to go very basic for beginner builds either.
I do understand there has to be a limit to "Rules" so as to not bog the process down so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
That being said I think basic structure... number of pieces.. is one catagory
Complexity with the more elaborate technique for assembly. as another.
Then other stuff that falls under the judging for things like Video Systems, Bomb Bays, moving Gun Turrets, etc.
I know that makes judging harder but lumping all that in one group would hinder creativity and want to do fancy stuff but on the other hand not help the guys trying to go very basic for beginner builds either.
I do understand there has to be a limit to "Rules" so as to not bog the process down so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
F106DeltaDart
Elite member
I just ran across the Fowler Flaps article. I also seem to remember someone else pointing these out in a build thread in the last couple days, but figured I'd share here in the current main discussion for anyone who hasn't seen them. They are pretty epic!
https://www.flitetest.com/articles/p-38-fowler-flaps
They are definitely awesome! Things will need to be changed up a bit for heavier airplanes, but this gives a great starting piont. I'll post a thread for the B-36 sometime after I get back from Oshkosh and I get my Apache build finished up.
PsyBorg
Wake up! Time to fly!
Anyone can pick any plane as long as it fits the criteria. No one can "Claim" a build so multiple people or multiple teams can do the same build. That way with the limited pool to choose from we can not limit the number of entries nor cause hardship to any team.
Similar threads
