What happened to the Flite Test I loved?

[Liam B]

I haven't watched a Flite Test episode for a few years. They changed their target audience and I'm not a part of that audience anymore. They cater less to the hobby and more to YouTube and the average viewer, which is fine, but that isn't me.

 

[alan0043]

Would be interesting to see if the companies whose planes Flite Test uses as models (Lokheed Martin F22, F35) and others decide that Flite Test is monetizing their designs so Flite Test should pay a royalty. Real capatlism. Latest Scheme

How about the rest of the RC hobby with RTF, PNP, and even balsa wood kits ? This could go on and on. Just something to thing about.

 

[CappyAmeric]

Would be interesting to see if the companies whose planes Flite Test uses as models (Lokheed Martin F22, F35) and others decide that Flite Test is monetizing their designs so Flite Test should pay a royalty. Real capatlism. Latest Scheme

It seems you want to throw shade on FT, but no, Flite Test is completely ethical and legal in how they name kits that are reminiscent of actual aircraft.

You can't trademark (or copyright) the simple "shape" of an aircraft etc. Flite Test, as well as every one else that makes R/C planes in the shape of an actual aircraft, can do it without any ethical or legal dilemma. The names of some aircraft are trademarked but not military designations, which is why you don't see the Flite Test Airliner RTF called the "Flite Test Boeing 787" even though it looks like one - but you can call a kit the "F-22" because the "F-22" name is not owned by Lockheed Martin - it became public domain when the US Air Force designated it.

 

[Monte.C]

It seems you want to throw shade on FT, but no, Flite Test is completely ethical and legal in how they name kits that are reminiscent of actual aircraft.

You can't trademark (or copyright) the simple "shape" of an aircraft etc. Flite Test, as well as every one else that makes R/C planes in the shape of an actual aircraft, can do it without any ethical or legal dilemma. The names of some aircraft are trademarked but not military designations, which is why you don't see the Flite Test Airliner RTF called the "Flite Test Boeing 787" even though it looks like one - but you can call a kit the "F-22" because the "F-22" name is not owned by Lockheed Martin - it became public domain when the US Air Force designated it.

He's spam and he's been reported. He threw out four of these clickbait postings in his first 15 minutes here.

 

[AIRFORGE]

He's spam and he's been reported. He threw out four of these clickbait postings in his first 15 minutes here.

Yep. 5 in 15 mins. LOL! Pure spam.
I reported his first two, and then he posted another 3. He was WFO in the groove!

 

[CappyAmeric]

Yep. 5 in 15 mins. LOL! Pure spam.
I reported his first two, and then he posted another 3. He was WFO in the groove!

How fitting that spam link is a site in India - India and China are often hosts to systematic copyright and trademark theft.

 

[jack10525]

Yes. FT has changed a lot in the 5-6 years I've been here. Looks like the good old days are long gone along with a cheap six pack.
12 bucks for a six pack is too much for me....

Wow I guess I missed this. I don't like all the sites sending me constant email updates so I turn them off.

Not sure FT can really do anything. They have grown up. I just liked them better when they were a smaller org.

If I'm wishing I would like to see more simple plane designs in larger sizes. Like a 200% tiny trainer (XL Trainer) or a 150% Storch.

Also they should offer more motor/ecs selections.

 

[SSgt Duramax]

Wow I guess I missed this. I don't like all the sites sending me constant email updates so I turn them off.

Not sure FT can really do anything. They have grown up. I just liked them better when they were a smaller org.

If I'm wishing I would like to see more simple plane designs in larger sizes. Like a 200% tiny trainer (XL Trainer) or a 150% Storch.

Also they should offer more motor/ecs selections.

They just did the xl scout, so maybe they will. It isnt hard to scale up the designs yourself, just print them at 150 or 200%. Use some common sense and adjust for the thickness of foam board which was scaled up when you printed it. I made a 150% goblin like that.

Also the upside down square taco of the simple stuff like the scout and speedster or the simple box fuselage of the warbirds/trainers is fairly easy to duplicate.

Plus, the community has tons of plans out that could work well for you too. If you ask for a certain plane, someone may be able to get it for you.

"Old flite test" isn't gone. They are still there, but there are plenty of folks that wanted to move on from box planes. Years ago folks were saying the opposite, wanting more advanced builds and such.

At the end of the day, if you rely on other people to make designs for you, you are ultimately stuck with what they give you.

 

[Monte.C]

If you rely on other people to make designs for you, you are ultimately stuck with what they give you.

Amen

 

[Monte.C]

plenty of folks that wanted to move on from box planes.

Hey, box planes matter.

 

[SSgt Duramax]

Hey, box planes matter.

I was thinking of my box plane that is my current favorite flyer the whole time I wrote that.

1. Easy.
2. Square.
3. Fast.
4. Fun.
5. Cool Looking.
6. Free Plans
7. Big

 

[Piotrsko]

That's not a box, it has tapers. Nice looker however.

 

[Hondo76251]

That's not a box, it has tapers. Nice looker however.

Kinda has the same vibe as my "franken-cruiser" except mine is the ugly mad-max version! 🤣

 

[Piotrsko]

Kinda has the same vibe as my "franken-cruiser" except mine is the ugly mad-max version! 🤣

Yup THATS a box. 90 degree corners and everything