Guillows vs other Mfgs

[dbcisco]

I just bought a Golden Age Reproductions Albatros kit. What a dissapointment. The wood is inked, not cut at all and the plans are little more than a top and side view (copyright 1937). There are no directions included. The only parts included are vacuformed wheels and half the nose cone, the other half has to be carved from a cube of balsa.

I felt I didn't get my $20 worth here. I got prints which are worse than those I can get for free and I can make the print wood myself with T-shirt transfer paper. I am not buy any more G.A.R. kits.

The only good thing is that I appreciate the Guillow's kits even more.

[BillParker]

Not in defence of these guys but recently I've had the privilege of building a plane with my Father, who built plane in the 30's and 40's... He told me horror stories about model kits from back then... Open the box, take out a block of wood, carve an airplane... you know the story...

"AND WE LIKED IT, " he'd say...

But.

With so few of us out here still doing stick and tissue construction, and with even fewer kids coming behind us, you'd think that anyone who hoped to be successful in this industry would want to keep us happy...



They're all stinkers, I understand. This is not the first time I've heard about these guys...


bp

[dbcisco]

I buy one kit and if I like it I buy more.
I have one Easybuilt, one G.A.R. and 6 Guillows kits.
Too bad I have all the current WWI planes, now I have to bid on old kits.

[BillParker]

Try this:

http://www.parkerinfo.com/links/aplinks.htm

you might just find a whole lot of WWI kits you've never seen...

I'm still visiting these sites and fixing the links, but most if not all the top group on the list under "kits" is finished and works well...

Let me know if you score something kewl...

bp

[dbcisco]

Thanks for the links.

[cliffm]

Yes, I too have the experience of the "other kits" including Dare, Dumas, Sig, just a few, that at best make maybe 75% of a Guillow's kit. Some of the wood may be of a nicer quality for flight and the laser cut parts are nice, but if you have a mangled part in a Guillow's kit there's always enough extra wood in the kit and plans to duplicate another, plus the plans and instructions are explicit enough even for the beginner on their most complex models. For the shear joy of building give me the Guillows. Also they deserve kudo's for the transition to the white glue methods in construction transcending all the fire hazards and toxicity involved with the old dopes. Their instructions and plans make you feel like they do care if you complete the model. Thank you Guillows for the forethought involved in these productions.

[scigs30]

Those other kits are more geared towards advance builders since the wood is real fragile and the structure is sparse. I have built a few Golden Age kits and my Mustang flew away. You have to replace some of the stringers with stronger stringers and pre shrinking the tissue is a must. You will also have to add gussets and handle with care. Those models are designed for competitions just like the old Comet kits back in the day. This is why I always say Guillows kits are great for beginners since they are over engineered. I just wish Guillows would put wood in the kit that would allow the plane to fly.

[tom arnold]

I am with scigs on this. I would hardly call GAR kits "stinkers" either. Their name says what they do: reproductions of kits from the Golden Age of aviation. If you have heartburn with the way they are designed, blame it on the designers of the 30s, not GAR.

Not all of their kits are designed in the 30s and 40s either, some of them are of recent vintage and have been the first choice for many flyers who compete or go for long, high flights for sport. The P-51, P-47, Hein, P-39, and the Defiant I have seen at contests and they have won consistently. Like scigs said, they require more detailed building than a Guillows kit as they use the box-frame and quarter formers method.

Notice the list of Bell kits that GAR also handles and they are superb. Highly detailed, good wood and plenty of patterns for any broken parts. The plans are pretty enough to frame and hang on the wall. These are half former (like Guillows) method of construction and are the most complete kits I have ever seen. They, just like the GAR kits, require building, cutting out pieces, and sanding blocks of balsa----they are not quick builds by any stretch but kits for those who want more in terms of performance and looks.

For what you get, 20-30 dollars is very reasonable.

[dbcisco]

I am not saying they are stinkers. I am saying they are IMHO overpriced. I pay Guillows for blueprints, instructions, support, a bunch of plastic parts and the laser cutting of parts. I am not going to pay more than $10 for a foot of poorly inked wood and a public domain 2 view drawing which is what I got in the GAR kit. I can get all that for $5 on my own.
On the bright side. It convinced me that I might as well do scratch builds from all the free (and better) plans and 3 views on the Internet. I have a Guillow's Nieuport, Stearman and Camel to build but after those are done I am just going scratch build from free plans.

[uavdb]

Hi, folks...this is my first post, and I do have some input on the GAR kit issue.
I must agree with tom arnolds post. These kits represent what you would get back in the day. Printwood, balsa blocks and the usual plans that are pretty well detailed, BUT, tend to be vague on some assembly details.
At the present I have a fully framed up GAR kit of the old Comet Douglas Y10-43, and brother, there are some issues with the mating of the wing to the cabane struts!
My point is that these kits do require a good measure of "seat of your pants" modeling, which is something I enjoy. Dont get me wrong I love fall together models, too. The pricing for the GAR kits IMO isnt that bad, either, especially if you go to Penn Valley Hobby Center.
I'll try to get some pics of mine up.
It's r/c, too!

[scigs30]

Talk about lack of directions, try building an old Comet kit. Once again I think Guillows kits are great the way they are designed with the extra lumber. The only problem is the the wood is way too heavy for freelflight. If Guillows only used 8-10lb balsa for their rubber kits, these planes would fly right out of the box. My Messerschmitt was built using everything in the box and no attempts to lighten it. I did use different rubber and it flew ok for weighing in at 45 grams. The problem is being that heavy it tends to hit hard on landings and parts want to break off.
But that's freeflight. Guillows larger birds are great and make awsome RC builds or motorized freeflight. I wonder if Guillows converted the larger birds into laser cut if the RC community would enjoy building them more?

[dbcisco]

What I have learned from the kits (good and bad aspects) is pushing me towards where I want to be in this hobby and that is scratch building from "3 views". I am also finding that I get more out of building than flying them. I have several that are airworthy but I am content to just have them displayed. I think I might just stop with the electric RC conversions and do a couple FF rubber powered ones.

[uavdb]

Here are some pics of my Comet Y10-43...Here are the bare bones.
BTW, being a non computer expert, I'm winging it getting pics posted.

24" wingspan, geared M-20LV motor. Planning on using a 250Mah 2s battery pack.


[img][IMG][img]http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh146/uavdb/101_1774.jpg[/img]
[img]

It looks like I need to spend more time figuring out how to take better pics!

[MikeTaylor]

I collect kits, and I have a wide selection of manufactoerers' products, some current, many way out production. There are some things to consider. Like Tom and scigs30 say, these reproduction and replica kits are exact copies of the old-time kits. There are FF events that are based on the old-time kits and these fit the rules.
The old-timers cut out all their own parts, and many argue that a clean cut is better than a die-crushed part. If you hate cutting and die crushing, then look at laser-cut kits.
As far as wood goes, Guillows kits are designed for ham-fisted newbies, and for that purpose are perfect. Big, hard pieces of wood allow a lot more abuse than a super light flying model.
If you want to look at some modern alternatives, try Aero-Werkes for laser cut kits with hand selected, light weight wood, great instructions and aircraft history and references.