Another one of our fellow flyer Mike's favorite planes is the "Extra Wot" from Chris Foss (regarded as the master RC designer in the UK). It was scratch built from a kit, and is powered by a Moki 135 engine (made in Hungary). 

One interesting thing about this model is that the wings are not hollow with plastic sheet covering, instead it is solid and painted (yes; primer, sanding, paint and clear coat!).

Unfortunately the cowl was off for some engine tuning, and sorry for the low quality mobile phone pics.

Anwar, I guess the wings are foam core with balsa/obechi veneer and then glassed so that you can aply sanding sealer, primer, paint and seal it up with clear/top coat.
BTW you do not build from scratch from kit. It would be classified as "kit build" just posted this elsewhere on the forum today. 

I stand corrected about the terminology Captain. 

Happens to newbies

BTW Captain, you will need to help edit even the Wikipedia article on what "scratch building" is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_building

It says that "scratch building" refers only to use of local materials (not using prefabricated pieces), but starting from plans is fine !  Apparently a lot of people are not clear about the distinction, or whether such nomenclature is widely used/accepted.

No wonder people like me use the terms interchangeably !

To be honest, I am also one who considers building from basic raw materials - with or without published or other plans - as "scratch building".

Will, perhaps, have to put that in the past tense!

No where does the article says use of local materials it does talk about raw materials. I have copy pasted the paragraph from wiki. Please read this

"Scratch building is the process of building a scale model "from scratch", ie. from raw materials, rather than building it from a commercial kit, kitbashing or buying it pre-assembled.

Scratch building is easiest if original plans of the subject exist; however, many models have been built from photographs by measuring a known object in the photograph and extrapolating the rest of the dimensions. The necessary parts are then fashioned out of a suitable material, such as wood, plastic, plaster, clay, metal, polymer clay, or even paper, and then assembled. Some purists consider a model not to be truly scratchbuilt unless all of the parts were made from raw materials. However most modellers would consider a model including commercial detail parts as scratchbuilt."

As all of us know wiki is not authoritative but more of collective wisdom. Pick up any authoritative book on designing airplane models and you would find that all the authors unequivocaly call scratch building as when you design and build your own, most of them would also guide you on fabricating most of the model (read airframe) components yourself. Of course we are not talking of powerplant and onboard radio equipment which would be out of capability of most of us, however there would be some of us who have means and skills to do even these from scratch

More then any difference about "local" verus "raw" materials, the key point was about "design own plan" or not.  That article does include "starting from existing plans" as a part of "scratch building" (as is evident from the phrase "scratch building is easiest if original plans of the subject exist").

Wiki is not really authoritative, that is why I was suggesting (for fun, partly ) that you should help edit the article

I was only suggesting that it is easy to lose the exact definition of these terms, as is evident from comments here and all over the RC world, and the Wiki article was a simple demonstration of that. In fact, I do feel better that I have lots of company in this "terminology" crime

Chris Foss became famous for his Wot 4 quite a few years ago.

As Anwar rightly says Foss is highly respected for his dedication to the hobby and providing us with superb flying models that were easy to replicate. Most of us RC flyers in UK have had a Chris Foss plane at some stage. I used to have is UNO WOT when I was training. Presently my 3rd scratch built WOT 4 is gathering dust in the hanger. Also in my collection is a ACRO WOT a low wing version of WOT 4 for 60 or 72 size engines.

14 years ago I bought a Wot 4 as my first aerobatic high winger plane kit soon after passing my bronze on a HIGH WING TRAINER "ARC Ready" (Plastic kits unbreakable type Italian ARTF kits), trashed it with a few months, built a new one soon after but as I did not have a fuselage jig at the time, the FUS resembled a banana and hence never flew straight.

However once you have built your first one and crashed, you remember to trace all parts of any kit you build. This was a lesson I learnt the hard way.

After a few phone calls to fellow aeromodellers in the club I was in possession of templates for a WOT 4 MARK 3. Since then all I have ever needed to build another Wot 4 is some balsa and I have built a few.

Wot 4 is a superb flying machine that can be a tame trainer with a 40 to 45 size engine or a fierce beast with a 60 size. Mine is with Irvine 52 ((or 45  cannot remember)) and I have saved all the wings of the various WOT 4's I have crashed. One of them has brakes or flaps on the 5th channel.

It is a good kit and the deluxe version comes with glassfibre under carriage. The rights were bought by RIPMAX when Chris retired a few years ago.

If any of you out there is capable of uploading tiled plans for fellow modellers to download and print, I can post a set of parts tracings with instructions.

I dont really know of the copyright issues but all clubs in UK have made templates of certain planes which are circulated amongst friends and hence we all have a plane which we have scratch built... and I MEAN SCRATCHBUILT.

In fact I think I have some images of the mold which is with Vivek at Sharma Model Aero so any one looking to buy a similar plane, please get in touch with him.

Once you have built it and flown it, you will realise why these planes have been so popular.

" I used to have is UNO WOT when I was training. Presently my 3rd scratch built WOT 4 is gathering dust in the hanger."

Oh! never knew that Mr Foss was kitting a desgin from you.

Quote from: anwar on March 08, 2010, 12:45:48 AM
In fact, I do feel better that I have lots of company in this "terminology" crime

I never beleived in Goebbeles theory that if many people told the same lie it starts to be taken as truth

Goebbeles almost succeeded because the guys who should have spoken the truth apparently did not do a very good job of it

The solution was to silence/oust all who could speak the truth so what ever was said was taken as truth

Dwelling on history, Captian ?   In today's "connected" world, even the little people are empowered !

Joking aside, if you feel strongly that "scartch build" should exclude building from existing plans in a puritan sense (and I am sure you are passionate about this distinction), you should help edit that Wikipedia article as a minimum. And Wikipedia, like RC India, is pretty open to information (no "silencing" there). I am tempted to do it myself, except that I am not sure how well this definition is accepted across the RC community (although I can go by your word on it). Any quick search leads only to confusion !

Another grey area is, say if I found a photograph of full size plane, and I measured the dimensions and built out of that. So that plan was not mine in the strictest sense, yet I did not use any one else's plan either.  Where would this fall ?

Quote from: flyingboxcar on March 08, 2010, 07:26:07 AM
" I used to have is UNO WOT when I was training. Presently my 3rd scratch built WOT 4 is gathering dust in the hanger."

Oh! never knew that Mr Foss was kitting a desgin from you.

More "terminology" criminals

Hey Mrknow it all-wiseman,  Flyingboxcar... how can you even think of pairing a junior flyer like me to a champ like Chris.. Sorry if I have misprinted what I wanted to say. What I meant to say was that I have built 3 Wot 4's so far out of plain balsa sheets and some liteply and a set of templates borrowed from a club member.

Anyway here are some images of a mold-tool for a WOT4. I am still waiting for Vivek to send me some pictures of the glassfibre fuselage he is supposed to make with this.

The black fuselage was produced in carbonfibre out of this mold.

Mike has a Wot 4 too.  He was sad about not being able to build it from a kit, as he got the ARF.  He did highlight the fact that it made a lot easier to start flying, unlike kits builds which took years at the pace he was doing them.

Will post some pictures next time he brings it to the field.  It is different from other planes in how it "really STANDS UP on the landing gears" !

Here are some images of my 2nd Wot 4... this was quite a few years ago

Here is Mike beaming with his Wot 4  

Even though it is a high winger, it seems to fly better aerobatics than a whole lot of low wingers !

Apologies for the mobile phone pictures.

Mike is obviously very good at building and covering, indeed he has done a nice job on the trimmings.
His wing is a parallel chord like my first one. Wot 4 mark 4 I think came with a swept back wing.

Vivek in Jodhpur informs me he has made certain alterations and his first fibreglass  plane from that mould tool is all ready to be flown. He has altered a few bits on the fuselage and will be making a new mould tool should this first model fly well.

He will be giving it his own name as the plane is altered by 30% or more. Once you have changed a kit or modified it by 25 to 30%, the patent and copyright  laws are not applicable.

So lets just wait for a video on u-tube and pictures on this forum.....

Quote from: b4ggu on March 12, 2010, 08:51:52 PM
Mike is obviously very good at building and covering, indeed he has done a nice job on the trimmings.
His wing is a parallel chord like my first one. Wot 4 mark 4 I think came with a swept back wing.

Like I mentioned before, this was an ARF.  Very good quality for an ARF, per Mike.

Quote from: b4ggu on March 08, 2010, 11:07:09 PM
Hey Mrknow it all-wiseman,  Flyingboxcar... how can you even think of pairing a junior flyer like me to a champ like Chris.. Sorry if I have misprinted what I wanted to say. What I meant to say was that I have built 3 Wot 4's so far out of plain balsa sheets and some liteply and a set of templates borrowed from a club member.

Anyway here are some images of a mold-tool for a WOT4. I am still waiting for Vivek to send me some pictures of the glassfibre fuselage he is supposed to make with this.

The black fuselage was produced in carbonfibre out of this mold.

Hey Mr no nuttin Mr. B4ggu, nice work on the mold.
BTW did Mr Foss give you licence to produce his work?
What you are doing is called IP piracy
Thought of telling you as you know nuttin

 
Scratch (sic) built for those who nuttin

 "Hey Mr no nuttin Mr. B4ggu, nice work on the mold.
BTW did Mr Foss give you licence to produce his work?
What you are doing is called IP piracy
Thought of telling you as you know nuttin"


Mr Know it all-wiseman, you are... aren't you, Mr Flyingboxcar.
Jumping to conclusions. Perhaps if you had read the text properly.....

When did I say I produced that mold?
When did I say I produced the carbonfibre fuselage??
When did I say I own those items???
The images were sent to me by a modellor who has made that carbon fibre fuselage and apparently still flies it very well indeed.
He bought the mold in a swap meet and it did not say "WOT 4" on it.


All I did was posted them on to share with fellow modellors here who might be able to create better.

Does that make them mine?

I have said I have made and flown 3 Wot 4's, first from an original kit and two from templates in balsa and plywood. Did I say I have made it in carbonfibre or glass fibre?

CAN I ASK ALL FELLOW MODELLORS " HOW MANY OF YOU COPY & TRACE THE PARTS OF THE KITS YOU BUY??"

I do, I learnt that is the first thing you do when you start building. If that makes me a pirate, so be it. At least I have tracings of all the parts when I crash my models and re-build them.

So many of us have made and crashed Depron Shockies from templates or tracings borrowed from friends so.........

If you want to call us aeromodellors "PIRATES"....
I HAVE GIVEN MY VIEW, PERHAPS OTHERS WILL WRITE THEIR VIEWS...               

Quote from: flyingboxcar on March 19, 2010, 08:21:09 PM

Scratch (sic) built for those who nuttin

You love criticising dont you? I wish some one shows you the nicer side of life that you seem to have missed all your life.

Deepak bhai - Please let it slide

It is obvious to most people that true knowledge/maturity includes the ability to "accommodate" people with various levels of knowledge, information, understanding and even attitudes.  Let us just strive to prove that, and carry on with the RC discussions  

Plus our beloved Captain only shows up here once in a while when he gets bored trying to single handedly revive another entity which takes pride in first trying to prevent people from ordering from Hobbycity, and then mocking people for trying to do the same. We take pride in being less than perfect, and are more welcoming towards such folks. So let us continue with that tradition (which we have upheld for the whole year of existence).

I agree Anwar. I could see this leading to; 


   
This type of attitude and comments will scare our young and inexperienced fellow modellors from writing any comments in future.

This is a free forum you have created and this has helped so many of us.

Everyone should be able to post whatever they want and they should be helped not criticised.......