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.

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 ?


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.....

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

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...               

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.......

I've been following this since the beginning


MC - you're too judgemental - and I say this without
intending any malice

Anwar, Deepak (B4ggu)
The namescalling was not started by me, read the posts carefully and you would know
It is but obvious that people who do not wish to educated can not be educated>
Maturity et all! I will leave that aside as you can argue only with mature people and I can see this will only lead to 
As for the other forum, the number of posts, and topics tell a different story  

 

We have the right selection of smilies

Anwar, MC (Flyingboxcar),

I agree to this statement; "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."   
We have all done our education at school.
This forum is not here for elocution lessons in english, neither is this forum restricted to english pundits only.

So why are we being criticised and picked on words like "Scratchbuilding" literally....?

Mc (if that is what you like to be called) no malice to you my friend but go back and see how many times you have tried to pick on various quotes.

 We are not here for any english language exams... those were all done and dusted some time ago.

So please excuse us, from your taunts, let us carry on with the RC discussions and please share your knowledge with us instead of criticising our language, litreture and terms.

Lets just enjoy with our BOYZTOYZ...   

LADS, PLEASE VIEW YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS.....

Deepak bhai -  This will go in circles   Not worth it, as the thread speaks for itself (and as others have commented).

And I probably should have not said some of the things I said, but there is a limit to the amount of "elitism" people can handle. At least we are openly having such discussions here, unlike other places where everyone has to "condone" the "mature" rule of "everyone has to buy from this one store to seek any RC help" !

I request you to not comment further, so as to not pollute this thread about a beautiful plane any further. 

Sorry guys an error in my previous post.  Please voice your views is what I wanted to say.... So I had to correct it.... I will not be posting any more comments on this thread any more. As they say happy landings guys....
Deepak

We do want to see that model, when Vivek finishes the wings also

Thanks but no thanks!
What I have seen is enough (both the dark and bright side) and I guess many people will never see that much in two lives

No comments just a wish....Smile with me, the world will look happier.

B4ggu  

Others
BTW
I am not alone in my definition of scratch etc.
Have a look at this thread, (the post by William Robinson on the page) the post in particular reproduced from the thread for benifit of all
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1897646/tm.htm (please go to towards the bottom of page 1 of the thread) and best of all you get to see lot of nice models there too
The best part is to see the replies he gets to his post, are we not all same? Whether few thousand miles apart or not??

Well...

I see a lot of beautiful planes here. Doug, your Pitts is the champ. If it weren't for the large screws in the cockpit view I'd suspect the pictures weren't really a model. It's that good.

But I also see a lot that aren't scratch built.

Ways to get a flying model:

1) RTF. Assembled, go fly.
2) ARF. Already built, you assemble the larger components, go fly.

These first two are relative no-brainers, minimum skills and no building required.

3) Build a purchased kit. Structural components in the box, gather the miscellaneous bits, build, and fly.
4) Build from plans. Gather the structural components and the miscellaneous bits, build, and fly.

These two require much higher skills than a RTF or ARF, but the brain work is already done. There's no real difference between kit and plan built except the convenience of the kits on one hand, and the greater variety available when building from plans on the other.

5) Build from scratch. You decide what to build, how to build it, and what to build it from. Anything less is not scratch building.

So, plan builders, I'm sorry, but that plane is not scratch built.

Bill.
 

Captain - No one here said you are alone or you are wrong.  I was just pointing out that a large marjority (I would say a brutal majority) includes "plan builds using raw materials" in scratch building, including people who have "really been around". You certainly took it the wrong way, and Deepak bhai was caught in the crossfire

Even the responses you pointed out in the thread you mentioned above show how split people are on this.  There are a lot of people who think like the gentleman who posted response #35 in that thread you posted.

My earlier question remains though.  What will I call it if I saw some pictures of a real airplane, measured them out, made a plan from those and them built to that plan ?  It is not my plan, but I did not use any existing plan either

No Comment.....
Just an opinion...ALL IZ WELL that comes out good looking and flies well whether scratchbuilt, trace built, template built, kit built, ARF, ARTF, RTF...
what difference does it make, we will still crash it one day..

As they say happy landings guys....
Deepak

Anwar,
To answer your question,
In aeromodelling if you measured up a real one (either full scale or three view drawings of any size) and from there drew your own plans to whatever scale (unless you are using 1:1 scale and using original designs from mfg (in which case it would become plans build) it would be classified as scratch build.
Yes a brutual majority have thier definitions wrong, but that does not make it right, if you have gone thru the RCU polls majority agreed there too that building from plans was scratch building. But then as I have said earlier, democracy is not always right. If it were, our leadears are absolutely right as a brutual majority of the country's populace has elected them to lead.
All said and done, none of the above still preclude me in trying to propogate the correct terms, although I agree I may be fighting a lossing battle, but will fight on regardless! 

Now can we conclude here endeth the lesson on scratchbuilt. .
Anwar really all the text on MR Foss's thread should be posted on a seperate thread.
All fellow members cannot make a mistake of calling a kitbuilt plane scRAtchBUIlT

What say u MC.
Mr foss was attacked and shot dead in our crossfire.
Shall we revive the guy???......

If the Admin can segregate and put it all in a seperate thread, Mr Foss and all of us would be elated, and would serve to propogate the truth!

I like the smiley thumbs up attitude.... Its much better that way, keep thumbing MC... what is your Raashi... err Name
My name...is not Khan
Deepak:)
 

Parents named me Manish, others call me Capt, some MC, many even MC/BC, but then as the bard had said "what's in a name?"

I am glad that this is all sorted now!!..... I was feeling guilty it being my plane...

Anyhow, I thought people might like to know that it was built from a Chris Foss Kit nearly 10 years ago, is finished in glassfibre cloth/ resin with a paint finish and flies superbly. Totally recommended, albeit low wing aerobat, it is very stable and flies like a trainer at low speed.  Would I replace it in the event of the unthinkable?? absolutely!!  Also the new ARTF Chris Foss WOT4 is worth a definite look. (IMO!!!)

Who says it is all sorted out   And it had nothing to do with your plane.  I guess you were waiting in the wings for the dust to settle

Are there ARF versions of the "Extra Wot" also ?

No comment!!!!

No ARTF for xtra wot as far as I know!!

 

Thanks Mike   Still waiting for an update on the other build (http://www.rcindia.org/gas-glow-nitro-planes/gloster-gamecock-latest-project/).  You mentioned some teaser photos of what is coming up, that would certainly ignite the interest

Yep, have next bit ready to post this weekend!!

Hey Mike,
Nice to hear from you finally... All we guys have been firing at each other using your shoulders...

You have indeed done a superb painting and building job on that kit. If you interested in building, I can post you my tracings and photocopy of instructions on WOT 4.

And Manish,
You sound like a guy who knows his ropes .....You too let me know if you want to build a WOT 4...
but it has to be "scratchbuilt from templates"  lol


Now keep those guns in the holster next time please explain in a simple manner as you have done.....

 

Would love to build a fly a Wot but no time as of now, have quite a horde of classic and rare kits lined up and then there are couple of plans designed by one Mr Whitehead which I would love to build from, let us see when these wishes fructify