Guillows Stuka build and maiden flight video with gag reel 

Nice lol. I built this in the 70's flew like a rock using the supplied rubber power.

so glad I watched it from start to finish. The ending was the best!

Delightful ending. Kudos for even trying a Guillows’ conversion.

A 40 size Stuka is tricky to fly, getting a Gulliow’s to fly once is good work.

What a fantastic build, creative and imaginative!!! Thanks for posting!!!

Great effort and the ending was very funny. Thanks for posting this and good luck on the next flight.

The Maiden Crash. This model was my first r/c plane over 40 years ago. I had no idea what I was doing back then and it showed, very quickly. I flew gliders after that and never looked back. Nice work on the fantasy shoot down....hilarious...

Nice build with nice music. Do a good repair and I hope to see a video when the Stuka is airborne again!

Mine is still in the box. Parts all built up, but uncovered! Been out of model building for a while. This brought back a lot of feels.

Bravo Sir now i want one Thanks for the show buddy.

Beautiful build next tine have. Rudel stuka ace flying .

Loved the edit!

the ending was awesome!

I don't know how u got any thumb's down???? That was a xxxcellent build.. Very detailed. Plus made it better with beefing up the landing gear... I put my 16" guillows micro RC " Me-109 into the ground 3 time's before I got it dialed in. 2 times were bad krashes to..ugggh.. I give you 100 thumb's up Man. Peep's don't realize how much time and attention to detail a guy puts into a scratch built plane to get it to look sweet AF like u did. If u build and Flyyy RC plane's ur gonna krash!!! THATS just the way it goes..I learned after the 3rd rebuild that when I first took off and got it in the Air I kept the throttle at 1/2 throttle.. It was easier for me to control and was wayyyyy wayyyyy less squirrelly and I got it trimmed and got my expo under control which was a BIGG part of my problem. It was going to fast and the expo was was to fast .. But I eventually dialed her in👍👍😎😎✈✈

Some of the larger Guillows models have been successfully converted to electric powered RC by some experienced builders who have learned to select light enough motors, speed controls, battery packs, receivers and servos and building and covering materials substituting materials for lightness and careful "beefing up" structure where needed. Adding "retracts", flaps, and sheeting or inlaying to make scale-like structure generally makes models too heavy to fly scale-like and land gently.If your objective is to build a beautiful scale model that can give you many pleasurable flights, consider building a larger model that has been designed for electric powered RC using common power and RC system components and materials.

excellent build!

Your best video to date!

Great video!

A lot of guys who built successful guillows kits had to do a lot of modifications during the build to make it a good controllable airplane. Making their own control linkage and other parts and insuring everything was properly balanced. Center gravity ect.

I did enjoy the "explanation" at the end. That's a lotta work, sorry it didn't turn out. My electrified (24" or so) balsa Piper Cub a few years ago ended up pretty much the same way - underpowered, with wings cracked off after its first test flight. Steven's Aeromodel has some nice kits for electric gear, but they are on the small end.

ahahaha the special effects were EPIC dude, EPIC lolol

That was great!

Love the ending , “SPITFIRE “!

Very creative editing ;)

Really cool!!!

😂😂 love the little outro

Had this kit when I was growing up in the ‘80s

Love that ending!

Very interesting...even now!

Awesome!

Brilliant 👍

Labor of love.

Did I see the left wing drag on takeoff? Very nice build! Achtung! Spitfire!

Great video!!!!!! I LOVED the music!!!! So tired of the CRAP people put with their videos. I love the Stuka and have been building and flying and crashing them since 1958!!! Must have gone thru about 13 by now with one 75 inch 1.20 4 stroke glow powered Phoenix Model surviving the carnage.

Flies nice.

Hi I’m just starting to build a Guillows spitfire. I’ve heard before from others that they are heavy but can’t understand why as it seems light enough. What in your opinion makes them heavy. I’ll have to finish it now, but hope I’m not wasting my time.

great love it

Epic ending.

I judt got the P-40 yesterday. That laser cutting sure is the ticket.

カッコいいです。離陸がカッコいい！

Awesome ending! 4 Star build!

Great ending

Boa tarde! Saberia me dizer se esse kit é cortado a laser?

the ending is exactly why digital electric model trains are better than RC planes... at least my trains are in one piece at the end of a running session.

Dat ending though

Great work !!! What electric motor used ?

Great ending.😂

It was tail heavy and not enough down thrust. Fly with a 3 or 4 pitch prop max and avoid too much dia. as it will cause torque issues till up to speed.

Almost seemed to have too much power. And really touchy controls. I remember when I was selling Cox .049 U control planes that most kids wanted the P-40 or Stuka. I wished we could have steered more of them to the PT-19, which was probably the best flyer and easiest to learn on. So, you used "Ultrakote" instead of silk. Did that add greatly to the weight? I have never built anything with the electric motors I see in most new RC aircraft. I am a graduate of U-control, early RC, Ugly Stiks. Us dinosaurs, who cut our teeth on balsa, silk and dope, decals, and miniature diesel motors, will give way to the modern styrofoam, electric, and made on the printer generation. As long as they continue to model, instead of sitting in front of a video screen, that is all that really matters.

Why doesn't guillows just make these lots again laser cut them and make them rc kits for guys like me who are new into balsa building due to the internet to help teach the craft and the foam trainers that taught us how to fly so we can fly balsa planes with confidence and build beautiful bsa models and the look of balsa you just can't get with a foam plane. I built a giant guillows and it was a conversion cuse it was still runner powered even at that scale lol. But it made a beautiful flying aircraft and looks amazing as well I painted mine using thin tissue covering that I made really tight then coated it with a thin coat of modgepdge watered down and the painted with airbrush I made super watery modege podege to be able to airbrush the tissue paper and it not wrinkle up anywhere and clear coated it and man it looks beautiful. Love your build here as well this is gonna be my next one. Didn't know you could paint monokote

Funny end!

I over powered it. Had I throttle back it might have been more controllable.

Great finnaly Man.hehehehaahahhhh

Built that model in about 1980, put thin sheets of balsa on instead of the tissue . Wanted a display model looked good , lost it through time

EEEERIKA.... anyways great build

can you list your gear set up to help me build mine?

With what you painted the cawling?

Great video,had to mute it though.

I tried making MANY of these Guillows kits...they're awful. Back in the day we didn't have CA glue, so it was 'elmers' all the way....on 1/16th inch balsa. Not fun. I never finished even one of them. It almost made me quit the hobby, until I got with a sailplane flyer who showed me CA glue and the Goldberg Gentle Lady. I've made a dozen or more models, since- anyone doing this with a Guillows earns HIGH PRAISE around my house...

I thought most model didn't put swastikas in the kits anymore?

Ein zix millione mark stukka

Flies like shite doesn't it. Here are a few tip, if I may, from one who has built Gulllows kits for many decades and eventually learned how to get them to fly better.. BASHING A GUILLOWS KIT FOR GOOD FLIGHT First, you must start with the build itself. Guillows’ aeroplanes are way overbuilt as designed and far too heavy for their wing area to demonstrate good flight characteristics. The wing loading will always be too great for good and stable flight if the kit goes unmodified. The airfoils that Guillows has selected are entirely inadequate and inefficient and must be altered if you want the model to fly well. You can add balsa to the existing die-cut ribs or make new ones. Either way, find a good airfoil section from the plans of a successful free flight model and use it as a template. Make new ribs and cut holes in them so that they are lighter but still sufficiently strong. Then sand them to about half their thickness. It requires some experience to know just what to cut out and how much to sand them, but I can tell you that you can cut out and sand off quite a lot without sacrificing their structural integrity. If you make new ribs with the new airfoil (my recommendation), use thinner, contest grade balsa. The scale dihedral will not be sufficient if you are going elevator/rudder/motor. Add a few degrees. Even though, as I see that you put in aileron control, a bit more dihedral on these small models is not a bad idea, anyway. Now to the tail. Using as little of the kit pieces as possible and thinning them as above if you do, learn how to form thin, wetted balsa strips around the perimeter of a template of the surfaces with interior bracing as required. Making tail surfaces using this method not only makes them a lot lighter and stronger, they look much better when covered. Sometimes making the tail surfaces from a simple piece of thin, lightweight balsa cut to shape is better than what was designed in the kit. The Guillows fuselage design is a nightmare of too much wood in the wrong places. You can use the formers from the kit if you wish, but sanded thinner. Also, the formers’ inside parts should be cut way down. The aeroplane doesn’t need all that structure in there. You can really sand the rearmost formers quite thin as little strength is wanted back there. Cut down the main side stringer pieces as well. They are way too heavy as they are. Replace the kit stringers with the lightest balsa you can find. The stringers add no strength to the airframe and, as on a real aeroplane, they are only there for shape. Once they have been added, make a little sanding tool from a sharpened pencil point or similar tapered piece of hardwood and scallop the formers between the stringers. This is so much not for saving weight but for improving the model’s appearance when covered. The edges of the formers will not stick to the covering and only the stringers will outline the aeroplane’s shape, as should be. You might want to keep some of the kit’s heavier parts whole near the front so that the motor, battery and ESC will have a firm mount. Of course , a good sanding of the completed model is a must. It should feel smooth to the touch all over after you remove all those bits that stick out. This will insure a nice looking covering. Using the lightest covering material is important. I use a very thin, clear film and lightly paint it rather than using a heavier, coloured material. You can select the paint colours you like, and add a lot of detail this way. When planning the installation of the receiver and servos, you will, of course, have to add some structure for mounting same, but keep a sharp eye out on the centre of gravity. All components ought be mounted as forward as possible. These models tend to be tail heavy under the best circumstances, and having to add weight to the nose is a waste of wing loading. Unless exact scale outline is desired for contests or such, some additional wingspan and a slightly enlarged horizontal stabilizer/elevator is a good way to give the model better flight characteristics. The extra wingspan lowers the wing loading and adds lateral stability. Around a 20- 25% increase in span ought to be fine and oughtn’t look out of place. An enlarged horizontal stabilizer/elevator does a few useful things for a model. First, it increases its lifting properties, moving the aeroplane’s center of lift rearward and thus farther from its centre of gravity. This greatly increases pitch stability and control. Second, a centre of lift that is father aft increases the permissible range of the centre of gravity, extending the permissible pitch axis envelope. This comes in particularly handy when the model is bit tail heavy and you have to move the centre of gravity aft to balance it. An enlarged stabilizer/elevator also means that you need less elevator input. This smooths out the elevator’s authority making flying the aeroplane far less of a chore. Another useful bit regarding an enlarged stabilizer/elevator is that when you set the decalage, which is the relative angles of pitch of the wing and the stabilizer, you will need to make smaller corrections due to the stabilizer’s increased lifting authority. By the way, be sure to have a good amount of positive decalage. This will be an aid to good pitch stability and the model will tend to correct itself in pitch when the nose rises or descends. Carefully built, an enlarged horizontal stabilizer/elevator will not add much aft weight, a little, but not enough to offset all of the benefits it bestows. It is a good idea to add some plywood reinforcement to the spar at the centre of the wing for extra support. Extend this reinforcement out to a few inches from the side of the fuselage as the original all-balsa design did not contemplate electric motors, batteries, R/C and all. As wingspan progresses outward towards the tip, the spar becomes less strained in flight so you don’t have to add extra structure there. Most modelers way overpower these small, now hopefully very light aeroplane models. They don’t want much thrust to fly in a scale-like manner, which I assume is the ultimate goal. A Stuka, for instance, should not flit around like an F-16. That aeroplane was a kind of steady, far from aerobatic aeroplane, slow except in a dive, which you may emulate if you wish, but watch out for the pullup. You can easily snap a wing in a moment. The real aeroplane has a lot of drag and automatic dive brakes to limit and control its vertical speed. I assume that you will not have such brakes on the model, although you could. One observation, A Stuka without those large undercarriage wheel and strut coverings looks very strange, indeed. This type did not have retractable undercarriages and that drag produced by those coverings added to the aeroplane’s ability to dive without over-speeding. I hope at some of this is helpful. I found it that doing these bits made these models a lot better flyers, and was fun to do, as well. Cheers, and good building and flying.

I think that maybe you didn't put enough wrinkles into one wing panel. :*)

Is this some type of sick joke ?

LOL, the 1 dislike didn't watch the end. Seriously the Stuka wing is difficult to build straight. My little 16.5" Guillows is almost trainer easy, with rud and ail mechanically mixed. Never did get around to flying the 34" version I have though. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wdCdwgk8PvM.html

lol

You bee watchin too much Battle of Britain.

what really happened LMFAO

I don't know why you guys keep trying to convert these overweight Guillows kits into r/c airplanes. Us serious rubber scale flyers won't touch them. If you're going to convert a free flight rubber power plane to r/c you need to start with a Dumas, Herr, Diels or even some of the old Sig, Top Flight or Berkley kits. Dozens of great "short kits" are available from endless sources; Bob Holman, Jim O'reilly, ozarkmodelaviation.com, etc...Easy Built.

i am feel sory for your maiden flight . a stuka shuld not finish like tis .

think you need to remove that swastika unless you wanna get kicked in the face