fastinated

Hey guys, I'm not a newbie here. I was able to fly the crap out of my trainer, which would no longer viable since I'd have to basically rebuild a new one to get it to where I could beat on it to have some fun w/o breaking it.. I had a phoenix giles 202 which I managed to have a couple of flights. Put a evo .61 on it, but it was a difficult plane to fly.. The fuse snapped in half after I ran out of fuel and landed on some rough ground. Most planes would have survived, but it's basically 2 balsa rails holding the front to the back.. I saw on here where guys fiberglassed prior to their first flight.. Well I should have gone on here first, but I managed to make a hybrid Tower .46 trainer (front fuse) with the giles wing and tail section. Definately ugly, but I just wanted to see if it'd fly. And yes I fly safe.. So now to my question...

I put the .61 on the giles. fit fine, added a little weight to the back. Well the engine only has a few runs on it, but I bought a Hanger 9 f-22 the other day.. I noticed that alot of the guys were adding weight to the front of this plane to balance it and also to keep from tip stalling as bad.. So I'd like to stick the .61 evo rather than my tower .46 in it.. The plane has plenty of wing surface with the droops, and from what I've read it's a little tail heavy.. I'm a decent builder. I kit built a midwest sukhoi .40 years ago (actually had the .61 in that, but it's way too hot with the weight!. My hanger now has a Blade CP, Hirobo ZXX with a Bell 222 body, the hybrid tower trainer, sukhoi .40, and a tribute 3D. That's my air stuff, have a bunch of cars/boats electric and gas. I flew the crap out of my trainer, but the giles got the best of me.. VERY SENSITIVE! It may have gotten better if I'd of had more time to get the bugs worked out of it, but so be it. Now is this rapter going to fly somewhat like a trainer?. By looking at it, it lookes like a high wing plane. The wing is positioned above the thrust line.. Alot of posts here say the f-22 needs additional power. If I'm not mistaken the tower .46 has more power than alot of it's competition.. TRUE? And I do believe my .61 on the giles made a crappy plane just a faster crappy plane... Is this one gonna be the same.. Sorry about the beginners section and the novel, but I thought it was the best place.
Also the plane has an 11oz fuel tank.. What am I looking like with run time?.. I did see a guy put a .91 on the f-22 so I think I'd be fine, but I'd like the old salt here to give their input.. As for the plane itself it sold itself.. Seems silly, but I'm fascinated by the interior space and the neat hatches.. Can even see fuel level right in front of the pilot.. COOL!

BadSplice

My Feedback: (1)

I have the f-22 with a .46 Evolution on it. It could definitly use more power. However, I'm afraid to try to cram a .60 on there ( have one sitting around) because mine is already very nose heavy. To get it to balance right the battery is literally as far back in the fuse as it can physically go. Also, there is a lead tire weight back there. I am afraid if I put on the .60, I would have to add the same amount of extra weight in the back.

If yours has the battery farther forward in it though, Id go for it, but just a warning, this plane DOES NOT FLY LIKE A TRAINER. Even with the droops on, it is Fast, heavy and rolls fast also. Plus because of the narrow wings it seems to get small fast in the sky.

Dont get me wrong, I have a blast every time I fly it, but its much more exciting than relaxing, if you catch my drift

fastinated

Well I have yet to start assembly. It does say in the instructions about the battery in the tail. So I'm assuming they are all the same. And if yours is heavy in the front with the .46 then the .52 is probably a tad heavier. Some other guys are adding 3.5 oz. in the nose in the other posts. Could this be a difference in each plane. I'd hope they are closer than that. Or I get the one with the extra glue I almost went for the mustang, but I love the look of this thing. Plus with the wing loading is less (according to calculations) But I do assume it's a little hotter on the landing. Also besides some flight characteristics and the .61 install any problems or fixes you'd do. I was bit by the Giles with a weak spot. I also heard the mustang PTS had weak landing gear mounts. So any on this one?

Sourkraut

fastinated.... the .61 will fit without to much trouble and the extra power will be appreciated. BUT this thing is not for the faint of heart. Go and read the F22 Raptor threads in the ARF/RTF forums (page 12 I think). I have a picture of mine with a .61 GMS in the nose and it flys FAST!!!! If you try and float it in like a trainer or deadstick it, you will be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Curt

Sourkraut

There was a weak spot in the front of the fuse above the front nose wheel that would snap on a hard landing but I think the later kits had this rectified. Go to the Hanger 9 website and look up the Raptor fix on the site. I have the PTS Mustang also and that thing went through some hard landings with no problems. I did tear the gear out when I dropped it in on a takeoff due to a wiring problem. but has been fixed and still one of my best flying planes and now with the flaps deployed it lands like a low wing trainer also.

Curt

da Rock

One major hurdle to putting a 61 in the front of this thing is it's short gear. They slapped such short gear on the thing that they wound up having to put a 3-blade prop on their recommended engine. Try to run a 61 with that prop and it'll probably melt down. There might not be a prop made that would fit and a 61 would like.

As for the balance of the thing, if it isn't kept overly noseheavy, it won't keep it's nosewheel on the ground. The main wheels are almost directly under the CG with the recommended CG. Move it aft even a touch and the thing falls on it's butt when you put it down on the ground.

bruce88123

They didn't "HAVE" to install a 3-blade due to gear length. They WANTED to use that prop, the TRAINER STSTEM prop. Wide, low pitch blades to reduce thrust and add drag when at idle for landing. ALL INTENTIONAL in this TRAINER. It is a TRAINER that a bunch of guys want to soup up. Don't get mad if the airframe doesn't do what it wasn't designed to do.

da Rock

If that thing is a trainer, then I'm a pink flamingo.

If you look at all the things that are marginal or just plain screwed up with that lump, it's pretty clear that what they wanted to do was produce a product that would sell to whomever had the money and inexperience to be taken in.

Nobody in their right mind wants a trainer prop with reduced thrust. Especially a designer who should know how simple and easy it would be to simply restrict the throttle movement of an engine they're already screwing around with and reducing the needle adjustments.

BadSplice

My Feedback: (1)

I had a great planes Easy Sport that I loved to fly. Balanced perfectly with battery just behind servos. Totally pankcaked it due to dumb thumbs, but bought another right away because I liked ie so much. Went to swap the gear straight over to the new one (it all survived ok) and to balance, the battery had to be sitting on the hinge line of the elevator!!! I looked and looked, but couldnt find anything wrong in the construction. went with redudnant batteries in the tail (hate the idea of totally dead weight hehe) and the plane flew great.

Maybe you'll get lucky and the .61 will ballance that thing perfectly.

As for the prop clearance, it is tight, but its not too bad. I had no problem running an 11" 2blade prop. (have a 10x7 3 Blade MAS now and that rocks) If youre careful, and especially if you find a good 3 blade prop, you should be fine.

Also, I reccomend hooking up the flaps. They make a HUGE difference for me as far as landing speed, because as mentioned above, this thing flies and lands rather like a brick with wings, but if you keep the speed up, its a great plane

bruce88123

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...ProdID=HAN3825

Don't blame me for THEM calling it (the RTF) a trainer.

They do say the ARF can be souped up and made quite a performer.

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Yeh they initially call it a "jet trainer" but later on describe it as a basic trainer. So I gues its "long live the "Craptorh."

da Rock

Why would anyone blame you?????? It's not about you, it's about the misrepresentation of the airplane, along with the design of the thing.

They say it can be made into quite a performer? They also say it's a trainer.

hogflyer

Now if it could be easily modified for retracts and a pipe buried in the fuselage for a .61 exiting from the scale jet exhaust location...................

I watched one fly without any training aids - one of the fastest rolling planes I've seen and definitely a second or third plane, not a trainer. Luckily another pilot was able to save it from the guy flying it. He got it for a second trainer after he flew about 10 solo flights on his Sky Raider MkI and almost lost it (bets where being placed in the pits on how long it would last [X(] ). Somebody gave him some bad advise to remove all the training stuff. For pilots with experience to handle it, it does appear to have some potential, if the airframe can take it....

Hogflyer

JCSKYPILOT

As far as i know i wont buy any H9 plane again in my life, i bought the F22 PTS firsta and second plane trainer as they call it, and simply crash it with my instructor so i dont belive its a trainer i was miss guided by their publicity.

hogflyer

Have you taken the time to read through the numerous posts here about the F-22? H9 planes have a very good reputation for quality and good flight characteristics, but the F-22 has been suspect for being a beginners plane. Don't take what manufacturers say about a plane, review the threads in RCU to see what people with actual experinece with the product have to say about it. I have an Alpha 60 that I use to give instruction with and it is a very good flying plane, rugged and I'd highly recommend it as a first trainer. I’ve given instruction in 20+ mph winds and it was flying better than most of the other planes in the air at the time. Both the Alpha 40 and Alpha 60 fly the same, and I have flown both.

Just a suggestion - read through [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4537845/tm.htm]RC Ken’s list of trainers [/link] to see what is out there. Since you have an engine and radio from the F-22, pick up a flat bottom airfoiled trainer and learn to fly on that.

Hogflyer

Wild Foamy

even though this is advertised as a trainer, keep in mind that it is modelled (roughly scale) on an aircraft that is low winged, designed to be fast and manaeuvorable (spelling?) and even with all the addons and such, at the end of the day it is still not the same as a conventional trainer.

find yourself a good 4ch trainer (nothing wrong with 3ch, i just found it alot easier to use 4ch, more manaeuvorable (spelling?).) and transplant the running gear from the F-22 into your trainer, when you get really good with your trainer then maybe start thinking about moving onto something a little bit more similar to the F-22 (like a Bossanova, that was my 2nd plane with the rates cut back and i found it a pleasure to fly, surprisingly light and when you slow it down it just floats, no tip stall or nasty habits) and maybe let someone with a bit more experiance take the F-22 up before you fly and make sure its all trimmed out, balanced and is ready to go (you should be able to do all the trimming and balancing by yourself, but best get it checked over to be on the safe side)

ive rambled on enough, bottom line: Get yourself a trainer, dont run before you can walk

broke_n_bummin

I put a K&B .61 on mine with an 11X8 apc. It flies great, but takeoffs and landings will make it almost impossible to pass gas. The landing gear is so stiff that the thing bounces all over the place. I would suggest bending the gear just a little towards the rear to give it just a little bit of spring. With the wing droops on, it flies kind of nasty if you try to go fast. It wobbles and shakes almost like going fast in an SSE. Take the droops off and let 'er rip. Put the flaps on a dial or switch and it will climb fast and descend slow. That's what I like about my 6X. I can dial about 30% flap for take off and hit the airbrake for landing.

JCSKYPILOT

Hi every one, im sorry to say i didn´t no about RCU before i bought it, i was missguided by advertisment, but kwon i solved both issues, i have a real trainer which fly´s more than great wich is an AVISTAR by HOBBICO, and no need tu purchase an H9.

Tks a lot and have nice holidays

JCSKYPILOT

Im following these advise, tks for your comments.

Bregards

JCSKYPILOT

Tks for your advise.

Regards

djsdog

I bought one of these H9 F-22s just before the Holidays. I started flying 8 months ago, have 19 planes (1/2 of them nitro) and have flown about 3/4 of them. I mostly fly at my house (38 acres) and I take off and land in two different areas due to ground conditions and if I sent in pictures of these sights you would call me crazy for trying to fly here.

I am mostly self taught (once again very crazy) and yes it costs allot more to learn this way. I did join a flying club a few weeks back and am looking forward to some good RC advice. I would consider myself an intermediate pilot when flying and a beginner when setting up a plane for the first flight. I do not recommend leaning this way as I have lost out on allot of the basic do and don’ts of flying that an experianced flyer would have taught me. Available extra free time is my problem.

With that said here is my point.

One of the easiest planes I have assembled flown to date is a stock H9 P-51 PTS ARF with all the training garb on and this includes takeoffs, turning, and landings. I do not here many people say good things about the H-9 PTS training system. Let me tell you from a seat of the pants flyer. In my opinion at least for the H-9 P-51 PTS it’s been GREAT for me!!!! That said, do I recommend this for a first plane? I would haft to say probably not. Maybe make it your second plane and listen to a knowledgeable person on picking a first trainer.

BTW, the supplied three bladed prop that everyone seems to hate in my experience allows a learning pilot to keep the motor revved up without adding to much excessive speed but maintaining plenty of climb out power for troublesome situations. You do not need to worry as much about throttle management when you are learning. This is one less thing to deal with while learning to fly at the minimal cost of a little extra fuel. Maybe there is a better way to accomplish this but I can’t imagine there is an easier way for a new pilot.

Now for the H-9 F22 PTS,

Can anyone tell me what I can expect from the H-9 F-22 plane with all the training garb on and stock out of the box the first time I fly it. Not just what everyone hates about it or what an advanced pilot would do to fly it! I could really use some advice on what to watch out for because I plan to fly this plane myself and stock.

BadSplice

My Feedback: (1)

Djsdog,

I tought mysely to fly much as you did. It may not be the ideal way to learn, but the club I am now a part of wants me to be an instructor now myself, so it certainly can be done

As for the Raptor: The first suggestion I would give is to lose the 3 blade trainer prop. This plane is heavy, and while that prop may pull the PTS Mustang, it will Not pull the raptor more than a hair past stall speed, im my experience. Go with either an 11x6 APC 2 blade, or an 11x5 3 blade.

Also, if you have enough channels and servos, I would highly recommend setting up the flaps to operate from the radio. This plane flys the most stable when its going fast. Having the flaps up for flight, but available for landings is great.

Plan on a LONG take off and landing run. This plane will not be at all happy if you try to lift off without enough speed. It will also take a bit of time in the air to build up momentum and come up to full flying speed. If you use a small amount of flap on takeoff, it will shorten the run, but dont use too much, or when you go to raise them the plane will drop fast as its not up to speed yet.

I have a blast flying mine. Its a great plane. It just needs to be moving fast. As someone said earlier... this is a model of one of the most advanced fighter jets out there, and as such, way more of a handful than a "real" trainer. The real one requires several computers to stabilize it and allow a pilot to maintain control.

djsdog

Badsplice,

Great! I may have an 11X5 3 blader at home to use and the flaps will be operational on the maiden. What about the wing droops, fly it with them on the first time or wing it (ha ha) without them?

thanks

BadSplice

My Feedback: (1)

I would go ahead and leav them on for the first few flights. Anoter gentleman in our club has one (OS .70 Four stroke on that one) and he left the wing droops on. It doesnt roll as fast as mine, but other than that seems pretty sporty. I think actually the droops would let you land even a little slower, but probably not too much.

Also, for the flaps, I have a mix programmed in to give me about 10% of down elevator mixed in with the flaps. Im not sure if the droops will affect it. But I would suggest setting up an elevator to flap mix before you even start. If you dont have the mix available, just make sure you are around 1/3 throttle and starting to really slow down before bringing down the flaps, or the plane will baloon like crazy. Even if you have the mix, you still want to slow down before applying the flaps, it will be much smoother.

I was actually plaing with it last time I flew, coming in a little faster for landings, with about half flaps, then as the nose starts to drop, add flap to keep it up, without touching the elevator. Could get it almost to the ground before I had to apply any elevator to keep the nose up.

bdleon75

hey fellas,
just flew mine today and while it flew beautifully once in the air and level, takeoff had me literally holding my breath. os 46fx with a 11x6 apc and a truturn spinner had me balanced perfectly at 6" CG but this plane is heavy and needs more engine. i'm leaning towards a .61 ive looked at the gws .61 its a good price for the horsepower vs and o.s. (almost double the price) anyone have ant exp with them?
i did install the flap servos and that makes it really nice for landing. i already had the 46 from my alpha trainer and thought it might be enough, but im taking off from grass(mowed very low) and it took all of the runway and if it weren't for the bump at the end i dont think it would of taken off at all. But the sound at full throttle on a low pass and a slow turning roll climb out is AWESOME!

My 2cents: This is NO trainer, my hangar 9 alpha 40 with the three blade prop is a trainer. this plane is sensitive and needs to be flown fast. I've read were even people with the pts evo 52 have just enough power. I also think it should be called a 60 size aircraft, not 40.