Giovanni_L

After following the many comments (a few of which frankly hard to read []) made on this thread that I started a while back, I feel that I need to jump back in briefly and confirm that I have made my decision and purchase.
In spite of the obvious performance advantages for 3D type of flying of a profile aircraft with a Saito 82a glow engine (which is what I had solicited feedback about), I felt the appearance of the model is also important to me and I am willing to sacrifice some performance for the nicer look of a full fuselage airframe. Not finding many options out there meeting this requirement, I settled for the Showtime 50, which has a good reputation as an aerobatic flyer (if not necessarily for 3D), was designed for the Saito 82a, is easy to transport and store (wings are removable, contrary to many profiles), appears to be almost a form, fit, function replacement for the Reactor I had earlier (which allows me to reuse its components, such as the servos), and so I am willing to take the chance with it. Worst case, I will have a decent plane for precision-type flying. I am still buliding it (slowly) and it may be a while before I can test it.
Sorry if someone got disappointed by my choice.
I also concur that electrics can be even better performers, but that was not my question. I have a number of electrics that I am very happy with, especially for their 3D capabilities, but I wanted to find a good home for my Saito 82a, until I transition completely out of glow engines (my goal eventually is to fly electrics, in small to medium size, and gassers, in larger sizes).
Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts and comments to this thread, in the best spirit of this forum.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

Giovanni, if you enjoyed flying your Reactor, then you will enjoy flying your Showtime. They are both similar style planes, and with a Saito 82, they are both good sport aerobatic planes.

But regardless of our differences of opinions about profiles, fatties, glow, and electric, I think everyone who responded to this thread would agree that those two planes are far from the best choice for a 3D plane for a Saito 82........which is exactly what you wanted to know about in your original post. Since you have only made 7 posts here on RCU, I don't think any of us are going to blast you for totally ignoring the advice you were given. But for future reference, it would have been helpful for me and everyone else to know up front that 3D performance was secondary to the appearance of a full fuselage plane, and that all you really wanted was a plane with good basic sport aerobatic performance. If you would have been completely honest up front, this thread would have branched off into a whole different direction. You could have been rewarded with a variety of useful information about a good replacement for a Reactor, instead of two pages of information about a question that you asked, but didn't really care about.

Giovanni_L

Dave,
thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I have to take exception with your statement about complete honesty. This has nothing to do with ethics. I asked for information that could lead me to make a choice regarding a 3D-capabale plane (not just a good sport aerobatic plane), which I had associated in my mind with what I am used to, i.e. full fuselage. When I realized the logical answers were pointing instead towards something I did not wish to pursue at this time (i.e. a profile plane), I decided to re-adjust my objectives (as I explained in my earlier posting), not "totally ignoring the advice" I was given.
I do appreciate anyone who spent time responding and helping me focus on what is important to me. This is exactly was I was looking for. I don't think you or anyone else should be disappointed if I took your input and combined it with my needs and different people's opinions to reach my own conclusion.
I believe this is what the hobby is about.

wind junkie

My Feedback: (1)

That's fair. Who knows, you may find after all that you actually would be happiest with an R/C blimp!

(just kidding).

Have fun, and let's be careful out there.
Joe

rcflip

Thats a fair comment, I think he was bing a bit harsh anyway, the Showtime is 3d capable, it is just rubbish compared to the older 90 sized one, if you like the reactor you will like the showtime, they knife edge extremely well, wing rock like hell in harrier but that is half the fun is it not!!!

ohnoucdat

My Feedback: (16)

Showtime isn't going to 3D with that 82 on the front of it. Also like most ARF beef the gear up, or leave the gear off and belly land it,saves for lots of repairs lol

rcflip

The showtime will 3d with an 82, it will not be a 3d powerhouse but it will do it, no real need to beef up the undercarriage, just land it correctly!!

ohnoucdat

My Feedback: (16)

Simple as this, that plane will "NOT" 3D with that engine, it will be a FLYING BRICK

kom73

LMAO!!!!!! How true. The definition of "3d" really has to come into question here. I'm sure if you move the cg back on the showtime you can probably do a decent flat spin, knife edge and some other aerobatics, not 3d. go to youtube and type in "mcddd" and you'll see some pretty sick 3d flying.

rcflip

Simple as this, you may not be able to 3d with that engine but a better pilot may, I do not get you Americans, do you want him to put a DA upfront there.

wyo69cowboy

My Feedback: (2)

3D means a lot of different things to different people; I will be the first to say that a profile and Saito .82 is ballistic. I took the .82 out of my old Reactor (gave that airframe to a young modeler for a gallon of Byron fuel "as-is" lol) and it is now in a Yak55 from Value Hobby.
However, the Reactor, properly set up, is perfectly 3D capable. I added Graphtech carbon gear and tube, and mine weighed 5lb6 oz. The .82 was PLENTY of power for it. The Reactor also has 745 sq in of wing, 20 more than my Yak. Can't speak for the Showtime 50, but the Reactor is fine.

On another note, I at one time looked into the 3DHS Su26 57". It is recommended for either electric or a Saito .82. Very nice plane also...

bummer, I just looked and it's discontinued. Most "fattie" airframes in this size are now designed for electric...

wind junkie

My Feedback: (1)

I want to be able to torque roll at half throttle (half throttle stick with normal throttle/servo linkage geometry) and a 13x6 or 14x6 prop and that motor.

I think most 3D practioners would agree this is a common desire.

rcflip

Windy, your a reasonalble dude, I said it would not be a 3d machine but it will 3d, if you put a bigger motor in the showtime it will make a bad plane even worse.

wind junkie

My Feedback: (1)

I'm not disagreeing with you RC Flip. More motor is not the answer. With any luck he'll crash it and have an opportunity to get a better tool for the job. But that's my opinion based on MY flight goals (which should be plain enough to everyone in this thread by now.)

I have a friend who used to say to me when I flew my super kaos, "It won't hold a knife. You better just do yourself a favor and put it into the ground. Here, want me to help you?"

Of course at the time I liked different aspects of the flight envelope other than just KE flight, so I never took him up on that offer. So too I think Giovanni_L will enjoy his Showtime for a while (hopefully a long while, despite what I said above).

It's up to him to realize his own flight goals. We're just trying to help get him there faster. If he wants to go slower, that's fine. I said it before and I'll stick by it: 4.5 lbs RTF for a Saito 82 is a good discrimator. It's hard to get there with any of the big supplier offerings.

rcflip

Yes I did not think that you were, the showtime is not a bad plane its just old and heavy, I dont like it because I had to put a tonne of weight in the front, it should have been designed better, especially because I think it was designed for the 82.

Yes you are correct 4.5 - 5lbs is optimal for the 82, but this does not mean a plane will not 3d if it is heavier, it will not be a 3d monster but it will 3d.

You are also correct about the bigger suppliers, but from a business point of view it is probably better to build and design a plane for 80% of the market and not the 20%, the guys at the brotherhood just do not understand this.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

The Probro guys understand that logic perfectly. In fact, that's one of the main reasons the Probros even exist. The planes that we are flying are the result of a demand for a combination of hardcore 3D performance, durability, and ease of construction. Fortunately, a small core of Probros (such as Wind Junkie) keep us supplied with these planes in kit or ARF form.

The 3D planes that are Probro approved aren't intended for the general RC market, and we are very well aware of that. The segment of the RC population that we cater to is very small. It's generally the RC flyers who have finally figured out that a Reactor, Showtime, Twist, or U-Can-Do really aren't good 3D planes after all, despite the marketing hype from the major suppliers. That's where the Probros come in. We guide them into choosing a good 3D plane, and the equipment needed to make it perform well. Then we guide them into how to go about learning to fly it, and even how NOT to fly it. The result is almost always an eye-opening experience that makes them appreciate how a 3D plane is supposed to fly, and reinforces the bond they now share with all of the other Probros who came from similar backgrounds.

The majority of the RC population will never become dissatisfied with the performance of the Reactor/Showtime/Twist/U-Can-Do type planes. That is what the major suppliers are counting on. But for the small minority that eventually want more 3D performance than these planes are capable of providing, the Probros are here to help them take the next step.

rcflip

The bro's bash any plane that is not bro worthy!!

rcflip

Then why do the bros bash arf's such as the Aeroworks profiles, they are not 3d powerhouses but they fly well and are built for the 80% of people not really interested in 3d. Just tell it like it is Mr Mcdonald, no need to bash the product or the people who fly them!!

wind junkie

My Feedback: (1)

With one glaring exception, I don't think it was the intent of anyone in this thread to bash anyone or their planes.

It seemed to me the spirit of the initial post was asking for a superlative quality, as in "the best 3D performer" with no qualifications or stipulations. When a question like that is posed, you are bound to get some strong arguments supporting various points of view.

We've since learned that the initial question probably should have been qualified to list other requirements (looks for example), but the argument which persists still centers on some basic principles regarding size weight and power. The marketing aspects, while very real, are still secondary in my opinion, so I'll continue to preach the "profile way" when anyone asks what I prefer to fly and why.

Anyone who cares to look will find the guys comprising the profile protherhood are pretty sharp lot, often being among the most accomplished pilots in their respective clubs around the country (and the world). Most are also very outspoken. In that respect, a newcomer may be turned off by "the message" but that doesn't diminish its truth which has been gleaned by years of practice and experimentation.

rcflip

Wind Junkie, I wish I had a way with words like you, I always tend to strike a nerve, probably because of my old age!! I am a guy who calls a spade a spade but it is always unintentional, but then again it’s pretty easy to stir up them dam brothers!!

Sam-E

I love the passion!!!  I have had the showtime, both the 90 and the 50 versions, the 90 was a beauty the 50 not so.

Dave McDonald

My Feedback: (19)

To a point, that is true. If a plane is not bro worthy, then by default, that means there are other planes available that offer superior performance.....and usually vastly superior performance. If you're keeping score, you'll notice that the bros really only tend to bash the planes that are mass marketed as being great 3D planes, when in reality those planes are only capable of marginal 3D performance.


You answered your own question. Your description of the Aeroworks profiles is exactly right on the mark, so you have just confirmed exactly what the probros have been saying about the Aeroworks profiles. So why didn't Aeroworks appeal to the 80% masses and market the plane that way? Instead Aeroworks chose to market them as 3D powerhouses that were "Designed for all out 3D". That's simply not true. You know it. The probros know it. And anybody who is considering buying one of these planes deserves to know that before they buy one.


Then you and I have three things in common.
We both love to fly RC planes.
We both have been cursed with the ability to strike a nerve unintentionally.
We are both old.

Jimmy Hoffa

My Feedback: (3)

If Giovanni's skills are as good as Dave's (McDDD), he should have no problem flying 3D with that Showtime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2XIZAXxpJY

I guess depends on a persons definition of 3D. Even Dave would have a hard time doing this with a Showtime (or Funtana or Reactor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euTDSG42IW4

I have a Saito .82 on my Primo 40 and I think it is a great setup.

IMHO, SFG's like on the Showtime are a band-aid for a poor design.

Goinstraightup

My Feedback: (26)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the fun of flying a really good profile 3D plane is something that has to be experienced to be appreciated. Going back and forth here will not convince anyone. I can sit here and eat an orange - you do not know if it is a sweet orange, or a sour orange unless you taste it for yourself. I 100% agree with Dave and Junkie, and the rest of the profile gang. I discovered profile 3D planes about 10 years ago with the Morris offerings. All I knew at that time is that I had been flying almost every kind of RC plane for 10 years and was getting bored. I ordered the Sudokhoi video and saw Tony hovering and landing on a picnic table and that was it for me. The current generation of profiles such as the Mojo, Chinn Yak, LamYak and Sbach's to name a few, are even better than the 1st generation Morris planes. This has led to a ten year excitement that profile planes have brought me that is not dying out. I have 3 profiles under 40 size, 5 40 size profile 3D planes and one 60 size. All are a complete blast and have their own amazing qualities.

It's a simple engineering fact of function over form. Anyone in the real engineering arena would pick function over form, but marketing people will always go the other way around and pick form over function. I think profile planes are beautiful, but the marketing world doesn't see it that way so the masses miss out on amazing performance.

JustErik

[sm=thumbup.gif]