T. Bob

My Feedback: (9)

Who can you believe?
I just pick up the latest Fly Rc rag (April 2006) today because it had an article on the Aviation models 30% Yak. The author, Scott Stoops, assembled this plane with a new Brison Revolutition, five digital servos, and two micro servos for throttle and choke. The only lighting on the plane was three 1570 Li-Poly for power and a carbon fiber tail gear and the weight is ….. 16.9 lbs.

A full 1.6 lbs lighter than mine. Hmmmm

Let me see I have 3.2 Brison standard muffler carbon gear all the way around (I realize it only a saving of about 1.7 oz.) one 5800 Li-Ion about a ½ oz heaver and than two 1580 Li-Poly and another ½ oz on the ignition I have one 2800 Li-Ion. But still the plane is 1.6 lbs lighter than mine. I’ll give them three to four oz on the motor but other than that, 16.9 lbs is a misrepresentation.

I have always suspected the magazines were fudging their numbers and they have never disliked a plane they have reviewed. But my question is why? Why do the reviews in the first place and why do I keep buying these things. This is not and indictment on just one magazine they are all guilty of this.

Thank god for the internet and forums like this. If it wasnt for all of you guys I would think I need to get a pound out of my plane for no other reason than someone's ego.


Sorry for all of these post today but these ½ holidays at work give me a lot of free time

PlaneCrazzy

My Feedback: (27)

My planes always come out heavier than advertised too hmm??? I never read a negative plane review and I suscribe to 3 different mags. I guess they dont want to piss off their advertisers no matter how ****ty the plane flys.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

1411 sq.in. and it weighs 17 pounds?

Boo-Hoo.

You guys down at lower elevations don't know how good you got it.

Over the last 3 or 4 yrs I've seen this trend towards more and more square inches on planes and they still get lighter all the time.

You hardly see a 27% or 28% plane with less than 1350sq.in. today.

4yrs ago, they all had 1100--1200sq.in. and they weighed 16-18 pounds.

Face it, you got nothing to complain about. The planes are lighter and they have lower wing loading today than they did 4yrs ago.

I can't afford all those fancy new designs, so I fly planes that are outdated and cheaper. H9 80" Cap w/ 1248squares. WM 80" Extra w/ 1175 squares. Kangke Laser w/ 1204 squares.

They weigh between 15.5 and 17 pounds.

I was flying my 80" WM Patty in Denver 2yrs ago with 1175sq.in. at 15.5 pounds and it flew fantastic. Lands slow, hovers with a 22-10 prop and a G-62 on the firewall. Does all the 3D I can muster, and it does it well.

You guys at lower elevation are spoiled. When your 30% plane with 1400sq.in of wing flies like a foamy--and you complain--it's hard to feel sorry for ya.

I'm not saying I'm a better pilot because I fly less squares at higher elevation--I pretty much suck compared to most of you guys.

I'm just saying--realize what you have and be happy. Your flying in thick air and you can afford to buy a $650 ARF that weighs 17 pounds RTF. Not too shabby.

PlaneCrazzy

My Feedback: (27)

How GOOD do we have it ?? Talking about cry-in WAH

Move to a lower altitude and join us rookies

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

i am flying a DP Extra that weight about what your kit is weighing. Those scrubs! 30% sounds like your weight is more of what i get to. Maybe they did the review with out servo wires and a receiver/prop/wheel bolts, ect
So anyway how does that 30% fly. I see every year a comment this is the best plane i have every flown which never tell us anything

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I wouldn't move away from Colorado for nutin'. The weather is too nice and there's no humidity here.

It's 43 today with wind from the NE at 7MPH. Humidity is 26%. Forecasting increasing temps into the low and mid 50's by Friday. Clear and sunny.

You guys still got thicker air. More power and slower landings. More effective control surfaces.

When a plane with 1400squares weighs 17 pounds--thats light. I don't care how much you wanna complain. Thats light. Must fly like a little shock-flyer.

You guys got it too easy down there. Quit yer whinin' and go fly your $650 ARF. Enjoy it. Not many people in this world can afford a "toy" that costs that much.

HarryJ

My Feedback: (98)

The only magazine that even comes close on the weights and sizes is RC Report. They call it the way it is, good, bad, or otherwise.






Harry

PlaneCrazzy

My Feedback: (27)

Just imagine how good you would fly down here, if you got it that tough. Yeh its so nice here I can land my 35% carden straight down like a helicopter thats how thick the air is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scar

My Feedback: (3)

Yep. Specifically, they report the advertised weight and the actual scale reading; the advertised wingspan and the measured wingspan, the advertised wing area and the measured wing area.... you get the idea.

They usually wind up getting good flying results, but I've seen some pretty severe complaints about planes. They also list "cheers" and "jeers" for almost every review.

I was a little dubious about the GeeBee R2 that floated past on several landing attempts, but decided to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

Bob_S

I wouldn't think 17 lbs is unreasonable for this plane. If Scott says it is 16.9 I would believe that the actually measured that. He has been very active with the Stevens Aero line of kits here in Colorado and I've never heard anything but the truth from him.

Anyone know what the Brison Revolution weighs anyway?

Crash90

My Feedback: (17)

Don't think he was complaining about the weight of his plane. Sounded more like the credibility of todays R/C magazines to me.

Bob_S

Right. And I was saying that if Scott says his weighs 16 lbs 14.5 oz I believe it.

The engine alone is 4 oz lighter than the Brison. 6.6oz for a TBM 5600 lithium batt vs. 2 1570 Lipos at 5.4 oz is another 1.2 oz savings. Another .8 oz savings on the ignition battery. Just looking at 2 components we have already found a difference of a third of a pound and we haven't even considered a heavy or light build nor any of the other parts. There is at least one poster saying they are in at 16.25 lbs.

My point is that the same plane can come in at different weights and if the Scott is saying his weighs 16.9 lbs then I'm sure it does. I'm sure non-favorable reviews get written when the product sucks, but they never get published.

Isn't this the same Yak as the EF?

Josey Wales

My Feedback: (61)

LOL..The air is even thicker down here in South Jersey!![8D]

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

My 30% Aviation Models Yak weighs 16 3/4 lbs with a BME 50 on it, so yeah I would easily believe his review weight. My scale is new and supposed to be accurate to within .2 of an ounce so it should be real close. Weight seems to vary quite a bit on all the new arfs for some reason. Like mentioned before, I think they all fly well.

Eagle Flyer

My Feedback: (84)

If they gave bad reports they wouldn't get the kits/arfs given to them for free, like alot do, then be free to sell them later when done, after giving them only 1 or 2 flights. Also they don't need to add an extra few onces of glue here and there to make them last a long time, just for a couple flights.
As mentioned they can't afford to make their advertisers mad. No adds, they go broke. There are a lot of ways to work around the bad things of them, usually just don't mention it. Maybe the company sent them a ringer? It happens. And yes I have talked with people that do reviews/reports!

mu2driver

My Feedback: (15)

This is why we are blessed in the US of A...because we can afford little Toy Airplanes and ***** that they are 3.5oz over there advertised weight...lol

My thinking is I will buy the plane first, if it sux's then off it, if its good then tell my buddys so...

I dont even own a scale...I have no use for one...I can fly a Brick Sh@t House and make it fun...

Eagle Flyer

My Feedback: (84)

Over the years I have had a few of the out of the local stores cheap scales. They were ALL way off in accuracy, compared to a real electronic mail scale. Trashed them all !!!!!!!

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Well, hell--thats nothing new.

I haven't found an honest review or magazine report yet. Don't plan on it anytime soon either.
I can't believe some of the reviews I read here on RCU. You'd think these guys would be the most un-biased. But I've read great reviews about planes that I thought were total POS.

A review is just 1 guys opinion of a product. Take it with a grain of salt.

The best reviews are right here in the forums on RCU.[sm=thumbup.gif]

mu2driver

My Feedback: (15)

I agree, credibility seems to be the issue...I prefer people just post pics and share there thoughts on the forums...I dont read the reviews unless they are from pilots that can actualy fly...

Not to diss anyone but some of the reviews I "have" seen have some of the crapiest flying...they really dont do the plane justice..[X(]

EJB

Hey Dead Beat,
Guess what I got from Santa for X-Mas.
Yep, a TOC 30 % YAK...everything cept the tailwheel & wheelpants it's a litlle over 17 lb.
With a DA 50, 3 packs of 2100 nmh, no carbon, plus that big-***** spinner.Heh, heh.

I guess I got lucky. Eat you heart out.


So 16.9 lb. with the li-polys doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Hey, you guys going to Toledo?

Flyjets

My Feedback: (51)

Funny U mention this.............

To date in the past 8 years I have finished a around 40+ ARFs.

Each of these covers all the spectrum of machines from Sail Planes to War Birds to IMACC and Jets.

Not ONE I repeat Not One has ever hit it's Target weight from a Magazine or advertisements.

To build these planes light took replacement parts and careful selection of equipment.

After it's all said and done I wouldn't get to hung up on the weight it's the total package that makes a good flying machine.

Ian

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Guess I have been lucky. My last three planes came in below advertised weight.

pcsol

My Feedback: (2)

One example:
M.A.N. did a review recently of the new lanier 87" extra.
They list the completed weight as 16.5 pounds. Steve Herlacher did a review here on RC universe with what looks to be an almost identical configuration and listed the plane at 17 pounds 4 ounces. Not a huge difference but enough to question.

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I can see wood density accounting for 3/4 pound difference between different planes from the same manufacturer.

Or maybe Phong uses more glue than Wong during fuselage construction?

I can easily see that much difference between different models from the same factory.

Amazing that the guys who do the reviews always seam to get the ones that are the lightest.

I think we get too hung up on weight. These models have very good wing loading numbers. We have ridiculous power/weight ratios when compared to the full scale planes. We've got the best servos available. Titanium linkages that only cost $4 or $5 apiece. I mean really--what other hobby can you think of where you can buy a precision machined piece of titanium thats the exact length you need--for a minuscule fee of $5?

This is a great hobby. We should take time to sit back and reflect on how much fun it is and be thankfull that we can afford it. People all over the world are homeless and would give their left arm to have 1/2 the money mosty of us spend on this hobby in a year.

Lighten up and go fly. The airplanes are light enough.

japan3d

What is with the pre-occupation with weight? Most of the engine/plane combos today have a 2:1 or better thrust to weight ratio. What would be the perfect weight for a 30% plane? 35%? 40%?