RE: QQ 85" Yak   
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version


Constar - RTF
Seller:  AMagarino
Details:   $600.00   |  3/12/2010   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic >> RE: QQ 85" Yak
Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/25/2005 11:08 PM   
RCAddiction



Posts: 1005
Score: 100
Joined: 3/29/2002
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Waxhaw, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Perhaps it's just me, but it seems some folks get a bit too wound up about specific wing area, wingspan, etc. Do any of us really care, if the planes fly great? My buddy competes in Advanced IMAC, has quite a few 40% Cardens and he also has an EF Yak which he loves. He flew my QQ yesterday and really liked how neutral it was. Honestly, both planes fly great. The QQ is slightly longer and narrower, so it is possible that will contribute to slightly greater precision and the EF may be slightly wilder in 3D. But these are merely subtleties. We'll learn more as we get more time on mine.

Wing Area - you will find huge discrepancies here - some manufacturers include projected fuselage area and some don't. Some calculate it more accurately, and some don't. Some don't have a clue how to do it at all! In this case, both the EF and QQ are wonderful flying planes, created by talented people who care a lot that they fly well and that their customers are happy. Choose the one that you think looks nicer and/or has assembly features or hardware that you prefer.

John,

If you go back to my post on the bottom of page 6, you will find that I stated all up weight with my setup. Again, this plane was designed around the 3W50, which is approx 18 oz heavier than the DA50. I'm sure the stock one flew awesome, so I doubt any of us should worry a whole bunch about a few ounces here or there. Mine came in at 15 lbs, 12 oz, ready to fly, but without fuel on board. I've also mentioned the equipment I used in a few spots. To make it easier:

AUW - 15 lbs, 12 oz

CG - 7-3/8 to 7-1/4" from the trailing edge, as specified in the QQ flying manual.

Radio - 14MZ
RX - R5014 DPS PCM G3 2048
DA50 w/0.5" nylon spacers plus stock 2-1/2" standoffs
J&A Peacekeeper pitts wraparound muffler
MSC 22x8
Dave Brown 4" spinner
Madison Components 1/3 turn fuel dot
(5) Hitec HS5955 TG servos on all control surfaces
(1) Futaba 9001 throttle servo
(1) Hitec 425 choke servo
(2) JR HD switch harnesses w/Ernst Charge receptacles - RX
(1) Futaba HD switch harness w/Ernst Charge receptacles - Ignition
(2) Fromeco regulators
(2) Fromeco 2400 Li-ion batteries (for RX)
(1) Sanyo 1400 AAU 4.8V Nicad ignition pack
RCATS RC100 ignition kill switch
Radio South Battery monitor (RX)
Voltwatch Battery monitor (ignition)
3-1/4" Hangar 9 Lightweight wheels
Other hardware - Dubro, as recommended in manual
Pull-pull - coated Kevlar cord (from Don's Hobbies) w/Sullivan rigging connectors

I'm probably forgetting something, but that's all I can recall at the moment!

< Message edited by RCAddiction -- 9/26/2005 2:23 AM >

_____________________________

Lee

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 176

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 1:27 AM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bpryor

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

Bill, I don't think anybody was trying to be dishonest, The mistake Probably has something to do with the fact that the wing recesses into the fus. Oddly enough if you pull the wing out of the Fus so the trailing edge is flush with the fus and measure the wing, it is then exactly 87 inches. I'm guessing the wing was not measured on an assembled plane, but rather somebody took the wing length times two, and added in the with of the fus at the trailing edge of wing. OOPS!



Hi John,

You may be right, but the Web is a fluid medium, so there's really no excuse for not updating the info on at least their Web site when they found out there was an error. Funny that EF, BME, KMP and TOC all made the same "measuring mistake".



Ya know Bill, I was thinking the exact same thing, but didn't want to say it. I guess the mentality could possibly be, If the mistake is in your favor you don't fix it unless somebody complains.

here is the real question, Nothing, but noting gets past the people on these forums, why did it take so long to sniff this snafoo out. I know some will say "who cares" But in reality alot of the people buying these planes do care because wing loading means a lot. I was seriously considering NOT buying the QQ Yak just because of the "higher wing loading" Now I have one on order.

IMHO Wing loading is much much more important on 3D planes than it is on the IMAC stuff. And another thing I have come to believe is that wing loading is more sensitive on the smaller 27% aircraft than it is on the 40% Possibly only because the larger planes are easier to 3D because of their size. ( or does it just seem that way because movements are slower on the larger planes thus more reaction time???) or is there some concrete reason behind my theory?

In any event, I'm buying a QQ Yak in addition to my EF just in case my wife divorces me and trys to take from me what I really love most.

John




< Message edited by jrjohn -- 9/26/2005 1:35 AM >

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 177

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 1:43 AM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Lee, your right about the different ways they may or may not figure wing area, I think that if somebody can't take a Stanley tape measure and measure from one wing tip to the other and be accurate, how the heck can somebody believe the wing area figures! thanks for posting your specs again. I'm planning to use the DA50. Can wait until QQ puts one in his Yak and tells us his opinion.

john

< Message edited by jrjohn -- 9/26/2005 1:46 AM >

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 178

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 1:48 AM   
HardDeck


 

Posts: 136
Score: 100
Joined: 8/7/2003
Last Login: 4/12/2008
From: webster, NY,
Status: offline 		Hello

I see where others have had difficulty in drilling the axle holes on the gear. When this happen in my case, I didn't have the gear clamped down tightly which probably would have helped. When I did the other (second side), I drilled a small pilot hole and the enlarged with a router tool on a drummel. This was just as quick and easy and without problems, so others may want to consider that as an alternative to drilling with a bit. I am wondering about material that gear is made with -- anyone know?

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 179

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 1:53 AM   
xtraflyr


 

Posts: 2227
Score: 100
Joined: 3/10/2002
Last Login: 3/17/2010
From: Randolph, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Hey there,

I know on my 72" Yak,I used a drill bit,and like you said clamped it to the bench. Then drilled a pilot hole first, using very light pressure and high speed. Then moved up tp the correct size.. It worked out fine.

I think their made out of fiberglass not Carbon Fiber.

Later


_____________________________

www.njjf.org
www.njjf.freeforums.org

Hide Signatures

(in reply to HardDeck)
       Post #: 180

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 1:53 AM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Lee, My EF Yak came in at 15 pounds 4 OZ dry, Basically everything is the same except im using the stock muffler which if I remember correctly is about 5 oz liter and one less regulator, and a 3 1/4 inch spinnera nd no choke servo, Looks like the weight should be identical with the simular equip.

Question, upright elevator..... wing rock?

where is your recieve battery, and where is your CG ?
John

< Message edited by jrjohn -- 9/26/2005 2:11 AM >

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to HardDeck)
       Post #: 181

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 2:29 AM   
RCAddiction



Posts: 1005
Score: 100
Joined: 3/29/2002
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Waxhaw, NC, USA
Status: offline 		John,

FYI - some manufacturers actually include the horizontal stabilizer when calculating wing area. This is totally preposterous, since the stab is used to counter the lift of the wing! I've added my CG above.

CG - If you looked into the prior threads, you'd see that I, as well as the other guy named Lee (MXcop), both noted our CG's. He has started to move his rearward to suit his taste.

Batteries - both of my 2400 Li-Ion RX batteries, as well as the 1400 Nicad ignition battery are secured to the engine box. The ignition battery is next to the ignition module on one side, and the RX batteries are located on the other side.

The throttle and choke servos are mounted next to each other, inverted, on hardwood rails I mounted inside the rear of the engine box.

_____________________________

Lee

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 182

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 4:01 AM   
Bob J


 

Posts: 24
Score: 100
Joined: 3/23/2003
Last Login: 2/24/2010
From: Northridge, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Splais,
Cockpit looks great. Is this the 102" or the 85" Yak? If the latter, I'm going to use it on my airplane.

To others on this thread re Wing dimensions.
I noticed that on my TOC 30% Yak which advertised 87", the actual span was more like 85.5" The actual wing was 40" per side, but it was recessed about 2" per side. The QQ wing is also 40" per side, but the fuselage recess is smaller. The wing chord on the TOC Yak is about 1" more than the QQ so the TOC does have more area, but I suspect it is less than advertised. The TOC weighed in at 19 lbs with the DA 50, so if the QQ comes in around 16 lbs, it will have a lighter wing loading than the TOC. We shall see. Meanwhile I'm waiting for my crash damaged DA 50 to be repaired by DA. I thought it would be done by now.
Bob



Hide Signatures

(in reply to splais)
       Post #: 183

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 6:01 AM   
bpryor



Posts: 1692
Score: 105
Joined: 11/30/2001
Last Login: 4/14/2009
From: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

.. I know some will say "who cares" But in reality alot of the people buying these planes do care because wing loading means a lot. I was seriously considering NOT buying the QQ Yak just because of the "higher wing loading" Now I have one on order.


Hi John,

I think you stated exactly why it is important, and that's comparison shopping. RCAddiction is right at a certain level that if it flies great, who cares, but a plane with a 100 sq in bigger wing and the same, or lighter, weight is most likely going to fly noticeably better(especially for 3D), and that's something you should be able to figure out before you buy.

Of couse the other big issue is true RTF weight, where you can typically never trust the manufacturer's weights, but with the weight issue, these threads quickly let you know what the truth is.


_____________________________

Bill Pryor

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 184

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 6:15 AM   
RCAddiction



Posts: 1005
Score: 100
Joined: 3/29/2002
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Waxhaw, NC, USA
Status: offline 		AGREE - same exact plane, if you can make it lighter, it should 3D better. Done.

However, in comparing wing loading on different planes, from different designers/manufacturers, it's a total guess because you may not have accurate wing areas to start with. Unless you have access to each plane and measure each carefully and are competent to calculate it yourself, you have no way to truly compare planes. The published values from the manufacturers are not consistent between each other.

So, at best, you are simply guessing. No offense intended, but isn't it kinda silly to make a purchase decision based upon the difference of 100 square inches out of a total wing area of approx 1400 or so? That's less than 10% difference. Choices in airfoil, wing thickness, airflow management, control surface location, overall geometry, proportions of surfaces, incidences, etc, which are all made (hopefully) by a competent aircraft designer are also kinda important, no?

When the Carden Cuda came out, it was no big secret that this plane flew poorly, because it had TOO MUCH wing area. To improve this plane's performance, Carden had to reduce the wing area.

All I'm suggesting is that wing area and wing loading are only a couple of variables to consider, even if you only do 3D flying. Any yahoo can increase the wing area/decrease the wing loading, but you might not like how it flies.

< Message edited by RCAddiction -- 9/26/2005 6:42 AM >

_____________________________

Lee

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 185

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 2:59 PM   
splais


 

Posts: 2954
Score: 130
Joined: 12/12/2001
Last Login: 3/18/2010
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Bobj,

the not so good pic is of the 102"; but they are also available for the 85". I'll have mine in a couple of days and will post pics when it's done.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to RCAddiction)
       Post #: 186

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 3:03 PM   
bpryor



Posts: 1692
Score: 105
Joined: 11/30/2001
Last Login: 4/14/2009
From: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RCAddiction

No offense intended, but isn't it kinda silly to make a purchase decision based upon the difference of 100 square inches out of a total wing area of approx 1400 or so?


Hi Lee,

Good points, as per your last paragraph, I for one never said I would base the decision alone on the wing area, but that is just one very important factor in my decision with every plane I buy. I'm just saying, wouldn't it be nice if the manufacturers were hon...uhh, accurate about their specs. It wouldn't change my decision, it would just make it a whole lot easier. But as I pointed out in another thread where this issue was being beaten around, it's online forums that have made the difference in recent years, so you can know the truth before buying. Of course, someone paid the price of being the early adopter that discovered the errors.

_____________________________

Bill Pryor

Hide Signatures

(in reply to RCAddiction)
       Post #: 187

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 7:10 PM   
mxcop114


 

Posts: 318
Score: 100
Joined: 6/12/2004
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Tuckerton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		I hope this forum doesn't turn into the battle of wing areas, but it looks like it may. I know how important wing area is, but there is no issue with this plane, trust me. All I can say is if you want a plane that flies great precision and 3d this is the one. If you have a doubt, don't buy it and wait for something else. Lets let the people who have the plane enjoy discussing things about it on the forum, that is why I started it. The plane flies just as good as the E.F., maybe better precision with the longer tail moments help.As far as problems with the plane with construction or something not being included, well lets give them a chance to show us they are working towards bettering the business. I didn't have any problems building mine, if you can't work around something that may not be perfect you shouldn't be in this hobby. Every plane I have ever build, kit or arf, has had some kind of minor thing with construction, usually nothing major. This is the first batch of the 85"ers so I expected some little things here and there. Anything that was not in the box that should have been was sent out right away. Wayne sent some hardware to me before I could even call him to tell him it was missing. Did everyone forget about the problem with the EF Yak, well that fix was alot more work than anything with this arf. Again, this plane is the best I've flown in this size, and once we get some video of it flying maybe you will see what I am talking about.

Lee


_____________________________

Team JR / Horizon Hobby
Team Extreme / Extreme Flight RC

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 188

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 7:19 PM   
mxcop114


 

Posts: 318
Score: 100
Joined: 6/12/2004
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Tuckerton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		John,
I have no wing rock in the elevator, drops very nice. Only in transition from elevator to upright harrier and it is only if you are not locked in right. Once you get the feel of the planes locked in attitude it is gone. Inverted harriers are perfect. I've been doing push overs to inverted elevator, then inverted harrier and it is solid. Requires no more rudder imput than any other plane I have flown. I think it is very forgiving.

Lee


_____________________________

Team JR / Horizon Hobby
Team Extreme / Extreme Flight RC

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 189

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 8:00 PM   
wgeffon



Posts: 6377
Score: 100
Joined: 12/2/2001
Last Login: 2/4/2010
From: Bloomington, IL, USA
Status: offline 		I have said this before...

It is possible to have more than one great flying plane in the same size range.
I have no doubt the QQ Yak is an outstanding plane.
As soon as Lee lets me wring his out I'll let you know what I think.


_____________________________

Wayne


Hide Signatures

(in reply to mxcop114)
       Post #: 190

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 8:34 PM   
bpryor



Posts: 1692
Score: 105
Joined: 11/30/2001
Last Login: 4/14/2009
From: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mxcop114
Lets let the people who have the plane enjoy discussing things about it on the forum, that is why I started it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wgeffon

I have said this before...

It is possible to have more than one great flying plane in the same size range.
I have no doubt the QQ Yak is an outstanding plane.
As soon as Lee lets me wring his out I'll let you know what I think.


Wayne, what are you doing posting in this thread, you don't own a QQ Yak!

Just messing around guys. mxcop114, I appologize(to everyone) for contributing to the off topic discussion, but I would hate to limit any particular plane thread to only people that own them. There are many topics in a thread, and varying skills of contributors, that typically overlap and are pertinent to discuss by everyone, even if you don't own the plane that is the primary topic of the thread....though I agree, wing area pontificating is really not "on topic". Sorry again.




_____________________________

Bill Pryor

Hide Signatures

(in reply to wgeffon)
       Post #: 191

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 9:06 PM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Bill, don't sell yourself short, I'm glad we got to the bottom of the wing area issue. I learned something about buying ARF's and thats what this is all about. I have been on other threads where guys complained that we were off topic when talking about batteries that went in the plane. It's crazy, and it's not like this thread is all jamed up with building or flying information.

Maxcop, thanks for the pilot report, My EF rocks a little more than i like in a upright elevator, it's rock solid inverted though. I want both planes!

I love my EF Yak and I'm sure I will love the QQ yak too,
If we really want to have fun lets get a fight going on who copied who!

(I said that just cause it rhymes)

john

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 192

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 9:57 PM   
bpryor



Posts: 1692
Score: 105
Joined: 11/30/2001
Last Login: 4/14/2009
From: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

Bill, don't sell yourself short, I'm glad we got to the bottom of the wing area issue.


Thanks John. All threads go off topic, with some of it more valuable than the other, and sometimes it is hard to stop that momentum, though I think most sidetracks end pretty quickly without policing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

and it's not like this thread is all jamed up with building or flying information.


Good point. I've actually been monitoring this thread mostly for the flight reports(and I have wished there were more), both for comparison to my KMP Yak, and the other brands out there, for both pure curiosity, and also as a potential purchase in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

Maxcop, thanks for the pilot report, My EF rocks a little more than i like in a upright elevator, it's rock solid inverted though. I want both planes!



That's interesting. My KMP is rock solid in upright elevators/harriers, though I get about two or three rocks before it stabilizes. Since the EF exterior designs are the same, or very close to the same, I would expect the same behavior. I wonder if the difference is a CG issue. Mine is a bit nose heavy right now since I've only flown one day(and had it that way on purpose), and haven't been back out with the CG moved back a bit. I'll have to see if mine stays solid after moving the CG back.

Has anyone with a QQ tested flight behavior with varying CG's? (See, I kept it on topic.)

_____________________________

Bill Pryor

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 193

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 10:05 PM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Bill, it's very well possible with the correct set up that the EF Yak is sable in the upright elevator too, I even reflexed the ailerons and it didn't do much except make it fly goofy. Maybe changing the Cg would help. Mine is pretty far back. It would be nice to see where the CG ends up on the QQ Yak for most of the 3D guys

John

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bpryor)
       Post #: 194

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 10:27 PM   
rmh



Posts: 10866
Score: 100
Joined: 12/12/2001
Last Login: 3/18/2010
From: , UT, USA
Status: offline 		lightest wing loading-highest powerloading= best 3D setup.
strange -that is also formula for best full scale aerobatic setup
imagine that --

_____________________________

Libby is still watching you

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 195

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 10:38 PM   
wgeffon



Posts: 6377
Score: 100
Joined: 12/2/2001
Last Login: 2/4/2010
From: Bloomington, IL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrjohn

Bill, it's very well possible with the correct set up that the EF Yak is sable in the upright elevator too,
John



My EF Yak has a forward CG and has little or no wing rick in elevators or harriers.
These planes should not need reflex to make them harrier or elevator.

Try more elevator throw and possible more power. It sounds like the nose isnt high enough which is giving you the rocking.



_____________________________

Wayne


Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 196

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 10:48 PM   
jrjohn


 

Posts: 2342
Score: 100
Joined: 1/9/2002
Last Login: 12/4/2009
From: stevens point, WI, USA
Status: offline 		Wayne, I'm about 1/4 inch behind the strip, if I give it anymore power it will point straight up and hover. Possibly I could try moving the CG foreword a little. I have my Rc. battery just in front of the wing tube.

thanks for the reply

john

_____________________________

If we all think the same, only one of us is necessary

Hide Signatures

(in reply to wgeffon)
       Post #: 197

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 10:51 PM   
wgeffon



Posts: 6377
Score: 100
Joined: 12/2/2001
Last Login: 2/4/2010
From: Bloomington, IL, USA
Status: offline 		John,

Sounds a little on the tailheavy side.

The cool things about these Yak's is that they dispell the rumor that 3D planes need to be tailheavy.
Any of the videos that were on here of mine 3D'ing were with the forward CG.


_____________________________

Wayne


Hide Signatures

(in reply to jrjohn)
       Post #: 198

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/26/2005 11:06 PM   
Ted5660


 

Posts: 49
Score: 100
Joined: 4/17/2004
Last Login: 9/23/2009
From: Hannon, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Lee (mxcop) - How did you install the DA fuel dot. Specifically what did you thread the red machine screws into? Did you make a backing ring or thread the outer skin of the Yak.
I like the way you did yours and I would like to do the same.

TIA

Ted

Hide Signatures

(in reply to mxcop114)
       Post #: 199

RE: QQ 85" Yak - 9/27/2005 1:32 AM   
mxcop114


 

Posts: 318
Score: 100
Joined: 6/12/2004
Last Login: 3/5/2010
From: Tuckerton, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Wayne I agree about the cg thing with the harriers. I have found that this plane will rock if you are not at the right high alpha attitude. I moved the cg back a little with no change. I then changed evevator throws a little along with different throttle settings and found the locked in attitude. It almost makes you think it wants to go into a hover at first but if you keep it going it locks in solid. It is more high alpha than my smaller planes in a harrier but I have noticed that the larger planes seem to like more vertical attitude.


_____________________________

Team JR / Horizon Hobby
Team Extreme / Extreme Flight RC

Hide Signatures

(in reply to wgeffon)
       Post #: 200

Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   next >   >>  
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic >> RE: QQ 85" Yak
Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America


1.826RCU1