acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

I should preface this by saying, This is only my second plane, the first being a RTF Alpha 40. I am very new to this hobbie. Although I have built many balsa/tissue rubber powered planes over the years, this is my first attempt at a build of this magnitude. I plan on taking my time and enlisting the help of newly acquired friends at the air field. I haven't begun to build it, this is only a preliminary report.

Raiden Tech, P-51 .60 ARF (Not sure who manufactures it, they call it their evergreen model)

I placed the order on Monday 11/7 and it was delivered on 11/10, NOT TOO BAD! It arrived in a heavy cardboard tightly fit box, no damage during shipping. The inner box is a very nice commercial quality packaged box. Upon opening, on top, are the wing halves, each half very neatly wrapped and taped in thin foam. It took a little time to snip the tape points and remove the wings. The fusalage was similarly wrapped. I was very happy with the quality of construction and covering. I then inspected the supplied hardware, all seems to be there (e.g. fasteners, control horns, hinges, fuel tank, gear, push wires, engine mount, cowling, canopy, servo mounts, decals and etc). Need (6) servo, receiver, battery and engine. After reading much negative response to the landing gear struts on the Hanger 9 version and especially the Chinese copies, I decided to take a look at the struts supplied with my kit. They seem very rigid, utilizing .158 diameter wire. How does this rate with other kits, especially the weak struts? The retract mechanism, once again seems to be of decent quality, we'll see how they assemble. The cowling is very nicely formed and painted. The documentation is the weak link, extremely poor, especially for a new modeler like my self. I downloaded the manual for the Hanger 9 version which I hope will help with those fine details which are non-existant in the supplied instructions.

Overall, I am very Happy with the quality of the kit along with Raiden Tech.

More to come, including pics, as I begin construction.

Andy

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

1)can you post pics please , sounds like a CMP plane as far as packing but Raidentech offers copies of many of the China Model Products .
2)Be very careful if this is your second plane , I dont want to be the "typical" dont you dare fly a warbird yet guy " but you need low wing experience with a tail dragger plane . If you cant wait and your just going to go with gut feel get as many hours as possible on a flight sim .
This plane will not fly like a H9 mustang , the H9 warbirds have lighter wing loading and usually fly (based on set up ) like a sport plane . This is an example of what I mean .
1)TopFlight P40 - difficult to fly -high skill needed
2)VQp40- easier to fly -
3)H9-P40 - easy-est to fly
Good luck and welcome to warbirds , you will love them !!!!!

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

I worked on the G2 for months before my solo, made it very easy to fly, haven't crashed yet. I intend to fly the G2 sim through winter with the planes you mentioned. I will probably still purchase a low wing trainer, would the super chipmunk or cherokee be appropriate? I couldn't resist the P-51. I'll get some pics going this weekend.

Andy

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

Well, here are some pics.

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

And some more.

Richard L.

My Feedback: (24)

The things missing from this plane that the H9 Mustang does have are "wing fillets". Otherwise, the plane seems to look almost identical to the H9 Mustang.

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

That plane comes in 18 oz heavier then the Hangar 9 Mustang (JUST WOOD).
They used heavier balsa/ply to save cost.

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

Hanger 9 P-51 .60 Specs:
Wing Span: 65.5 in
Overall Length: 55.75 in
Wing Area: 745 sq. in
Flying Weight: 7 - 8.5 lbs
Engine Size: .61 - 1.00 (2-stroke), .72 - 1.00 (4-stroke)
Radio: 5+ channel
Servos: 5 standard and 1 retract

Raiden Tech P-51 .60 Specs:
Wing span: 65.5in / 1664mm
Wing area: 745 sq in / 48.1 sq dm
Flying weight: 7.8lb / 3540g
Fuselage length: 55.8 / 1420 mm
Engine Required: 2c 0.61-0.75 cu in
Radio Required: 5 channels,6 servos
4c 0.91 cu in

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

acgeorge: AWESOME pics!! Thanks for taking the time! [sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif]

One question. The glue looks 'shiny'. Can you tell if it is CA, epoxy, or hot glue, or what? Thanks!

-Tom

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

RAIDENTECH ALSO SAID:

"Our evergreen model airplane....
Pre-installed retractable landing gear..."

RAIDENTECH = FULL OF CRAP.

I weighed both and I KNOW for a fact that one just the arf was 18 0z heavier then the hangar 9. Not to mention the retract housing is weak as heck and will break on the first landing. The retracts & wheels are junk, and so is all the other hardware. Fuel tank will BREAK while you are tyring to assemble it. COVERING IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST, after 1 flight you will try to reshrink and it will burn holes. Cowling uses super crappy paint that flickers off with the slightest touch. Horizontal stablizer wire is a weakling 4-40 size and will bend. FIREWALL has incorect built-in thrust. Wheel Wells are super lame and start "MELTING" after some flights. Joints in the wood are not correct and need to be re-einforced.

I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that you will spend more fixing problems on this plane then you would have if you had gotten the hangar 9.

Oh well it will suck for you after 2-3 flights and everything looks like garbage.

ULTIMATE LVR

My Feedback: (49)

TESTING PICS

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

Wow, you must have had a very bad experience. Your definitly right about the retracts, that did piss me off, and the wheel wells are cheap. I have read the feedback from others, who bring up some of the same issues. Then you hear some people who are quite satisfied with it, except the gear. I haven't seen a response regarding the thickness of the struts. Mine measure .158" dia. I would like to know how they compare to others and aftermarket.

As for the shiney glue, It doesn't have much thickness and is clear. I dont think its hot glue or epoxy. Looks like CA, but I'm not sure. Any test to know for sure?

I will try and address some of the issue you mentioned, during construction.

What do you think about putting a .90 with a 3-blade prop?

Thanks

Andy

P-40LUVR

I have the same plane,the instructions show to mount the retract servo in parallel to the wing tip but it won't fit,I had to put it in parallel to the leading edge,(sideways)no engine mount holes in the firewall either,no spinner.

Al Lewis

I bought a P-51D from Raidentech also but not the same one. I've also purchased several other items from them and found their service and prices to be outstanding. With regards to their claims about landing gear being installed, etc I found that if you take the time to call them and ask you will find that they will give you any information you ask for about their products including who makes a particular model. I would guess that yours was made by Galaxy as was mine. Mine was a .60-.72 so naturally I put a Super Tigre .91 in it with a 12X7.5 three bladed prop. Thing flies like it's on rails. I will admit that the retracts are weak but for $119.00 who's complaining. Just buy some Robarts. Raidentech also does an awesome color video camera I bought for my planes with audio. The thing works good, (I found and sorted out the bugs, loose battery connector) and will fit into just about anything that will fly. Bottom line is, enjoy your plane and don't let people with one, or even a few, bad experiences spoil it for you.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

It's probably CA. As for testing to determine what type I can only think of totally unscientific but arguably good methods. Hot glue, appears milky and you can stick a fingernail in it and it will leave an indentation. Epoxy is clear to opaque but hard as a rock (if mixed properly). CA is semi-glossy and makes a hard surface also, but the thin type is like water and can soak into wood and you might still be able to stick a fingernail into the wood.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Andy there not bad sugestions for second planes, you want to make sure its a tail dragger .

vmgo22

My Feedback: (31)

Hello:

I Just bought an Hangar 9 P-51 but I don't know what kind or type of servo Do I have to buy for the retracts; My transmitter is a 6EXA Futaba. This is my first experience with retracts, I have flown a low wing four star 60 before this mustang, but this is the first one with retracts.

Are the hobbico and hi-tec servos compatible with the futaba equipment?
I will appreciate if you can recommend me some choices.

Thanks

acgeorge

My Feedback: (3)

How are you guys mounting the engine, inverted or sideways? A pitts muffler is available for side mounted engines. Haven't seen a Pitts style for inverted, especially my SK.90.

Also, would someone measure the wire diameter of thier replacement retract struts. The supplied strut in my kit measures .158-.160" dia, and seems very rigid, including the retract mechanism. I'm debating whether or no to replace them. I'm wondering if they have addressed the problem with the retracts, in current production P-51's. I am replacing the stock tank, ca hinges (with hinge points) and control horns

The Hanger 9 .60 P-51 assembly manual will work very well in the assembly of the Raiden Tech P-51.

chris8105

My Feedback: (22)

Would you recomend this plane? I am either going to get this one or the Hangar 9 one. I dont mind paying a extra hundred bucks if theres a big difference in quality.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

VM . I know you can use HiTec with Futaba . YOu will need a servo defined as "High Torque" and or retract servo , either look on towers site or just make a call to them or your local hobbby shop

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

I just got a Raidentech 'Marie" P-51 and cant really tell any diference from my previous H-9 P-51. The landing gear was in several pieces and not worth assembling, but a set of H-9 P-47 (they have very hard struts and stop adjustments) retracts are going to solve that problem. Great buy from my viewpoint.

By the way, the 60 sized H9 P-51 manual can be downloaded if you don't have one laying about and works perfectly.

vmgo22

My Feedback: (31)

LDM:

Thanks for the tip, I already bought a Hobbico Low profile retract servo and it's compatible with futaba flight pack.

Now I'm in the way to decide if I use my 0.91 Magnum two strokes engine or buy a Saito or O.S 1.00 engine, I'm using a Saito .80 engine in my .40 Size Piper Cub And it works very good, In my opinion four strokes engines fails less than two stroke engines. I think they are more reliable. What do you think?

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

1) I have Magnum 4 strokes , Os and Saito . The biggest differance besides the power/great sound vs 2 strokes is that many modelers are not willing to break them in correctly .Its takes patience , some after run oil and you will be all set for great sounds and flights .
I tried magnum on price and have not been disappointed , OS on sale never fails and Saito 180 is the biggest one to date . I broke that one in but it wont go in my 73" p40 until spring .
Hope that helps

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

Why spend for the Saito 1.00 (unless you just want one) when the lower priced Saito .91 (check the listings here on RCU) flies the heck out of the H-9 P-51. Had one on the P-51 and one on the H-9 P-47, both flew well beyond 'scale' speed and had great vertical pull. I too like the 4 strokes for easy starting with no fussing or tweaking and of course they sound good to me.

vmgo22

My Feedback: (31)

Ok guys, I will follow your tips, and I will look for a .91 size. Two strokes are for trainers. War birds deserve a better engines, and they are four strokes.

Thanks.