gstockton

I'm building a g.p. ultimate bipe and will be needing a incidence meter I have never used one before, I build about one plane a year I am looking at two meters a Robart and GP just though I would ask if anyone know the pro and con of each before i order one thanks

tychoc

I'm building the same plane and got the GP one (with laser). Can't contrast the two, but the GP sure is easy to use and a little cheaper.

-tychoc

tuwood

I'm building the same plane and went with the GP one. It seems consistent and accurate. I can't really contrast it to the other model because I haven't used it.

tashley

My Feedback: (9)

Haven't tried the GP although I plan to buy one soon but have owned the Robart and must say the GP with laser seems to be a better choice. The pendulum system Robart uses can't be as accurate as a laser.

DaveB

I may be the odd duck here because I have both meters and find the Robarts easier to use. In all fairness I bought the GP version long after the Robarts (the deal was too good to pass up) and I really haven't used the GP much at all, other than installing the battery and playing with it. Having said that, you're probably O.K. with either choice.

DaveB

Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

I borrow A pair of the Robarts when I really want to be dead on but I own the GP. I have compared the two and yes, the Robart is A little better and two is better then one but I always end up using the GP the most. Maybe because it's here?? Just make sure you level it after each time to turn it on or off because the laser moves whenever you move the switch. Not A big deal though, I like mine and it was half the price, that makes it even better!!

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

I think the Robart is more accurate.

But, I use the GP more often, because it's quicker to set up.

Lots of times, I've got them both out at once. One on the stab and the other on the wing or the engine.

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I use a home-made and robart. I feel more comfortable being able to cross check.
Edwin

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

I have been using one of the original Robarts for years. This one has no laser, no magnifying glass and an actual penny for the counter weight. It works as close as I can build.

With wings, check the wing tips, not the root. When you join wing panels, make sure the tips are the same angle. That's where the warps will be and where all the force will be.

gstockton

thanks for the infomation i guess I will go with the Robart its only $7 more and doesnt use a battery, will only use it once or twice a year that way not have to worry about the battery being bad when go to use

Ed Smith

I use the Robart meter. It is accurate instantly as it does not need setting to zero. I have three of them. I set up the airplane. put one meter on the wing and one on the tail. It tells me instantly if there is any incidence difference. when joining wing halves I use one on each tip. If a meter has to be zeroed first this would not be possible. The meter would have to be set then moved. Who can say what would happen in the move. The Robarts can also be used in conjunction with other spirit levels.

See picture for typical set up.

Ed S

rcfury

My Feedback: (5)

This christmas i got the new Hangar 9 angle pro from my girlfriend. Isn't she nice. Now I use that thing for everything. From control throws, digital level, and incidence meter. I use it everyday!!!

Mods-R-Me

My Feedback: (1)

I have an angle pro also and love it. Price is a bit steap ($59.99), but you get what you pay for.

Mods

tashley

My Feedback: (9)

Does it come with the bubble on top or did you add that?

Mods-R-Me

My Feedback: (1)

I added that as a cross check.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I also use the Robarts and it works great.

tashley

My Feedback: (9)

I may have to invest in a Hangar 9. I like the added feature of using it as a control surface deflection gage.

WILDCRASHWILLY

I really like my Robarts. It seems to be very accurate.

rcfury

My Feedback: (5)

If you are going to use it as a deflection gauge, dont just deflect the surface and let go the stick. The guage is pretty beefy and can put some strain on the servo. Well depending on the servo. I had a 3004 strip out on a elevator (on my tiger 2) just setting deflections. If your running metal gear 200 oz servos i dont think so.

JohnW

My Feedback: (6)

I've used both the Robarts and the GPs. I've not had a chance to try the H9. I prefer the GP meters. IMO they are more accurate, more precise, can have their zero point adjusted, and are easier to read at a distance compared to the Robarts.

Accuracy - I had 3 Robart's, two had their gauges off by about 1/2 degree. I.E if you flipped the meter 180 degrees, they would read different, which is an error in the alignment of the gauge to the bar. While I could work around that, it was very annoying before I discovered what was happening. The GP meters by design cannot have this problem.

Precision - The GP meter can be easily read to 1/8 degree and possibly even 1/16 degree. This is very difficult to pull off on the Robarts. I can build to this precision so this is not splitting hairs to me.

Zero Point - Post on "Robarts not needing their zero point set" is misleading. A more accurate statement would have been "Robarts can't adjust their zero point." The GPs ran be run at any zero point and don't need to be "zeroed" to function. But they can be zeroed if you wish. The advantage is less brain work when comparing surfaces as you can set any surface to "zero", regardless of how the plane is resting.

Read at distance. I can read the GP meter easily at to 1/16 degree of precision from dang near across the room. This is especially nice when I have two meters setup on wings, or wing/stab, etc. Unless you have eagle eyes, that simply isn't possible with the Robarts.

Before all those with Robarts get worked up… I used the Robarts for years and they were indispensable. They do indeed work, but just not as well as the GP IMO. Cheers.

Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

I have a GP and I think the way the laser switch interferes with its' own mount is a bit bush league.