corndog2

At the current time there seems to be a trend for very large models suited to 140 - 200 size turbines. I would like to see more new models in the P20 - P70 (OR 2 - 8 KG Class)

What do others think

dubd

Small models for EDF. Large models for turbines.

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

Having played with the pretty much every size of jet out there ( From P-20 MW44, P60 , P70 all the way up to silly sizes) I have to say that the larger models are so much more pleasing for me.
The smaller ones win through on cost ( most of the time ) Easy of transportation and storage ( Handling ) and thats about it for me. The larger models just fly soooo much better. This aspect alone is enough to make me not need to look at the other benefits such as looks, ease to work on, easier to see, fly at a more scale speed and have a much better presence in the air etc etc. After all. For me its all about the flying, and a large model ( Unless it is an absolute dog.. but even in that case I think that a smaller example of the same aircraft would be even worse ) out performs a small P20- P-60 each and every time.
Regards Al

corndog2

I was wondering if there is a size at which the better flying charistics of a large model dont get any better if you get even bigger if you see what I mean.

Or said another way

What size is 'big' in terms of good flying charistics (for say a Hawk)

Henke Torphammar

I know from 3D flying that the larger 3meter planes fly so much better then the smaller ones. I only fly small jets but I want to add that fitting a small electric model with a turbine makes it fly so much cleaner. For example the Funjet which weighs about the same with a turbine as with electric motor, but just locks in and tracks so much better then the prop one. It really feels much bigger then it is when you fly it with turbine. The step from EDF to turbine is not that big but you still notice another cleaner way of tracking.

Big planes still fly better, but there a big step just going from electric to turbine too.

madmodelman

Once you've flown a large jet you are hooked, much more majestic and graceful but landings have to be spot on every time.

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

A hawk is a good example.. For me they really start to shine at 1/5th scale up to about a 1/3rd. Around 1/4 scale it starts becoming weight dependant in my eyes. Too light at 1/4 and 1\3rd scale and I am straight away looking to add ballast. This applies to most scale jets of the hawk type... In my opinion.
A small hawk ( 1/5th or below ) Really has to be super light to fly how I would class as well.
Regards Al

Jgwright

Ali where do we stop, how about 1:2 or 1:1 scale Hawk!!!

John

Ali

My Feedback: (5)

We dont stop. Thats the beauty of the hobby, if someone wants to, and they play by the rules then they can. Luckily common sense plays a big part in it, and so far those that can build a hawk ( for example) at 1/2 scale generally dont! As they know it just does not make sense, and the pitfalls outweigh the positives. I myself have had a play with the really big models, and find myself quite happy with scale jets that are around the 1/5th to 1/3 for the single turbine types. Of course it depends on so many other things than just scale ( Size of the full size, weight etc) My main concern now a days is more storage and ease of use. The C-17 taught me that.. the hard way! It was a pain to transport and store or work on, and needed a 3-4 main crew minimum to rig and operate. Now I am happy with the limit being a jet that a two man crew can operate.

Dr Honda

My Feedback: (4)

I'm on a budget... and have limited room... so I like the smaller models.

But... reflecting on that... even the "Smaller" jets, are still bigger than the typical model aircraft. What I'm saying is... most guys are flying .40~.60 sized glow at a flying field. A small-ish turbine is a 120 sized model. (like the falcon 120) So... for me... most of the small jets are still big.

I do agree with Ali with the size, and being "Majestic"... but every aspect of a 3M model is expensive. (for me)


Personally... I can't wait for KingTech to release their K-35 so I can stuff it into a bunch of cheap airframes.

George

My Feedback: (57)

I'm with Dantley on this one.

Although I have only had one "small" (Wren 44 powered) model, that was all it took for me personally to prefer a larger turbine model and leave that size for EDF. What is small anyway? I guess people's idea of small may vary widely. I consider small to be P-20, Wren 44, Kolibri, etc. Others may include the P-60, Bee, etc., but some of the models flown by those engines could be more "mid-size".

David Jackson

My Feedback: (15)

If the wallet can afford it, I'd rather have a large jet model (fuse 98 + inches in length). Another limited factor for me when considering size is whether I can load/unload and assemble the model at the flying site without any help from others. [8D]

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

My limit is that it has to fit in the 8' bed of my P/U truck with the tailgate closed. That limits me to most planes with ~20-25LBS thrust or less.
This size also makes it on of the biggest aircraft being flown at my home field. So size is somewhat relative.

Anything that I have must be able to be assembled by me with no other help.

Small stuff has always intrigued me. Be it airplane or heli. I like the idea of a jet that will fit in the truck assembled.

I'm sure glad we have choices to get what makes each of us happy.

FenderBean

What about medium? Pick something between that, most jets i have seen at the events fall into this range.

Robrow

Dennis, I think those that want more small stuff are in a minority, I voted bigger better, I don't think there is any particular line below which it flies worse, I've not flown too many smaller jets, maybe 3 or 4 different types and they all flew like s**t compared to the bigger stuff. The flying qualities get better as they get bigger provided as they start getting really big the weight goes up in proportion to the size. What I really hate to see flying is a large jet that has been built so light maybe to get under a particular legal limit. In any real weather they take off, fly and land looking totally non scale....yuk [:'(]

Rob.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlomOxKjwC8[/youtube]

jetpilot

My Feedback: (48)

XL!
Scott

rus.ivan

clr

Twin_Flyer

My Feedback: (4)

Large and small are relative terms. I prefer models in the 70"-80" range that are gas powered, 20 cc - 30cc as that's what my field can handle.

Bill S>

hooker53

My Feedback: (106)

Plus 1 on all. Come on K-35.

Henke Torphammar

Any recent gossip?

Dig it

Definitely need a medium category. I said large because your definition of small is too small for me. I prefer 1/7th. 1/3 to 1/5 in my mind is too much to transport.

Dale

Boomerang1

Turbine jets are the top end of the hobby in both cost & complexity & the people
flying them don't seem to be short of coin so it's in the best interests of the manufacturers
& sellers of both engines & kits/accesories to push the bigger is better line to increase their
profits. It would cost very little extra to build a large turbine like a P-200 compared to a P-20,
it would cost almost as much to make a small composite model as a large one yet the larger one
can be sold for twice as much (or more), you get the picture.

I think it's the 'turbine' thing. An example would be Boomerang's smaller jets are big sellers despite
costing at least twice what the equivalent chinese built prop driven model would.

I, personally, have trouble justifying the really small turbines as well, in the smaller sizes EDF makes
more sense to me. Lots of low cost, convertable EDF airframes available though.

For me the 5-10 kg thrust size suits me best, the excitement of turbine flying with less of the cost, complexity,
storage, transportation, assembly, field availability hassles of the larger jets.

I would be the first to admit that, up to a point, bigger models fly better but the smaller jets suit me the best but
everyone's different so I'm not about to preach what others fly. - John.

Dr Honda

My Feedback: (4)

Last I asked... the K55 is soon (spring time?) and the K-35 is still on the work bench, but this year. I know Jet Munt has showed a "35"... but it's been 2 years.

Ron Stahl

My Feedback: (12)

Since I work on what would be considered really big models 200-700 lbs I can tell you that bigger flies better, but here's the down side they are a PITA in the shop, you need like Ali said a crew to even load and unload them. Cost goes way up and storage is difficult. I have limited myself to 80" wings that are one piece and 120" for multiple piece wing for storage and transportation reason. Fuses over 100" now also become a problem for the same reasons. I would love have the funding some guys have and the local space to fly the bigger models. The real way to do it is to have a small airport that will rent you a hanger that a few share the cost on, that way the plane stays together and ready to fly.

Hinckley Bill

My Feedback: (569)

Getting older so smaller isn't really an option...............I'll deal with the 'down-side' of larger models because they fly better and I have less chance of 'losing' them in the air