Jonas Bergström

Hi
I have my small CARF Hawk for a year now and I love it.
So I have starting to look at a bigger one. So I need some help to chose.
What I can figure out is 3 different bigger Hawk in marked. Is it CARF, Skymaster and Tomahawk Design.
Is there any big different between this models?
Are they equal in quality?
Is a JetCat P200 or a P220 enough power?

Best regards
Jonas

Dave Wilshere

Bias, but the SG Hawk with a P220Rxi-B would be awesome, we are just working on one for a customer to go with his 15:5 we have just finished.

The Tomahawk model I flew flies great, but the really larger size needs 'more muscle' as it has no energy retention.

Dave

Jonas Bergström

Hi and thank Dave.
I have read a lot of different build threds now and i think I vill o for a Skymaster Hawk.

/JB

vquick

My Feedback: (71)

Check this one out and you can get this one true Skyaviations located in Germany im including my build tread

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-j...-bae-hawk.html

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

If you are looking for the best flying one of bunch. The Skygate Hawk builds as the lightest wing loading. Mine comes it a 48lbs dry and 63lbs with fuel and smoke fluid.

I have had the 1.5 SM and it's a huge difference in handling and slow fight. The old adage the bigger it is the better it flies is very. The comp-arf Skygate Hawk is the middle of the 3 as far as cost. The Tomahawk would be the one to build if you like building and doing all the extra details and it is the biggest. The Skygate comes with most of the hard work done.

It's sometimes is all about the budget but remember if you buy cheaper you may regret it. I bought the carf over the Fly Eagle back over 2 years ago. Both kits were here in the us and I could have either one with a week so there was no wait time.

I could have saved at least 2,500.00 but I know the FEJ would have broke before I made my 20 flight. It has been a proven fact. I know I have over 80 flights so far on mine. The airframe has seen over 10gs not on purpose but no signs of failures.

I had over 100 flights on my first one I lost to a onboard fire caused by a festo filter coming apart.

I fly mine with K-210g Kingtech and it has plenty of power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8zmFuPwfM JMHO

jsnipes

My Feedback: (3)

Almost done with my 1/3.65 SM so no flight report for you. Build was very easy, though I'm doing a lot extra to convert it to a T-45.

Craig South's looks great flying and he loves it.

Good luck with yours!

JS

BlueBus320

My Feedback: (57)

I have 1/3.65 Skymaster. No flights yet, but the kit is awesome.

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

I have seen 2 of the skymaster fly and they fly great! I love Jamies and Craigs. You will not go wrong with the Skymaster either.

I hope to build the 100 Hawk like Blue Bus's

David Gladwin

Don't forget the Airworld Hawk at 1:4.5 scale. I was told it is a superb flying machine and so it proved.
I have 2, both powered by JetCat 180 RXIs with Weatronic gyros on rudder, ns and ailerons. I never tire of flying it AND it fits perfectly into. a BMW 5 series touring with a few cm to spare !
After stiffening the fin internal structure and some slight mods to the landing gear mounts, it is perfectly reliable. Almost 200 flights up.

I also have a SkyGate Hawk with Olympus power and full internal ducting, flies beautifully but handling this big model is a problem, making it less user friendly.

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

[QUOTE=I also have a SkyGate Hawk with Olympus power and full internal ducting, flies beautifully but handling this big model is a problem, making it less user friendly.[/QUOTE]


With respect David I must disagree. Maybe you made the mistake of making yours to heavy by using the internal ducting. My bird with the 210g has more than enough and handle better that anything scale at slow flight out there. I wish I had video of the last 2 events and maybe Ky jets dvd will have my evening flight. It flies as good as any large sport jet. Anyone see it fly or has flow will tell you that the Skygate is one of the best out there. Even the new 1.375 Skymaster and large Flyeagle hawks I have witness fly very good. I don't recommend the FEJ due to it's continued failures of it structures. I have witness the last one lose a wing in person.

In case you haven't follow my post I use a blocked off intake ducts and it works with out having to redo every thing inside the jet. I come in at 48lbs dry, 63 wet. Oh yea it can easily break 200 mph but I prefer the slow fight.

It has never tipped a wing or done anything scary.

I am a firm believer in the bigger it is the better is will fly. Of course I am talking about a lighter wing loading.

JMHO

David Gladwin

I think you misunderstood my post. The aircraft handles beautifully in the air at the weight I am flying it, 22 kg dry. I. am very happy with the full ducting and big tank, etc., no blanking of intakes and no overpressurisation of gear doors.

What I meant is that the GROUND handling of the model, Ie in the workshop, transport etc, is a bit problematic, it's BIG and whereas I can handle the Airworld Hawks on my own, moving the SG Hawk is a two person operation !

David,

jws_aces

My Feedback: (33)

David,

I did misunderstand you. You are spot on about transporting it. I have a cradle made to do everything in. I can assemble and transport it but the only hassle is I need a extra person to lift it out of the cradle.

Sorry about that.

BlueBus320

My Feedback: (57)

Yeah, my buddies get to the field 20 minutes after I arrive & get in a flight before I get my stuff all built. I need help to get my completed SG L-39 off of my stand, & back onto my stand to disassemble it at the end of my flying day. I keep thinking of designing a transport system so I can be independent with my large stuff.

Jonas Bergström

Hi again
I understand that's is an issue to handle a big bird like this. The small Hawk is not a problem, but I don't like to turnaround it every time when I mount the wing.
What I have understand the bigger one have a plug in wing and it's little easier to handle in that way.

For an example we have design a JA-37 Viggen in scale 1/4,5 that we have started to built plug to. In this aircraft the landing gear are mounted far away from the fuselage and in front of a very thin wing. A nightmare for model aircraft designer. So we have decided to use only one landing gear beam/bracket made in carbon fibre that goes horizontal from left to right landing gear through the fuselage. And the wing just goes over this construction so that also works like a wing tube. In this case the aircraft always stays on it own wheel even when the wings are of and it's easy to roll of a trailer or a van. The second advantage to do like this is that you don't need design the wing to take all the load from landings etc. The other thing we have to decided to do, is that the front section is easy removable with the nose gear still attached to the fuselage. This will shorten the aircraft with 90 cm when it's in the transport mode.
I have never seen this type off solution yet in a model aircraft for do the transport and handling easier when the models gets bigger and bigger.

/Jonas

BlueBus320

My Feedback: (57)

Not sure if you've decided on a Hawk yet, but I figured I'd tell you why I chose Skymaster.
1. most prefabricated
2. All ordnance available through Skymaster
3. Only one with a top engine hatch (that I'm aware of)
4. All metal landing gear opposed to plastic covers.
5. Only one with factory installed lighting available (that I'm aware of)
6. Painted outside of mold (no seam lines)
7. Liked the scale detail kit.
8. Factory bypass

CONS:
1. Heavy
2. New & unproven

It seems like SM almost Had an unfair advantage. The others were produced years ago & have entire threads dedicated to the builds that contain a ton of customer feedback. It seems SM has studied those threads & corrected a lot of the valid complaints.

I'm really happy with my choice so far. You can't go wrong with any of your listed Hawks, but those were some of my deciding factors.
Best of luck, & post your decision,
Jay

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

A few words ,
a prooer design determines the type structure , materials to be chosen , physical measurement , all these to withstand the forces , conditions for the part to do what it was designed for , an improper choise of the mentioned mean a less good of a job done by the designer .
So , be it a light metal skeleton covered by a suit of fiberglass shell for the scale appearance while doing what it was ment to do still could be a proper design , taking in consideration costs . Might be also manufactured from any other material that will have the sufficient characteristics to do just the same , again considering costs ... choosing a full metal and much heavier structure just because it looks nice is what I would call a poor design ..

same for any other part of the airframe ..
That is the difference between ....
looking at ; installed lights , bright shiny collors , is like judging the quality of a wine by observing the lable on the bottle...

lavi rider

My Feedback: (6)

Oh , and I've built them all almost excluding the Tomahawk one .