thevirginian

Made a startling discovery. I was shopping on the internet for a 3D plane to find a new home for my new Saito 125. I looked at QQ's website and found the ideal plane: The 69" Yak 54 for $369.95. Then I looked in NitroPlanes website and, guess what, I found another Yak 54 with 69" wings. But that one only costs $199.00. When I chrecked out the pictures I found surprising similarities between the two. As a matter of fact the only difference I noticed was the paint scheme and, of course, the price. Every thing else appears to be the same. Seems like that both planes come out of the same factory, which woudn't surprise me a bit. Guess which one I purchased.

overbored77

My Feedback: (11)

Check out the QQ support forum in Giant scale. This plane looks alot like my 69" QQ.
You will find that some of the 69" planes that were shipped from QQ had problems with
landing gear and control horns. I figure if they both do come from the same factory
you will have a heads up as to what to look for before permanently gluing the horns in.
And the landing gear in the nitro planes add looks like it has the odd bends at the bottoms
of the legs my QQ had.

I may order one myself in a few days before they are sold out. If it is the same plane a $179
cheaper backup would be a great thing.

thevirginian

Thanks cverbored77, I'll do that

seemefly_1

QQ has a great reputation. And you will get what you pay for so that’s your decision

overbored77

My Feedback: (11)

Seemefly, I enlarged all the pics off the nitroplanes site and compares them to
my QQ and there weren't a whole lot of differences even the packaging for the control
horns are the same. I would be the first to say "you get what you pay for " seeing as
I just bought a $369 dollar plane but in this case it came down to I bought mine before
the nitroplanes was available. Although I gaurantee the product support for QQ is 100%
better. but sometimes you can't look past price.

overbored77

My Feedback: (11)

OH hold on it looks like the Nitro Planes Yak has an aluminum wing tube
and mine is carbon fiber, Thats worth at least $150

seemefly_1

see I was close

djr1007

$150 for a CF tube over Alum? Never seen an aluminum wing tube fail in a great many years, I have seen CF break, and weight savings is pretty small.

A lot of designs do get "copied" in China, but those obvious ones I have seen, are obvious, and could maybe be factory seconds.
So IMHO it comes down to how long do you think the plane will last? If you don't have anything in your hanger over a year old, why spend over 300? If your a good pilot, really into precision and have gotten past those first couple years, over $300 is way worth it. No knock off is going to set up and fly like one of QQ's, but if you can't tell the difference, why spend the difference.

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

I think many of those are seconds or refusals by the quality control.If you are new to the hobby you may get a real mess and end up spending a bunch extra once you get it.
If you are a builder or have experience,you should be able to quickly diagnose any potential problems and correct them and perhaps end up with a good deal and a reasonable airframe.

overbored77

My Feedback: (11)

I am going to have to agree that QQ has a great airplane imported. But I noticed that the NP yak
came on the scene after the QQ. Is it possible that you are getting the same airframe with
some blemishes and inferior covering, Maybe the wood is heavier, or there was too much
glue used, or not enough?

There is way too many similarities between the 2 planes to say that they aren't manufactured in
the same plant, If they aren't it's one hell of a knockoff. I hope Thevirginian, or whomever buys this
plane has the same experiences that the people who bought the QQ 69" planes are having. If it
is infact inferior I hope that it is still worth the lesser pricetag.

DJR, the cf wingtube comment was meant to be sarcastic.

thevirginian

I definitely will let you know what I have purchased next week when I shall receive the plane. I think it is no secret that even QQ has his airplanes built in China. That I don't get a CF wing tube really breaks my heart. especially since I witnessed a Fliton Extra fold her wings on a CF tube inflight a couple of weeks ago. I know QQ has an outstanding service, but I believe NitroPlane is going to support their products just as well, if they want to stay in business. I have had CMP planes before and can only say they are inexpensive and good quality airplanes.

octanehuffer

They are the same plane indeed! Good eye! I looked at eash side by on the NP site and the PDF manual for Quique. Same fuse sides, same engine box, all laser cut openings. The NP wings have the same cutouts as on my QQ 86" and QQ 49".
I am still going to buy the Quique 69". I run my planes too hard and dont want to worry about flying it to pieces. Thats what my H9 planes are for.

thevirginian

octanehuffer, I like your last comment it's hillarious but true. Buddy of mine just bought the H9 35% Extra, spent nearly $4000.00 total on this plane and I saw it desintegrate inflight three weeks ago. What a shame[]. I fly a cheap 33% Giles 202 sold by GSP and it keeps on flying. I simply don't believe in that the more expensive the better.

octanehuffer

***. My post timed out and it wouldnt up load. I only took 3 minuets to type. Try again.
I guess that was a low blow on H9 huh? (I laugh still too) Never should have posted that. I shouldnt compare a H9 plane to a QQ Yak, and it isnt fair to treat the H9's the same. They just dont last for me.
I wonder how Nitro Planes got a hold of Quique's planes? Quique calls his planes "Somenized" and I thought they were designed by him. Quique himself goes overseas to test fly the new ones before production to ensure they are to his liking. I have to much faith in his company to believe the Nitro Plane ARF's arnt a flawed Quique kit.
Adam

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

mine timed out too.It pretty well said if your ARF blew apart,it is your fault.Unless the area of problems are not accesible,it is ones responsibilty to recheck everything,design,glue joints and incidence etc. If this is beyond your abilities,dont fly or have someone competent and trustworthy to have a second look.

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

If you cant do that ,build your own.If you cant do that,pick another hobby.
There have been some isolated issues,with ALL companies,but its up to us to have a safe airframe on the runway.
What I witnessed today at the field was a real eye opener,and a factor behind this post.

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

salvaged my timed out post...

With overseas copies and competition,many brand companies had
to cut back on selling price,but perhaps also on QC and suppliers for items such as hardware and covering.
Pretty soon we will all be flying generic/hope for the best, airframes.
As far the H9 260 comment,that could be any company's plane,perhaps an isolated flawed frame,happens to all,and is not a correct evaluation of the company by any means.
GSP has supplied terrible planes too,but 95% were OK,so has Aeroworks,or QQ or GP and H9 or E Flite etc.
These are built by Humans,some dont care,or have the skills or experience to be on the job.There is a chance you may get an airframe by one of the "new workers"
The bottom line is still for the builder and pilot to take full responsibilty to produce an airworthy airframe to the best of their knowledge and skills.To recheck all factory specs and glue joints as best possible,incidence and mounting of wings and landing gear etc.
If you are unable to perform the basic airworthy tests regardless of company's reputation,you should consult a professional or choose not to fly at all.
This world of Competetive ARF's is attracting alot of new pilots,that definately strain the factor of handling and safety of model aircraft.
I just witennesssed one today,and it resulted in a total loss and was close to causing some property damage.

octanehuffer

Sure all companies will fall prey to the common anomalies of things like failed glue joints, poor wood, improperly assembled. But did you ever consider the design of the plane? Some were destened to fail from the begining. I have seen (and had) planes not be able to recover safely from a "Violater". I have a friend with QQ Yaks as well and there must be hundreds of them on his. It tore my H9 to shreds the first time I tried it. I have personally seen what an airplane shouldnt do but year after year our QQ Yaks make it to the field. I just hope that the NP versions will do the same.

octanehuffer

Here is the first .5 second of the "Violator". The plane is either a 102" or 85" QQ Yak. Both of his are the same scheme and I cant remember witch one he had that day. I want to say its the 85" though. Starting from the top left and ending at the bottom right. The manuver is flown at full throttle and if you look closely at frame 12 you can see full rudder and elevator deflection. Full throttle and max 3-D rates will only get this going. If you would liketo see it in action, Scott flew this manuver at XFC 2007, its in the video. Listen to it closely and turn up the volume. The whole airplane makes one odd noise. Even the commentator, ("mouth of the south") Bob Sadler makes a reply. After listneing to it you will no longer wonder why it is named it a "Voilator".

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

I have an EF Yak 74 inch.I have done some really testing extremely high G's with it.Some were violent,full power snaps to lomcevaks and high speed passes to full negative deceleration and so on.
It is stated in the manual that the airframe has a limit,and can be fataly stressed,obviously.
If you are going to fly beyond the design,then you must take extra steps, to strengthen areas.
Yes,some designs are probably not meant to take record breaking manouvers time after time.
There are thousands of H9 planes out there,besides a few lost,I am not aware of any mutliple failures.I think there was a wing recall on the 260 though?
One thing is for sure, .40 size is hard to break in the air,but when you start flying 27% and up airframes,things get stressed.
Maybe a plane does 30 blenders and shows no fatigue,perhaps on the 80th blender,one wing folds..

octanehuffer

Good luck with trying to break the EF planes either. Great design. If the top ranking planes do come apart it is from fatigue and not the design of the plane. The 102" Yak has its cowl completely deformed when in full throttle KE loops. Still trying to get a good pic of it but it sure isnt pretty. Laughable every time I see it. These quality planes last so long with torture and abuse that its fun to see charachter of it. Lets hope that the NP version is the same way. Many others will be able to enjoy it too, as the price is great.
Adam

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

Really? thats some torture allright.Wonder how may sideload G's a KE loop can inflict,that and the full sliding propwash [X(]

pinguecola

i have a quique 69" yak, and it flies great with saito 125 ! i received substitution landing gear from italian dealer and they do not asked money. i love wild blenders and snap rolls and i never broke a wing. ( ! )
you can fly wild, but the quique is an amazing precision fliyer.
i do not know nitro yak, but surely quique does great planes.
ciao francesco

thevirginian

Hey octanehuffer;
I heard the same thing about QQ test flying his "own" designs. But bottomline is that the NitroPlane Yak and QQ's 69" Yaks are the same. That means to me that even QQ has his kits manufactured by CMP. We are not talking similarities here, we are comparing apples with apples, verbatum. Looking closely at the pictures of both airplanes will be convincing enough. And I don't think CMP is "stealing" a well proven design here. I think both airplanes are being manufactured at the same company, period. One thing must not be overlooked: CMP is the major ARF manufacturer in China and builds ARFs for many companies under many different names.
Regarding H9 and the crash I witnessed: That 35% Extra had a structural weak wing design. There was nothing you could have prevented unless you rip off the covering and reinforce the internals yourself. BTW H9 is aware of that flaw and is coming out with a new and improved wing. My buddy hopes he is getting reinbursed by H9.

octanehuffer

No, I know that these two Yaks are indeed the same. I want to know how one has gotten ahold of the other. I must assume that Quique designed his Yaks and the other is sold under a different name. Quique's Yaks are trademarked. The Somenized design is his and his planes are sold as that. I would highly doubt that Quique trademarked someone elses design. It sure would be nice to know what the deal is. Even if CMP made them Quique still probably designed it.