I just wanted to put the word out about my experience with the H9 T-34. I really liked the kit as an ARF. Good quality and in terms of quality control there were very subtle differences between the two I bought. The first one I crashed because I didn't strap a 2700mah battery in properly. There is no place to strap a battery in that plane. I ended up drilling two holes through the canopy floor and using a 12 inch plastic tie to secure the battery on my second one. That was a $200 mistake because I wanted to keep it clean looking. I built the second one in less than 48hrs, nothing like learning from mistakes.

I found the H9 retracts to be sub par. They are plastic! I fly off a paved runway and made some nice smooth fast landings in this plane and I still had problems with the nose gear retract. The retract arm pulled itself off the plastic plate mechanism inside the retract which it was threaded into. 3 out of 4 landings with the nose wheel collapsing later I ended up making a plate out of steel, tapped it for the proper thread size and soldered the arm into the plate to keep it from twisting. I think it worked, but I didn't get enough landings on the fix to find out. The fix cost me more than the original retract, but it was strong!

As mentioned in previous threads I would like to hammer this point home. This plane has a HIGH WING LOADING! With my Saito .72 it balanced perfectly and the engine was a really nice match for this plane. But for the plane's relative small wing and size it felt heavy. I'm not exactly sure how much it weighed, 7lbs or more. Power off stalls were straight ahead and I had no problems landing it hot. I don't fly trainers and I don't expect to be able to cut the throttle on half of my down wind leg and make the runway. I dislike the fact that people bash good flying planes, like the GP AT-6 because they think it lands too hot. Compared to the T-34 my brothers GP AT-6 is a great slow flying plane with excellent aerobatic capabilities for a sport scale arf. The T-34 is a different story. I found it sluggish coming out of some aerobatic manuvers such as lumchevaks, hammer heads, spins, etc. I would keep some power on in all these maneuvers as I was getting more comfortable with the plane and I didn't want it to snap on me. I realize that some sport-scale planes are poor in recovery. I decided to give my brother a go at it. He wanted to see its vertical and hung the plane on it's prop topping out at about 400-500 ft. It snapped on him and went into a right hand spin, almost a flat spin. This plane does not handle as well as his GP AT-6 and it was not coming out of the spin. Maybe if he did it again he would have been able to recover from the spin, but at the time he fought it for 400 feet or so with no success. SO LONG T-34 you yellow *******!

My thoughts are, if you have an engine for a .40 size plane and want a beater plane as practice for flying a war bird, this is a good choice. Do not compromise putting a small engine on this plane. An OS .46 was barely enough to fly another one I saw at the field. The yellow gets old quick, but it looks good in the air and is easy to see. It will not slow down to a full stall landing unless you are very competent. I typically came in over the runway at about the same speed I took off with. Get the hobbico retracts and a dremel tool if you want solid reliable retracts in this plane. The H9 retracts wobble when locked and you can not adjust them.

Any questions or slams, fire at will!

-Blue

What do you mean regarding your brother trying to recover from a spin that "he fought it"?

Blue,

I debated over this one for quite some time. In the end, I passed due to my suspicion that the proffered retracts were not up to snuff. Seems like that is a recurring theme among all these so-called "high end" ARF warbirds; crap retracts. Of course, the warbird enthusiasts at my club are quick to point out the various after-market retracts that work, hold up, etc. Perhaps; but it seems a bit ridiculous to me to pay more than the freakin' kit cost for a decent set of retracts. And these are the guys who think I'm crazy for paying as much as I did for a 9Z???

Anyway, thanks for the report. Glad to know I probably made the right decision...

.

This is a question that has to be asked. Would you buy the plane and pay the price if it had $100 retracts. Dennis

This is my favorite plane! I have the same Saito 72, and I am using a 13X8 3 blade. Mine slows down better, but still lands hot. Ok, I'll give you the thing about the nose gear, it sucks, and didn't last one weekend. I bought a robart nosegear for it and it was much better....the mains that came with it are fine. I just do basic aerobatics with this plane, but it does them all fine. I don't know, sorry you had a bad experience, but so far mine is a keeper! A high speed pass down the runway with the gear sucked up looks cool. I mounted my battery under a strap made from litho plate and small screws...no probs there. For the money it's great. Very stable flyer!

Jess

Dennis,

I guess you're asking if I would buy the kit, with good retracts, at $280 (kit price + $100 for the retracts)?

Yup, sure would. But I would also expect/demand that the retracts work as advertised, more than a few times...

We're getting into different folks' definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. For instance, the pot-metal (and dead-soft) landing gear legs on my CG Matrix are a constant source of annoyance, and one of several reasons the model is now semi-retired. FYI, this plane has some odd-shaped (and two-piece) gear legs, so you just cannot pick up the phone and order decent replacements.

Anyway, another guy at our field has a model with landing gear that obviously came from the same alloyer; he has to bend his back after every landing. No big deal to him; he doesn't mind at all, he says. He sees nothing wrong with this weak, crap gear, that came on a high-end ARF. So, he would probably not be upset at the immediate failure of the H9 T-34 gear, and wouldn't mind tinkering, modifying, repairing, etc., whatever was necessary to make the gear work.

Differences of opinion... if I buy something, I expect it to work up to the standards of the ad's flowing prose that the marketing weenie wrote...

Basinbum,

I used to fly at the basin in Van Nuys. Had a lot of fun there. Is Ken still around out there? I heard he was making little soda can airplanes for fun. He taught me how to fly r/c. I miss the conversations with him and the other old timers.

Fighting the plane means when it went into the spin my brother did everything in his skill set that he could to recover. He didn't just give up after it didn't come out. He neutraled the sticks, opposite rudder, etc etc. Obviously, he didn't do it right otherwise it should have come out. SORRY BRO! I think he never got the wing flying again and kept it in a stalled attitude. It needed some down elevator to come out. It wasn't coming out otherwise. I noticed on a hammer head that it took quite a bit of airspeed to recover cleanly from the manuver. So I kept some throttle in on all of the aerobatics I did with it. I never got it flying too slow. I put a Hobbico Extra into a spin once, came out early and put it into an opposite flat spin that I didn't recover from.

The main gear on the H9 were holding up. There was a lot of slop in them and the plane sat a little off center because of it, but the mains were working fine.

I agree that it was a good flyer. I think I'm learning that you have to fly within the limits of the airplane. Maybe someone who is more skilled than I am can describe excatly what those limits are? I still think you should be able to push a sport scale plane around the air with confidence. Full throttle low approaches over the runway and knife edges were very cool. The plane knife edges easily. My brothers AT-6 requires tons of elevator in the knife edge, I guess some people mix that in on their transmitter.

I'm going for a Kyosho Zero now. I hear I can put that thing through it's paces comfortably and it looks oh so cool.

Blue,
Ken is still around, we call him crashin Ken because he crashes so many trainers and then yells at the student and tells them what they did wrong. He typically flys the plane at full throttle for about ten minutes telling the student about aerodynamics and such. He then gives the student the plane for two or three minutes till it deadsticks. Sound familiar?

For more on the Basin check out the Sepulvada thread in the clubhouse section.

As for the stall, it sounds like you know the proper things to do, the question becomes did your brother do them, I bet not.

Jess,
What type of Robart gear did you buy for your T-34? I'm having the same problem with my Hobbico retracts. I love flying the plane, but seem to spend more time fixing/adjusting/cursing at the retracts. I'm ready to upgrade.
John

I've been flying my H9 T-34 for quite a while now with no problems from the retracts flying out of rough grass. Guess ther's one good plane now and then. After a while I added flaps and now it settles down nice and gentle which should help the retracts live longer. I do agree it has a high wing loading...

quint

The nose gear I use is from robart. Very solid.

http://www.robart.com/retracts/5-10lbMech.aspx

part #610

jess

No Problems here...........................................

around 50+ flights with the factory retracs and a magnum 70 4stroke. Flys great..............

My Hanger 9 T-34 came with fixed gear and the retracts are an option. So whats the gripe as you can buy any retract system you want. I like the fact that the retract choice is yours and not forced on you by the manufacturer. A plus from Hanger 9 in my opinion..........

My gripe is that the nose gear retract is designed very poorly. The retract arm is screwed into a plastic plate that pushes the retract into the retracted position and pulls the plate out for extended. So, when extended the only thing that was holding the nose wheel in the extended (down) position was the tention between the arm and the 4-40 wire running to the servo. They didn't lock completely and I had two of them. One hard landing, SNAP went the threads in the plate and the nose gear folded.

I ended up making a metal plate (by hand) tapping it, threading it, and soldering it to fix the problem. The fix cost more than the retract.

That's my gripe. My fix was still better than spending $50 for a 40 size robart nose gear retract. The real problem is we buy this plastic junk made in China and almost all our Top Shelf arf's are made overseas in order to keep the price below $200.

<<<...in order to keep the price below $200...>>

There it is. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

If we (modelers as a group) would pay the extra money required for a top-shelf quality ARF, "they" (the mfgs/distributors) would provide it. But no; we, as a group, are terrible cheapskates and demand Mercedes quality at Yugo prices. Still, I think we're beginning to see an "edging up" of this under $200 mind-set. ARFs keep getting better; and more expensive. And I'm not talking about the firms who provide low-ball product to appeal to the lowest-price/to-hell-with-the-quality crowd.

If you sit down and really look at things, we actually have it pretty good. Most of the hobby stuff we buy is of acceptable quality at a reasonable price. These retracts are just one area where cheap doesn't work; and from what I've heard, some of the expensive after-market "name" retracts aren't so hot, either.

My club has a lot of large scale warbird guys. Well over half of the numerous problems they have on any given Sunday afternoon are related to retracts. High wing-loading and squirrelly handling accounts for much of the rest; and contributes to the first...

Which is why I'll just keep building fixed-gear sport models. If I wanted aggravation, I'd take up golf.

I agree with you Steve. I think all retracts need tinkering with, no matter what size they are.

I replaced my T-34 with a Kyosho Zero. $230.00 and I had to make my own pushrods, haha.

Oh well, it's just money. The enjoyment of building and flying is the fun part.