thunderjet

My Feedback: (1)

After reading the review on the GP Pitts in Model Airplane News. I have come to a conclusion that these reviews are bogus at best.
I have one of these planes, and yes it does fly great, looks great and gets a lot of attention at the field.
But come on, tell the truth! I had to do about 4 hours of mods just to keep the top wing on and the engine where it should be.
How come this is not mentioned.
Now I am not bashing GP because the plane is new and we must learn by trial and error. Model Mags need to get real and state the truth on thier reviews. Stop selling airplanes in the reviews. I believe that this is false advertisement.
Lets all go out and build it just like the reviews say and watch the wings shred off. And then go buy another? Makes for good profits for the manufactures.......
All I am asking for is good truthfull info.
There is more truth in one post on RCU than a whole stack of model mags.

ptarp

Well said thunderjet. I have come to dismiss all reviews I see in mags. The only ones I care about are from either ppl on this forum, or independant reviewers usually found on some website. Seems like every product that is reviewed is "The best ARF they have seen", or they "Only engine in 30 yrs of modeling that has started that easy". Its truly rediculous.

pettit

My Feedback: (23)

I'm trying to bite my tongue really hard.....

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Ahh, "Go For It"!

epc

My Feedback: (33)

I agree.

I don't beleive those reviews.

The worst airplane is the best flyer for them.


epc

aerobat82

My Feedback: (1)

I could not agree more, I was asked to build one of these for hire by a friend of mine. I did not charge him very much because I had read a review on it which made it sound like it was nothing big to build. THat is double BS,,,,,,,Like someone above said, I spent more time making mods to keep the stupid wings on and to keep the motor from completley coming of the airplane. I am not saying it is the only airplane I have ever had to make a bunch of mods to but at a 400.00 arf......THat thing ought to fit together like a puzzle.

Yes the reviews are all about salesman ship........

rfw1953

My Feedback: (2)

I too read the article and decided I just had to have one. I stopped by the hobby store and basically set up an order just like the one in the magazine - Fuji 50 and the works. Whats funny is that Rick, at RC Hobbies in Huntsville, Al. suggested I look for a product review on the net before going with this model. I also talked with the Field Director at my flying club who warned me about the Pitts being a 'touchy airplane and that it can get away from you easily'. Hm, this had me thinking I had better check this baby out before putting up the bucks.

I have a GP 1/4 Giles G-202 and a WM Giant P-51. Both use OS 160's. I am challenged by both airplanes but am thinking I can probably handle the Pitts. Then I read this review and man, I am now very concerned about things like, 'Wings coming off' and 'not able to keep the engine in place' . Then I see a response from the magazine, "biting my tongue ". Give me a break! This is not the time to bite your tongue. This is the time to stand behind what you write. Please speak up and and defend your article, or go away. I'm the one who stands to lose $1,300 or better because of bad information.

Obviously there are several people who commented on this 'review subject', and at least one person who has had a bad experience with this plane.

Would really like to hear from others on the quality of this 1/3 scale Pitts from Great Planes and also about it's true flying habits. If I can handle the planes mentioned above do you feel this would be a good selection????

Thanks for your input

[email protected]
RCRC Huntsville, Al.

CrashMeister

My Feedback: (4)

I have one with a BME 50. First thing that does is void the warranty because it is a few CC over the recommendation.
I reinforced the firewall. I will have to do some more because the firewall is made from cheap ply and the blind nuts are compressing the hell out of the wood. I half expect the engine to pull clean off. I'll remove the blind nuts and reinforce with birch ply.

Next: Weight. One word. Heavy. And it flies heavy. Now it may be somewhat scale, but if you fly aerobatic planes you will find this one flies heavy. That means you have to keep your speed up on landing or pick up pieces.

I had to do the mods to the wing center section. They were needed. I also had to mod the lower wing where the interplane struts attach. Same problem as the mid wing, but no mention of this from GP.

Next up I had the 90 degree brackets break. I saw this after a flight and told GP, who sent some more of the crappy brackets. I have heard they have some improved ones, so I emailed them for some of those about two weeks ago. No reply as yet.

If you buy this plane and want to use a gas engine that will have sufficient power, expect to do a lot of fixing before you fly. Also know how to handle hot landings.

Now, all said and done, I put mine up for sale and then changed my mind. Why? Because it IS such a cool looking plane and the attention it gets is awesome. BTW, it does do a very cool inverted flatspin !

Craig.

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

I have a GP Pitts with a 2.4 FPE engine. After about 30 minutes repairing the top wing problem,( newer kits, I have heard, do not have this problem) and building the aircraft exactly as designed,( 5 evenings of "easy" work) I have nothing bad to say about this plane. I did not have any problem with my equipment fitting into plane. I am guessing my Pitts has about 70 +/- flights. I have been flying it since January, and have not had ANY of the problems reported. Now that may be because my plane is built as designed with a motor in the recomended power range. My aircraft has "plenty" of power. Will loop from level at just over 1/2 throttle. Will go vertical for 3-400+ feet and if I had the talent (and more surface throw), it would hover. I dont believe it will fly straight up from a hover though. Most people seem to forget, that like a P-51 Mustang, this is NOT a 3-D aircraft. It flys very scale, and is very aerobatic. It weighs about 15 lbs, and balanced with no weight added. I do not use the flying wires. My firewall is not reinforced, my wing brackets have not broken,or come loose, and the wings are still in place.

jechols

My Feedback: (1)

Mine has a 3.2 sachs with a 22-8 prop. I can do vertical snap rolls. Till you cant see it any more. The plane flies great. But it can bite you. It does everything fast. Landing is not fun but its not impossible either. It is a great plane. It is however not for a novice.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Okay - here's mine - you can also read the tale on my website. Crashmeister is correct in all things stated. I haven't had the brackets break, but I *have* had to do all the other things. Flying mine with a Taurus 52cc and a 22 x 10. Unlimited performance, but loading to match.

If the wings stay on, and the brackets don't break, and the engine doesn't pull the 10-32 blind nuts through the crappy cheap firewall before it pulls loose again in spite of my doing LOTS of dowel pinning, then it will have a long life.

It IS a great airplane.

But you better go into with eyes and ears WIDE open.

Ruben

My Feedback: (2)

To Anyone, I pulled a boo-boo cutting my firewall back to install a US41 and somehow cut off my reference point. I hope none of you all do that sort of thing. Anyhow, can anyone give me the distance (dimension) from the main firewall to the front of the engine box firewall? No dimensions are in the book except the 6-1/2" required for firewall box fact to prop. line. Thanks, Ruben

skyypilot-RCU

OK, so I've been flying this plane since August. I did the wing mod. Ihave a Fuji 50 in mine and have not had any of the problems mentioned. the one thing I can't understand is why the guy in MAN bothered to spend $68 to buy a hub adapter when you can cut that crappy box of a firewall off, mount the engine on the REAL firewall and have the spinner distance come out perfect. I am not worried about my engine coming off. As far as having to do a little extra work, show me an arf that you didn't have to modify in some way and I'll show you an ARF that you didn't spend enough time on. I'd like to see you build a plane like this from a kit for $400. People need to stop whining about small details and enjoy this plane. but then this is my first gasser, so maybe I don't know what im talking about!

BRYAN01601

My Feedback: (48)

I personaly do not believe the reviews in MAN because of other experiences with GY and RB both contributing editors of the magazine and both officers of a club here in CT. I have on two occations tried to join this club payed my dues and have been black balled from the club because I have differing opinons of a plane they reviewed or product they endorsed. I now belong to another club and it is a great club. I never recieved any of my membership dues back from the president Rck Bell (oops did I mention a name, nor did he answer any of my e-mails , nor did he return any phone calls. So his integrity as a person is poor at best... So to think he would give an honest look at a plane hmmmm what do I think. Ironically in the club before they will even let you fly they practically rebuild your plane at the field and look over every single thing wich Is good in my opinion, but also tells me that they know some arfs are not very good as well. It's too bad that politics corrupts everything. I will step off the soap box now .

DERF-54

My Feedback: (48)

I have a pitts powered by a brison 2.4 and I made no mods to the firewall. I did the mods to the top wing center and I also installed blind nuts on the fuse for the ca bane. The plane balanced perfect with no extra weight, I have no complaints about the landing speed, I had to land my extra faster. My plane weighs 15.5 lbs and has plenty of vert. it is not unlimited but the real pitts isn't either. If you take your time and check it all out as you assemble it you shouldn't have any problems. I cant say you wont have any cause every plane is different. I say just check it over and look at everything real good and make the mods that are needed and go have fun with it.
This is a great plane in my opinion, but this is just my 2 cents
All have a great holiday and a better new year
Fred

pettit

My Feedback: (23)

I wasn't going to do this but I will "speak up" anyway. "Defend my article"? I feel it speaks for itself.

My comment about "biting my tongue" was not about the Great Planes Pitts, it's construction, building or flying. It concerned the comments made about "honesty" and truth" made by several posters about airplane reviews in general.

The plane I built and flew for the Product Review (and is still flying quite well, thank you) DID NOT have a wing problem, although I did make the GP modifications. My engine DID NOT fly off. My brackets DID NOT break.

I can only write about my experience with the plane that I used for that Product Review. I cannot rely on other people's experiences to base my findings upon.

If others have had problems with their particular plane, that's something that happens quite a bit in this hobby.

'Nuff said...

Happy Holidays!

Crimeboss

My Feedback: (1)

We have the US41 in ours (soon to be replaced) which fit very nicely on the stock reinforced box. The only other modification was to cut a hole where the engine mounts to accomodate the spring starter since I had to remove that black spacer to get the correct prop shaft clearance.

Mendes

My Feedback: (1)

Keep in mind, the planes that are reviewed probably aren't flown very much at all before the reviews are written. Maybe 10 times? Or less? It will often take a while for a problem to show up.


I have also noticed that often, when a review is done on an aerobatic model, they never have a very skilled pilot fly it. They always write at the end of the review that "The plane is capable of anything, but because of my poor piloting skills I stuck to the basics". (Or something similar) They need to really put these planes through their paces, they need to get the best pilots they can find for the flight review.

ROGER RUSSELL

My Feedback: (12)

PEOPLE
I once bought a vehicle because I read in one of those "MOTOR/CAR DRIVER etc.... magazines that the person reviewing the vehicle gave it "5 STAR" rating, several months later I received a notice that due to ??? it may cause a fire and I need to take it back to have fixed. SO, should I blame the person that reviewed this vehicle because he may have not tested it completely, NO.
Now, before everyone jumps on this comment, I think that GP and AMCROSS has done a super job trying to make things good on this plane.
Even with all the testing that GP does before they release a kit/arf, until it gets out to the general public and WE abuse it and USE it, somethings will not come to the surface until WE are done doing what we do. I do own one of these planes and have made mods to it and like the flight/looks etc...mine is powered with a G62 and I take full responsibility of the airframe due to this size of engine.
My story and I am sticking to it.

Thanks
RORO

Roby

Dear Thunderjet

I am in total agreement with you about the reviews in the
R/C mags. None of them will ever tell the whole true story.

No one wants to tick off the people who spend big bucks
for advertisements,the name of the game is money.

Over many years I've seen many reviews and then eventually
talked to a person who bought the item featured. More times
than not, the product didn't quite match the review. This can be
for many reasons of course, but if a product is a "dud" and
nothing positive could be written, a "product review" wouldn't
get published.

The thing that really gets me going on this subject is the
fact that many times the truth about many ARF's on this
forum is never brought to light. EXAMPLE : I have seen threads asking "hows the GP Ryan STA"? The vast majority of replies
indicate that it's a well engineered ,pretty,nice flying aircraft.
(it is pretty and flies well)but to get it to a reliable platform
it takes allot more work than your led to believe.

I suggest you do a search on GP RYAN STA. Why this ARF
continues to rave reviews is beyond me. Not only that but
the Ryan STM is a good indicator that nothing has changed
from the STA and yet nothing is ever mentioned either here(rcu)
or in the mags.

I'm sure that there are many reasons for this but I'm almost
sure that allot of people will accept just about anything as long
as the product gets close to expatations, anothar reason may be
because many people may not know any better.


enough already,
Roby

AJF 2

My Feedback: (1)

Well, Well, Well--time for me to jump in here.
Item #1--Except for RC Report the mags contain nice pictures to look at--and thats ablut all
Item #2--I had the Pitts. Did the wing mods--(no big deal)--had the wing brackets break---(OK, I ran a Taurus 3.2-so it was overpowered)-got it down OK--then crashed it due to battery problems/stupidity.
As for the plane, I am thinking of spending another $400 for another. One of/If not the best, most fun, awsome looking planes I have owned in my 12+ years of modeling. (still in mourning after 3 weeks)

rfw1953

My Feedback: (2)

You have to love this hobby. Easy to get great feedback from really good folks.

To Dick Pettit - No offense intended and thanks for the f/u. That was really square of you to explain. Points well taken and appreciated. Given the feedback from others, and your comments on mag. product-reviews, maybe more flights needed before posting a review to gain a more real-world perspective. Also, may want to consider using 'customer feedback' as one of your subtitles in the review process. If you had 10 response like those who responded to my inquiry, and more than five came back positive, you would have a trend. Didn't require much effort to get great feedback that added to my decision process. Took less than 24 hours .............

Think I am going to pass on this bird for the time being. Don't like the 'heavy scale types', or birds that require 'hot landing approaches to keep intact'. Likewise, seems to be much concern regarding 'wing' and 'engine mount' strength. Have no problems doing minor modifications, but when you consider the total cost of this, or any other similar ARF, you are putting more than $1,000 on the line when you make this purchase. If the $400 ARF kit comes apart in flight, then the engine, receiver and more are at risk of total loss or damage, not to mention time required to build it again, or complete a repair job.

My first GP 1/4 scale Giles G-202 with an OS 160 had a wing shear off in flight during our AMA sponsored Big Bird event. Hey, no problem. Packed everything up and shipped to GP. Great Planes stood behind the product 100%. New plane, receiver,engine - the works- compliments of G.P. Great people at Great Planes. However, I did have to make my case with letters, pack it all up, ship it and then spend the hours of time building a new ARF kit again. Much time involved over bad design, bad wood or manufacturer flaw.

Better for the manufacturers and mag- review writers to get better testing results, from multiple resources before putting products and reputation on the market. I would rather pay a bit more for a quality built product that comes out right the first time............. rather than having to be the Ginnie pig that has to build one twice.

Thanks again to all for the feedback. Have a wonderful holiday season.

[email protected]
RCRC Huntsville, Al.

Ruben

My Feedback: (2)

Crimeboss, Thanks for the reply but I still need to know the distance from the firewall to the front of the Box firewall face as I have cut off the front already and need that measurement. Can you take a ruler and measure that distance and give me the answer. Thanks again, Ruben

ThaFlyer

My Feedback: (16)

Ruben

The distance from the firewall to the front of the mounting box to the center is 2" (1 31/32" to be exact). That sets the spinner backplate at a grand total of 8 1/2" from the firewall.

I had to do all of these calculations before I cut the box off to soft mount my Fuji 50.

Hope this helped!

flyguy-RCU

My Feedback: (11)

I have always liked Great Planes kits over the years and now recently owned a 1/3 scale Pitts ARF. In the past when I had a problem with building a kit or a part defective or missing from the box, after calling Great Planes they always immediately sent the part at no cost in a few days. The quality of their ARF'S and kits are always a cut above other manufactures. Their customer service department always treated me good.
Recently I was flying my Pitts. It had 10-12 successful flights. It always received a lot of attention at the field especially when I put on some flights with smoke on. The plane flew excellent .The kit is very good quality with a flawless finish right out of the box. I liked the excellent quality of fiberglass on the cowl, wheelpants and molded struts. The plane when powered and balanced properly according to specs, flew very much like the full size. Until the final flight.
But on this flight something went wrong.( For some reason I never read about a potential problem with the wing mounts.) So needless to say at full throttle I went into some snap rolls and never recovered. The plane continued 8-10 snap rolls right across the field and crashed into a canal in 3 ft of water. The plane and most of the equipment was a total loss, submerged under water for 20 minutes. I was very upset. I couldn't figure out what went wrong. Then someone told me of the wing failure problem. I looked closely at the center section and it appeared the cabane mounts pulled right out of the thin spar, which was screwed to close to the outer edge of the spar causing it to split.
Someone gave me Ann Marie's E/mail address from this website and I told her of my problem. Well she was so nice, and I was so surprized that within a week of sending her my piece of wing and damaged radio equipment I received a newer version Pitts and instead of repairing my damaged radio, Great Planes replaced everything new...I was shocked. I was hoping just to get a new plane but I received all new equipment and even better then some stuff I had. Everything was replaced...even wiring.
I would like to publicly thank Ann Marie and Great Planes for their continued super customer service department that I have experianced over the years. I have and will continue to tell everyone of their excellent company that stands behind all of their products. Keep up the good work Ann Marie you are a blessing to us and your company.
Sincerely,
Robert Alessi