oh......so we have you to blame if we don't like the quality?..................j/k

kRPROTON,
I think most are waiting for the kits, as there isn't much to tak about until they arrive..... Heck I think this forum started like a year ago?

I would like to personally thank you for comming on this forum and talking about the plane and giving us some prevy info and sharing your experience with the prototypes.....
It isn't something that happens to often.....

Thanks
Justin

Hey Justin,

With my interest in motorcycles (I just quit racing MX and bought a BMW for riding on the street), I've been on the motorcycle talk sites frequently. Even though I've been with Hobbico for approximately 20 years, I haven't been very active in the hobby (on my own time) for the past few years, but now I'm doing more modeling on my own time again, so that's why I've been logging onto this site recently. I'll try to check in every now-and-then and see what's going on and answer any questions that will probably come up in the future.

Thanks!!!

Tim

hey Tim,
did they come in yet???

let us know.........

thanks
dan

Hi Dan.

As usual, the answer isn't so simple (well actually, I guess it is--No, the B-25's did not come in yet). I was over in the warehouse on Monday and I talked to the guy in charge of receiving. I asked him about the shipment and he pulled up the shipping invoice or bill of lading or whatever it is (again, I work in R&D so I don't know very much about other operations in the company!). The paperwork said the container with the first shipment of B-25s had been unloaded at the port in L.A., then would be shipped, by rail, to Chicago where it would then be forwarded by truck to our warehouse. Oh yea, where was I...Oh yea, so as of Monday when I talked to our receiving guy, the paperwork said they were due in our warehouse on October 15th (give or take a day or two).

Then I was forwarded a separate "container report" that said they were due this Friday I think it was.

Anyway, the first shipment of B-25s is definitely really close. I'll check in when they actually do arrive.

I'm going to do a separate post right now of more I learned from flying my B-25 today...

I flew my B-25 three more times today. If you recall, I had been flying it with Master Airscrew 12 x 6 3-blade props. They seemed to work well enough, but not as well as did the APC 13 x 6 2-blade props we had been using during development/testing. So today I tried Master Airscrew 12 x 8 3-blade props. My initial impression was that they were the same or not quite as good. On the ground I tacked the engines with the tachometer in my 9ZAP and they were running around 8,400 - 8,600 (with the 12 x 6s they were turning around 10,000rpm which I believe is a little fast for the .70 four-strokes). In the air the plane didn't seem to accelerate or fly as fast as I thought it would. But I put in two flights on those 12 x 8 props and all was well. I did several full-throttle low-level (10') passes and that thing really rocks! Then I put the 12 x 6's back on and I could tell immediately, that between the two, the 12 x 8s were the way to go. It definitely wasn't as fast with the 12 x 6's. So I landed after just a short flight and re mounted the 12 x 8's and, so far, they are the way to go. The next thing I am going to do is buy some Graupner 12 x 8's and try them. They may be more efficient at the relatively lower RPMs that a 4-stroke turns--and they are colored gray and have a more classic appearance than the Master Airscrews, so they will probably look better on the B-25.

I gotta go put the meat on the grill now so I'll write more later.

Tim

Well,
I put some flights on the tf b-25 today.... and I got to tell you that the .90 4-strokes barly pull it along! ( this was on the new expansion pack #4 on Real flight sim!)
I don't understand how in the sim. the .90 do not due very well at all and the .70 4-strokes in real life do well?
I guess chalk that one up to the unrealistic qualities in the Real FLight sim.......

Okay,

so I just went to the Hobby Lobby site and ordered two Graupner 12 x 8 3-blade props. Then I saw they also had 12-1/2 x 7 3-blade props so I ordered two of those as well. I'll give those a try when I get them next week. Then, I'll have a pretty good idea of exactly what 3-blade propellers to recommend so those of you who want to run 3-blade props (and who read this thread!) will know what works best.

Here's a few more pointers for when you get your B-25...

-- For transport, whenever carrying your B-25 (in and out of your house and to and from your car, etc.), I HIGHLY RECOMMEND removing both the nose-gunner canopy and the tail guns. Otherwise, the guns are very precarious and are likely to get caught in your shirt or on your arm and get broken off.

--Another means of saving damage to the obtrusive guns; when the model is sitting on the ground at your flying site, place some sort of barrier in front of the nose and behind the tail of your model. Again, those machine guns stick out and people are likely to swipe them with their legs when walking past. Like I put my starter and battery in front of the model and my foam stand behind it. You could use your field box, fuel, or a couple of those small, orange cones for kids sporting games--whatever. Just put something in front of and behind the model when it is on the ground so the guns don't get busted off.

I saw the review in this months MAN and it looks great.....
I had at first purchased a TF Cesan 310 twin, but due to a poorly fiberglassed fuse (this is really the best part of that plane as it looks stuning when it doesn't have defects)
I sent it back.....
I am glad that I did becasue now I have the option to get the TF b-25!!!

I have a pair of .91 4-stroke magnums.....
these weight the same as the .70s (execpt when you compare the budget version of the O.S .70's) But I would not purchase a 4-stroke that does not have rings in it.... JMHO
Anyway, is there a size diference between the two??
Perhaps the .91s would stick out further? I guess if they weigh the same I would always rather go with the larger of the two due to engine out experience...... But perhaps having a too large of engine in a 1-running condition isn't a vary good thing either? I may put you in a spin???
Perhaps that isn't much of a worry on this airframe....as it has a very effective twin rudder to counter this....

Also, would a Zenoah 20cc gas be too heavy for this plane?
Is there lead shot added to this plane to balance it like the TF cesna twin has in the fulsalage nose?
If there is, perhaps if you remove it you could run with gas?

Justin

tim,
thanks again for all the info. i was looking into getting the guapner 3-bladed 12x6 but if you find that the 12 1/2x7 or the 12x8 work better that saves me money. thanks for all the tips. very helpfull in what to be ready for with this plane.

justin,
a 20cc engine is the same as a .91 four stroke. this plane only calls for a .70. that engine will be way to big!!!!!

tim...thanks again. keeps us posted!!!

thanks
dan

Hey Dan,

I'll let you know about those propellers ASAP--should be next week after I get them. Overall, I speculate the APC 13 x 6 2-blade props are probably best, but of the 3-blade options I know of, I'll have my final conclusions after testing the Graupners. To anybody out there who may be reading this thread, for the most security, I would start out with APC 13 x 6 2-blade props. Then, after you get the plane sorted out and your confidence in the engines up, you can go to whatever 3-blades we find out work best--unless the Graupners 3-blades outperform the APC 2-blades (which I doubt--I think it's a given that 2-blade props are more efficient than are 3-blade props). I'll keep ya'll posted about the propellers....

About engines, well, all I can say is look at the manual. The engine recommendations are printed on the cover (and on the box and any other promotional media). If someone wants to try something larger or smaller, well, you're on your own.

Regarding the .90 four-strokes, first of all, the engine mounts that come with the plane are rated for a .40-70, not for a .90. So, if you went with larger mounts, I don't think (I'm pretty certain) they would not fit on the firewall. Then there's the length of the engines. If they are longer, you'll have to move the cowl farther forward, then you'd have a large gap between the back of the cowls and the front of the nacelle covers. On and on. I understand you might already have brand new .90's and that's a lot of money, but you're kind of on your own if you want to go above the engine recommendation.

Tim


As for gas engines, I'm not even going to touch that one. Personally, they're just too big and heavy. Don't know if the nacelles would even support them (they certainly weren't designed for gas engines--same goes for the .90 four-strokes).

By the way, there is no added lead in this model (to answer Justin). Mine (and the prototypes) balanced with the battery mounted where shown in the manual (under the nose-gunner cockpit floor). No additional ballast was required (okay, I lied--the show model you've seen in the advertisements and any flying videos had the battery mounted down inside the fuselage just ahead of the nose steering servo--but then I had to add lead to the nose to get it to balance--If I would have mounted the battery up front in the first place it would have come out perfectly--as did my model which was built from a production kit same as what everybody else will be getting--not bragging, just answering the question and telling you what to expect).

Thanks so much for all the information you have given us. I am going with two YS 63FZ-S four strokes. They are rated at 1.6HP compared to the OS 70 which has 1.1HP. I will be using the APC 13x6 two blade prop's. I would like to try the Graupner 13x6 prop's also. Will be looking forward to more of your flight test reports so we will be able to pick the best combination prop's for this plane. Thanks again.

Tim,
again thanks for the up dates and info.

dan

Hey everybody,

no new news today, just a few more photos of my plane. I am visiting my brother up in Michigan and contacted one of the local R/C clubs in his area -- Tulip City Air Force in Holland, Mi. (Thanks to Club President Richard Moore and all the other accommodating club members I met). My brother wanted to see my plane fly, so I contacted the club and they gave me permission to fly. They have a nice grass strip, but the winds were cross and a bit gusty, but not too bad.

Well, my brother is a professional photographer who owns his own business with a partner, so he snapped a few nice photos. I just thought I would check in and download a few.

I'll check in again after I get to try those Graupner props.

And oh yea, still haven't completely finished the plane yet--finally added the top turret, but haven't added the cockpit interior or the rest of the decals yet.

Tim

Beautiful pictures. Thanks.

krproton,

your bird is a beautiful example to say the least..........the assembly job you did is excellent. but the one question that keeps me in doubt about buying one of these is the covering.
how is the covering job on these?
i have a total of 5 airplanes that i bought this year................3 of them have good covering jobs(workable at least), but 2 of them leave a lot to be desired.
spending $650.00 for an arf with the typical wrinkle covering job deflates ones interest rather quickly, and i'd like not to go through that with this model.

Hi summerwind.

First—wow! You have purchased five airplanes this summer! I don’t know what brands they were, but that’s a significant expenditure when you consider not only the cost of the kits themselves, but also the cost of all the associated engines, radio gear, etc. to outfit these models!

Onto your question about the covering job on the B-25; First, let me say that I am probably the most critical one in all of Hobbico about covering. I have won a few awards at Toledo for covering and am known within the company and locally for being an expert at applying MonoKote. This has also earned me the tedious task of inspecting all new MonoKote shipments (portions of which occasionally must be rejected—much to the dismay of some of my superiors!).

Second, you have to understand (and surely already know) that all these ARF kits are assembled and covered in large quantities by workers overseas. While we are usually quite impressed with the covering we see on prototypes as well as production models, this means you are not going to get a “Toledo� covering job—this is part of the tradeoff you accept when purchasing a model assembled by somebody else.

That said, I would have to say that, by and large (but admittedly not always), I am stunned (positively—in a good way!) by the covering jobs I see on our ARF models. For example, the covering job on the 3rd prototype of the B-25 was acceptable. We received one sample for evaluation to make sure they made all the changes requested after viewing the second sample.
But when I examined final samples from actual production (one of which is the one I have assembled, flown and been talking about on this thread including photos), I was truly amazed at the covering job. I’m not saying there weren’t wrinkles—that’s ALWAYS to be expected, but the wrinkles were few and the seams were well-hidden and secure.

Another thing I must tell you is that I did spend probably a total of one to two hours tending to the covering job on my B-25 by going over it with a 21st Century iron with a covering sock to get all the wrinkles out and THOROUGHLY bond the covering to the structure underneath. If you take ten or twenty minutes to fix the covering on this bird you haven’t taken enough time and some of the wrinkles you have removed will reappear and many new wrinkles will form when you get it out to the field.

What you have to do is TAKE THE TIME to go over the entire model—even where there are no wrinkles. You have to press down on the iron to bond the covering to the wood—even where there were no wrinkles in the first place. Where air bubbles form you have to go over the area again or use a sharp, new #11 blade to poke small holes in the covering to allow the air to escape. Simply going over the model with a heat gun is not sufficient—forget about using a heat gun.

This is what I have always done it.

As for my B-25—the one photographed in this thread—the first day I took it out the temperatures were not blazing, but were fairly warm—probably around 80 – 85 degrees F. Some wrinkles did form in the top of both outer panels, but I think I forgot to go over these in the first place. Back home after the first few flights, I removed the wrinkles with my covering iron. Since then, I’ve had the model out about four different times, in the heat and in the sun, but no more wrinkles have formed. In fact, this weekend when I had the model out at a club near my brother’s up in Michigan, more than one person asked me how the model was finished—they didn’t know it was an iron-on covering!

About the show/instruction manual model (the one photographed in our advertisements, on the web site and in the manual and flown by Greg Hahn), this one was covered by me. It came to us with no covering (or paint) because we hadn’t yet decided on a trim scheme. Once the scheme was decided, I covered and painted the model accordingly. The first time Greg took it out to Warbirds over Delweare (I think that’s the name of the event), the temperatures were extremely hot and the model had been sitting in the sun for two or three days—all day. The model returned with only a few wrinkles on top of the fuselage. Back in the shop I removed the wrinkles, then the model was taken to another event in Dayton, Ohio. This time the model came back with no more wrinkles. Yes, the covering was applied by me, but the flat olive MonoKote seemed to hold up well.

Summerwind, I cannot guarantee what type of covering job will be on the B-25 you receive (should you decide to purchase one). I can just about guarantee that it WILL have some wrinkles. But if you take the time to properly go over the entire model and eliminate all of the wrinkles and securely bond the covering to the wood (using your favorite brand of covering iron with a protective sock), I think you will be pleased with the final appearance of the model and it should hold up over time.

I may be speaking out of turn here, but of course, Hobbico and Top Flite stand behind their products, so if you were to receive a kit that was absolutely unacceptable, I bet they would give you a refund or send you a replacement. To be certain, that is something you would have to take up with our Product Support department though.

I didn’t intend to give you such a long answer, but I am sure others will read this post and possibly learn something. And the answer just isn’t so simple. The kits aren’t absolutely perfect, but with a little work from the modeler, done correctly, you can have something really nice. That’s the best and most honest way I can put it.

Look forward to reading more posts!

Tim

P.S. And oh, yea, thanks for your compliments on my plane. It is an ARF, but I still take pride in the work I have done to make it nice (although I'm a little embarrassed when someone asks "did you build that?" and I must reply "no" ).

P.S.S. One other thing, the B-25 is covered in actual Top Flite MonoKote--not something else--flat olive drab and flat gray.

hi krproton,

i purchased 2 GP Super Stearmans and 2 OS FT1.60 twins for them, both had very good covering jobs. then i bought 2 GP Super Skybolts (actually 3, but gave 1 away) and 2 OS.91 fs Surpass engines, and all 3 had OK covering jobs, the worst part being the fuselages. was able to get them looking good though, but took a lot of work.
the best was on the GP Big Stik i bought...........the covering was near perfect.

thx for the description on the B-25.......................it's on my must own list.

i HAVE HAD MANY GP and 2-Top Flite GIant ARF's
THe Giant TF Cesna 310 twin Had Perfect covering job.
The GIant TF P-51 had not so good covering job... I have to comment on this:
I think for a short while TF monocote had some problems with there covering..... Although they will neveer admit it....
THe clear covering would separate from the glue, due to having to be heated soo hot just to shrink it down properly....
The p-51 mustang and a 33% cap 580 were bought during this time period and that was when they were having the issues...
I believe that this problem has been taken care of and sorted so all the new planes are near perfect in every way of covering.....
My GP Hawk (recent bought) perfect... No wrinkles at all
MY GP cap 580 (recently purchased) PErfect
A GP VenusII Perefct
And as stated perviously the TF Cesna 310 twin.....PERFECT!!!

I believe that you can expect this same quality from the Giant B-25 as well.....

I also Beleave in what Krproton states about the entire long explanation about ARF's in General....
I also would like to add, that I had not, in the past thought of my self as a very good at covering with TF Monokote, untill
I used it quite a bit and have become very proficient at it....

I will add this...
I have seen the recent quality that has come out from both GP and TF and there covering jobs with TF monokote are very good.... better than what I can do, and I consider myself pretty good at it,,,, But they are better...

By it and if it is not up to you expectations, I am sure you could return it with out and issues at all... My personal dealings with Hobbico as that they will support there products
and stand by them at all costs, even if it is to replace a downed aircraft do to no enough glue..... Even after a year after purchase.....
They sent me a brand new plane 3-days after I sent it to them....

I know I have rambled....

Justin

Also,
I went on MAN to watch the video of the b-25 ...
Looks good but they are goof balls with the music and short video.....
Not much to talk about on that one...

Update;

Here's a small update:

1. I received my Graupner 12 x 8 and 12.5 x 7 props. It's going to be too windy here the next few days, so I don't think I'll get to fly until the weekend. I'll let you know how it goes with these new props.

2. The first shipment of kits arrived. I have to do a Q.C. check and the decals have to be inserted, then they'll go out--it's just a guess, but probably by Friday or early next week.

3. Here's another photo that my brother took when I was visiting over the weekend. I know I already submitted a few, but I'll attach this one unreduced (but cropped) because it looks so good--I couldn't resist! I wish I would have finished the cockpit interior and the tail-gunner's cockpit because they are conspicuously absent...next time!

Sorry if I'm rambling about this plane folks. I've put much work into this one over its extensive development period and I guess I'm really attached to it. (Hmm, maybe I'll do another one this winter and re cover it in aluminum MonoKote--unless I'm sick of B-25s by then!)

Tim

I, for one, really appreciate your posts. Like you, I like to bring information and knowlegde gathered to the forum threads. I sat next to The TF at the 2007 Warbirds over Delaware and really enjoyed the three B-25's on display. I had TF on one side of me and Hanger-9 on the other. Each plane is clealry aimed at a different sized engine/motor/pilot/buyer and they both have their primary points of interest.

As in all scale ARF's they attract scale critics. Of course the answer is that if you can do better build one. Not trying to be rude--but there has to be a limit to what a manufacturer can produce. I can't imagine what it would be like if all ARFs were perfect. What would there be left to do? It is not possible to produce the same product for the most imept builder and the most critcal scale builder.

This TF B-25 is a super airplane. I have orderd 4 for the store. They are scheduled for personal use by the "Three Amigos" demo team...Debut is next spring :-).

Please keep the pictures and helpful hints coming.

Thanks,

Eric.

Krproton,
Sounds wonderfull!!
It is very nice to have an ARF that if you use the manual as the bible for selection of engines, and it balances as it states
with no added weight!!!!
This sounds like it is a great plane, that I will be sure to look into for the future!
As far as engines, I can always get dif onces..... No problem there!!
I have already found homes for 2-of the 3 .91's that I have anyway!
And yes,
I really do understand what you mean when you would have to make all these adjustments to the fitting of many parts, if you did not use the recomended engines!!

The YS 63 are wonderfull engines, my only concern would be that of the length of the engine..[X(]
They make stick out too far because they have a very very short crank shaft on them!
You may have the engines clylinder hanging out of the plane....

Justin

KRPROTON

Just curious to know if there is room or provisions for BOMB BAY doors.....

-TOMAS