I'm looking to buy this plane.
looks like it's pretty light at over 4lb. structure looks like the GP Venus . but now on sale it's cheaper then the Venus.

anyone got experience with it ?

i got here two engines that not sure which will fit better :
OS70 4c , or Saito 56 4C(together with HS85 - should be a light setup)

thanks Danny

I have a buddy who built and flew two of these with his O.S. FS .70 Surpass II. They weren't the easiest ARFs to assemble, but they turned out great and he really liked how they flew.

The elevator and rudder have a ton of surface area, and they're designed more for IMAC and 3D manuevers rather than the NSRCA-type pattern flying for which the Venus 40 is designed.

My friend paid almost $200 each for his Razor 3Ds. He lost the first one to an improper antenna installation where it ran too close to the pushrods inside the fuselage. The second Razor 3D was involved in a particularly ugly mid-air collision with a Zagi XT (read my blog) and got wiped out.

He decided he was jinxed when it came to this particular airframe, so he moved on to some others instead. He really liked the Razor 3D though, and I'm sure he'd recommend it if asked.

thats what i was worried about, i built in the past a P51 Lanier ARF , the very old type ARFs (and i know the new one are much better). it was horrbile.
so much work , that at one point Tower decided it's a KIT . instruction where bad. and no hardware either. i remember i built it just after building a tower voyager (that i finished in a weekend) . it was night and day compare to the tower ARF....

Oh, it wasn't anything like the old Lanier ARFs. The Razor 3D was well done by most accounts, but there were a couple of parts of the assembly that my buddy described as "tricky."

I didn't mean to imply that the Razor was poorly constructed, just that (like most ARFs) there were a few vague areas in the instruction manual and some parts of the assembly required a little creative thinking. Overall the ARF was complete and high quality, it just had a couple of areas where previous assembly experience would come in handy.

I had a razor a while back, and to me it flew much more like a patter plane than a 3D plane. It was a handful to hover and you can forget about harriers. But it did do fantastic knife edge and after a snap it would stop instantly...and to be quite honest I don't remeber how the spin performance was. It was a nice flying plane, but I would not say it is a 3D plane as they advertised.

Old thread here but doesn't Tower or Great Planes market the Razor 3D now? The manual online looks exactly like the Stinger II manual which is a good thing, well thougt out and simple.

So..... anyone flying the recent issue Razors???

Thanks,

Ernie