R/C-Plane

I found an F-22 that is recommended for trainers. It looks pretty awesome and it comes ready to fly.


http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...ProdID=HAN3825

Charlie P.

Maybe so.



Catch that wing hard and it's the price of a LT-40 to replace or fix, I betcha.

No dihedral, so it will have no stable position during a flight (no time to catch your breath and clear your panic).

Expensive ($450), so if it does suffer a crash it was a costly mistake and not just a mistake. But I think that includes the radio so that may not be too steep.

"Buy your first and second plane together" so you don't actually learn anything new on your "second" plane.

"Time proven" PTS Technology. Wow it's been more than a year since the P-51 PTS, hasn't it? Time flies.

We wont know until we hear from hands on pilots. Who's first?

MadScientist

Seems like a lot to pay for a plane that's most likely going to suffer damage while learning. I would rather see someone new to the hobby get a cheaper plane to learn on and not feel so bad when they wreck it from a botched landing, then progress to something like this as a second plane. Great marketing gimmick though. Why wouldn't a beginner want one of these as opposed to a high wing trainer? No doubt one will show up at the local field and I'll be asked to maiden it, so I'll have to hold judgement until I fly one.

opjose

That's probably the best arguement AGAINST the PTS series of planes that I have heard posted here.

Montague

Interesting. I'm NOT looking forward to a new student showing up with one of those. But I would like to fly one to see what it's like. Who knows, it might be a better trainer than the PTS Mustang. I kind of doubt it will be a very good primary trainer though.

bruce88123

Well, the site in post #1 shows no spare parts available so fixing it is no factor because you can't.
I emailed to Hangar 9 yesterday because I was thinking an ARF version would be fun with a good engine and radio. They emailed back that they have no plans for one. Of course I don't think they initialy planned one for the P-51 either so I'll wait on that.

I would like to test fly one soon if I get a chance and then I'll decide if I want to push for an ARF.

2slow2matter

My Feedback: (1)

I hate the looks of a turbine model that is prop driven. Completely ruins the lines. Just plain cheesy looking.

Flying freak

maybe they ment JET trainer like before you but a turbine model i dunno i wouldnt suggest it would i like to fly it of corse just cause now im corious.. BUT still wouldnt recomend it. (probably because IF it does fly like poop i would fel bad ...)

Montague

No, they clearly didn't mean a "jet trainer". They mean a primary trainer for someone new to RC. It's pretty clear from the website, and the rest of the specs as well.

I did a bit of math on the H9 trainers. The wingloading for the F-22 is quite a bit higher than both of the Alphas, but actually less than the PTS Mustang, though not by that much. However, the F-22 is really heavy, listed at 7-7.5 lbs on a .45 two stroke.

I really am curious to fly one. I have a feeling that the weight plus the wide wing chord and over all low aspect ratio will make for an interesting final approach.

The pictures also show it sitting at what looks to be a rather nose-high attitude on the gear. That's not a good thing on a conventional trainer, but I don't know if it's more or less of an issue with this plane.

Flying freak

yes I know it was NOT ment as a jet trainer that was a lil sarcasim

sierramike

It does come with a 6 channel (as opposed to 5 channel on the P-51 PTS) and an upgraded version of their PC flight sim software. The package looks attractive to a newbie (that would be me). But, with no spare parts on the horizon it seems like a gamble if you sooner or later (probably sooner) screwi the pooch. Nothing against the high wing trainers to both my eyes really like the look of a warbird or a jet (PTS) system. One thing is for sure, it's great to see activity in the hobby and folks like Hangar 9 coming up with new ways for folks like us to spend are hard earned cash!

bruce88123

I said in an earlier post that there were no spare parts available. There are parts listed in the manual. I think it is fair to assume that parts will eventually be available. Remember that the RTF's themselves are not on the shelves yet either. I'm going to have to change my opinion here and wait to pass judgement on spare parts availability. It really is an important item though.

Flak

My Feedback: (1)

R/C Plane,
I don't care for wanna-be jets, but if you like it, go for it. From the looks of it, I believe most instructors would be able to handle it ok. I do think it's a bit on the high dollar end for a trainer. Hey, it's all about your money and how you wish to spend it. Go for it. Please be sure to get us a video of you flying it at some point, if you buy it. A flight report would also be nice. Good Luck.

da Rock

Two wing rods. They look like they could be carbon fiber. Not your everyday trainer. I doubt you'd ever hurt one of them, but I have no doubt they'd hurt the rest of the airplane given the chance.

I look forward to flying one. The engine in the nose of a "jet" don't turn up my wick at all, but the planform looks interesting. That horizontal tail is mightly close to the wing.

I second the motion that it's not a very good design for a trainer. Repairing it looks like it'd be a nightmare.

bruce88123

Actually the P-51 has the same 6 ch radio at this time.

As for costs, not totally out of line but not cheap compared to similar RTF trainers.
Alpha 40 - $290 - Cheap radio
Hangar 9 Arrow - $300 - Cheap radio
Hangar 9 P-51 - $400 - Good rdio
F-22 - $450 - Good radio

This appears to have a sizable airframe to it. Roomy interior. Good radio.

Montague

Right, sorry, sarcasm detector on the fritz at the momemnt .

Wingloading of the H9 trainers:

Alpha 40 : 710sqin 5.25lbs -> 17.85 oz/sqft
Alpha 60 : 911sqin 7-8lbs (7.5lbs) -> 18.97 oz/sqft
PTS Mustang : 627sqin 6.5-7lbs (6.75lbs) -> 24.80 oz/sqft
PTS F-22 : 731sqin 7-7.5lbs (7.25lbs) -> 22.85 oz/sqft

(assuming all leading edge/tip extensions in place).

edit: fixed brain-dump, oz/sqft, not lbs/sqft

Mr67Stang

I saw a post on this plane a week ago. Someone got a few pictures of it at a show and interestingly enough posted it in the crash forum... preminition? Maybe. Well I would love to fly one of these but I would prefer to outfit it myself with at least an OS 50sx or 55ax then prop it for speed. say 11x7.5 or more. So I too would wait for an ARF or trade my old traditional trainer to some new guy that that thought he could fly this plane.

B.L.E.

Montague, don't you mean ounces/square ft, not lb/sq ft?

opjose

And yet the PTS P-51 "floats" in just fine.

bruce88123

Doesn't float very well "dead stick" with all the gadgets on it. Sort of like a floating rock.

opjose

Remove the airbrakes, pick up the flaps and that silly oblique prop, and it does very well on dead sticks...

I became an experienced hand at this unfortunately...

VictoryRoll-91

Why does Hamgar 9 keep pushing the "ITS A TRAINER>>>AND IT LOOKS SWEET TOO!!!!!!!"

It's getting old imo

bruce88123

Oh, you mean change it completely from the way it is sold and intended to be flown by student pilots.
Then it's not in the "Trainer" mode. I've flown several in various modes including ARF's with different engines. Still not impressed, sorry.

Definitely not a primary trainer IMO. Acceptable as a second plane. landing gear blocks need work and better quality wire for the gear would also help(too soft).
Would I buy one for myself? Probably not, too many better planes out there.

major.sagan

I don't fly military nose prop airplanes that are post ww2.

Montague

Yep, oz, not lbs. I went back and fixed it.

The P-51 does float more than most sport-scale warbirds, but not nearly like most trainers. Also keep in mind that you loose wing area when you remove the leading edge droops, so the wingloading is a bit higher than what I posted above. No question about it, the P-51 lands faster than either of the Alphas or other conventional trainers. And when it comes to someone doing their first landings, that can make a difference.

We had a student with the P-51 who was struggling with his approaches. We borrowed a conventional trainer from another student, and used that. The student was able to make some good looking approaches and get a feel for how a landing should go, then switch back to the P-51. He still struggled, but the time on the slower-moving plane made a big differnece. YMMV.