Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
08-30-2010 | 06:48 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Up in the Mountains AZ
Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I had not built anything in over 30 years, then it was a full kit.
Many things have changed and I was not fully equipped so when I got back into this I bought a Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 40. It was not too bad overall but it did have some problems I had to work through.
I crashed that one and decided to get back to a trainer so I bought their Alpha 40. It's supposed to support up to a 72 4 stroke but believe me when I say it's really tough to make things fit up right.
I could deal with the factory motor mount not working for the larger motor, big deal I just picked up another that fit in the same location and took up no more space than that original mount.. But regardless of what I tried carb linkage was a nightmare. I finally gave up and went to a Sullivan Golden Rod (wire rope) to get it to fit up and function properly. I also had to go with a DuBro 4 stroke carb linkage adapter but it worked great until I had to bolt it all in the plane and found the edge of the plywood around the motor mount was just too close to allow that linkage system to work without some major cuts on the fuse.
So I turned the carb around, and it turned over the linkage and around onthe carb6 ways from Sunday. I was even willing to relocate the Sullivan Wire to another location but It was really toughso I had to hack up the fuse. I did not like doing that but it served no function forward of the firewall anyway.
So after installing the gas tank I went to put the hatch on the bottom of the plane using the two screws supplied into bind nuts and I could not get one of the screws started. Simple right?I found the blind not was not installed right, not sunk into the wood mount and had to re-secure it and couple of times trying to get it to stay in place. What I did not noticeis that when I was trying to screw into the blind nut even after I had it secured the corner brace that held the blind nut had not even been glued in place at the factory and it was moving around on me! So I glued it into place so I could accomplish that difficult task of installing two screws that should have taken 30 seconds took several minutes of trying to fugure out what was going on..
When installing the gas tank in the factory installed bracket I noted that I had to push down just a little on the sleeve for the nose wheel steering. I did not notice until I had the tank secured in place per instructions with CA and braces that little press was just enough to bind the linkage for the steering!
So now i will have to get more sleeving and reinstall and relocate the nose wheel steering which will not be fun with the tank secured in place by glue.
You know, I built planes from kits years ago and never had these kind of problems and I don't think you should have them on an ARF in particular. It's apparent the people that put some of these things together just don't care.
I am wishing now that I had just gone with a full kit and spent the extra money getting geared up for full building again.
I can tell you this, after the minor problems noted with the Ultra Stick and now what Iconsider more than just nuisance items onthe the Alpha 40 I will never buy a Hangar 9 ARF product again.
Many things have changed and I was not fully equipped so when I got back into this I bought a Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 40. It was not too bad overall but it did have some problems I had to work through.
I crashed that one and decided to get back to a trainer so I bought their Alpha 40. It's supposed to support up to a 72 4 stroke but believe me when I say it's really tough to make things fit up right.
I could deal with the factory motor mount not working for the larger motor, big deal I just picked up another that fit in the same location and took up no more space than that original mount.. But regardless of what I tried carb linkage was a nightmare. I finally gave up and went to a Sullivan Golden Rod (wire rope) to get it to fit up and function properly. I also had to go with a DuBro 4 stroke carb linkage adapter but it worked great until I had to bolt it all in the plane and found the edge of the plywood around the motor mount was just too close to allow that linkage system to work without some major cuts on the fuse.
So I turned the carb around, and it turned over the linkage and around onthe carb6 ways from Sunday. I was even willing to relocate the Sullivan Wire to another location but It was really toughso I had to hack up the fuse. I did not like doing that but it served no function forward of the firewall anyway.
So after installing the gas tank I went to put the hatch on the bottom of the plane using the two screws supplied into bind nuts and I could not get one of the screws started. Simple right?I found the blind not was not installed right, not sunk into the wood mount and had to re-secure it and couple of times trying to get it to stay in place. What I did not noticeis that when I was trying to screw into the blind nut even after I had it secured the corner brace that held the blind nut had not even been glued in place at the factory and it was moving around on me! So I glued it into place so I could accomplish that difficult task of installing two screws that should have taken 30 seconds took several minutes of trying to fugure out what was going on..
When installing the gas tank in the factory installed bracket I noted that I had to push down just a little on the sleeve for the nose wheel steering. I did not notice until I had the tank secured in place per instructions with CA and braces that little press was just enough to bind the linkage for the steering!
So now i will have to get more sleeving and reinstall and relocate the nose wheel steering which will not be fun with the tank secured in place by glue.
You know, I built planes from kits years ago and never had these kind of problems and I don't think you should have them on an ARF in particular. It's apparent the people that put some of these things together just don't care.
I am wishing now that I had just gone with a full kit and spent the extra money getting geared up for full building again.
I can tell you this, after the minor problems noted with the Ultra Stick and now what Iconsider more than just nuisance items onthe the Alpha 40 I will never buy a Hangar 9 ARF product again.
08-30-2010 | 07:20 PM
#2
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
there are so-so in quality, kinda like certain great-planes arfs.... i think they have gone down in quality...... the higher end models seem are better quality though
08-30-2010 | 07:36 PM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
G'day
I like to build my own models but I also have a fair swag of ARFs. I have a Hanger 9 1/4 scale Cub which went together well, a Sopwith Camel which was also good and a Piper Pawnee which was built by someone else but seems OK. If you think Hanger 9 kits are bad you should try some of the others.
How about -
1. steel wire that snaps when you try to bend it,
2. nuts which have not been threaded,
3. glue used so sparingly that the plane is in risk of coming apart,
4. holes drilled off centre,
5. wheels that shatter,
6. covering that won't re-tighten,
7. covering that is falling off,
8. wood called balsa that looks like old fencing material and weighs about the same,
8. hardware that is so poorly made that it would be unsafe to use,
9. firewall drilled for a mount that was completely different to the one supplied,
10 fuel tanks that split or leak
11. undercarriage wire so soft it bends on every landing,
12. wing braces that take hours of sanding to get them to fit into the wing halves
13. warped ailerons and even warped wings. I have lost a couple of planes to this problem.
14. my favourite - useless instructions some of which were quite wrong and contradicted them selves.
And so on.
I don't blame the Chinese grandmothers who build the planes. The problem lies with the people who contract to have them made and then don't follow up with quality control.
On the plus side, fixing most of these niggles is not very difficult and the result is usually a relatively cheap and effective plane.
I like to build my own models but I also have a fair swag of ARFs. I have a Hanger 9 1/4 scale Cub which went together well, a Sopwith Camel which was also good and a Piper Pawnee which was built by someone else but seems OK. If you think Hanger 9 kits are bad you should try some of the others.
How about -
1. steel wire that snaps when you try to bend it,
2. nuts which have not been threaded,
3. glue used so sparingly that the plane is in risk of coming apart,
4. holes drilled off centre,
5. wheels that shatter,
6. covering that won't re-tighten,
7. covering that is falling off,
8. wood called balsa that looks like old fencing material and weighs about the same,
8. hardware that is so poorly made that it would be unsafe to use,
9. firewall drilled for a mount that was completely different to the one supplied,
10 fuel tanks that split or leak
11. undercarriage wire so soft it bends on every landing,
12. wing braces that take hours of sanding to get them to fit into the wing halves
13. warped ailerons and even warped wings. I have lost a couple of planes to this problem.
14. my favourite - useless instructions some of which were quite wrong and contradicted them selves.
And so on.
I don't blame the Chinese grandmothers who build the planes. The problem lies with the people who contract to have them made and then don't follow up with quality control.
On the plus side, fixing most of these niggles is not very difficult and the result is usually a relatively cheap and effective plane.
08-30-2010 | 07:38 PM
#5
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lacona, NY
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
ORIGINAL: krashkart
I had not built anything in over 30 years, then it was a full kit.
Many things have changed and I was not fully equipped so when I got back into this I bought a Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 40. It was not too bad overall but it did have some problems I had to work through.
I crashed that one and decided to get back to a trainer so I bought their Alpha 40. It's supposed to support up to a 72 4 stroke but believe me when I say it's really tough to make things fit up right.
I could deal with the factory motor mount not working for the larger motor, big deal I just picked up another that fit in the same location and took up no more space than that original mount.. But regardless of what I tried carb linkage was a nightmare. I finally gave up and went to a Sullivan Golden Rod (wire rope) to get it to fit up and function properly. I also had to go with a DuBro 4 stroke carb linkage adapter but it worked great until I had to bolt it all in the plane and found the edge of the plywood around the motor mount was just too close to allow that linkage system to work without some major cuts on the fuse.
So I turned the carb around, and it turned over the linkage and around on the carb 6 ways from Sunday. I was even willing to relocate the Sullivan Wire to another location but It was really tough so I had to hack up the fuse. I did not like doing that but it served no function forward of the firewall anyway.
So after installing the gas tank I went to put the hatch on the bottom of the plane using the two screws supplied into bind nuts and I could not get one of the screws started. Simple right? I found the blind not was not installed right, not sunk into the wood mount and had to re-secure it and couple of times trying to get it to stay in place. What I did not notice is that when I was trying to screw into the blind nut even after I had it secured the corner brace that held the blind nut had not even been glued in place at the factory and it was moving around on me! So I glued it into place so I could accomplish that difficult task of installing two screws that should have taken 30 seconds took several minutes of trying to fugure out what was going on..
When installing the gas tank in the factory installed bracket I noted that I had to push down just a little on the sleeve for the nose wheel steering. I did not notice until I had the tank secured in place per instructions with CA and braces that little press was just enough to bind the linkage for the steering![img][/img]
So now i will have to get more sleeving and reinstall and relocate the nose wheel steering which will not be fun with the tank secured in place by glue.
You know, I built planes from kits years ago and never had these kind of problems and I don't think you should have them on an ARF in particular. It's apparent the people that put some of these things together just don't care.
I am wishing now that I had just gone with a full kit and spent the extra money getting geared up for full building again.
I can tell you this, after the minor problems noted with the Ultra Stick and now what I consider more than just nuisance items on the the Alpha 40 I will never buy a Hangar 9 ARF product again.
I had not built anything in over 30 years, then it was a full kit.
Many things have changed and I was not fully equipped so when I got back into this I bought a Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 40. It was not too bad overall but it did have some problems I had to work through.
I crashed that one and decided to get back to a trainer so I bought their Alpha 40. It's supposed to support up to a 72 4 stroke but believe me when I say it's really tough to make things fit up right.
I could deal with the factory motor mount not working for the larger motor, big deal I just picked up another that fit in the same location and took up no more space than that original mount.. But regardless of what I tried carb linkage was a nightmare. I finally gave up and went to a Sullivan Golden Rod (wire rope) to get it to fit up and function properly. I also had to go with a DuBro 4 stroke carb linkage adapter but it worked great until I had to bolt it all in the plane and found the edge of the plywood around the motor mount was just too close to allow that linkage system to work without some major cuts on the fuse.
So I turned the carb around, and it turned over the linkage and around on the carb 6 ways from Sunday. I was even willing to relocate the Sullivan Wire to another location but It was really tough so I had to hack up the fuse. I did not like doing that but it served no function forward of the firewall anyway.
So after installing the gas tank I went to put the hatch on the bottom of the plane using the two screws supplied into bind nuts and I could not get one of the screws started. Simple right? I found the blind not was not installed right, not sunk into the wood mount and had to re-secure it and couple of times trying to get it to stay in place. What I did not notice is that when I was trying to screw into the blind nut even after I had it secured the corner brace that held the blind nut had not even been glued in place at the factory and it was moving around on me! So I glued it into place so I could accomplish that difficult task of installing two screws that should have taken 30 seconds took several minutes of trying to fugure out what was going on..
When installing the gas tank in the factory installed bracket I noted that I had to push down just a little on the sleeve for the nose wheel steering. I did not notice until I had the tank secured in place per instructions with CA and braces that little press was just enough to bind the linkage for the steering![img][/img]
So now i will have to get more sleeving and reinstall and relocate the nose wheel steering which will not be fun with the tank secured in place by glue.
You know, I built planes from kits years ago and never had these kind of problems and I don't think you should have them on an ARF in particular. It's apparent the people that put some of these things together just don't care.
I am wishing now that I had just gone with a full kit and spent the extra money getting geared up for full building again.
I can tell you this, after the minor problems noted with the Ultra Stick and now what I consider more than just nuisance items on the the Alpha 40 I will never buy a Hangar 9 ARF product again.
I understand your frustration with Hanger 9. It is only my experience that Hanger 9 over all puts out the best ARF aircraft. The covering is another issue, but all other ARF manufactures have the same problem of not having enough Ultra or Mono overlap on the edges. If I'm not careful, I have had Ulta pull right off the edges of the wing tip!
When I built some of the Hanger 9 ARF kits I seldom had any issues getting engines and servos to fit. I usually used equivalent equipment that was suggested in the manual, when I try to highly mod the plane then I can run into serious issues.
It's like this, and I've seemed to notice that one ARF kit can be a bad one, then I spend the money and buy another of the same kit, then it's a good one. It's like if I buy a Monday-Thursday kit I'll get a good one with no problems, and if I get a Friday or Saturday kit I'll have issues.
You are right when it comes to building that building a kit is better than buying a ARF, because when I build a kit it's me alone who is in control of the quality from start to finish. I have a ARF right now on my shelf that I've striped to bare bones. I had to ask myself if the ARF was worth it before I started, and I said yes because my Grandmother willed me the airplane and the the ARF has been discontinued for over 8 years.
I'm starting to get great satisfaction in building tough or bad ARF aircraft, it improves my building skills and teaches me patience. I build aircraft for people as a small buisness and I've seen some interesting ARF designs. Don't get frustrated, when I do I walk away from it for a few days. Usually when I come back to that problematic ARF, I usually come up with a good solution on how to make it all work out.
ARF doesn't always mean ( Almost Ready to FLY ) does it?
Pete
08-30-2010 | 07:54 PM
#6
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
it might just be me, but I think H9 build their ARFs around one engine in pictular as with the Alpha 40, it's designed around the 45PTS engine and if you use anything else even though they say you can, you'll have to engineer some solutons
08-30-2010 | 08:02 PM
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Birmingham, AL
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I went back to kit building after I got my first ARF, a Sr. Telemaster. I saw globs of glue inside the fuse where it had been assembled with a hot glue gun!
Tom
Tom
08-30-2010 | 08:51 PM
#8
My Feedback: (16)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
They use a UV setting glue where the piece is all glued up and sent through the UV tunnel to set the glue.
They probably work 6 days a week at most of those sweat shops?
None of the vendors in this country take an ARF box apart to inspect the contents for any kind of QC
They probably work 6 days a week at most of those sweat shops?
None of the vendors in this country take an ARF box apart to inspect the contents for any kind of QC
08-30-2010 | 08:54 PM
#9
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I was actually mostly pleased with my recent Hanger 9 Saratoga. It's pricy for what it is (a basic sport model) but I must say the covering was excellent and I dod not have to shring out ANY wrinkles. Haven't touched it yet a month later.
There was a BIG problem with the wing bolts. They did not tighten and I could pull them straight up & out with finger pressure. I pushed out the stock T-nuts and screwed in threaded brass inserts. This "oops" could have potentially cost a model IMHO. Cheap & easy fix - but shame on Hanger 9.
The good news is that the Saratoga is a joy to fly and I really, really like the airplane. Bottom line is it is an ARF but, ultimately, the pilot is responsible to make sure it is airworthy. Same for any make.
There was a BIG problem with the wing bolts. They did not tighten and I could pull them straight up & out with finger pressure. I pushed out the stock T-nuts and screwed in threaded brass inserts. This "oops" could have potentially cost a model IMHO. Cheap & easy fix - but shame on Hanger 9.
The good news is that the Saratoga is a joy to fly and I really, really like the airplane. Bottom line is it is an ARF but, ultimately, the pilot is responsible to make sure it is airworthy. Same for any make.
08-30-2010 | 09:31 PM
#10
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
Krashkart, The problums you ran into are not unexpected when installing a 4 stroke into an already built airframe intended for a two stroke. It goes with the territory. Had you simply gone with the intended 2 stroke (46 evo) or a slightly larger one it would have been a pretty smoothe and eazy assembly job. When you endevor to kit bash, ARF bash in this case, you are responsible to re engineer all the systems to create a functional finished product. Maybe some deeper thought before you started would have led you in another direction, such building a different trainer KIT custom made to fit the 4 stroke, or a different powerplant in this ARF. This part is NOT Hanger 9's fault. I agree that the other poorly glued parts issues SHOULD not happen but they do and are quite typical of most ARF's. Many of the other "off brands" are worse! I have experenced all 14 of the problums that Mike 109 lists and more. I once had a "no name China" 60 sized Spitfire ARF with the main gear retract pockets built into the wing well aft of the C/G where you would mount mains for a tri gear plane. What a piece of crap!!! So you can either fix the ARF problums as you assemble or kit build your own, which takes a LOT of time and effort plus costs much more than a comparable ARF to finish. Sorry, there is no good answer, PICK YOUR POISON!!
08-30-2010 | 10:09 PM
#11
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Up in the Mountains AZ
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
Sorry OM but the kit states right on the box and such that it's designed for up to a 72 4 stroke. I say it was not. And if you had read my original post you would have noted that I said in the beginning this plane was in fact designed for up to a 72 four stroke. Now if a Saito won't fit I would like to know what will.
And, if someone else said Hangar 9 has some of the best ARFs out there I won't bother with others. On the other hand, the Ultra Stick 40 was not as bad as they entry level but then again you would think that they would try to impress the new guy with a trainer for high quality to get a repeat customer.
Just in case, I think I may just stick to full build kits from now on and keep the quality under my control.
Sounds like a plan to me anyway!
Krashkart, The problums you ran into are not unexpected when installing a 4 stroke into an already built airframe intended for a two stroke. It goes with the territory. Had you simply gone with the intended 2 stroke (46 evo) or a slightly larger one it would have been a pretty smoothe and eazy assembly job. When you endevor to kit bash, ARF bash in this case, you are responsible to re engineer all the systems to create a functional finished product. Maybe some deeper thought before you started would have led you in another direction, such building a different trainer KIT custom made to fit the 4 stroke, or a different powerplant in this ARF. This part is NOT Hanger 9's fault. I agree that the other poorly glued parts issues SHOULD not happen but they do and are quite typical of most ARF's. Many of the other "off brands" are worse! I have experenced all 14 of the problums that Mike 109 lists and more. I once had a "no name China" 60 sized Spitfire ARF with the main gear retract pockets built into the wing well aft of the C/G where you would mount mains for a tri gear plane. What a piece of crap!!! So you can either fix the ARF problums as you assemble or kit build your own, which takes a LOT of time and effort plus costs much more than a comparable ARF to finish. Sorry, there is no good answer, PICK YOUR POISON!!
[/quote]
And, if someone else said Hangar 9 has some of the best ARFs out there I won't bother with others. On the other hand, the Ultra Stick 40 was not as bad as they entry level but then again you would think that they would try to impress the new guy with a trainer for high quality to get a repeat customer.
Just in case, I think I may just stick to full build kits from now on and keep the quality under my control.
Sounds like a plan to me anyway!
Krashkart, The problums you ran into are not unexpected when installing a 4 stroke into an already built airframe intended for a two stroke. It goes with the territory. Had you simply gone with the intended 2 stroke (46 evo) or a slightly larger one it would have been a pretty smoothe and eazy assembly job. When you endevor to kit bash, ARF bash in this case, you are responsible to re engineer all the systems to create a functional finished product. Maybe some deeper thought before you started would have led you in another direction, such building a different trainer KIT custom made to fit the 4 stroke, or a different powerplant in this ARF. This part is NOT Hanger 9's fault. I agree that the other poorly glued parts issues SHOULD not happen but they do and are quite typical of most ARF's. Many of the other "off brands" are worse! I have experenced all 14 of the problums that Mike 109 lists and more. I once had a "no name China" 60 sized Spitfire ARF with the main gear retract pockets built into the wing well aft of the C/G where you would mount mains for a tri gear plane. What a piece of crap!!! So you can either fix the ARF problums as you assemble or kit build your own, which takes a LOT of time and effort plus costs much more than a comparable ARF to finish. Sorry, there is no good answer, PICK YOUR POISON!!
[/quote]
08-30-2010 | 10:42 PM
#12
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
Krashkart, I share your frustration and feel your pain! I think your "posion pick" to kit build is a good choice. I just wish there was a better variety of kits to pick from today. I've done a bunch of ARFs then started kit building (last 4 builds for me were kits), and yes you avoid someone else's mistakes/poor quality. I still have a few ARF's in my stash (4 ARF's and 5 kits) and will build them but I am much more likely to buy more kits than ARF's in the future.
08-30-2010 | 11:09 PM
#13
My Feedback: (16)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
The first ARF I ever assembled was a Sig LT-40 when they first came out. I put it together pretty much as the instructions said.
10 yrs later I went back in and changed it to a tail dragger with a four stroke engine and a bolt on wing.
But since then, there has always been many things about an ARF that I did not like and I changed them. They were always still recognizable as to what they originally were but most of the hardware was different and they were reinforced here and there
10 yrs later I went back in and changed it to a tail dragger with a four stroke engine and a bolt on wing.
But since then, there has always been many things about an ARF that I did not like and I changed them. They were always still recognizable as to what they originally were but most of the hardware was different and they were reinforced here and there
08-30-2010 | 11:10 PM
#14
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
G'day all
Well after bagging out ARFs in my earlier post, I have just returned from test flying my latest ARF creation. It is a Black Horse 1/4 scale (120 size) Space Walker.
The build was typical ARF - mostly OK but with a few niggles. I did use most of the hard ware (nice tail wheel arrangement) and the covering job was good. I rotated the engine (Laser 150) on to its side as the Laser carby is mounted very high and if mounted inverted it would have needed a regulator or other plumbing to stop it draining the tank when on the ground. The only thing that did not quite fit was the removable cover which contains the pilots and provides access inside the fuse to the batteries, servos etc. The kit provides some nice tapered washers but when it was fitted together a couple of the holes with their T nuts were not quite where they should have been. This was an easy fix.
I have fitted the cowl using brass threaded inserts but when I flew it today, the cowl was not in place. The Laser needs careful attention to cooling and I have to construct some ducting within the cowl but this won't be fitted until the engine has a bit more time on it.
The one really bad thing was in the instructions. The control throws suggested were vastly too small and I think that had I tried to fly it with the recommended setup I would have have landed it in one piece. From memory they suggested 3/8 inch up and down for full rate and half that for low. I have the smaller version of this plane also from Black Horse, so I used its recommended angles as a starting point and it worked well.
So how did it fly? Very nicely indeed. The ailerons have the usual ARF slight twist so I was a little concerned but I had guessed the right positions to within three clicks. A small amount of up trim helped at mid throttle. She is very stable to fly though not in the trainer sense and settles very nicely for landing which was slightly too fast (new engine - slightly high idle) and as a result we had a couple of small bounces. Our field has a boarder of large trees on its Northern side and when the wind blows from the North, the resultant turbulence can make landing (East West) difficult but the big Space Walker just floated in.
I think I will keep this one.
Well after bagging out ARFs in my earlier post, I have just returned from test flying my latest ARF creation. It is a Black Horse 1/4 scale (120 size) Space Walker.
The build was typical ARF - mostly OK but with a few niggles. I did use most of the hard ware (nice tail wheel arrangement) and the covering job was good. I rotated the engine (Laser 150) on to its side as the Laser carby is mounted very high and if mounted inverted it would have needed a regulator or other plumbing to stop it draining the tank when on the ground. The only thing that did not quite fit was the removable cover which contains the pilots and provides access inside the fuse to the batteries, servos etc. The kit provides some nice tapered washers but when it was fitted together a couple of the holes with their T nuts were not quite where they should have been. This was an easy fix.
I have fitted the cowl using brass threaded inserts but when I flew it today, the cowl was not in place. The Laser needs careful attention to cooling and I have to construct some ducting within the cowl but this won't be fitted until the engine has a bit more time on it.
The one really bad thing was in the instructions. The control throws suggested were vastly too small and I think that had I tried to fly it with the recommended setup I would have have landed it in one piece. From memory they suggested 3/8 inch up and down for full rate and half that for low. I have the smaller version of this plane also from Black Horse, so I used its recommended angles as a starting point and it worked well.
So how did it fly? Very nicely indeed. The ailerons have the usual ARF slight twist so I was a little concerned but I had guessed the right positions to within three clicks. A small amount of up trim helped at mid throttle. She is very stable to fly though not in the trainer sense and settles very nicely for landing which was slightly too fast (new engine - slightly high idle) and as a result we had a couple of small bounces. Our field has a boarder of large trees on its Northern side and when the wind blows from the North, the resultant turbulence can make landing (East West) difficult but the big Space Walker just floated in.
I think I will keep this one.
08-30-2010 | 11:41 PM
#15
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
Mike, I too have a 1/4 scale Spacewalker ARF in my hanger (mine is a great Planes version) and it is a joy to fly. I had one or two minor issues to fix during assembly but it was well worth the purchase price and minor effort to make right during assembly. I have quite a few Great Planes ARF's and feel they are a good value if you approch them knowing a few improvements or corrections will be in order. It's always up to the builder/assembler to insue a good final product. Now that you got me thinking "Spacewalker", I'am going to fun fly this weekend, think I will find room in the truck for my Spacewalker when I load up. ARF's got thier place!
08-31-2010 | 06:30 AM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Berthoud,
CO
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
Putting in a 4 stroke at the high end of the engine range is almost always a bit of a problem with many ARF's as they are usually designed around 2 strokes. Yes, it takes some modification but if you anticipate it and accept the fact it usually works out. I put together a Goldberg Tiger II for a friend and had the same problems with the throttle linkage which was barely solved with a Dubro linkage. You will find that if you look at an H-9 design with a radial engine type cowl things go a lot easier (Hellcat or Corsair). But in truth you can run into the same problems with kits and if you don't think it through early on you wind up in the same boat. It's like adding floats to an existing aircraft....you know you will need additional nose weight but you're never sure how much until you're finished.
PS- the new OS alpha 4-stokes are generally smaller and easier to fit into tight spaces than some of the older 4 strokes.
PS- the new OS alpha 4-stokes are generally smaller and easier to fit into tight spaces than some of the older 4 strokes.
08-31-2010 | 07:36 AM
#17
Senior Member
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I assembled a Camel for a mate of mine.
Most of the bits fitted, but there was serious woodworm in the wing panels ... so serious that the interplane strut' hardpoints were reduced to dust. Literally, dust.
Hangar 9 had never had a previous case of this reported to them. Strange, that, since the retailer had experienced several similar cases.
Anyway, they replaced the wing panels. But there was delay of 3 weeks or so, in the build.
Most of the bits fitted, but there was serious woodworm in the wing panels ... so serious that the interplane strut' hardpoints were reduced to dust. Literally, dust.
Hangar 9 had never had a previous case of this reported to them. Strange, that, since the retailer had experienced several similar cases.
Anyway, they replaced the wing panels. But there was delay of 3 weeks or so, in the build.
08-31-2010 | 10:15 AM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I am sure some things will not be perfect for some people, but I consider Hanger nine one of the "better" ARF's.
Wait untill you have been back in the hobby a lttle longer and spend big bucks for a non-Hanger Nine ARF.
Wait untill you have been back in the hobby a lttle longer and spend big bucks for a non-Hanger Nine ARF.
08-31-2010 | 11:51 AM
#20
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Elizabethtown,
NY
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I've bought virtually every hanger 9 arf out there and bang for the buck the quality I've encountered has been very good sure the stuff might have needed a little attention here and there or my choice of motors may have steered me into a bit more work but overall IMO it beats the hell out of spending 6 months to a year gluing balsa together and sanding off everything that doesn't look like the picture on the box.
Another good thing about hanger 9 , horizon, they have been jonny on the spot no questions asked with warranty replacement of anything damaged or warped out of the box
and haven't even wanted the old parts back, try getting that out of the other big box hobby retailers.
My only complaint with h-9 is that they will announce a new plane a year sometimes 2 in advance the minute they get shipment the stuff is gone and goes on backorder again forever if at all and then with no warning boom discontinued never to be seen again, the red bull sukhoi perfect example I bought one and before I even got the damned thing finished it was no longer available I now have 3 -33%, 1-27% , and 1-150 sized warbird from H-9 that I can't get anything for should I need to, not good
Another good thing about hanger 9 , horizon, they have been jonny on the spot no questions asked with warranty replacement of anything damaged or warped out of the box
and haven't even wanted the old parts back, try getting that out of the other big box hobby retailers.
My only complaint with h-9 is that they will announce a new plane a year sometimes 2 in advance the minute they get shipment the stuff is gone and goes on backorder again forever if at all and then with no warning boom discontinued never to be seen again, the red bull sukhoi perfect example I bought one and before I even got the damned thing finished it was no longer available I now have 3 -33%, 1-27% , and 1-150 sized warbird from H-9 that I can't get anything for should I need to, not good
08-31-2010 | 11:57 AM
#21
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
No question you can build a better quality than you get with an ARF. Or worse. Not everyone is "handy". BUT, most folks tend to build heavy because they do load up the epoxy and second-guess the designer. And it is getting hard to find light balsa (as much of the market goes to ARF manufacturers closer to the source). Lighter flies better, and ARFs do come in light (Seagull excepted).
I wish I had the time to crank out a model when I need one; which is usually after a dumb-thumb incident at the field in peak flying season. I have two kits in process on the tables at home - but have puchased two ARFs since I started the second one. I can have an ARF ready in 10 to 20 hours. A kit takes me 80 to 160 hours because I futz around too much. On a rainy day I can go work three or four hours on a kit and enjoy myself. A great luxury to have both options available.
I wish I had the time to crank out a model when I need one; which is usually after a dumb-thumb incident at the field in peak flying season. I have two kits in process on the tables at home - but have puchased two ARFs since I started the second one. I can have an ARF ready in 10 to 20 hours. A kit takes me 80 to 160 hours because I futz around too much. On a rainy day I can go work three or four hours on a kit and enjoy myself. A great luxury to have both options available.
08-31-2010 | 03:19 PM
#22
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I completely agree with you that the ARFs need much attention, strengthening, and re-design during the build. Hangar 9 did a pretty good job with their kits years ago, but their ARF's are not designed well at all. Cheap, thin, weak wood; plywood that is so soft that it cuts like balsa; and the worst hardware that I've seen. Just throw out the hardware and buy American.
It seems that Hangar 9 designs their planes to be flimbsy. That way, when you have a small mishap, your plane is completely destroyed, so that you buy another. It's called marketing replenishment!
Many ARF's are like this ... even Great Planes and World Models ... plywood that is soft and cuts like butter, weak structure design, hot glue, poor covering, hardware that is not worth using, foam wheels, etc.
When I build an ARF, I remove all the covering, reinforce many areas, replace the landing gear blocks with real plywood, glue all the joints with CA, add epoxy and carbon fiber in several areas, use Dubro hardware & fuel tanks, Hayes engine mounts, Great planes fuel line, and recover the plane with MONOKOTE.
Put and ARF together in 10 hours as the manufactures claims??? Hardly! It takes me at least 150 hours to build an ARF so that it won't come apart in the sky.
I prefer to build kits.
It seems that Hangar 9 designs their planes to be flimbsy. That way, when you have a small mishap, your plane is completely destroyed, so that you buy another. It's called marketing replenishment!
Many ARF's are like this ... even Great Planes and World Models ... plywood that is soft and cuts like butter, weak structure design, hot glue, poor covering, hardware that is not worth using, foam wheels, etc.
When I build an ARF, I remove all the covering, reinforce many areas, replace the landing gear blocks with real plywood, glue all the joints with CA, add epoxy and carbon fiber in several areas, use Dubro hardware & fuel tanks, Hayes engine mounts, Great planes fuel line, and recover the plane with MONOKOTE.
Put and ARF together in 10 hours as the manufactures claims??? Hardly! It takes me at least 150 hours to build an ARF so that it won't come apart in the sky.
I prefer to build kits.
08-31-2010 | 04:43 PM
#24
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Pass Christian,
MS
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
I have had my share of nightmares with ARF's and even kits(remember Sterling and Berkeley kits?) My latest ARF was an Escapade and the only problem was a lack of glue holding the LG plate. The best ARF that I've had is the Extreme Flight Vanquish-it was topnotch! I bought a Lil Extra from Sig and when I tried to tighten the covering, it came off in my hands! I recovered the airplane and must say it was well put together. Sig kits are topnotch and the instruction are super. What really gets me is that kits plus the extra finishing items are far more expensive than buying an ARF. Also, I find that ARF's tend to make you forget skills that you have learned in build kits and scratch built models. If you don't use that brain, it can get mushy!
08-31-2010 | 08:36 PM
#25
RE: Hangar 9 ARF Quiality~Not
The Hangar 9 ARF;s run great to bad. The worst was an Ultra Stick....the economy one. It was a total waste of money. The hardware was garbage and the plane actually would not fly. Hard to explain, but it was just unflyable. I crashed it, stripped out the radio and engine and left it in the field to get plowed under.
I have a Saratoga. It is covered great and everything fit together perfectly. My only beef was that the wings have anhedral instead of dihedral. I could not get their customer service people interested. Their only concern was if it would fly. It flys, but maybe not as well as it should and it looks funny with the saggy wings. Many potential buyers at my field have passed on buying one after seeing mine.
One the plus side, I have a Pulse 125 that is put together unbelieveably well. Just a great value for the money. My Twist60 was even better until a shorted battery pack did it in. The price for what you get is super.
The Hangar 9 Cubs are all great as is the Taylorcraft and the list of others goes on and on. I would just check around before you buy a Hangar 9 and see what everyone else;s experiences are. Overall, I think they are some of the best.
BelAirBob
I have a Saratoga. It is covered great and everything fit together perfectly. My only beef was that the wings have anhedral instead of dihedral. I could not get their customer service people interested. Their only concern was if it would fly. It flys, but maybe not as well as it should and it looks funny with the saggy wings. Many potential buyers at my field have passed on buying one after seeing mine.
One the plus side, I have a Pulse 125 that is put together unbelieveably well. Just a great value for the money. My Twist60 was even better until a shorted battery pack did it in. The price for what you get is super.
The Hangar 9 Cubs are all great as is the Taylorcraft and the list of others goes on and on. I would just check around before you buy a Hangar 9 and see what everyone else;s experiences are. Overall, I think they are some of the best.
BelAirBob
