Hiya! I personally wouldn't class the swift as aerobatic but more of an aileron trainer - it doesn't have the power required to perform true aerobatics (snap turns, spiral retrieval, inverted etc) - it will do them but only in the hands of a pro and a pro wouldn't be seen dead using a swift. The power is lacking and the weight is slightly high, a bad combination! Thats the first time I've seen a Beginair and I'll compare it to my swift. Swift ROG not as good, banking not as tight and climb rate similar (couldn't get a sense of wind etc in video). Swift might handle wind extremes better. We don't get Beginair over here but that would have been on my short list. I'm now aileron trained thanks to swift and sim (still make mistakes though!) and moved on to zagi and F27b for the aerobatic stuff and pure speed. Have ME262 with twin 480 brushed (pusher mode) and LiPo ready (still finishing off slowly) but swift always ready to fly. By for now

Well said!

aeajr tam popo A 1 stick--3 channel V-tail aerobatic/aileron trainer that looks more like an electric glider than a 3D Typhoon

Would any "pro" prefer using the Swift to instruct a student in the basics of aileron/aerobatic flying?

The main consideration of any training is to fly. there are better, lighter more powerful planes out there which are probably better,but the true saving grace of the swift is it will take all the knocks! I can't access the Challenger prop over here (its either swift or swift). LHS can't tell the difference anyway. I went to fave LHS (free, good impartial knowledge from true electric flyers) and they've ordered prop adapter so I can try APC prop, also bought 10.4V 1000MaH battery to try (Bought for F27b but will try on swift) - this should give it a good kick up the backside! Reprogrammed swift to accept LiPo (use info on page 9 Spitfire manual earlier in this thread). And yes, I do agree on all of your counts - the prop certainly was an afterthought by designer![8D]

The Challenger prop HBZ2004 is the most versatile HZ push prop used on three other HZ planes. It is a 6.5x3; whereas, the Swift prop HBZ7207 is a 6x4 which also happens to be the same length and pitch that is available for use on the new Stryker 27C. But the Swift is no Stryker.

IMO the initial hand launch the thrust-drift ratio of the Swift prop isn't very efficient. My guess is that the give-back or slip during the initial launch/climb may be reduced by as much as 30 percent from the theoretical/ideal pitch/screw angle. The thrust of the Swift propeller during hand launch leaves something to be desired. Any increase in rpms beyond a certain speed with the 6x4 does not increase the thrust; whereas the same rpm with the 6.5x3 produces more thrust then the 6x4.

Ideally, an airplane uses a low pitch(flat blade angle or smaller angle of attack) to provide a higher number of rpms and a higher pitch for cruising with a lower number of rpms. I believe the design of the Challenger 6.5x3 prop is better suited for my flying interest with the Swift. I am going to do some more comparison testing tomorrow using these two props on both the Challenger and Swift to ascertain any noteable difference in thrust during the initial launch/climb. Designing a fixed prop for any given aircraft is always a compromise. I'm certainly no expert, but I believe HZ put too much emphasis on the angle of attack for aerobatics and compromised the proportion of thrust-drift ratio efficiency during takeoff.

I recently saw a short film segment of Howard Hughes XH-17 Sky Crane with its two-bladed main rotor having a 134' diameter capable of lifting 50,000 lbs. What amazed me was the slow rpm of the massive rotor while lifting so much weight. It still holds the record as the flying machine with the world's largest rotor system. Designing the right propeller for the Swift was a tradeoff of efficiencies depending on whether the pilot is more interested in swift combat aerobatics or ease of hand launching for the initial climb thrust.

Thanks for the info on prop size, that will explain most of the problems with lack of thrust - basically, its better to spend the cash on better prop and (maybe) slightly more power. Power alone won't cure this design issue. Power to the educated people, brother!! I know its not a swift issue but CC Lee sold a ME262 with twin 180 brushed motors powered by 7.4v 800MaH pack and weighing about 25+ oz. Now thats criminal, unjust and just gives themselves a bad name, and it was £85 (swift here is £100). Needless to say no-one could get it airborne but a recent mag said it was excellet. Who do they think they are kidding? I was naive and a newbie, I fell for it. The swift does fly but it has its constraints. We'll get there yet. There's a thread you might like to visit for Australians - very knowledgeable crowd, good laugh and their planes are Multiplex Easystar etc - odd stryker. Lots of video footage from Ez* planes, can't see a swift carrying the camera like that. Take a peek when you put your slide rule down, but don't tell them I sent you.javascriptl('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5680391');

Sorry, wrong thread, here's the correct one javascriptl('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5677658');

('http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5677658');

I had the Firebird Freedom which I think the Swift replaced. It was my first proper RC plane and I found it needed a large open space and was quite a handful as it needed to be flown fast and suffered from the dreaded tip stall. I ended up buying a Slo-V for under £50 from Antics (http://www.rcaircraftmodels.co.uk/644_1_1014020.html)
and this has proved to be a super 3 ch trainer as it can be flown slowly enough to fly over my local park and you have plenty of time to recover from "incorrect inputs" It's now brushless and can handle the wind much better.
If you want to progress to a more aerobatic trainer I suggest you look at the Telnik Bendy Sport available in the UK at Robotbirds. Loops,rolls,bunts & inverts are all possible (& done on my third flight!) and it can fly at 1/2 throttle so not much faster than Slo-V. It flys great on a cheap Tower Pro 2408 & 30 amp ESC combo, 7.4v li-po and £2.50 9 gm servos. I reckon for c.£75 you could buy the plane & electrics and then pick up cheap transmitter from ebay. It's very stable and not at all twitchy so you can fly on full rates without expo if your budget doesn't allow for computer radio.

Welcome cous! Its nice not to have to shout over the pond!! Haven't seen that plane but will give it a whirl! Wife has banned me from buying any other planes till October, but she didn't mention motors, esc or LiPo's Have fitted swift with flat tailplane (no dihedral) and a non-operating rudder. Turning/banking by ailerons and climbing using larger elevator flaps. Everything can be put back to original if needed or beefed up if it works. Tried a different prop I found in toolchest with 10.8v 1000MaH NicH and blew all the furniture around the living room, it was that powerful - I think this is the way to go cos this bird feels heavy. Forecast for Glasgow is rain next few days so will wait. Flew stock stryker today in 15-20mph wind and nearly lost it downwind - crashed to miss a pigeon loft and broke nose off again - now fixed. F27b is one tough cookie, I luv it. Still to get best flights from Zagi even though it too has Tower Pro b/less like yours and matching esc from Brc store - good service. Its nice to converse with someone from the west coast (and I don't mean States or Aus).
--------------------------------------------------
Byeee for now, this insomniac has repairs to do - keep in touch - wot do you fly etc.

Everything being constant/ideal the Prop Load Factor of a 2-blade 6x4 "tractor"("pusher" might be same) is 864 compared to about 839 for a 6.5x3 and 1029 for a 7x3. I didn't have the necessary instrumentation to determine if the 6.5x3 "pusher" produces more thrust then the 6x4, but the blade area of the HBZ2004--6.5x3 is greater then the blade area of the Swift 6x4, and it did seem to have a tad more thrust during launch for climbing without using as much elevator assist.

What I don't get is that the Swift replaced the Xtreme as HZs aerobatic/ailerone "cream of the crop" and yet they down-sized the 540 "can" motor in the Xtreme to a 480 in the Swift. Don't understand the logic of that move in that the Swift is marketed/designed for swift aerobatics ("within the confines of its power envelope")). Why confine its power envelope by down-sizing to a 480 can motor instead of a 540??? []

A 7x3 prop appears to be the standard size "tractor" prop for your 400 and 480 motor like that found in the Cessna 182 RTF with its 8.4v 1000mAh battery [link]http://www.flyzoneplanes.com/airplanes/hcaa23-main-2.jpg[/link]. I've found a supplier for a push-on 7x3 pusher prop that is recommended for 400 & 480 motors. [link]http://www.flyin21days.com.au/Products/propsnfans.htm#7x3_Pusher_Prop[/link]
Will have to reduce the length a tad to make sure it doesn't strike the beam. I've already adapted a little spinner to the shaft so may also try the Graupner 7x4 pusher--GP07040C. I'm tempted to buy a replacement 540 Xtreme motor and adapt it to my Swift. A 540 at 12,000 rpm with a Graupner 7x4(6.75x4) should make for a swifter Swift.

I made some modifications in each wing end that inserts into the fuselage socket--major strengthening improvement! Also shortened the wing spar about 3/8" so the wings squeeze into the fuselage for a tighter/snuggy fit. Also devised a way to tightened the clamping grip on the spar after it has been inserted into each wing(and loosening again when removing). Can make it so tight that wings won't even separate, but need to allow for some separation so I don't break a wing--just in case of a crash .

For the time being I've renamed my Swift the "Yellow Buzzard", but am giving myself 30 days to improve my fractured flying before deciding if I should likewise change my own handle. If my Yellow Buzzard flys and soars even half as good as our local turkey buzzards I'll be tickled pink. Maybe, this summer they'll even let me glide on the thermals with them. "Oh happy days... ."
[link]http://www.pbase.com/airlinerphotos/image/56464555[/link]

Hiya! Thanks for the info - it explains one or two things. Tried to order prop adapter for 480 motor (same as swift) but e-mail hobby shop didn't know the diameter of shaft - I do now! Will re-order tomorrow. Went out today and flew swift but too windy, sometimes its best to preserve dignity and integrity of plane so I backed off. Speak to you soon!

What I don't get is that the Swift replaced the Xtreme as HZs aerobatic/ailerone "cream of the crop" and yet they down-sized the 540 "can" motor in the Xtreme to a 480 in the Swift. Don't understand the logic of that move in that the Swift is marketed/designed for swift aerobatics ("within the confines of its power envelope" ). Why confine its power envelope by down-sizing to a 480 can motor instead of a 540???

Let me help here.

The Swift did not replace the Xtreme as the Xtreme was NOT an aerobatic aileron plane. The Xtreme was a R/E bigger, faster, heavier Aerobird Challenger. The 540 motor requires a lot more power than a 400 or a 480, so they had to use larger, heavier battery packs to feed that motor.

The Xtreme, being similar in weight to the Challenger but with a bigger motor, can be more powerful to support the kind of aileron flying that it was made for. Rolls and the like, benefit from more power. Fortunately the 2/3A size cells can now deliver enough oomp to feed a 480 so the plane can be in that very popular "under 20 oz" class and still have the power to perform.

The Xtreme's only advantage over the Challenger was it could handle more wind due to its greater weight.

If you put the 540 motor in the Swift, I think you will need battery packs that can handle 18-20 amps. At that point you might want to consider 3 cell lipos.

Thanks Ed for the additional information. Here are some more comparisons I hope you can help me make some sense of what I'm considering.

The Xtreme weighs 38.4 ounces the Swift weighs 22 ounces.
The Xtreme provides two battery choices--6 cell, 7.2v 1700mAh NiCD at 10.8 oz. or 6 cell, 7.2v 2800 NiCD at 12.2 oz. for its 540 motor with a 7.8x3.8 propeller.
The Swift provides two battery choices--7 cell, 8.4v 1000mAh NiMH at 5.2 oz. or 8 cell, 9.6v 900mAh at 5.8 oz. for its 480 motor with a 6x4 propeller. I assume the performance/efficiency of the inexpensive 480 can motor used in the Cub(minus pinion) is the same as the Swift.

It's my understanding that lower voltage and higher amperage of a 7.2v, 1700mAh NiCD battery will effectively produce the same rpm/torque/thrust as a 8.4v, 1000mAh NiMH battery and a 7.2v, 2800mAh NiCD battery will effectively produce about the same rpm/torque/thrust as a 9.6v 800mAh NiMH battery. In other words its my understanding that using either a 7.2v, 1700mAh NiCD or a 8.4v, 1000mAh NiMH battery will not effectively shorten the life of the 540 Xtreme motor. Is this a trade-off of voltage and amperage that produces the same result to the propeller shaft? Even if the Swift ESC will allow the use of a 7.2v, 1700mAh battery is there any advantage in rpms or thrust in using this NiCD instead of the 8.4v, 1000mAh NiMH?

The Xtreme 540 motor must be about the least expensive 540 can motor in the world. What do you figure is its life expectancy in hours with average use.??? Can you recommend a 480 motor for $30-$50 that would provide 20 percent more thrust(with same size propeller) then the inexpensive 540 used on the Xtreme. I believe HZ mentioned Dynamite as another motor manufacturer that can provide motors for some of their planes. Is there another motor you can recommend for improving the Swift's power envelope?

I took measurements of the 540 and figure I can fit it into the motor housing of the Swift without too much trouble. Being that this motor is still in stock I ordered one to test out. I will first hook it up outside the fuselage to see if it presents any problem to the Swift ESC. The talk on the street is that the Swift suffers from being underpowered. With a 540 and a 7x3(6.8x3) prop the Swift will be able to handle 10 mph winds which effectively means I'll be able to go flying twice as often with my Yellow Buzzard.

Is there another 480 motor for around $30-$50 that you would recommend as being better adapted to the Swift to give me about 20 percent more thrust using the 8.4v 1000mAh NiMH battery? The general drift seems to be that a 11.1v Li-Po is the way to go, but will the ESC on the Swift accept a 11.1v Li-Poly? Is it necessary to use an expensive 11.1v Li-Poly IF a 6 cell, 7.2v 1700mAh battery provides the extra thrust and keeps you in the air for 10-15 minutes considering that my Swift weighs about 12 ounces less than the Xtreme? What motor options would you recommend for improving the thrust of the Swift. I talked with a tech rep at HZ, but no luck so far. I doubt HZ PD will divulge the rpm rating or thrust rating(grams/ounces) specs of either the inexpensive 480 or 540 can motor.

Hiya! The first thing is not to change to another, bigger brushed but to go B/less (can inrunner). The stryker I have has the 480 stock motor but Parkzone supply a b/less inrunner for fitting to the mounting on the f27c (Tiger paint scheme). i have been told (but don't quote me!!) that the stryker and swift circuit board are almost identical - by removing jumper 3 allows you to use LiPo and b/less. I changed the 480 can brushed to an outrunner b/less with fantastic difference inpower and still on NiMh for my zagi wing. Don't look at o/runners cos of fitting/mounting problems but go inrunner can style, lots on market at reasonable prices, and will be a straight swap. I have a photo of circuit board showing which jumper needs remoivng. When I get a minute I'll post it here. Going flying as soon as sun comes up at 5am - 2 hrs sleep!! - Dedication, eh

The two Xtreme packages are same voltage and will produce same RPM, but the 2800 is NiMh, not NiCd.

RPM is based on voltage not amp hour rating of the battery pack.

The 7 cell and 8 cell Swift packs are not likely to be the same weight.

There is no correlation I can make on your assumptions. That would have to be tested, but I would guess that the larger motor will produce more thrust at the same voltage assuming the battery pack can delvier all the amperage the motor wants. If hte battery can't meet the demand, voltage sag will occure and the motor will not reach its peak power.

the ESC does not care about the capacity of the battery pack, only the voltage and the amperage running to the motor.

I can't estimate life of the motor. I know the Speed 380s in my Challenger has at least 50 hours on it and still running fine.


The 540 will not achieve full power if the battery pack can't feed it the amperage it needs, so you will need the bigger battery packs. That will raise the wing loading of the plane and put it out of balance, assuming you can find a way to strap the pack on, so make sure you know where to rebalance the palne to when you install the new heavy motor and heavy battery battery.

I have no knowledge of other 480 motors. I have no interest in comparing them but there may be a comparison out there somewhere.

Don't know anything about the ESC capacity or rating of the Swift. It is an RTF, so why would I need to know it. You buy an RTF so you don't have to know. 3 cell lipo might burn it up ... might not.

I seen no reason to change the motor on the Swift. You buy an RTF so you don't have to build or pick components. If I wanted to do that, I would not buy and RTF. Waste of time and money.

There are lots of ARFs and kits out there for someone who wants to experiment. You can work with components of known values and modify to your heart's content using components with known capacity.

I do not recommend any of the changes you are looking to make. It is an RTF. Put in the bigger, optional battery and fly it.

Great point! As I was thinking this over last night I also realized it was like putting a V8 in a Ford Fiesta or a Chevy Chevette. A few have done it, but WHY? I rechecked my measurements and it really isn't feasible to even fit the larger diameter of the 540 motor into the existing space occupied by the 480.


Here I have to disagree with you and I'm not alone. Will explain in detail on another thread.

No reason for you to have to agree with me. Just giving my prospctive. Each to his own. I wish you much success with your experiments and I apprecaite that you post the results so that others may benefit from your work.

Have at it, and let us know how it goes.

I took the 480 motor out of the Swift and put it in my Challenger. Motor diameter is only 1.5mm larger and 3/8" longer then the Challenger 380. Squeezing against the top and bottom of the fuselage opens up the motor cowling enough so that the motor slips into place as if it was meant to be. The motor mount holes are in same location. I replaced the dinky little metal motor front mounting plate on the Challenger with the larger Swift. Looks like it was also meant to be.

I punched four small holes(2 on each side) with my pencil soldering iron in the motor cowling just large enough to accept a tie wrap. Used an orange cable tie to wrap around the motor and snug down tightly with the cable tie gun. Took it out and flew it once while there was still some light. This is the motor that HZ should have put in the Challenger with its 6.5x3 prop.

The biggest aerodynamic problem with the Swift--TOP HEAVY to begin with having the wings positioned below the weight of the motor. Whereas, the Challenger and Xtreme have the wing on top of the plane for better stability. That is the biggest reason why HZ couldn't put a more powerful motor(heavier) in the Swift as its aerodynamics already leave something to be desired.

I now believe that most everyone that bought a Swift (including me) bought the wrong plane. The only way to give this bird more thrust is to replace the brushed 480 can motor with an ESC and a brushless motor like the F-27C. But that can cost as much as $121 using an E-Flight brushless motor and ESC.

If I was just now getting into R/C electric I would spend the extra money and buy a "Busy Bee" from Hobby-Lobby.

Hello! I've come to the same concluson as your good self about the swift, and this has been relegated to bottom of the flying table of my planes.Yes it flys but it takes a lot of effort for such little gain, and yes its down to weight. I don't want to do aerobatics, i'll leave that for 3D etc. i want a plane I can chuck and loop the field and practice control (control is everything!). Testing twin 480 brushed ME262 pusher plane today. Seems like there's plenty of power but it has the swift curse - weight!!! time will tell[8D][>:]

My "Yellow Buzzy" is still my first R/C electric love so will keep making improvements and keep improving my skill level to get the most out of the Swift. My love affair with this plane won't die easily. I'm more interested in motorized gliding than aerobatic maneuvers, but would like some extra thrust so I can fly in wind gusts of 10-13 mph.

I think I've found the perfect brushed motor for this bird--inexpensive--same motor mount hole spacing, diameter slightly larger but will fit nice&snug--motor weight 3.71oz which is an increase of only 1.25 oz--and 20 oz. of thrust with a 6x4 prop--same motor shaft diameter. Not going to completely give away secret until I try it out. Am ordering a couple motors today, so will be several days before I can report results.

As Howard Hughes said during the test run of his Spruce Goose when it became airborn, "I like surprises!" Hope my efforts surprise me.

Here's something to think about. I believe the Swift is the ONLY Aerobird that isn't shipped/doesn't come with an instructional video. Yet, it is the only aerobird with ailerons and is marketed for those that want a nifty aerobatic bird. Of all the aerobirds you'd think a Swift instructional video would be a prerequisite by HZ marketing and MOST insightful for the inexperienced as well as experienced flyer. A couple weeks ago, I called HZ to enquire about ordering a Swift instructional video HBZ7216 and was told it has been discontinued. Can you imagine discontinuing an instructional video on a new product??? I mentioned to the HZ sales rep that there must me at least one Swift instructional video laying around somewhere that they could send me. He said if he could locate one he would send it to me free of charge. I called him back and he said they don't exist.

I guess HZ marketing figured the only people who'd buy an aerobird with ailerons are "pros" who would be insulted to have an instructional video included in the same box with their Swift.

Do you get the feeling of "discontinued stock" ringing in your ears. Does your LHS have a lot more Swifts for sale - let me ponder on this for a while. Yup, Dodo and dinosaur are words that spring to mind - both extinct!! Gawd I'm in grumpy Old Man mode. [X(][>:][]

With all the modifications I'm making to the Swift it won't be easy to let it collect dust. However, as I learn more about aerobatic planes like the Zagi wing, yak55, and the Animal--with variable pitch prop I can easily understand that the Harley Hog dudes that fly these planes would never buy a Swift.

Tonight may be my first exposure to some REAL combat flying with dirty demolition derby birds that barely resemble a plane. For some pics of some 'pretty' combat planes see the photo with the 4 dudes in the third reply in this thread -- [link]http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=686[/link]

Hello Guys
I have a problem I need some help with. I flew my swift the other day, 15 +wind gusts.
After about 5 min something went wrong and I didnt have any aileron control. It took off ....
crashed and all that. Figured the plug just came loose from board because I still had motor.

Put new wings, tail and tightened up the aileron plug.... on the ground everything works fine.

when I launch the plane It acts like the survos are reversed, but they are not.... from the back move the stick right the right aileroncomes up, left goes down

I have taken off from ground and hand launch, plane will climb 10 - 20 ft wind catches it nad I need to make a correction ...nothing .. it just rolls over and piles into the ground.... when I get close enough to see the aierons I can move them .................. please give me a hand go to the next step figuring this out...........

Dewey