Can anyone compare and contraste these two?

Thanks

Rob

I have both the 2.6 and the 3m. Both fly outstanding! You wont be dissapointed either way. The 3m is just a little more stable (less wing rock) in a elevator and of course big makes things look a little smoother but then, I need to play with both of them just a little more. Both have been completed earlier this summer. I have a bme 102 with 8 servos in the 2.6 and a zdz 160 with 9 servos in the 3m. Both hover at maybe 1/4 to 1/3 power. Jon

Thanks for the info! How well does the 3 do snaps on a vertical up line? How well do both hold lines without correction. I plan on using which ever I pick In IMAC advanced class next year.

Thanks again

Rob

Both do great! By the way. I assumed that we're talking about the www.composite-arf.com :^) It just said composite and I went off of the deep end, lol. I have a friend that flies imac here around the DC area and he says the composite arfs are taking over and that of course they fly great. He said he's probably going to have to get one just to keep up, lol. Jon

I know what you mean. The Comosite-ARF is a good price and seems to fly very well. I have a feeling that soon most people will be flying one . . . actually that is the onne of the things that makes me NOT want one. That and they are difficult to repair.

I appritiate your input, and no you didn't go off the deep end. I'm sure I and others would greatly appriciate any input that you can give on these two. If you can think of anything else let us know!

Rob

These planes are sweet in that they only cost $990 for the standard red/white or blue/white versions. They are already built for you and each one is precision built. The fiberglass is strong and won't wrinkle like monokote, holds up better and is stronger. They are IMAC machines and fully 3D capable as well. They are harder to repair but I have a friend that has repaired his 2x now and they were some pretty hard crashes both from the engine dieing in low harrier/hovering manuevers. They take abuse well.

Add about a grand for the 3.0 More if you have one of their color schemes on it. But the question was about how the 3.0 and 2.6 compare. Which holds a line better, which snaps and spins better, which has less mixing. Which has better Power to Weight with the appropriate DA engine etc.

Rob

Knowing that they are very similiar its just whether you want a 35% or 40%. Most of us would go with a 3.0M or 40% Extra because it flys bigger. More stable in manuevers. Both are great flying planes, its just a toss up of what you want.

www.cafreestyle.com has some pictures of another friend who has the 3.0M Fiberclassics Jason Shulman Peel Back Scheme with a DA 150. Its an absolute monster and flys wonderful. Between these 2 planes its the pilot that will make the difference.

The only Composite Arf pictures I see are of Dave Sullivan. Is that who you are talking of?

I also see no Composite Video's there.

Rob

One friend, Zak West, not on our website has the 2.6M Fiberclassics www.3dbatix.com

Dave Sullivan has the 3.0M Fiberclassics. They were both at the IMAA Rally of the Giants and they both flew wonderful.

Its up to you if you want to go bigger and a little more stable or smaller.

You can go to my website to see a vid of my 2.6M Extra. I think the power-weight is better on the smaller plane. Climbout from hover is more like a launch and the plane just powers its way through snaps on the way up. Mixing on mine is about 8% elevator and 5% aileron. I have done the Unlimited sequence with my 2.6M, and it goes through all the maneuvers easily. I am very happy with my 2.6M.

Jason Shulman said, "They fly the same" He has flown my 2.6 and he says it flies exactly like his 3.0. One note, he set up my plane.

Tony Watkins

John Schroder (I think he got 3rd at IMAC Nats) flys at my field. He ahs the 3M Fiberclassics Extra (Now Called Composite ARF Extra). The plane is gorgeous. It has no film or covering so it looks perfect all the time.

I see John do multiple snaps on veritcal up lines all the time. He runs a DA 150 and has tons of power. He does more with that plane than I can do with my 3D Profile plane!

Hello Rob,
You are just going to have to get the 40% and let me fly it. Then I will tell you the difference
RickP

Nice site Ryan. Why don't you put a video up of you doing unlimited with the 2.6? I would love to see it handle the 1 1/2 negative upline snap and the 1 3/4 snaps. That is where I think the extra would ahve a big advantage to the Edge I flew this year.

Thanks again
Rob

Rick, I seem to remember being promised stick time on your 2.6, but somehow my Dad has more time on it than me How did that happen? Ow well. I think if I get a plane my only question left is 2.6 or 3.0. Or I can just stay with the Edge one more year

Rob

Rob, the 2.6 does the snap maneuvers very well. I am not the best pilot to do an Unlimited sequence demo but I can try to put one up just for reference on how well the plane does. Remember, I flew Intermediate this year with a H9 Extra and this plane definitely out-performs the H9. I couldn't do the 1-3/4 snap with the H9 because no matter what I tried, it would overrotate at the end. The plane also didn't have the power to do an upline with a snap. I received several comments about how sharp the leading edge is at the last contest I went to - that would certainly lead to better snap response. Still, at low speed, the plane stalls nice and gentle.

[8D]Flyfalcons: pretty humble responce coming from the IMAC Intermediate Champion for the Northwest , don't you think. you need to brag a little. Guy's I have seen Ryan fly and he can get the job done!!!

Well,
You have to work that out with your Pop, I can't get involved there I will let you try it again as soon as I get the canopy frame [:@]
So are you going to give up on the TBM?
RickP

It seems like we have one discussion going on two threads, but this is more appropriate here so here it goes...

Is the 3M any more nutral then the 2.6? In other words does it require as much mixing for nutral flight? I am not so sure this is a disadvanatge at all - just curious. While I was suprised at the amout of mixing required on the 2.6 I must say it does feel pretty nutral regardless of orientation after the mixing is set. Also suprising... in a good way
[sm=bananahead.gif]
RickP

I flew Barry's and Pete's. Both had been mixed out and I don't know how much mixing they had in. I did feel that Barry's had less power than Pete's and Less that I would like / am used to. But I think a large part of that was the prop barry was playing with at the time. Andy Kane said that the 2.6 and the 3.0 fly very similarly.

(As for that oterh thread Gene from TBM said that he uses his 35% for practice and only takes out the 42% for contests)

Rob

I've had 3 of the 2.6's and 1 3.0. I really liked the 3.0 best because I could fly it slower between maneuvers during the unknowns and have time to think and relax ! I figued out how to do the same with a 2.6 about the same time some guy had a fistful of cash to buy the plane!! Oh well! DA100 witha MSC 26-12 prop.
Both the 2.6 and the 3.0 required the same amount of mixing.....Not much!! I really had my 3.0 dialed in well when a radio failure at the Tucson Aerobatic shootout did the plane in!
I'll be on my way to SF for a new 3.0 in a week or two.($$$) Everyone I Know here on the west coast,including myself that flys a 3.0 would by another in a minute.... If you're a middle-aged gent such as myself,the 3.0 is MUCH easier to see!!!
I'm really looking forward to Big Yellow2!!!

Dave

Somewhere on this forum I did a comparison of the two models- It is either in IMAC or 3D flying. Its a Fiberclassics discussion but included a lot of comments about both the 3M and 2.6M.

If you do a search by either Extra 330, or Fiberclassics, it should come up.

Don

Where can you buy those Composite ARF? I'm from Quebec, Canada.

Try www.composite-arf.com