Hoghead385

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for the good info on the GP F4 guys. I have two of these kits put back with intentions on building one of them one day soon. I would be willing to sell one if anyone is interested. My email is [email protected]. Thanks

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Don't be scared of flying this plane. I owned one a few years ago and it was not nearly as scary to fly as one might imagine. Mine was powered with an OS 91 FX two stroke and had Robart retracts. I even experimented with using flaperons, but they did not have a great deal of effect on the flight performance. Mine was built and covered with flat Monokote and then a camo scheme was applied with Lustrekote paint. I flew it off of grass and found it to be fairly docile. The first few flights I made on it I was really scared to slow it down when landing it and would usually end up in a "go around" mode. You could actually get the thing up in a pretty good nose high attitude and slow it up reasonably well. The ground tracking with the wide gear is awesome. In the air, the prop disaapears and other than the sound it makes a pretty good impression of an F-4. I wish I had another one, but do not feel like going through all the building to get another one.
Capt Jim you have a beautiful bird there and if you decide to fly it, just take your time, I am sure it will all work out for you.
Tommy

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

Thanks very much Doc for the words of encouragement. I have had a number of other projects on the bench since the F-4, so it is still pristine...unflown. I have recently given thoughts to flying it...unless someone makes me a great cash offer that I simply couldn't refuse. My F-4 is fully sheeted, glassed, and painted, so it would be a little heavier than yours. That being said, it too has the OS91 and so I am thinking that it would still be a very capable flyer.
I fly a Great Planes F-14 Tomcat, and it too appears to be a very hot plane....but in actual fact, it is quite docile. It responds very well to control inputs, and displays no bad habits.....and it glides in like a trainer,...not a scary plane at all. I'm hoping to discover that the F-4 is similar.
Thanks again.
Jim

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

One of the local turbine guys here in Houston built one. He laid a real slick fiberglass and paint job on it. Looked really good. I believe it was powered with a 1.08. It had retracts. A friend bought it. I saw it fly a few times. It wasn't nearly as fast as I expected it to be and the landing speed was quite high. Possibly due to the prop choice. It lost a good deal of energy in a turn.

I think they are good looking airplanes. But you need just the right set up to get them to fly well. I believe that set up is ; build it as light as you can, no frills AND cram the largest, highest twisting motor you can into it.

Personally, I feel they scaled the plane incorrectly. I feel it is just a little too big. The Tomcat, admittedly more sport ship than the F4, was a home run. I think they tried to out-do the F14 with the F4 and reached just a little too far.

I build OOP kits from the 70's. I have found that many of these very nice older scale and fun-scale ships had design problems. But with the selection of equipement and techniques from 30 years newer technology, I have been able to work around and correct many of their short comings. Generally speaking, stronger engines, lighter radio equipement, and lighter finishing techniques can transform these "problem child" discontinued scale ships into show stoppers.

So I do beleive the plane can be built to perform. But it requires a skillful builder, that is mindful of the kits short-comings, and is able to remain focused on the plane's short-comings. DO not fall victum to the kits temptations. Sport/scale ships have a way of sucking you in . Next thing you know it has Robart Struts , lights, and smoke.

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

This paragraph brings me right back to where I was...reluctant to fly it.
It is sheeted, glassed, painted, has retracts, etc.
It just may be a marginal flyer and have a few quirks too.
High landing speed...does this mean it had a high stall speed?
Now I have to rethink this all over again....but thanks for the heads-up.
jim

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

The one that I was speaking of found its way from owner to owner. My friend flew it a few times, looked at it for a year, then sold it. He is a good pilot. I would imagine the next owner did the same thing. You throttle back, she sinks. Two speeds, fly and land.

Try it. Although the performance may be just a tad dissappointing, you just won't know until you try it.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I just thought of something I should probably have mentioned.

We were flying off grass. My friend was concerned about the stresses being placed on the landing gear mounts. Our field isn't the smoothest. So he was trying to get it up quickly. The landing speed did concern us. We were afraid the forces acting on the mounts at that speed might break them.

He did tell me that the plane took off and landed beautifully on smooth pavement.

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

Well thats a little more encouraging....I think???
I guess I am still undecided...one day, when circumstances urge me to give it a try...then I will know for sure. Until then, it's probably just going to be a hangar queen. I have no shortage of flyable planes right now, and a number of current projects as well.
It's not just a hobby anymore...it's an addiction.
jim

red_guy

Hello,

That plane is amaizing. Does anyone have the plan in electronic format? Or somebody who has access to a scanner? I would really like to build one of those.

Best regards,
red

panioul

Hello!Is this forum still active? I recently built a GP Phantom and had some problems at the first flight. Can anybody help?

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

Describe your problems, and we'll try to help sort it out with you.

Vinnie6

I have a GP F4 Phanton NIB. I would love to sell it. The owner of the LHS told me I could command a pretty high price for it. I do not believe I will be building it. The problem is that it was given to me by a friend who is getting out of the hobby. The agreement was for me to call him when I make the maiden flight. I do not feel right about selling his plane and pocketing the $.

daven

My Feedback: (1)

Then don't.

panioul

I hade mine rebuilt after my first take off which was a disaster! When it took off it drop the left wing, made an 180 degrees turn and hit the ground! I have the O.S. 91Fx and I tried to let it run before take off as much as possible. I tried to check everything and looked to work fine, that's why I cannot figure out what the problem was. Now I have it ready again but I am afraid to fly it again!Any suggestions?

SpeedBoy

Hi guys

Somebody has flown this airplane with a engine 61 , my father did buy one of this bird and come with a O.S 61 RE and it seems that the airplane has never flew before so we'll maiden it . Do you think the 61 could move enough the airplane to take off , trimed and landing ???

Thanks

Capt Jim

My Feedback: (168)

The OS61 engine is more than enough power for this very gentle plane. I flew mine with that motor for years with no problems at all....even with fixed landing gear and all the drag they create.
You will find this plane to be a nice easy flying plane. It has no bad habits at all. You can slow it down for landings and it does not try to tip stall. It is much more gentle than it looks.
Have fun with it.
jim

panioul

SpeedBoy! Did you sent me an email? I am trying to reply you but it is not working. I made a copy paste from my email here:

Unfortunately the plane has not been flown again,yet after its maiden fly and crash. I hope I will fly it during this month. I also used the Robart mechanical retracts. At the main landing gears I used Sullivan flex pushrods (towards the retracting mechanism) connected with metal pushrods towards the servo side.I will try to have a photo for you as soon
as I have my plane back because for the moment it is "parked" at a friendly LHS. Keep me informed!

SpeedBoy

Very thanks Capt Jim , I'm glad to hear that now I'll be more "relax" when the maiden

I think that big wing must help to load the big ton of this beauty bird

Thanks again Jim [sm=thumbup.gif]

Hector

SpeedBoy

Sorry panioul it wasn't me

Hybridcrx

It was me who sent the email..thx for replying and I look forward to a picture...Thanks and good luck

BTW: My email address on my profile was incorrect, So you should be able to email me now.

robertwilkerson

If you go back a few post he didn't build it he payed some one to do if for him.

timdavidson

[*]HELP! I have an olf F4 Phanton with fiberglass fuse. This plane has a 45" wing and fuse is 45 1/8 long. I am in need of set of plans to remake the horz stablizers. This plane goes back to the late 70's and would like to get back in the air. I think this may have been a royal kit.[/list]Thanks Tim

CafeenMan

Tim - I don't think Royal made fiberglass planes. It could be a Jet Hanger Hobbies or Bob Violett kit. What type of engine does it use? Does it have a prop in front or back or does it have a ducted fan?

timdavidson

This is a Prop, 60 size,front. been 25 years since it has been in the air. See if I can upload a photo. This was built back in the early 70's i use to fly this back then.

CafeenMan

Sorry, but I have no clue who made that. I knew people who made their own molds for models like that. Maybe a couple were built but never kitted. Could be something like that.