Merry Christmas everyone, hope Santa was generous to all. What he brought me was enough cash to afford my first jet !
I have been lurking around here for several months and have learned a lot but still haven't quite decided on my first jet. Cost will be a factor, but since I'm a VERY slow builder it will probably get spread out over the next year or so. Anyway, my choices---

1. CARF Rookie, the quintessential first jet. Cost effective BUT as I understand it, a bit delicate in that it dings / dents very easily. Not a good idea around my shop ( translation, I'm a bit of a clutz at times ). If I'm wrong about this please enlighten me as I really like this plane otherwise.

2. Aviation Design Exocet. Can't find out that much about this one except that it has the flying qualities I'm looking for and is relatively inexpensive. I would like to know more if anyone has the info and time. Ease of building, quality, cost, dealer in US a good guy to work with ? I'd really like to know more about this one.

3. Skymaster Hawk. Now we're talkin' but may be a bit heavy on my budget. If it's worth it, so be it. It'll just take me a while longer to get it in the air is all. I'm not in a big hurry here.

4. Tamjets Viper Jet. Same as Hawk.

I know this horse has been about beaten to death here but it seems there is always something new coming out and new info to be had. Your opinions and positive input are most appreciated.

Thanks everyone,

Dave

my harpoon[same as rookie] doesn,t have the probs u spoke of...you,ve got my vote and help on rookie or harpoon...here is all rookie info threads http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/sear...1&sortMethod=d



message edited to fix url problem

Out of the planes you listed, I would definitely go for the Rookie or even the good old Roo. Both have the same very stable and forgiving delta wing configuration and low wing loading.
The Roo has a bit more drag than the Rookie which makes it bleed of the speed more easily for landings. This is specially useful if you fly from a short field. It is also more easy to put in/ maintain the hardware in the Roo because of the big canopy. In the Rookie, most everything has to go in via the very small opening under the canopy. Many people see the installation in the Rookie as a pain in the *****...

My first jet was a Roo. A choice I have never regretted for a second. On my very first Jet flying season, it gave me over 250 hassle free flights in a few months giving me the valuable experience and confidence for later more advanced planes. Believe me, you'll get plenty of opportunities later to get your self a more fancy jet.

Out of the people I have personally seen getting into jets the last years, no one have been more successful than the people who have started out with a Roo or Rookie because they get a lot of stick time on their easy to fly jet.
Most of the people I have seen that wanted a more fancy jet when they decided to get in to jets, tend to bee more nervous (because of their fancy jet), and therefore tend to screw things up more easily. They never get a lot of stick time and crash their jet before they have actually gotten any real experience. This is a big blow, and many of them are not coming back for a second round.

Just my personal experience and observations... Good luck on your choice...!

Rookie.

Well,
I'm in a little different attitude than the rest. I've had 2 Kangaroo's (the original foam/wood wing one, and the composite one) and I've still got my exocet.

I say go with the Exocet 100% of the way.
The Roo's/Rookies etc fly fine, but they aren't a very true airplane. I never really liked how they flew except that they were jets.

The Exocet tracks like a pattern plane, slows down better than my Roo ever did for landing, will fly blisteringly fast if you want it to, does all the manouvers with ease, is very cost effective for a jet with internal engine and looks good too.
I had a RAM750 in my exocet and that was more than needed. The jet is simply awesome, my kit shipped from france, and the cost of Springair 101 retracts was under $1000. It is a fair bit of work to build, but it's worth it in every aspect.
The CARF stuff does ding easily, it's the nature of that type of construction, having said that, the wings on my Bandit seem to ding easily as well
The wing on the exocet is my only complaint, it's a one piece highly swept wing, it's a bit of a pain to transport but nothing you can't work around.

Anyway, of all the jets you've listed, I say go with an exocet, I can give you any info you want on it, it's a fantastic jet!
Jeremy

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aviationdesign/Exocet/clients/exocet%201%20(1).JPG

You already know the answer....

Merry Xmas, Enrique

all manuevers? I,d like to see any jet ,other than a roo,hotspot, or rookie/harpoon do this..http://www.voy-tech.net/Videos/other/P1603D.wmvor thishttp://www.voy-tech.net/Videos/other/vectorroo.aviand here,s a hard to land harpoon/rookiehttp://www.voy-tech.net/Videos/other/shortrunway.avibut i have plans for a military bird too..everyone needs at least 2 birds...1 sport, fun, everyday bird...and 1 military,scale, show bird to detail on.. i,m going to have my 1 motor for 2 jets,[ just to keep costs down ]and put it in warbird ocasionally..3-d with sport bird and scale fly warbird..thats my plan ..these are just my opinions..each to his own..

I went with the Hot Spot for my first. There are so many choices now though. The Baby Boomerang looks fun. I also like the DV8R.
I haven't regretted the Hot Spot at all. It has been a great first jet, turbine anyway.
Good luck with whatever you choose.

Thanks everyone. Keep it coming ! One thing I'm NOT going to do is get in a rush with my decision. It will be at least a couple of weeks before I order. For one thing I want to make sure the holiday smashing, uh, shipping rush with Fed UPS is over.

Dave


Hmm, thought I'd have heard from the Skymaster fans by now. That hawk is still looking pretty good.

[quote]ORIGINAL: e-dave

Merry Christmas everyone, hope Santa was generous to all. What he brought me was enough cash to afford my first jet !
I have been lurking around here for several months and have learned a lot but still haven't quite decided on my first jet. Cost will be a factor, but since I'm a VERY slow builder it will probably get spread out over the next year or so. Anyway, my choices---
= == = = = = =
One plane you didn't mention was "The Facet" esigned by Kerry Sterner, and sold by Great Northern Hobbies. A great flyer in either the 12 or 23 lb thrust sizes....and you can modify to the shape your heart desires. Another would be Bruce Tharpe's "reaction"-which is for MW-54 sized turbines.
Yes Virginia, wood is still a useful material!

Good Luck with you search!

Greg

[quote]ORIGINAL: jetflyr



Thanks Jetflyr ! I looked at the Facet and Reaction. I like working with wood much better than composites but I just don't have the time. For example, I've been working on a 40 size ARF for over two months now. I MIGHT have it ready next week, I hope.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Jeremy Ferguson




[[The Roo's/Rookies etc fly fine, but they aren't a very true airplane.]] .................sorry but i have to disagree and defend my type of [true airplane ]..i assume you meant a delta wing is maybe not as familiar to the average non aviation type person as conventional tailed a/c are....but lets not forget, the 1st a/c ever flown was tail-less. and the b-2 looks pretty weird too i,d say....imo..a/c are different in order to have different characteristics and benefits.. heck,, look at rutans stuff..and his accomplishments..some of his birds look more like submarines ,,but go into space.....here are some pics of true airplanes that look alot like roo/rookies ...

Daytona kid,
I certainly did not mean all delta airplanes, I've flown Rafales and mirage's, they fly much better than Roo's and Rookie's etc. All the Roo type birds I've flown tend to tuck the nose in turns, they don't roll perfectly axial, they are IMO a little trickier to land, they don't like to "stick" to the ground as easy as a conventional jet.
When I say a "true" airplane, I mean they don't fly as accurately as a conventional layout, when you go inverted they typically need more down elevator, when you roll there is some wobble from coupling, etc.

There's nothing wrong with them, I just personally don't care for the flying characteristics that much.

Oh, the first airplane flown wasn't truly tail-less it has vertical fins and a canard type set up that's still a type of tail, it was more like Fuselage less

Jeremy,
IMO, The ones you flew (Roos and Rookies) must not have been set up correctly. I haven't flown a Rookie, but the Roos that I have flown, had none of the "flaws" you mentioned.
Rolls were very axial, just like every other jet (DF or turbine) I've ever flown.
There are quite a few "conventional jets" that will get you into trouble if brought in too fast, some will even hop like a Roo. The difference is that a Roo needs to be slower than most "conventional jets" when it lands. If done right, you can land a roo on the mains and "ride" with the nose still in the air for a while, before the nose drops.

Didn't expect this thread to last two weeks. Good stuff though.

yea, i guess you could say it had a tail in the front and the back..

Gary,
Every Roo I have flown has been like that, as well as the people I know who have flown Roo's, or most delta designs, it's not a flaw in the airframe or anything, just the nature of that type of airplane, and it's only in relation to other types of aircraft, I come from a pattern background, I'm used to airplanes that fly perfectly, they do exactly what you want when you want it to and give you no surprises. That is why I like the Exocet so much, it flies very true, no surprises, no funny little tendencies.
I never had any problems with my Roo or anyone else's, but having flown the Roo and the Exocet, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to recommend the Exocet or conventional style jet over a Roo any day of the week, I think it's 20X the airplane, of course, your mileage may vary

well i agree, that opinion is very popular and clear about roos, i have heard about the flaws with them myself..but being a jet newbie i was very impressed with how well/easy/straight my[ harpoon ]flys... maybe like i,ve heard many times, rookies fly better than roos...i,m greasin my landings with less than 1 hour stick time..rolls like an arrow..tracks like a train... or like gary said,maybe the difference is just how you set-up your roos.. ..i saw the nose gear was too long on my harpoon, and would help bounce landings ,before i ever flew it or heard that was a common problem.. so i cut it off 1/2 inch, works great..as far as rolls,the roos offset thrust line is why it gets squirly i believe , and so i have heard and i could tell that before i ever saw one fly too..the thrust line /angle is adjustable during flight on the rookie/harpoons ...so i guess it boils down to whether you want to only be able to fly around like a pattern plane [ which would bore my 50 year old butt to death] or whether you want to be able to fly like a pattern or 3-d ,as in the vids in my previous post..but as i said, i also want to get my military[ scaled out] 2nd jet going too, which has a tail,[ which i will hopefully fly similar to a pattern plane, if it will]..i probably would not have got a jet yet if i had not seen a hotspot doing some thrust /vectored tumbling and hovering a couple of years ago...maybe the roos do have some flaws but i don,t think rookie/harpoons have those same problems ..but like everyone elses, these are just my own opinions..wonder if folks will think my military bird is a true airplane?