FunSonic Turbines
10-26-2004 | 04:31 PM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Edgar, WI
RE: FunSonic Turbines
That F-104 at Ozark was Shawn Cassidy's. I believe he told me that it weighs 21 lbs wet. The Funsonic seems to be a good match for it. Very scale performance, but not underpowered either.
10-26-2004 | 05:10 PM
#29
10-26-2004 | 06:35 PM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (31)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bowling Green ,
KY
RE: FunSonic Turbines
I saw the funsonic flying the ziroli at superman, plenty of power and started easily. This is the only funsonic i have seen. Should be a good engine, as long as the ecu is good.It flew the plane very scale.
As for the moderators i agree with shok, seems some threads get "attention" to the slightest detail, but on others ,people can come in and say what they want whether it is relevant to the thread, Good, Bad or Ugly. I think it does have to do with sponsership on RCU. $$$$$$
Just my .02 , not worth much as usual. Russ
As for the moderators i agree with shok, seems some threads get "attention" to the slightest detail, but on others ,people can come in and say what they want whether it is relevant to the thread, Good, Bad or Ugly. I think it does have to do with sponsership on RCU. $$$$$$
Just my .02 , not worth much as usual. Russ
10-26-2004 | 08:56 PM
#31
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Jacksonville,
FL
RE: FunSonic Turbines
Thanks for the info gentlemen. I don't know about you all but, while reading the recent posts all I could hear was this faint music in the background and Rod Serling's voice .... "You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind..." [X(][X(][X(][X(]
Anyway, I am doing some preliminary research and have been lucky in getting quite a bit of information. It's apparent that the choice for 12 -17 lb thrust turbines is not as limited as I had thought! WOW, it seems this aspect of our hobby has been prolific.
As I continue to educate myself, I still need some input on suitable aircraft.
What do you think about the Yellow Aircraft Stingray? I'm looking for a good stable flyer that will slow down when needed. At this time all out speed is not an issue.
Thanks
Anyway, I am doing some preliminary research and have been lucky in getting quite a bit of information. It's apparent that the choice for 12 -17 lb thrust turbines is not as limited as I had thought! WOW, it seems this aspect of our hobby has been prolific.
As I continue to educate myself, I still need some input on suitable aircraft.
What do you think about the Yellow Aircraft Stingray? I'm looking for a good stable flyer that will slow down when needed. At this time all out speed is not an issue.
Thanks
10-26-2004 | 09:24 PM
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: League City,
TX
RE: FunSonic Turbines
Pcampjax,
You really can't beat Kerry Sterner's Facet 1200 for a entry level turbine jet. I've seen and flown the 2300 and the 1200 is just a smaller version. It builds quickly, flies great, very easy to land and designed for 12lb class turbines. It is sold by GNM (Great Northern Models).
JR Gautreaux
You really can't beat Kerry Sterner's Facet 1200 for a entry level turbine jet. I've seen and flown the 2300 and the 1200 is just a smaller version. It builds quickly, flies great, very easy to land and designed for 12lb class turbines. It is sold by GNM (Great Northern Models).
JR Gautreaux
10-26-2004 | 10:00 PM
#33
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Milton,
ON, CANADA
RE: FunSonic Turbines
Hi pcampjax
If your looking for a stable flyer that will slow down when needed, I wouldn't recommend the Stingray. It's a bullet and doesn't like to slow down, even at idle. You probably want to look at more of a trainer style airframe. We carry the Facet series that JR mentioned. You could also look at any F-15 style airfame as well.
Good Luck,
Ed
If your looking for a stable flyer that will slow down when needed, I wouldn't recommend the Stingray. It's a bullet and doesn't like to slow down, even at idle. You probably want to look at more of a trainer style airframe. We carry the Facet series that JR mentioned. You could also look at any F-15 style airfame as well.
Good Luck,
Ed
ORIGINAL: pcampjax
What do you think about the Yellow Aircraft Stingray? I'm looking for a good stable flyer that will slow down when needed. At this time all out speed is not an issue.
Thanks
What do you think about the Yellow Aircraft Stingray? I'm looking for a good stable flyer that will slow down when needed. At this time all out speed is not an issue.
Thanks
10-26-2004 | 11:57 PM
#34
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ft Wayne, IN
RE: FunSonic Turbines
ORIGINAL: Shok
what the hell?
why is are my posts being deleted?
Once for asking about the price and again for asking why the first post was deleted.
Who is doing this and why!!??
what the hell?
why is are my posts being deleted?
Once for asking about the price and again for asking why the first post was deleted.
Who is doing this and why!!??
"why is this engine more expensive than the Wren, Simjet and T-500?
All of which put out more thrust."
Your post has nothing to do with the original question at the beginning of the post. It is time we bring sanity back in the jets forum. Your second post was removed because you decided to use words like “RCU nazi'sâ€. Please not that the moderators are humans also and calling them Nazis is definitely out of place.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Regards
Ben
10-27-2004 | 04:40 AM
#35
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: florida
RE: FunSonic Turbines
He didnt need to ask for the price, it was given in post 5. I think price and other options are VERY relevent if you are going to give someone advice on a turbine. So Ben, why was my original post removed? You said you want to bring sanity back to the Jet Forum...How sane is it then to advise someone to spend $2500 on an engine that may or may not run over an engine that is proven for the same cost?
Mike
Mike
10-27-2004 | 06:31 AM
#36
My Feedback: (28)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Heath,
TX
RE: FunSonic Turbines
Your so afraid that you may lose a sponsor when someone points out the obvious.
Thats pretty sad that all threads have to be slanted for the almighty $$
Thats pretty sad that all threads have to be slanted for the almighty $$
10-27-2004 | 06:39 AM
#37
My Feedback: (28)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Heath,
TX
RE: FunSonic Turbines
and yes the question was very relevant.
the poster wanted info good or bad is exactly what he said. maybe he didnt realize that he had a choice and didnt need to shell out that amount of cash on an engine with less thrust than it's competitors.
I didn't realize RCU was that strapped for cash, because thats the way it's beginning to look when no one can point out a downside of a sponsored product.
In my opinion the engine has priced itself out of the market for what it is. Hell I may be wrong but I think it costs more than the Jetcat P-60. I would buy a Jetcat anyday over an unproven engine. And to me it's unproven because I think maybe 2 people so far that I have seen has one.
the poster wanted info good or bad is exactly what he said. maybe he didnt realize that he had a choice and didnt need to shell out that amount of cash on an engine with less thrust than it's competitors.
I didn't realize RCU was that strapped for cash, because thats the way it's beginning to look when no one can point out a downside of a sponsored product.
In my opinion the engine has priced itself out of the market for what it is. Hell I may be wrong but I think it costs more than the Jetcat P-60. I would buy a Jetcat anyday over an unproven engine. And to me it's unproven because I think maybe 2 people so far that I have seen has one.
10-27-2004 | 06:55 AM
#39
My Feedback: (37)
RE: FunSonic Turbines
shok, i saw the funsonic at bomber and it flew well and often. ben, i saw the question of why is the funsonic turbine a little more expensive than the others as a relevent question. the answer could be as simple as it has more inconel or a more expensive starter motor or we buy a better whatever and install them in our turbines etc. know i am no mod and do not wish to be, and thanks for being one, but if you are going to be so trigger happy with the delete button, than save yourself the grief and pm the guys you are deleting and explain why, after all they are the customers here and without them you nor i would be here at all because here would not exist. i hate to get of the funsonic topic but the mod took us here. ok back to the funsonic turbine. again, robart was at bomber and they flew that panther all day everyday with the funsonic turbine. i saw no flameouts etc. i for one am happy to see more and more turbines in the market place. i know robart has been importing funsonic for a while know and they could do a little better job promoting it, but it is not that new to the scene. happy flying. barry
10-27-2004 | 09:13 PM
#40
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (336)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clinton,
MO
RE: FunSonic Turbines
well if shok's post had not been deleted and i would have seen it stating there were others in the price range with more thrust i would have looked around further.
But as it stands now i own a Funsonic , now it looks like i came up short 2lbs of thrust for the same $2500!
JOHN
But as it stands now i own a Funsonic , now it looks like i came up short 2lbs of thrust for the same $2500!
JOHN
10-27-2004 | 09:37 PM
#41
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: florida
RE: FunSonic Turbines
John,
I tried to tell you the same thing but my post was removed as well. This is unbelievable.
SO MR BEN....Are you happy now? Do you still think that the price was irrelevent to his question? You have heard it straight from the mouth of the person that placed this thread, he would have liked to have known there are other options in the same price range. But you removed our posts and he has now settled for something else. You know, we need to promote our hobby. In order to do this, we need to help those who are starting out and do not necessarily have the money to be a guinea pig for new turbines on the market. John would have been much better off spending $200 for a proven turbine with great service (jetcat, simjet, wren etc). Instead he is now a test bed for something that may not have been his first choice had he been given all of the information. If this doesnt work out, we may very well lose a new member in our hobby because some dont have the money or refuse to sink into a second turbine after the first one failed. There is nothing worse than investing $2500 in something to find out it doesnt work or is poor quality just to have to turn around and spend another $2700 on something that you should have purchased in the first place and you still have yet to fly the darn thing. I hope this engine turns out well for John, but I cant help but to think he has been done a disservice by the RCU moderators who seem to have alliances with some manufacturers. I eagerly await your response Ben and only hope you will offer some kind of apology without deleting this post too.
Mike
I tried to tell you the same thing but my post was removed as well. This is unbelievable.
SO MR BEN....Are you happy now? Do you still think that the price was irrelevent to his question? You have heard it straight from the mouth of the person that placed this thread, he would have liked to have known there are other options in the same price range. But you removed our posts and he has now settled for something else. You know, we need to promote our hobby. In order to do this, we need to help those who are starting out and do not necessarily have the money to be a guinea pig for new turbines on the market. John would have been much better off spending $200 for a proven turbine with great service (jetcat, simjet, wren etc). Instead he is now a test bed for something that may not have been his first choice had he been given all of the information. If this doesnt work out, we may very well lose a new member in our hobby because some dont have the money or refuse to sink into a second turbine after the first one failed. There is nothing worse than investing $2500 in something to find out it doesnt work or is poor quality just to have to turn around and spend another $2700 on something that you should have purchased in the first place and you still have yet to fly the darn thing. I hope this engine turns out well for John, but I cant help but to think he has been done a disservice by the RCU moderators who seem to have alliances with some manufacturers. I eagerly await your response Ben and only hope you will offer some kind of apology without deleting this post too.
Mike
10-27-2004 | 10:35 PM
#42
My Feedback: (29)
RE: FunSonic Turbines
Need some info on this turbine good or bad
Your post has nothing to do with the original question at the beginning of the post
I don't get your logic, Ben. And the list of others that feel the same way, is getting longer.
10-27-2004 | 10:42 PM
#43
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ft Wayne, IN
RE: FunSonic Turbines
ORIGINAL: mnmills
John,
I tried to tell you the same thing but my post was removed as well. This is unbelievable.
SO MR BEN....Are you happy now? Do you still think that the price was irrelevent to his question? You have heard it straight from the mouth of the person that placed this thread, he would have liked to have known there are other options in the same price range. But you removed our posts and he has now settled for something else. You know, we need to promote our hobby. In order to do this, we need to help those who are starting out and do not necessarily have the money to be a guinea pig for new turbines on the market. John would have been much better off spending $200 for a proven turbine with great service (jetcat, simjet, wren etc). Instead he is now a test bed for something that may not have been his first choice had he been given all of the information. If this doesnt work out, we may very well lose a new member in our hobby because some dont have the money or refuse to sink into a second turbine after the first one failed. There is nothing worse than investing $2500 in something to find out it doesnt work or is poor quality just to have to turn around and spend another $2700 on something that you should have purchased in the first place and you still have yet to fly the darn thing. I hope this engine turns out well for John, but I cant help but to think he has been done a disservice by the RCU moderators who seem to have alliances with some manufacturers. I eagerly await your response Ben and only hope you will offer some kind of apology without deleting this post too.
Mike
John,
I tried to tell you the same thing but my post was removed as well. This is unbelievable.
SO MR BEN....Are you happy now? Do you still think that the price was irrelevent to his question? You have heard it straight from the mouth of the person that placed this thread, he would have liked to have known there are other options in the same price range. But you removed our posts and he has now settled for something else. You know, we need to promote our hobby. In order to do this, we need to help those who are starting out and do not necessarily have the money to be a guinea pig for new turbines on the market. John would have been much better off spending $200 for a proven turbine with great service (jetcat, simjet, wren etc). Instead he is now a test bed for something that may not have been his first choice had he been given all of the information. If this doesnt work out, we may very well lose a new member in our hobby because some dont have the money or refuse to sink into a second turbine after the first one failed. There is nothing worse than investing $2500 in something to find out it doesnt work or is poor quality just to have to turn around and spend another $2700 on something that you should have purchased in the first place and you still have yet to fly the darn thing. I hope this engine turns out well for John, but I cant help but to think he has been done a disservice by the RCU moderators who seem to have alliances with some manufacturers. I eagerly await your response Ben and only hope you will offer some kind of apology without deleting this post too.
Mike
Actually you could have saved him the agony by sending him a PM instead of posting your comment in the thread. I am sorry you find my action objectionable but after I read your comment, I felt that it was not relevant to the original question and hence I removed the post.
Again I am sorry that you feel the way you do but this is not time to lay wreath for yesterday’s crime because time dissolves and night threatens and there will be no acquaintance with tomorrow.
Have yourself a wonderful evening.
Best Regards
Ben
10-27-2004 | 10:46 PM
#45
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ft Wayne, IN
RE: FunSonic Turbines
ORIGINAL: grbaker
I don't get your logic, Ben. And the list of others that feel the same way, is getting longer.
I don't get your logic, Ben. And the list of others that feel the same way, is getting longer.
A long list of people that disagrees with me means that I am doing my job they way it should be done. This is not a popularity contest for me my friend. Because of the nature of my job, I expect to have a long list of people that disagree with me. To be honest with you, I can live with it provided that at the end of the day I would look back and know that I treated everybody the same.
Regards
Ben
10-28-2004 | 06:47 AM
#48
My Feedback: (37)
RE: FunSonic Turbines
i have been on the list ever since ben posted his candid opinions in a an already closed thread and gave a lame excuse as to how it was done by mistake, yet when he had the opportunity and ability to correct it ben did neither. i also, am not suprised to hear that ben feels the more people he makes upset the better he thinks he is doing his job. pathetic. arrogant. out of touch. no spin? my head is spinning. 
not really, i dont let this stuff get to me, i just find it funny when some are so arrogant[:@] and in their mind so innocent,[X(] such a victim.[
] oh well, in the big scheme it does not matter and nor does bens out of touch attitude.
the post in my opinion were relevant, i did not see any bashing either, however i dont think funsonic falls into the category of customers being guinea pigs. it seems to be proven with a good track record. but folks dont think ben is going to back down because he isnt, the last time he was just as defiant. my 2 cents... barry
not really, i dont let this stuff get to me, i just find it funny when some are so arrogant[:@] and in their mind so innocent,[X(] such a victim.[] oh well, in the big scheme it does not matter and nor does bens out of touch attitude. the post in my opinion were relevant, i did not see any bashing either, however i dont think funsonic falls into the category of customers being guinea pigs. it seems to be proven with a good track record. but folks dont think ben is going to back down because he isnt, the last time he was just as defiant. my 2 cents... barry
10-28-2004 | 07:22 AM
#50
My Feedback: (43)
RE: FunSonic Turbines
I am not a turbine flyer, yet. I just bought a house, and finally have another shop to start working on something other than arfs again. I will be in the market for a turbine soon, and I too have wondered about the funsonic.
I did not know the price of it or any other same class turbine, but I have not begun to research either. Anyhow, I am quite upset over the deletions occuring in this thread. I think it is uncalled for. From what I have read of the cut and pasted snips of the deleted threadsm there was NOTHING out of line. I don't see any product bashing, just simple questions/facts stating that the funsonic is unproven, and costs more or on par with similar(acutally higher rated) rated turbines. To me, that is a part of the "good or bad" aspects of the turbine. I do agree with deletion of the Nazi posts, I may agree with the tongue and cheek reply, but we have to cordial here. Lets just call it Govt censorship instead.
Jeff
I did not know the price of it or any other same class turbine, but I have not begun to research either. Anyhow, I am quite upset over the deletions occuring in this thread. I think it is uncalled for. From what I have read of the cut and pasted snips of the deleted threadsm there was NOTHING out of line. I don't see any product bashing, just simple questions/facts stating that the funsonic is unproven, and costs more or on par with similar(acutally higher rated) rated turbines. To me, that is a part of the "good or bad" aspects of the turbine. I do agree with deletion of the Nazi posts, I may agree with the tongue and cheek reply, but we have to cordial here. Lets just call it Govt censorship instead.
Jeff
