BVM MAVERICK
#1
Thread Starter

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: london, UNITED KINGDOM
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THIS CLASSIC JET?
HAS THE MOLDS AND KIT PARTS JUST BECOME PART OF MODELLING HISTORY?
WITH ALL THIS READY BUILT GEAR AROUND AND AVALIABLE - WHY DONT WE SEE A ARTF VERSION AT A RETAIL OF £500![:-]
HAS THE MOLDS AND KIT PARTS JUST BECOME PART OF MODELLING HISTORY?
WITH ALL THIS READY BUILT GEAR AROUND AND AVALIABLE - WHY DONT WE SEE A ARTF VERSION AT A RETAIL OF £500![:-]
#2

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,370
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: kenilworth , UNITED KINGDOM
Sort of old now. Horrible wing section and was pretty much replaced by the Classic bandit which is ten times the plane.
The moulds are in BVM's atic and I guess thats where they are staying now the Electra turbine is here.
Jason
The moulds are in BVM's atic and I guess thats where they are staying now the Electra turbine is here.
Jason
#5
Thread Starter

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: london, UNITED KINGDOM
I had a p-60 and a turbine conversion -THIS MACHINE flew superbly and with the tip tanks fitted it was extremly pretty in the air.
what a shame [&o]
what a shame [&o]
#9

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,370
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: kenilworth , UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: turnnburn
Horrible wing section ?? Please explain ?
Horrible wing section ?? Please explain ?
yeh sure, the deepest part of the wing was really far back (like 50% cord) which to me, made it not particularly nice to fly at slow speeds with no flaps (which most never had). Also the lack of washout didn't help either. In fact didn't BVM vac form some leading edge droops to tame this wild beast? I think they did. As far as I see it, each BVM sport jets is a improvement on its predecessor and the Maverick is now a 20+ year old design and things have moved a long way on since.
jason
#10

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: saint petersburg ,
FL
mine dead sticked on me one time and the glide factor set in on a long distance pass. never had any problems with tip stall or controlability. now that doesnt mean i made the runway
but it never had any bad habits at extreamly low speeds. but your rite the newer the bvm sport jets get the better they fly.
...mike
but it never had any bad habits at extreamly low speeds. but your rite the newer the bvm sport jets get the better they fly....mike
#11

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,370
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: kenilworth , UNITED KINGDOM
Mike
I see you have flaps on yours and they would have helped no end. Mine never had flaps and was a tippy pig on dead stick or slow landings. Good for the reactions though
jason
I see you have flaps on yours and they would have helped no end. Mine never had flaps and was a tippy pig on dead stick or slow landings. Good for the reactions though

jason
#12

My Feedback: (15)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Marine on St. Croix,
MN
That's because his is the "Pro" The Maverick had split flaps. At least mine did I had one of each. My regular Mav had split flaps which I sealed permantly closed and had the leading edge droops. Both were great flyers. I sold them both to move up to the Bobcat.
#13

My Feedback: (49)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Arlington, TX
I guess I only flew them with flaps. I found it to have a very tame and predictable stall, much MUCH slower and tamer than my Ultra Viper. The wing leading edge droops made the Mav basically stall proof, well, it would stall but it was impossible to make it drop a wing tip. I tend to think you had yours balanced too far aft or just had too much elevator and tried to fly it too slow ( too high of an angle of attach). Or was yours perhaps way on the heavy side ? I thought ALL Mavericks called for flaps ? The regular Mavericks had the split flaps and the Mav Pro's had comventional type flaps.
#19

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,370
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: kenilworth , UNITED KINGDOM
ORIGINAL: turnnburn
BVM sold what maybe 300 of these tipy pigs ? Just think how many he would have sold if they flew worth a damn ?
BVM sold what maybe 300 of these tipy pigs ? Just think how many he would have sold if they flew worth a damn ?
J
#20

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: saint petersburg ,
FL
again...i liked mine with conventional flaps just fine. balance was good and only 14lbs wet. that was my first jet and served me well with 360 flights and over 11 years old.
...mike
...mike
#21
You guys dissing the Maverics and Mav Pros are SMOKING CRACK!!!! That, in my opinion was the best damn "pre turbine" plane ever built. I still have my Mav Pro and fly it still with a 91 (the 96 wore out). I too wish Bobby would re-introduce the plane or sell the molds. A friend of mine has two NIB, seems he is stock piling.
Anyway, my 5 cent worth.
Anyway, my 5 cent worth.
#23
Senior Member
My Feedback: (21)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Colorado Springs,
CO
I have to agree, I love my Maverick. 165 Ducted Fan flights, and now 118 Turbine flights after it's conversion. It was a great Jet to prep for turbines and now is a great warm up Jet before flying it's faster big brother Bandit's.
I put the leading edge droops on after a huge scare on it's third flight, and that seems to have cured the snap tendency. It had stock split flaps as a DF but I changed them over to larger Bandit style flaps when I converted it, just in case I needed more drag to overcome residual thrust from the turbine.
I have given it more than it's fair share of abuse over the years and I have to say it has held up extrememly well. Tough little Jet.
Maybe BVM wasn't happy with it but I sure am!!
I put the leading edge droops on after a huge scare on it's third flight, and that seems to have cured the snap tendency. It had stock split flaps as a DF but I changed them over to larger Bandit style flaps when I converted it, just in case I needed more drag to overcome residual thrust from the turbine.
I have given it more than it's fair share of abuse over the years and I have to say it has held up extrememly well. Tough little Jet.
Maybe BVM wasn't happy with it but I sure am!!
#24

My Feedback: (49)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Arlington, TX
Who said BVM wasnt happy with it ? The guy from England was critcal of the airfoil which in my opnion is ridiculous. This is one of the easiest and best flying DF jets EVER. They make a great Turbine powered model as well but the wing loading does get a little high.



