RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

I think Kevin has put it very eloquently. I am not, for one moment, suggesting that every time a model crashes even in "suspicious" circumstances the manufacturer should replace it but what I AM saying is that where there is absolutely clearly a design or manufacturing defect then the manufacturer SHOULD replace the entire airframe, if lost as a result of that problem, or the suspect parts if the machine is still in one piece.

This hobby has moved on from the box of bits which the buyer assembles. We are now being asked to pay serious amounts of money for essentially prebuilt machines, and I, believe we have a right to expect them to be totally suitable for the intended purpose, without the need for alteration or modification, or replacement or money back.

I agree with Kevin in that BVM does very exhaustively test his products but we know only too well in full size aviation that even the most demanding testing can fail to reveal problems which show up in service later. When such problems do surface they should be fixed, and fast, and sometimes that will cost.

Regards,

David Gladwin

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

David

I agree 100% with Kevin and yourself. In fact I am surprised that, in the litigation conscious US, no one has sued to recover the total cost of the loss if a Kingcat has gone down due to boom failure. It is marketed as, and priced as, a premium quality product and the manufacturer should stand behind the product and make good when there has ben an inherent failure in that product whether it is a washing machine or a jet model.

It may be, of course, that restitution has been made that has not been publicised.

John

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

The lack of litigation shows that most jet modelers are GOOD people, out to have fun in a safe manner.
sue happy people is something that we could all do without.
A Kingcat has not caused a major incident or resulted in harm to anyone. BVM has made an effort to fix it, so I guess we are on the road to recovery as far as this issue is concerned. BV has probably lost a lot of sleep over this, because I'm sure that he is truly concerned.

Dan

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Well, I have both and flown them both and they they are similar. The Hustler is built tougher and flies cleaner then the Kingcat. The Kingcat will fly slower and a bit more aerobatic but if you want a plane to last for a long time then the Hustler is a better choice. The Hustler is also easier to repair and fix and no rowcell (sp) foam inside to collapse. I know BVM sent out the fixed with the carbon plates in th ebooms, but I still and not 100 percent sure it takes care of the problem of the booms folding. Lastly Tom, at Jet Model Products, makes the best landing gears around I think. Take a look at the Best in the West Video and you'll see my Hustler hit a fence. That was a very solid hit and all I need to fix is the left wing panel. If it was a Kingcat I know I would l have replaced the whole plane. I still own both planes and will fly both, but will probably fly the Hustler more in the future.

Sung

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Go with the Hustler! Have you ever seen the composites this thing is made of. It is soooooo strong. Lotsa carbon! and i mean a lot! My friend flies a kingcat, and man i gotta say that it seems very flimsy. I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT FLYING WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS, just my opinion. Nick

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

So what makes you think that the problem with the KingCat was a design or manufacturing defect? I have a lot of experience with KingCats - I've built 3 for NASA and the Army, repaired them when they crashed them, maintained them, have witnessed over 300 flights on them, and put over 100 flights on them myself - not to mention seeing more of them than I care to at flyins here in the US. I have NEVER yet seen on fail in flight, and I have NEVER seen one develop any cracks or soft spots in the booms that were not directly a result of handling the plane on the ground or how its carried in the trailer. I HAVE seen damage (some fairly extensive) to the booms as a result of that, but even so, they never failed in flight.

I know that BV doesn't handle his KingCats in the same way as his customers do and he would like them not to, but I think he did the right thing by offering the fix for free and getting it out there as soon as possible. You could possibly fault him for not thinking of all of the ways his customers may use (or abuse) his product, but realistically, that's all.

As far as the quality of the KingCat vs. the Composite ARF stuff built right next to it, I've done both, and the work that they do for BVM is much better. Also, all of the interior parts are cut in FL by BMV and sent over there for assembly inside the skins, and the interior structure of the KingCat is much beefier than the Composite ARF. Also, the amount of hardware you get in the BMV kit is WAY ahead of that in a Composite ARF kit. Finally, if you add up the price of a Composite ARF Euro, the gear, wheels, brakes, kevlar tanks, UAT, etc. that is included in the price of a KingCat, I'll bet you'd be d&$! close to the price of the KingCat. Finally, call down to BVM and see how long it takes you to get help - then do the same for Composite ARF. I've called down there and had BV himself answer questions, no problem - I'm still trying to find out how I'm going to get replacement tires for the Euro gear I got from Composite ARF - after a year, and asking probably five times.

You are either willing to pay for what you get from BVM, or you're not. I've been lucky enough to have built several, and own one BVM kit, and several other jets, and if you can afford it, the BVM stuff is worth what he charges. If you don't think so, don't buy it, he won't care...

Now lets get back to the discussion on the Hustler vs. the KingCat as a model and leave the BMV bashing and defending to another thread...

Bob

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

I thought that the Kingcat was a pretty robust airplane. The Hustler must be built like a tank!!!! Like an A10, takes hits from the enemy and still returns home.

Dan

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Well said! Why do these threads always go this way???

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Gee:
Am I mistaken or was Bob just bashing composite ARF.

Dave :eek:

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

No, I have a Euro, and I love it. I got what I paid for there too - less $'s than a KingCat, but I had to supply almost everything and do a lot more of my own "design" and building to get everything in it. As for the gear/wheels/brakes from Composite ARF, they took a lot of "tweaking" to get right, and I'm still not sure where I'm gonna' get tires, but they were about half the price of the other alternatives - I got what I paid for there as well...

Bob

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Thanks for all the contributions, in particular the guys who answered my original question straight without any additional baggage. I asked as a potential customer for either. Would be nice to hear from more Hustler flyers. The engine thrust angle puzzles me a little on the Kingcat, some seem to have more than others.

Rob.

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

You must read the comments about Kingcat booms from those who have seen or experienced boom structural problems in the rest of the thread, and the other relevant one, then you will see the answer to your question, quite clearly !

But its a funny old world. When pilots were losing BobCats as result of diminshed pitch response (despite, I am assured by several who suffered crashes that their models were built EXACTLY as per BVM spec. ) I wrote an article for RCJI which was in DEFENCE of the excellent Bobcat airframe (I own and fly two ) but suggested we could well remove any possible problem with elevator servos by installing more powerful units, and showing how simple the mod. is using BVM parts. Hardly rocket science but for DEFENDING and suggesting an easy improvement to the BC I am now, it seems, very unpopular at BVM despite all of the support I have given these generally, superb products over the years.

This thread, and the other realting to the problem, , clearly shows there has been a Kingcat boom problem and I put forward how I think the manufacturer should have reponded to the problem. I was, never have, and am not bashing BVM or anyone else, just facing reality, we are just deluding ourselves if we do otherwise.

But I' d ask the question, why is it that when every other manufacturer can be discussed on RCU why is it we are accused of "bashing" when a problem with a BVM model is raised and objectively discussed ? Problems occurr from time to time on almost every aeroplane, thats (aviation) life. If you are to compare the Hustler with the Kingcat EVERY aspect of these two airframes needs to be discussed to make a meaningful comparison.

And I will make this point too. In fullsize aviation the professional press such as "Flight International" frequently discuss problems with aircraft and associated equipment, whether GA, air transport or military and often report and analyse accidents or aircraft defects in great detail. I have never heard (although it may happen, I doubt it ) of the press being accused of "bashing" those manufacturers or products or receiving any hostility. Pit the same mature and realistic attitude can't apply in the model jet world.

Regards,

David Gladwin.

PS I transport my Bobcats in the back of my estate car on their wheels, booms and stab. atached and the booms have not yet shown any signs of fatigue or other distress.

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

And I put forward how I thought your opinion was inaccurate in some respects... Why did that opinion need to re-expressed again in this thread? Why not leave it at the simple mention of the boom problem and its apparent resolution? Now back to the original discussion...

Its not transporting it on the wheels that's the problem. BV's KingCats have many tens of thousands of miles being transported like that - its being transported and handled by the booms...

Bob

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Rob-
Sorry you got all the baggage from previous threads concerning the boom question with the KingCat.

Like I stated earlier that with the internal structure of the Hustler being all carbon fiber construction, and the wing skins carbon fiber, it will take a considerable amount of abuse. I don't recommend hitting a runway light or fence with it , but it shows that when an error in judgment happens that you have a chance of not loosing your investment.
The KingCat has internal parts of ply and balsa and the skins are glass and rohacell or glass and balsa neither as strong as carbon.
The landing gear differences should also be noted.
The Hustler 's gear retracts inward, where the KingCat retracts to the rear. The KingCats gear puts all the loads on the trunnion and the slider, where the Hustlers gear spreads the load out over the main pivots making the whole unit bullet proof as stated by Sung in an earlier post. I've seen some bad landings, but I have not ever seen a JMP unit ever fail.

The Hustler also comes with full landing gear doors, which to me is what a jet is suppose to look like , nice and clean in the air.

As for the funny thrust angle , I would assume that it is to correct a pitch up problem. The Hustler's thrust line is on the C/L of the air frame and does't change the pitch of the aircraft under power up or down situations.
The Hustler has 4 flap panels ( inboard and out board of the booms) to slow it way down on landing.
I have also seen this plane operate on only 300' of a grass runway , if space and a smooth paved runway is not available

Good Luck in your choice
You already know mine.
Marty O

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Rob,
As I said earlier, they are both great airplanes, personally, if I were to own one, it would be the Hustler hands down. There are a couple of reasons why.

1. Tom Cook himself, the man is a gentleman, his goal is YOUR success. I know that if somebody were to talk to him and want to buy a jet that they weren't ready for, Tom would be honest with them and tell them why a certain jet would or wouldn't be a good choice.

2. JMP kits are as close to perfect as you'll find. The ones I've seen were incredible, no huge gaps where pieces fit together, and the glass work is smoooooooooth.

3. Strong, not to call the Kingcat a weak airplane, but I do know the skins on BVM stuff are very soft, I've painted a Kingcat and am currently building a Super Bandit, the skins dent if you look at them wrong. Tom's stuff is bullet proof, well, maybe not quite THAT strong, but I do know you can smash the nose of a firebird or hustler into a wall, damage the wall, leave paint behind, and not have so much as dinged the fiberglass itself ;) (this type of treatment is not recommended by me or the manufacture however LOL)

4. The hardware in BVM and JMP kits is probably comparable. I've been very impressed by both, looking at the Hustler and the Firebird though I will say the hardware (retracts, struts etc) are much more heavy duty, this may add a little weight, but it also means you can fly off of some pretty rough fields too. The machined parts are works of art.

5. It's not the same jet everywhere. The Hustler is a little more money, probably a bit more work to build, but there are less of them, I like that. Kingcats run rampant, they're a good airplane, why wouldn't they, but personally, I like something that is a little different, there is certainly no lack of quality in buying a JMP kit, as I've stated I personally feel they're the highest quality kits out there, so you're not sacrificing anything to own a hustler over a kingcat.

6. I think it looks better, the canopy, engine mount, booms, they all look nicer IMO on the Hustler. It's a much more aggressive looking airplane.

So, is there anything I think negative about the Hustler?

Maybe the only thing would be that it is heavier than a Kingcat, perhaps the Kingcat will do 3D stuff better, I can't really honestly comment on that, but having said that, when Tom designed the Hustler I don't think he was all to concerned about floating around the sky at 20mph like you see being done with the Kingcats. Sure, it might be cool and different to do that slow stuff, but come on, it's a jet, for all out performance the Hustler has it over the Kingcat from all I've seen. When I build a jet I'm not looking for park flyer performance on the low end, I want balls to the wall over the top performance. The Hustler provides for sure.

My next kit will be a Firebird, yes they're expensive, yes, they're huge, yes they're heavier than other sport jets, yes they land faster, but it's a Jet, a real jet, and it's bad ass, to me, it's everything a jet should be :)

Jeremy

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

PS I transport my Bobcats in the back of my estate car on their wheels, booms and stab. atached and the booms have not yet shown any signs of fatigue or other distress.
[/quote]
Its not transporting it on the wheels that's the problem. BV's KingCats have many tens of thousands of miles being transported like that - its being transported and handled by the booms...

Bob
[/quote]

Then I unreservedly apologise. I ASSUMED that the model(s) which suffered boom failure/damage whilst being transported were being transported on their wheels, as I transport my Bobcats. I can now only presume they were being transported with the rear of the booms resting on something and much of the weight of the model was being supported by the booms, if that is so its hardly surprising they failed or were weakened. It seems a very unsympathetic way to handle such a structure.

I still think some handling by the booms should be possible, for example holding the booms , and nose, for a landing gear retraction check, without causing undue structural stress.

Regards,

David Gladwin.

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Of course I can't say that they were all transported that way, but the ones that were transported that way that I worked with suffered significant damage by doing so (even then though they didn't come off in the air).

I think limited handling of the model by the ends of the booms is OK such as you mention. On the early booms though, it was possible to deform the booms in some areas by grabbing them and squeezing too hard or pushing in on the sides too hard - note that this is not at the end of the booms under the rudder where the instructions tell you to handle the model by. I think all of that has been addressed by the carbon inserts though.

Bottom line is that the booms were designed to be LIGHT and STRONG, but not bullet proof. That resulted in the KingCat being lighter, and FLYING lighter than most other jets, the Hustler included, as mentioned above. If you want a jet that can get off of grass in 100' and fly at speeds between 200+ (KingCat with an AMT-450 on a government facility so no rules were broken :D) and 30- MPH, then the KingCat is a good option. If you want a plane that is built like a tank, then its probably not...

Bob

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Bob,
Just let them think what they want.... The problem is fixed. I do agree with your statements though. In the model aviation industry it's the pilots job to make sure the aircraft is worthy of flight. This means range checks, battery checks, structural integrity checks..... you know the drill. If something dosen't look right or feel right, don't fly.

Both planes are great planes for their intended customers. The Kingcat haters need to remember it was concieved to be a simple sport trainer, hence the simple landing gear (no doors). The Hustler to me looks like it is more of a speed/performance model (Tom flies it beatifully), where as the Kingcat is great for new jet pilots (simple to assemble/land). But don't get me wrong the KC is still quite capable of high end aerobatics. Also in this country 99% of us can't possibly go over 200 MPH.

To the guys actually trying to decide which plane to buy:
Buy whichever plane you like the best. Both are quality planes. As far as I know, both companies offer good service. I know for a fact that the BVM trailer stocks necessary repair parts for KC under carridges, always helpfull when at the events. The structural problems of the KC as mentioned here are not problems. The new booms are extremely strong, the ones with carbon on the outside are sufficiently strong. My personal KC has the external patches, and I am not afraid to stress them in flight. The problem of the Hustler possibly not landing as slowly is not really a problem, just have to remember that when it's time to land. The choice is yours, in the end you will be very happy and learn many new things about turbine powered flight.

Good luck, report back on your decisions and thought.

P.S. This weekend I intend to go fly my yellow and blue 80", twin boomed, turbine powered "Park Flyer". I hope it's not too windy! Now which color sun dress should I wear.... Give me a break...."I need a 'manly' jet..."

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

This weekend at Miss AB I put a lot of flights on a Hustler, really rang it out...

All I am going to say is... there are a few major flight differences between the KC and the Hustler.

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Well, that is what this thread is all about...

And they are???

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Hi Eddie, this is exactly the sort of info I am looking for, would appreciate a pm with the stuff you cannot say here.

Thanks in anticipation, Rob.

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Why would it be necessary to put it in a PM? I would think that an honest impression of the comparisons between the planes - that I'm sure Eddie can deliver - would be welcome here. Design of anything is always a compromise, and if two designers set out to design even to the *same* objectives, you're going to get two different results that have different strengths and weaknesses - let alone if the two designs were aimed at *different* objectives.

I'd like to hear what Eddie has to say about the two airplanes too - I hope he's willing to share his impressions...

Bob

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

well the angle depends on the engine you use
if you use the merlin at 120 it will bend anyway:D

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Well here is the problem... Neither plane is perfect.. I flew both and found out what each one can and
can not do..

The problem is (and this has happend before) I can't say what I think about an airplane without getting
emails chewing my *****... Some airframe designers can not seperate there plane from a personal attack.
you can't even state facts without people gettint upset...

I know, I have been there... I have over heard people saying the my Isobar looks like hammerd dog sh*T..
and you know I was upset... With time I realised, it had nothing to do with me... It was just my plane and I need
to work harder to fix that problem.

Then I relised there are somethings I cannot do.. Design a Good looking plane is one of them.. I can now actept that.

I can go on and on and say what I think of each plane...

There are 100 good things about the Hustler and 100 good things about the KC... nobody want to hear that..
they want to hear what is wrong or the differences of each plane...

Because both planes are in production, and the designers are tyring as hard as they can to make money, I not
going to say something (even if its facts) that can hurt there bussiness. There is nothing for me to gain..

So unless I get the OK from BV and TC.. I am keeping my mouth shut... hahah sorry..

Eddie Weeks

RE: Kingcat vs Hustler.
 

Eddie,

That's a shame. I would have hoped that this wasn't the case - I guess I'm nieve.

I don't think the Isobar looks like dog sh*T! I do however think that your personal incarnation of the Isobar that I saw at Fl Jets was in need of some cosmetic "upgrades" shall we say. :D Of course I'm sure that the same has been said of my personal incarnation of a Kangaroo...

Bob