rjbranchii

Mike:

I live near sea level (650 ft) and have read some of the comments regarding power concerns with the plane at higher elevations. Is a Saito .91 adequate to hover the plane at my lower elevations?

bob branch
Harsens Island, Michigan

spinner11

My Feedback: (37)

I've gotten to the point that I won't even consider purchaseing a plane until I have seen it fly...in person or on video. It is too hard to understand how a plane flies from a review. So what ever H9's new bird is pleeeeaaaase make a video of it. Be sure to put it through the moves.

I don't have a trailer but love the gassers. The 50cc market seems to be blowing up rite now and for obvious reasons. The planes are still small enough to fit in an SUV or truck bed. Thier cost is a lot less than the 33% to 35%.

Two piece wing is a must for me as I transport them in the cab.

Fire wall that can easily accept different types of motors. (possibly provide adapter)

Provide hardware.

Place the tank on the CG.

How bout an ultimate bipe or cap.

Thanks for asking Mike.

adrian-RCU

love the funtana90 - thanks guys, marvelous quality for 210$ really!!! and yes i would love a 140 funtana!!!!!

i still enjoy my 40/saito91 and my ultimate is getting there!

lyndon915

My Feedback: (1)

Mike,
I work at a Hobby shop and got the first Funtana 90 we were shipped. I know many people, me included, that would love a reasonably priced 50cc airplane. I personally like the ultimate but the 40% is just too big to transport.
An Ultimate with a 78 to 80 inch wing and removable stab would be wonderful. If it could weigh in at around 15 to 17 pounds it would be awesome. The removable stab is very important so that I can transport a plane in my car. I can fit the double vision in my car easier than I can my funtana 90 because the stab is removable. I was considering a double vision to be my next plane but if Hanger 9 or Horizon was going to make a bipe in the 80 inch range I would be very interested.
hope my input can be of some help.

MOJO65-9or10

Her was the origanal question.

"Guys, what attributes do you want to see in a 3D model? As compared to the Funtana 90, what in terms of performance would you liek to see different to give you the "perfect" model."

I am nearly finished with my 90s and can tell you what I would have preferred them to have done.

1. Enlarge the servo openings just a bit so i can fit my Hitec servos without cutting the covering and filing the opening.
2. A firewall that will withstand a BIG engine. I do understand that they are usually fine for the suggested engine but understand that a lot of people will be overpowering them and build the firewall for it. Forget the rest of the plane. If they fly to fast and the wings or control surfaces fall off they will learn there own lesson.
3. Spare covering 2 square feet of the main color and 1 square foot of the rest. Realize 3D plane are more likly to crash.
4. Up the price and give TOP QUALITY hardware. Sullivan ROCKS.
5. Give us a top quality material to seal the gaps in our control surfaces. I mean you tell use we MUST DO IT so why isn't it in the kit. (clear covering or type)
6. A heavyduty paper tube that is built into the tail to route your servo leads. That way that are not flopping around or a pain to attach.
7. Tall Gear is a must. Do not attach the tail wheel to the rudder because it takes to much abuse.

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

One thing I have to agree with in the above post. You guys really need to get with the program when it comes to tailwheels. That is the one item in a small to mid size Hanger 9 kit that ALWAYS gets tossed. I'll happily spring a few extra bucks for a better tailwheel. Heck I am doing it now so wouldn't you rather have a few dollars more of my money?

I realize that some few guys out there may grease every landing and their field may be perfect, but I don't and mine ain't so I have to upgrade in this area. While you are at it, a taller main landing gear would be nice too.

islandflyer

Mike,

Thank you for asking us, and keep putting out the quality ARFs you do. Of course, they could all be more perfect, but at what cost ? I have built and flown quite a few kits and ARFs, and I only kept my favorites (3 of 5 are H9: Funtana 90/ Saito 1.50, Funtana 40/ Saito .91, 33% Cap 232/ DA 100; Others: Aeroworks freedom, Troy Built Models 42% Extra 260)
A lot of the hardware could be upgraded, but many of us have our preferences and would change it any way.
I agree though that a little extra covering for minor patching would be great, along with hinge gap sealing material (clear ultracote?).
The Funtana 90 is very close to the ultimate affordable 3D machine in my book. Maybe a 50cc size would be better combine sequence flying and 3D flying, while remaining affordable. A better wood selection at the factory should help producing planes that are closer to the weight they were designed to be: I doubt if any production kit came out close to 8.1lbs, assembled per instructions, and CG at 7-1/8".
Personnal preference: I wish you would not use transparent covering that make our planes look like gliders or park flyers.

Wishing you all some great flying,

Islandflyer

1fish

My Feedback: (3)

I dont care much what a plane looks like, I only care about how it flys.
I want a plane that can slow down to a crawl, and stay stable, but can also run at full throttle with out worry about the wing or rudder comming apart.
I want a plane that will hover with out constant input (my DP 330 extra will almost hover hands free!)
I like planes that fly light with plenty of power from the reccomended engine, goes vertical untill I tell it not to.
I like clear understandable instructions with options for servo placement using a few of the most popular engines available to balance with no addtional lead.
I want a plane that the covering dosent come off after the second week.
I want a plane that the landing gear dosent need to be re-bent every other day even on soft landings..
I want a plane that comes with quality equipment and fittings, and tires...

I know this is asking alot but I wouldent mind paying for it I end up buying lots of upgrades anyway so why not just include the good stuff in the package

My favorite planes at this time are the Edge 540t by Extreme Flight and my Dave Patrick Extra 330L... I have two other gassers and two glow powered planes but those two are the ones I bring out on Saturday and Sunday every week.....

fiveoboy01

My Feedback: (3)

Something I'd like to see:

An airplane that will actually balance CLOSE to the recommended CG point, with the largest recommended engine, without having to put the battery pack in the cowl and add a bunch of lead(IE, the Funtana 90).

Any explanation for this??

I also tossed the tailwheel. Junk, worthless for an airplane of this size.

Other than that, I really like the F90, and can't wait to maiden it this weekend.

I'd like to see H9 produce a profile ARF with extremely light wing loading, fairly long moment, and large control surfaces, that can excel in all facets of 3D performance. Resistance to tip stalling/wing rocking is also a plus for ANY 3D airplane.

A smaller 50cc airplane would also be great.

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

Its a very tall order to come up with a design that has a long tail moment, add a substantial tail wheel, make it very light and make it balance. I dont see and opportunity in the F90 to remove weight from the tail w/o sacrificing needed strength. Thats why the tailwheel is what it is. Remember on a model like that, the tail moment vs. nose monemt is about 3:1, so if you add a tailwheel that is 2 oz heavier than the one supplied, you need 6 oz in the nose to offset it.
I think the long tailm moment of the F90 is pretty important to its flight performance. Model design is always a series of compromises to get to a good end result.
Menaing, lighter tail, they break in the air, shorter tail, they dont fly as well.

rmh

FWIW- My Funtana 90 -is built stock including servo arms etc ., per the pics in the manual-Idid leave out all of the little ball link stand offs tho -they simply are not needed to gain clearance and the ball links are now closer to the plastic horns -reducing any torque loads .
Mine actually balanced nose heavy with the little gasser I used and for the Doubting Thomases, the engine runs with less vibration than the glow engines used by many .
Great model -no problems.
I certainly would NOT use a gas engine which shakes as some engines do --
I ordered another one to try new 100 two stroke-------------------------------------------------------------

Tjeff

Mike, I agree. I used the stock tail wheel and have no weight/balancing issues even though I used a smaller four-stroke.

I think the Funtana is as good as it gets for the money. No complaints.

I would like to see Hanger 9 come out with a line of 50cc planes.

Cheech

My Feedback: (19)

Hello MMcConville. Here's my $.02. Many people talked about 1/4 scale-ish aerobats for 50cc engines. My biggest airplane is now a Patrick Edge. It's on a big MOKI glow engine. I've has bigger gasoline planes, but we have issues with sound at our field. Gasoline in general is banned and those planes have been sold.

The field would support at least 100" 1/3 scale aerobats with ease. BUT they would need to be quiet. So what I'd like to see are good scale aerobatic planes that are either setup for after market exhaust canisters or easy to modify. The 87" YAK from Extreme Flight has my interest because it's setup for the DA50 on canisters. My club members would have no problem with that sound level, and that is about the only kind of planes & flying I am interested in.

-Mark Devino

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

I have a F90 too and mine was EXTREMELY tailheavy .. Im using a O.S 91 FS APC 15x6.. I have the battery mounted on the firewall next too the motor and the throttle servo mounted on the other side and it still is 1/2" tailheavy not to mention the lack of power. the Saito 100 is lighter than the O.S. so i know i would never get it to balance with that... Im in the process this week of putting my O.S. 120 16x4w on it and moving the gear back to were its supposed to go to get the power and weight right. looks like it will fly great with some more power in my case. it wont hover full throttle. it slides backwards or falls off... it does killer rolling harriers and circles an blenders though

P.S do you guys sell extra cowls i need one for it after cutting it again. not to mention the first day i was flying it i was setting up the spoilerons on my mini 3d electric when i accedently hit reverse on channel 3,,,,,OOOOOPS!! next time im taking the prop off when programing.. I had a jumping jack do the same thing while i was sitting in the floor in front of it and those APC-E props will cut a foot up nicely[:@]

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

drumbum, what tailwheel did you use on your F90?

Yes cowls are available. F90 cowl is part number HAN2682. Looks like plenty are in stock.

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

the wheel that came with it

I called about the problem and they told me to move the stuff around like i did to get it to balance but it is still too heavy for the 91 i think i will be happier with the 120 In my case

my plane was a preview batch bought in indiana before the plane was released maybee that was the deal with it but I enjoy it other than the weight problem

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

Yes, it does blenders very well. I was so into it that I forgot to recover and flat spinned mine into the bean field. I dunno why people are saying the wings are weak. I broke the landing gear off and bent the wing tube while pushing in the side of the fuse, but the wings came out unscathed.

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

Honestly there would be no difference in your model drimbum. We typically dont do preview batches and didnt on the F90.

helijeff

I purchased one of the first Funtana 90's in my area back in June. Loved how it came and looked in the box. I did scimp on the servos and installed infearier servos. Only to quickly learn that it was going to take good high torqe servos to handle those large control surfaces. After rebuilding the front end of the Funtana 90 ( due to the crash ) and installing the new Hitek HS645MG servos. It all come togeather nicely. I've got it powered with an OS 120 FS. It hovers at half stick using an APC 16/4w prop. By using the OS 120 FS and a 5 cell battery pack. The balance came out perfectly. All servos in original locations. I did modify the areas on the tail surfaces where the control horns mount by using some thin plywood on both sides to stiffin up the mounting area. Now those control horns won't pull through the soft basa. ALso I did not use the ball type linkage rod clevis on the ailirons. Noticed that they caused the horns to twist, which could induce flutter. All in all, I now have over a dozen flight on my Funtana 90 and have loved every bit of it. I've been flying for 30 years this summer. And the Funtana 90 has to at the top of my list for being, not only a very sharp looking airplane. But one VERY fun airplane to fly. I highly recommend it!

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

is it a surpass or old fs.. i have the old FS.

Mike the shop it came from was in davenport ILL
guy said it was a preview

I know i got it 3 weeks before horizon had it if you call that a preview

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

I can see how there could be some confusion there. Of course all come through Horizon, as we are Hangar 9. However we ship all LHS back orders before we ship any through our catalog division (Horizonhobby.com). In the case of the F90, the first containers werent enough to cover both, so we didnt ship catalog orders for a few weeks afterward.
However from a production standpoint, they are all from the same timeframe.

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

I just got through tonight putting my O.S.120 FS in the place of my .91 but thher is 1 question mike.. in order to keep the carb linkage from hitting the fierwall the spinner backplate is 3/8 further foreward.. will this have any advrese efects on the plane?

B.T.W. my plane with the 120 on it balanced perfect with the battery still on the firewall and the throttle servo i had to move back to just behind the fuel tank.. thats how tail heavy it was..

as long as i have no problems with the motor being a little moer foreward my power problem should be solved. i went with a 16x4w.. the 1.20 shouldnt even break a sweat there and i should only have to full throttle it for vertical pullout.

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

My guess is that 3/8" farther forward with the engine will have no noticable effect on the model.

Volfy

My Feedback: (23)

I seldom use the bent-wire tailwheel assembly that come with most ARFs. Still, I would prefer H9 NOT spend money on more expensive tailwheels. Preferences vary widely and there is no pleasing every modeler. In fact, I would prefer ALL ARFs come without hardware (control horns, linkages, motor mounts, etc.), but instead offer hardware packs for those who don't want to pick and choose their own parts.

With the persistent complaint about control surface flutter with these huge ailerons on 3D ships, I wonder if it would be a good idea to split the ailerons into quad flaps, a la the Ultra Sticks. This way, those who don't want to buy high-dollar digital high-torque servos can use two less expensive standard servos to actuate each wing panel. You can either use Y splitter, or those with computer radios can program the quad flaps to add another dimension to the flight capability.

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

One issue with the split aileron idea is doing it with cheap servos is counter productive to the models performance. Getting 4 surfaces track together is difficult with good equipment. It would seem proper aileron differenital would be unlikey and the ne result would be that guys wouldnt like the way it flies as well. Can also effect loop tracking if they arent neuralizing well.
Food for thught.