To buy or not to buy

[pipercub123]

I now have two good crashes on my 29% Airwild Extra 260. I like the plane as it's light and flies well. I've been considering buying an Aeroworks Yak 54, but it seems heavy compared to the 260. I've read other posts of people complaining that the 260 is too light weight. This is my first 50cc powered plane so I'm not to familiar with what's normal damage during dead stick landings in the rough. The rough I mention is taller field grass with a few ruts from a tractor, nothing that bad. Two times now I put it in and torn off the whole motor box in about the same spot. I've put other .60 sized planes down with no more damage than a broken prop. During the first crash, I had no broken prop. The stock DA muffler stack tore back and in the process ripped my fire wall. Now this time around I used nylon bolts on the gear and have less damage. My prop did get a light crack, but not broken in half as I'm used to. That is a good hunk of wood, but shouldn't the motor box withstand breaking a prop without tearing itself apart? Perhaps this plane is too weak? I know it holds up to blenders!

So one question is, are our giant planes weaker than the smaller ones because of their weight, speed, and the limited thickness of balsa available without gaining excessive weight?

I like my planes to be rugged enough to withstand a few deadsticks and rough landings as these things just seem to happen. I never bash land mine, but my engine trouble is forcing me to deadstick a few rough ones.


My second question is, perhaps I should put this plane on the back burner again and bring out later for an electric conversion? That should help limit the dead sticks even though electric isn't 100% perfect.

I really can't afford another plane, but all the time I spend rebuilding I could be doing over time to buy a plane that will hold up, unless this is the norm.

So third question is if I buy a new plane, I want a quality plane that will last and one that I can be proud to show up with to the field. I fly mostly IMAC, but I like to 3D and would like to see how the Yaks 3D. I love fast vertical performance. I would like to try a canister or tuned pipe so having a model with a pipe tunnel would be awesome so I can get it quieter. I also need something that's easy to see in the air as I mostly fly in whitish overcast days where a lot of white on a plane just doesn't work.

I've been leaning towards the Aeroworks Yak 54, but am thinking a Wildhare or TOC Xtreme to keep costs down. The Magic Hand planes seem like a nice affordable option as well. I am leaning towards Airwild though as I've heard so much good about them. So what do you guys think? Rebuild the 260 or time to move on?

[Tired Old Man]

The first part of your post so closely mirrors a complaint I was communicated to me at the field yesterday that I just have to respond.

Yesterday, a guy at the field told me that upon one specific "landing" that his XX% Whatsit got a "little" sideways on the runway. In doing so it skidded the landing gear for some distance in a "span wise" direction. Although it seemed to handle it well a later inspection revealed that the skidding and chattering gear legs broke all the balsa longerons adjacent to the gear box. The complaint? None of his other planes had ever done that in all the similar landings he had had before. That particular type of "arrival" is very close to a groundloop. Something frequently quite damaging in full scale aircraft.

Prior to the Whatsit all his planes had been for the most part trainers of one sort or another. His highest performing plane was one he used for sport racing, A World Models T-28 powered by a sport .40 engine. Other than that one, most had been "Sticks" of one version or another. All of those planes were designed and built to handle the abuse that "newbies" and those with rough fingers normally dish out. Not maximum performance planes but they fly ok and are typically reasonably durable.

So by moving up to the Whatsit he moved to higher performance. In his case the size difference between what he had been flying and is flying now was not all that significant, but the performance level was. Performance planes are built lighter in order to provide that performance gain. There are other differences in the design for sure but a good part of it comes at a lighter weight. To get them lighter balsa is substitued for ply. Fewer bulkheads are incorporated in the fuselage structure. Shaped foam is substituted for a balsa turtledeck. Some of the higher end planes actually use shaped foam for the top and bottom of the aft fuselage.

The performers are larger, so even though light they still have a significant amount of mass when they "hit the dirt". They have longer wing spans, causing a larger arc and more centrifical force when they hook a wingtip on the ground. The gear plates and firewalls are the minimum size required to attach that oh so wonderful engine. Back to light weights again.

So are the higher performing planes more fragile than the usual "box" designs found in such abundance at most flying fields? They most certainly are but then again they were intended for talented hands. Hands that typically excersize a little more care and skill in R/C flight operations. The rough hands or the ones that fly a tank dry or don't know the correct way to tune an engine will damage and lose more planes. Unfortunately that's all part of the learning experience.

The more expensive the lesson the better it will generally be learned.

BTW, there's no such thing as fast vertical performance with a Yak. Same with a Sukhoi. Their design generally prohibits "fast".

As for plane choices, although the Wild Hare planes are less expensive than most in a similar size that by no means thye are any less capable. Matter of fact, they are equal or better than the planes that sell for a much higher dollar cost. Wild Hare does not use a middle man importer so they don't have an added level of profit that many do. They don't have 2 or more partners requiring a profit split. They limit their advertising budget, including sponsorships, passing that dollar savings on to the customer with a lower kit price. They don't need to make the maximum profit on every sale.

Wild Hare started the 50cc market with good designs and good flying planes and have only gotten better with each new release. You may not have a superstar name attached to the kit but the W/H kits absolutely are as good or better than anything else in each respective size class. In some cases better. Since W/H founded the 50cc market everyone has been trying to play catch up ever since. Seems they all believe that if their stuff sells for a higher price people will think it's "better". It's not. None of them have been able to match the customer service provided by Wild Hare. W/H planes do very well in IMAC competitions. Just as well as the people flying them. That's the same with any kit. None will fly better than the person at the sticks knows how to do.

[skyesdad]

TOM you hit the nail on the head I am on my 5 wild hare and they take a likin and keep on tickin