Originally Posted by jamal ahmad

Also I guess the Pilot RC is coming out with new version as they have the 91 inch extra in the market. Basically more aileron and elevator surfaces.

More is not always better. For the average pilot super exaggerated surface sizes on the wings especially can make the plane pretty squirrely. Extra huge rudders with the wrong ratio of counterbalance size can introduce all kinda of adverse ya issues and can introduce some roll coupling which sux because it's at a varying rate depending on speed and deflection.

Not saying bad things about Pilot, just that bigger is not always better for those things for average Joe rc flyer.

Pilot vs. EF

The EF plane comes out of the box straight, with stab incidences correct and hold up better after 150 flights. That's my experience with both. I will say I do like the Pilot color schemes!

Originally Posted by 5150flyer

Pilot vs. EF

The EF plane comes out of the box straight, with stab incidences correct and hold up better after 150 flights. That's my experience with both. I will say I do like the Pilot color schemes!

I don't have the same experience. My 107" Yak 54 is straight as an arrow and I have somewhere around 200 hard flights on it without any kind of issue, aside from some covering peeling back. I fly it every weekend

I also have a 107" Edge that is straight as an arrow, but that's essentially NIB, never flown it.

Issues can happen to every brand and fortunately both brands seem to be interested in keeping the customer happy, although Pilot only has the logistical issue.

Originally Posted by FGNewbie

Probably not. The EF is not a light airplane.

well i own the aeroworks 260 qb-l , pilot-rc and extreme flight considering the size difference between the 3 the extreme flight extra 300 has to be the heaviest of all and the lightest has to be the aeroworks extra 260 110 inch

Pilot-Rc Yak54 Dle-120cc enjoying the sunday (7 min 5 sec)

this is me flying my pilot-rc yak54 let me know what you think of it , its the old version hope this helps in regards with this topic

All 5 of my pilot Rc planes came out of the box with zero issues. Not a blob of glue needed (except for gluing in the firewall) to strengthen any joint.
Even the covering was tight.
Incidence on all planes was also as per the manual. Hardware was all usable and good quality right down to the spinner that just needed a small bit of balancing.
Hinges were all glued in and moving freely without me needing to take a scalpel to remove any excess to get free range of movement.

And the kicker is they once built and balanced to the point indicated by the CG mark inside the fuselage they fly beautifully with almost no trim needed.

A lot of issues I've seen with built pilot-Rc planes is due to the builder being inexperienced. For a lot of people the price point is attractive for a first large scale gasser. Coupled to inexperience of assembling such aircraft LS gasser newbies end up making a lot of mistakes during the assembly.
E. G .
A friend if mine bought a yak 54 30% second hand. The owner gave up on the airframe during assembly because he described it as junk.
When we collected the airframe we discovered that the owner had glued the glass fiber servo arms into the aileron and elevator control horn slots and used the aileron control horns as the rudder control horns. Clearly the manual had not been consulted at any stage!
We paid for the airframe (70% discount) and left with an otherwise sound airframe . We fitted miracle and secraft hardware after removing the mistakes . The plane is now flying with it only weakness being the jc60 in the cowl��

What is the point of these threads?

Originally Posted by FGNewbie

What is the point of these threads?

People just want to buy the best kit for their hard earned cash :198


Myself I like EF, but the EF manuals leave a lot to be desired, EF make an A grade kit with a D grade manual, secondly I think the smaller 60" kits from EF were better 5 years ago but hey anyone can slip.


I have never owned a Pilot but am thinking of a 30cc edge with a VVRC 40 twin, why, just for s#%ts and giggles to be honest, my whole fleet is EF.


my 2c.

Jeff Williams writes the manuals for EF, he is a poster on FG so perhaps you could share your concerns with him. I don't remember having any issues with the manual for the Extra, but if you think the EF manuals are bad, don't even think about a Pilot. The only thing a Pilot manual is good for is when your barbeque doesn't light.

I have both Pilot and EF airframes, and am looking forward to adding to both in the future. I don't understand the idea that we are supposed to be on one side or the other.

These days if you need a manual for anything other than the CG and maybe some suggestions you have stepped out of your league and maybe need to do some more research.

Sorry, just my .02. ARF's these days are so easy to put together its crazy.

The manuals are very outdated, for example the extra manual asks for a wood screws to attach the wheel pants but the wheel pants are attached with blind nuts, this is only one example. It is not badly written, it is just lazy to be honest, they should be updated.


A premium kit with a premium price demands a premium manual, I am a smart guy I can work around it but the point is that I should not have to.


My 2c


p.s. I know what you mean, my friends have owned Pilot and they love them, I would buy one in a heart beat.

Originally Posted by terryscustom

These days if you need a manual for anything other than the CG and maybe some suggestions you have stepped out of your league and maybe need to do some more research.

Sorry, just my .02. ARF's these days are so easy to put together its crazy.

I do not need the manual, that is not the point, the point is a premium kit with a crappy manual is just plain lazy, sorry that is just the way it is. I barely use the manual, but some people may really need it, we fork over good money, we pay a premium for quality, we should be demanding quality on all levels.

Originally Posted by billtnuc

The manuals are very outdated, for example the extra manual asks for a wood screws to attach the wheel pants but the wheel pants are attached with blind nuts, this is only one example. It is not badly written, it is just lazy to be honest, they should be updated.


A premium kit with a premium price demands a premium manual, I am a smart guy I can work around it but the point is that I should not have to.


My 2c


p.s. I know what you mean, my friends have owned Pilot and they love them, I would buy one in a heart beat.

There are most likely also notes either in the manual or on the website stating that they reserve the right to change products at any point with updates, product improvements etc. Most companies assume that in the year 2016 people can relate to improvements and problem solve if the picture does not match what they have in their hand.

Going from wood screws to blind nuts is hardly a complaint, sheesh.

Still not the point, point is you are building a kit and the manual should reflect the kit, it is lazy pure and simple, why build 50 prototypes and not spend five seconds updating the manual. On RCGroups people glued the wrong control horns into the msxr because the manual was wrong, this is not on.


EF make a great ARF I will not dispute that, my whole fleet is EF but they are expensive and the manuals leave a lot to be desired, notes on a website etc mean nothing, lazy is lazy pure and simple. The manuals have very little notes in them, and a lot of the notes are wrong, you might as well throw the manual in the trash.


The blind nuts are not the only problem I found in the extra manual, there are many, I can handle different pictures but a change is a change, manual needs to reflect the change which was probably made many years ago.

[QUOTE=terryscustom;2507530]These days if you need a manual for anything other than the CG and maybe some suggestions you have stepped out of your league and maybe need to do some more research.