QQ or AW

[Sukhoikid]

I might be purchasing a new airplane soon and stuck between a QQ Yak 120 or a AW yak 150cc. I have a DA150 and i plan to try to run grieves. I will be flying intermediate next year and I fly freestyle.

[psk560]

Umm, I just want to say........... Well, I can't decide....... Ok, go with........

Good luck Kevin! I made my decision based on the DA170!

SCHOOLS OUT FOR SUMMER!!!!
Craig

[Sukhoikid]

	Quote: Originally Posted by psk560
	Umm, I just want to say........... Well, I can't decide....... Ok, go with........ Good luck Kevin! I made my decision based on the DA170! SCHOOLS OUT FOR SUMMER!!!! Craig

just trying to get different opinions on the two airframes. If I had a 170 I would go with qq right off! but I only have a 150. plus i need to try to get it done before triple tree imac

[hpapilot]

I feel a build party coming on...

[luv2flyguy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by hpapilot
	I feel a build party coming on...

If you go with the Aeroworks QB you can have it done in no time at all. It would take a lot more time to put together the QQ. IMHO the AW quality of the QB planes is second to none and you can't go wrong.

[ddlstang]

The QQ on 150 and Greives flies just fine - no power problems.

Thought that might help - LOL

[hpapilot]

I think I'm going to spend a few days at Kevin's place before Triple Tree IMAC- flying in the day, building at night. So PLEASE vote for the easiest one guys!! LOL.

[Extra260]

Kevin, check out my build thread on the aeroworks. This plane is AWSOME. The qaulity is like no other and I should have it together in no time. Also I called qq and they seem to say they wont have the 120" in for a long time. The qq would take more time to build and from what I here the aw flys better...

[ferocious frankie]

AW! AW! AW! AW!

[rc4flying]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Extra260
	The qq would take more time to build and from what I here the aw flys better...

How can you say this about a build of the QQ 120 ?
I built one and was surprised how fast I got it built. As for flying IMAC, the QQ is darn good at it. Can't judge the AW as I have never owned one.
As for power with a 150 on Greeves for the QQ, you would not be disappointed in the performance. Mine was unlimited vertical at 1200' above sea level.

[Sukhoikid]

	Quote: Originally Posted by hpapilot
	I think I'm going to spend a few days at Kevin's place before Triple Tree IMAC- flying in the day, building at night. So PLEASE vote for the easiest one guys!! LOL.

let me just order a dalton kit rj and then we can have some fun. a dalton built in two weeks!!! lol. or lets say one week!

thanks for the help. i been looking at builds of both airplanes. I know my 102" qq took me just a week to build and I just worked on the plane at night.

[bodywerks]

QQ Aircraft, as a company, is an awesome company, but I am sorry to say that EVERY 120" Yak I have seen looks like ABSOLUTE CRAP!!! The build and finish quality is substandard, in general, and looks like it was built by a one-armed monkey when you put it next to an Aeroworks. And what's up with the cowl???? There are like 20+ screws that need to come off to remove it, and getting them all aligned when reinstalling it takes some finesse - and once installed, looks bulky with two rows of screws running down both sides of the cowl. One of the turtle decks that I saw was so wavy and distorted, it looked like how monokote looks over a ribbed wing with no sheeting. The stab fit was loose as well. Yes, the plane flies well, but by no means well enough to make you forget that the quality is crap. Add to that the fact that you still have to do the hinging and other 'old-school' ARF stuff, and your choice becomes pretty clear, IMO - the Aeroworks blows it away in every aspect. They are both about the same weight with the same equipment, so that factor is out the door, too, except QQ aircraft is FAR more accurate in their advertised weight. There is no way to finish out a QB Yak at 40 pounds or less if built with the recommended standard equipment and number of servos - expect 40.5-43.5 depending on exhaust choice and number of servos used, not 38-40 as advertised.

[Sukhoikid]

	Quote: Originally Posted by bodywerks
	QQ Aircraft, as a company, is an awesome company, but I am sorry to say that EVERY 120" Yak I have seen looks like ABSOLUTE CRAP!!! The build and finish quality is substandard, in general, and looks like it was built by a one-armed monkey when you put it next to an Aeroworks. And what's up with the cowl???? There are like 20+ screws that need to come off to remove it, and getting them all aligned when reinstalling it takes some finesse - and once installed, looks bulky with two rows of screws running down both sides of the cowl. One of the turtle decks that I saw was so wavy and distorted, it looked like how monokote looks over a ribbed wing with no sheeting. The stab fit was loose as well. Yes, the plane flies well, but by no means well enough to make you forget that the quality is crap. Add to that the fact that you still have to do the hinging and other 'old-school' ARF stuff, and your choice becomes pretty clear, IMO - the Aeroworks blows it away in every aspect. They are both about the same weight with the same equipment, so that factor is out the door, too, except QQ aircraft is FAR more accurate in their advertised weight. There is no way to finish out a QB Yak at 40 pounds or less if built with the recommended standard equipment and number of servos - expect 40.5-43.5 depending on exhaust choice and number of servos used, not 38-40 as advertised.

thanks for your opinion on the two. My 102" QQ is a great flying plane but I have found some things wrong with the plane. I have had chipped landing gear and the cowl is chipping. There is a light film of covering that comes off the main covering. I am leaning towards a Aero-Works right now.

[Extra260]

	Quote: Originally Posted by rc4flying
	How can you say this about a build of the QQ 120 ? I built one and was surprised how fast I got it built. As for flying IMAC, the QQ is darn good at it. Can't judge the AW as I have never owned one. As for power with a 150 on Greeves for the QQ, you would not be disappointed in the performance. Mine was unlimited vertical at 1200' above sea level.

I can say this because I have looked over both manuals at how the planes have come and yes I can say that aeroworks will build LOADS faster. It comes hinged canpopy perfectly mounted cowl screws in place etc. You have to fibre glass the canopy of the qq on you have to go through all the stuff to mount the cowl etc. Shoot to get the cowl off on the aerworks you remove six screws and slide!!! No I cant go any further because I have not had any personal experience with one but I can say that kevin I think you would be super happy with the aeroworks. I to wanted the qq bad before and then I ended up with the aw and now I wont even look back at the others.

[crhammond]

I have owned a 75cc AW QB Yak and a QQ Python. I have also seen many of the AW 260's and Yak in various sizes as well as the QQ Yaks.

My 75cc "QB" Yak took as long to build as my QQ Python. Maybe there is something wrong with me? But it took a LONG time. The Python went together in about the same 20 hrs.

Now the QQ Yaks of older generations did take a LOT of work to assemble.

The AW quality is very, very good. About the only thing I didn't like was how heavy the glass was they used on the Canopy as it tends to crack over time.

The QQ Python is really nice also - as good as any Aeroworks. But you do have to supply some hardware and you do have to hinge it. Personally I like the split cowl.

My Aeroworks was far heavier than specified. I ended up using light weight parts and it was noticable how much better it handled. In the larger sizes it may not be an issue. It flew fantastic at 23lbs and had no coupling at all - it was no so great at 25lbs.

The Pyhton was a little less than the weight advestised (27lbs on pipes and a DA100.) This plane also flew great - really really great (it was lost due to a mechanical 3 weeks ago - but I ordered a replacement right away it is so good. Mecahnical was 100% my fault...) It has very little coupling for a bipe and is so smooth in the air.

The QQ yaks I have flown were just like the AW but they felt a little more responsive to me. Both are very locked in for sure and have no coupling.

The AW hardware is first rate for the most part. The AW has some other nice features like the pre-done cooling cutouts, baffles etc. But they cost a LOT more than a QQ so you are paying for that extra work. The covering on the older QQ Yaks was not great - all the new stuff I have seen is really good. AW is good too.

QQ service is the best bar none. As is the spare parts support etc. AW is hit and miss.

If the latest generation QQ Yaks are the same quality as the Python I would go with one of them. If I could get an AW at my LHS or ship the QQ 120" I would still ship the QQ. The service I have got from them has been awesome and I know the plane will fly a lot better than I do LOL.