100cc planes

[leelee]

All of the mentioned airframes are great, I fly the AW Yak because I got it at a good price and I love it. It all boils down to personal preference. If you want quick build, better accessories or a certain scheme there are so many choices. Thay will last as long as you want as long as you dont hit the ground.

[Tired Old Man]

Everyone knows I fly W/H planes. Many don't know that I buy them all. Same with engines.

I can afford to buy whatever I want but I buy W/H because they always fly well, look good, stay together, are easy to assemble, and the company owner takes care of his customers. The fact that they cost less than others is simply because there are no "dealers" that have to tack on additional profit margin to cover their pockets. W/H only sells direct, eliminating the extra warehouse and secondary dealer profit.

All of the above is what I look for in any plane and since W/H meets it all there's no reason to spend more, a lot more, for a different manufacturer.

[sinergy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Tired Old Man
	The fact that they cost less than others is simply because there are no "dealers" that have to tack on additional profit margin to cover their pockets. W/H only sells direct, eliminating the extra warehouse and secondary dealer profit.

They don't really cost that much less and the dealer idea has nothing to do with it.

WH Extra 260 105"

$849.00

Helmet head pilot, 35-40% planes
Harware Kit

$35.00
$85

Total Price $968 (with no CF tubes)


AW 25% 260 104"

$949.00

Helmet head pilot, 35-40% planes

$39.95

Total Price $988.95 (with no CF tubes)


EF 110" Yak

$1049.00

Total Price including pilot / Dash and CF Tubes $1049



Sorry they don't all have the same planes yet so it's tough to do an exact comparision.


We are talking less than $100 difference? So much for the price arguement.

[Show871]

Dont let the cost of a servo or two, or an included trinket make the difference on a big investment........especially on a 100cc. You will have it for a long time! do the research and get the one you like best. I know its hard, but if you could just go to an event and check them out in person, watch them fly your choice will be clear.......871

[pitts2b]

The Wildhare 260 comes with carbon fiber tubes!

[BTerry]

	Quote:
	We are talking less than $100 difference? So much for the price arguement.

When one includes shipping and any required hardware there is less than $300 difference between the top 20 100cc planes on the market.

Lots of good options, plus a few new ones coming out in the next couple of months, almost all cost the same in the long run.

[STLAV8R]

You also have to look at wingspan, square inches, wing loading, fuselage length, design, quality and how long is the company going to stay in business! It is difficult to fly a plane when replacement parts are not available.

[BTerry]

My point exactly. Cost should be a minimal factor in the decision.

[cjcyclesrc]

	Quote: Originally Posted by wildhare
	I take issue with saying their hardware is better. Titanium or composite pushrods, both do the job. Titanium is shinier, yes, but composite is just as strong and just as cool and the length is adjustable. WH hardware package includes ball links. Many people do not like glue-in fiberglass horns and prefer a steel stud which offers adjustability and is replaceable. WH make planes both ways, most people who get the glue-in horns ask if there isn't a screw-in alternative.

Tom,
I have bought a new plane from you and new planes for Extreme Flight. In my opinion the included Extreme Flight hardware is much better than what you sell. The titanium links save a lot of build time. You can bolt the ball links on when you are building the plane and then put the titanium link in and adjust without having to remove the ball links. The lengths of the links or horns don't need to be adjusted if they are the right length to start with. I understand you are trying to cut costs by just selling the raw materials and let the end user take care of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is mine. It would be much easier for me to do business with you since I live close to you, but you lost my business the way you handled the damage on the last plane I bought from you. I sold the V2 Edge and bought a 88" Extreme Flight Extra and haven't looked back. There is no comparison in the quality of the two and I voice my opinion with my wallet. I felt better about what I got for the cost with the Extreme Flight. If this offends you then to bad because this is my opinion.



Back to the subject of the thread.

I purchased an 110" Extreme Flight Yak back in June. I don't think I have been flying without it since I got it built. Everyone I have let fly it has said WOW!!! It's without a doubt helping me improve my flying ability. I've got 7 gallons through it and I hope to get a couple more through it in the next two days.

If I was considering adding a second 85/100cc plane I would consider the following:
QQ Python
AW Extra 300
QQ 101
DR Hobbies Extra

There is no perfect airplane for everyone. If I had to only have one airplane today it would be my 110" Yak, but I'm glad I can have multiple planes.

[wildhare]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sinergy
	WH Extra 260 105" $849.00 Helmet head pilot, 35-40% planes Harware Kit $35.00 $85 Total Price $968 (with no CF tubes)

The Wild Hare Extra 260 105", and all of our 100cc class planes, include CF wing and stab tubes.

Those with conventional hinging (not the pocket hinges like the Extra 260) are $799.

Just wanted to be accurate.

TF

[Extra nuts]

I would say the plane with the most wing area to lightest weight in ratio terms. SD or TT 35% yak has the highest wing area in the 33-35% range i believe. Hangar 9 35% 260 should also be considered. There isnt much not to like about it. The new Jtec 300 mid wing is lighter also, with good wing area.

[sinergy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by wildhare
	The Wild Hare Extra 260 105", and all of our 100cc class planes, include CF wing and stab tubes. Those with conventional hinging (not the pocket hinges like the Extra 260) are $799. Just wanted to be accurate. TF

Excellent improvement, sorry I wasn't aware of that.


I want to revisit one fact here, I have nothing against wildhare (owned many and recommend it often). I just get irritated when people like Pat start making comments about price and how awesome they are. I don't think Pat has purchased another highend brand in years to go through the build and spend some time flying it like his WHs.


There is a reason why the top products cost more, and even if brand x had more mark up in it because it was a better design and flew better I would gladly spend the extra money. As long as customer service is there and the product kicks butt I am going to pay the extra money because I can feel the difference. I just picked up a 35% Radiocraft because you heard some many great things about them - guess what it almost flies the Intermediate sequence by itself.. I love it.

When I was heavily into pool I learned you can spend a lot of money on a cue.. hey they all look the same right, whats the big deal? I can tell you there is a huge difference between a $100 cue, a $600 cue, and a $1000+ cue. I learned this hands on and gladly paid $800 for a cue because it was worth it.

[BTerry]

What would this market look like without a bunch of excellent manufacturers bringing excellent products to market? Can you imagine if only ONE ARF manufacturer existed? People need to quit wasting their time splitting hairs here. For around $1000 one can now purchase a plane that will fly better, weigh less, last longer, and look better than a similar size plane that would have cost $4k - $5k (in 1990's dollars) to have custom built 15 years ago.

Bottom line is get the plane you like.

For anybody who cares, Cubic Wing Loading is a better predictor of a plane's performance. It baselines any plane against the same scale, regardless of wing area or Reynolds numbers (from .049 through full-scale).

The Pilot-RC/TT TOC Yak 54, PAU Edge, WH Giles, WH Edge, Radiowave Extra, WH Extra, and Magic Hand 103" Yak 54, in that exact order lowest to highest, all have a lower cubic wing loading than the EF Yak when set up using a 100cc engine.

On an 85cc setup the order goes: PAU Edge (7.07), WH Giles (7.09), Pilot-RC/TT TOC Yak (7.29), WH Extra (7.38), WH Edge (7.38), EF Yak(7.38). All of these are at the top of the PARKFLYER range, just to give reference.

For a point of reference I happen to think the AW 100cc Extra 260 is an outstanding plane in IMAC and 3D. Its cubic loading is 8.91 to 9.25 depending on setup. Apply intellect to use these numbers as necessary.

A set of titanium links for a plane will cost around $40. If you like them, get them. Otherwise don't complain about it. I happen to like them for their rigidity and adjustability but I am not going to discount a manufacturer because he doesn't put them in a hardware package to save the consumer money! In fact WH has $100 fixed rate shipping, that is a huge money saver as well.

When I built my WH plane years ago I bought enough carbon/allthread to make the pushrods for 10 giant scale planes for about $15. This does matter to some people. Feel free to spend more money as necessary for hardware.

I happen to think the EF products are fabulous. I also happen to think the Yak 54 as a design looks cartoonish even though it flies great. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I also happpen to think the Aeroworks, Wild Hare, PAU, Somenzini, TT TOC and now Pilot-RC, Radiowave, Dietrich, and Hangar 9 all make fabulous airplanes as well. Each manufacturer and plane has a set of cheerleaders, some more vociferous than others. There honestly is not much difference in price, quality, or flight performance top to bottom.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Brett

[wildhare]

I'd like to say something to people reading this thread who are not real experienced with big planes. This is referring to the previously named popular giant scale aerobats, and it applies to flight reports both good and bad.

My advice is to completely ignore flight reports about airplanes. Here's why.

First, a plane does not really reach its potential until it is fully trimmed for a particular pilot. That usually takes at least 30 flights, sometimes more. There are a lot of adjustments that need to be made to get a plane to fly as well as it can fly. So when somebody flies a plane for the first time and says "it's wonderful" that's just the luck of the draw, and when they say "I didn't like it" that's also just a coincidence, it's probably that it's just not adjusted to fit that pilot.

All of the name brand planes on the market fly well, all will do 3D if they have enough power and all will fly IMAC with enough trimming and practice. Each has its own idiosyncrosies and virtually all of them can be adjusted out. Nobody today puts out a plane that is genuinely a terrible flying plane. If you get a plane that really flies badly it's probably either adjusted badly or set up way outside its specs like with an older engine that weighs way to much for the plane.

If someone hands you the transmitter and you fly a plane for 3 or 4 minutes, it's not possible to make an accurate evaluation of the plane. You have to fly it a lot and make all the adjustments to make it fly the way you want it to.

Another very real problem is people posting reports who have a vested interest in the success or failure of an aircraft design or company. Far too many statements are made where people have either a financial or emotional interest in the outcome. Some people actually lie (I know, you're all shocked to hear this) about results or about their identities in order to sell or to discourage the sale of planes.

So guys, just don't listen to flight reports. Most of them are wrong or at least incomplete, you can't possibly know a plane unless you own it and fly it until it's as good as it can get.

TF

[sinergy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by BTerry
	What would this market look like without a bunch of excellent manufacturers bringing excellent products to market? Can you imagine if only ONE ARF manufacturer existed? People need to quit wasting their time splitting hairs here. For around $1000 one can now purchase a plane that will fly better, weigh less, last longer, and look better than a similar size plane that would have cost $4k - $5k (in 1990's dollars) to have custom built 15 years ago. Bottom line is get the plane you like. For anybody who cares, Cubic Wing Loading is a better predictor of a plane's performance. It baselines any plane against the same scale, regardless of wing area or Reynolds numbers (from .049 through full-scale).

I agree with the first part 100%


As for the 2nd I don't really agree with fully - there is much more than wingload to a design and ultimately a 33oz Carden vs a 29oz 35% (insert majority of brands here) will fly better. The overal design is better. Lower wingloading doesn't always mean better flying.

Let's not forget the shear size makes a difference, "bigger flies better" isn't a new saying.