Torn between two planes...

[jdearduff]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Rush7
	Buy both!

I truley wish that I could. $995.00 is a great price on the python. And Chief has free shipping on the Yak right now.

[sweetpea]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sukhoi26
	No disrespect, but the canopy should not be the reason on if you buy a plane or not. I like both planes but if I had to choose it would be the TOC. I heard a lot of good things about this plane and was really considering on buying one for myself. If i am correct there is more wing area on the TOC, which will make it more stable in all aspects. Check out all the details on both planes and ask plenty of questions. There are a lot of guys here that have flown both and would be more than happy to help out on your decision. Rob

Honestly I couldn't buy from a company that has changed hands sooooo many times in 1-2yrs, it just smells like something is wrong even if it isn't. AW has some of the best quality for ARFs and are proven to fly superb.

But the choices given were the Yak or the Python..........tough choice. Each has advantages and really there are no disadvantages.


And if someone says assembly time............that is just ludicrous. At IMAC events you have all day to get your plane together. Then you sit and shoot the crap while you wait to fly.

And the difference from the two would be what......5mins, 10max on a practice day. If you use that logic then I guess you shouldn't be running A123's either as after a few flights at the field you need to recharge and that takes 10+ mins......better stick with NIMH/LION instead so you are not delayed in your precious flying time.

[3D-Seth]

The QQ Python may take a bit more time than a monowing to set up, but once its set up correctly for precision, it would fly awesome precision figures. I had my Python set up for 3D only and it did awesome precision then, let alone when set up correctly. In all honesty, I think it would fly precision better than a monowing.


Seth

[jdearduff]

And if someone says assembly time............that is just ludicrous. At IMAC events you have all day to get your plane together. Then you sit and shoot the crap while you wait to fly.

And the difference from the two would be what......5mins, 10max on a practice day. If you use that logic then I guess you shouldn't be running A123's either as after a few flights at the field you need to recharge and that takes 10+ mins......better stick with NIMH/LION instead so you are not delayed in your precious flying time.[/quote]

I would never chose a plane because I thought it took to long to put together. I am just looking for people to chime in here that have flown or own these planes. I love biplane more than anything, but I am not going to buy one just because of that reason. I want a really stable airplane. I just happen to like both of these planes.

[Dave_ORCC]

I'm not really qualified to post in this thread simply because I haven't flown either plane much. That said, my advice would be to go with whatever your gut says. Both planes have excellent reports and reputations. Both planes, set-up with IMAC in mind, will excel in IMAC. It might take more time and energy to set up and trim the Python than the Yak but, it can be done.

Just my $.02

Cheers,
Dave

[BOSSIER_ROB]

I owned an AW Yak (100cc) and it flew great for IMAC, but just couldn't get it locked in high alpha for 3D. I tried for a year to do everything I could and finally gave up after moving everything as far back as I could and added a half pound of lead in the tail. It just didn't 3D like I'd hoped, so I switched to a 260. My friend has the QQ Python and it's great for 3D, but isn't set up for IMAC and still flies nice lines. He's put it through the advanced sequence a few times. I think it would make a great IMAC plane if you set it up for it. I've flown it a couple times just messing around and I like it. It just didn't seem as forgiving as a mono and required you to fly it. You couldn't just yank full up elevator and blip the throttle to hold a solid harrier. You had to stay on top of it, but still is a great flier. I think either would be a good choice, just pick the one that you like best.

[STLAV8R]

Since you like Aeroworks, why not their Extra 260 or 300? Both are excellent IMAC and 3-D planes!

[knifelander]

i agree with bossier bob i have a AW yak, and it would fly imac good, but i can't get it to lock in good on high alpha. also mine weights 29 with da100 and ithink it would strain on some up lines.also the gear plate is weak i have broken it twice.

[2walla]

I haven't flown my python so I can't speak as to its flight charisterists, but as far as quality, my experience is that the quality of the build under the covering is far superior on TOC and Aeroworks airplanes. Aeroworks takes the mark if you are willing to spend more money in lieu of having to do more work assembling/hinging etc. The covering on the aeroworks is superior most arf's. If I was buying a new plane, I think I would try PILOT- Otherwise I would buy a TOC. I have been tempted to buy the QQ101 while they are on sale for my BME105 but am still cranky about my Python...

[BOSSIER_ROB]

	Quote: Originally Posted by knifelander
	i agree with bossier bob i have a AW yak, and it would fly imac good, but i can't get it to lock in good on high alpha. also mine weights 29 with da100 and ithink it would strain on some up lines.also the gear plate is weak i have broken it twice.

Sounds just like mine. My gear tore out while turning around. It just hopped one time and out it came. I ripped mine out twice and the guy that bought it fixed it so well that it should have ripped the entire bottom of the fuse off and still managed to rip it out twice more. Mine was 28 1/2lbs and the wings rocked constantly in high alpha no matter how tail heavy it was.

[jdearduff]

Thanks to everyone for your opinions. I have ordered a Yak 54. Should be a good IMAC season.

[Doppelganger]

With the Quique line closing it's doors, aren't you worried about parts for your Yak? I'm torn between the 101" Yak and the SD 35% extra. Not sure which direction to go.

Steve