What's next from Motion RC?

[Woodcock]

If it wasn't FW, it must've been the LX models twin 70mm, since that is the only other similar sized F22 on the market. If you mistook that thing for the FW model, you certainly need to see the FW one up close!!

James It flew really really good man. I wasn't going to scrutinize the guys model, but I thought it was a nice plane. Frankly when your flying them, how close can you get?

Woody

[Hoomi]

One thing to remember about crowdfunding, is that, regardless of potential sales, the development costs of the model would be covered. Typically, in a Kickstarter-type campaign, there are various tiers of support, from low levels where the reward might be some token object of thanks, to high level where the reward includes the final product. You want that OV-10 model? At this tier, for this much support, you get the finished model before it's made available on the website. You've already, in essence, ordered it and paid for it. Even if another supplier shortcuts the process and brings out an OV-10 model before the Project completes, those models are sold. Once the project has funded, backers cannot withdraw their support. We couldn't see the competitor's model online, get our money refunded, and use it to buy from undercuthobbiesdotcom.

Whether this would be a good option for MRC could still be debated, but I wanted to make sure it was understood how the crowdfunding sites work.

If Motion decided they wanted to experiment with such a process to fund a new model, they could do so with little up-front risk. If there isn't enough interest to fully fund the project, the Kickstarter ends without funding, no backers are charged, and Motion is out only the amount of time it took to put together the campaign. They don't have to pay some promotion fees for a failed project.

[Woodcock]

Ya know Hoomi, the other great thing, which is a Motion advantage is they would have the full force of Alpha, and Freewing/Flightline behind it! Sure some copy cat might chime in there. But we all know full well, our plane would be the best one, or very very good to say the least.

Who here wouldn't have purchased a HK C-130 over a FL C-130? I think we all know the FL would have been better, at least I think that. I would have waited for the FL version, and that's the truth. But I do have to say the HK version is beautiful, and they did it, as painful as it was. Really poor marketing decision on MRC part on that one, IMO.

In a crowdfunding environment, your backers are locked in for the duration.

Woody.

[Woodcock]

Interesting proposal Woody based on the Vid Game success but I would suspect they also most likely have a world wide customer base that is at least 1000x larger than us ol' boys flying toy planes;)

Yea buddy, they do have a larger base for sure. Do ya want to try to get that OV-10 made mate? LOL I don't think these guys are going to do it, man. But if they don't have any risk. Maybe, just maybe.

Also in these forums, you never know who may be watching. I never posted one thing regarding the C-130, or Albatross in the other forum. But those two planes are now a reality.

I have to tell ya about the time we got stuck in Narita during 911. I hung out with about 20 people from Australia, and New Zeland for about a week. Really wonderful people. I actually still have an Australian girlfriend to this day. LOL, There just nice people, at the core. Know what I mean.

Woody

[Elbee]

Hoomi and Woods, I just see this as a great way to test the feasibility of a Project without bettin' the farm. Perhaps, the distributor/manufacturing relationship is stronger with MRC and there is greater inputs at the R&D level using us as the idea chain. I would think Freewing/Flightline could build whatever was deemed marketable without assistance from customer investments, though with that kind of financial support, we as customers might benefit with greater variety of aircraft from which to choose. Sounds good to me as I would like to see a feasibility paper on a 1800mm or larger B-1B and many would like an SR-71, or OV-10 etcetera.My $00.02USD. Best, LB

[Woodcock]

Hoomi and Woods, I just see this as a great way to test the feasibility of a Project without bettin' the farm. Perhaps, the distributor/manufacturing relationship is stronger with MRC and there is greater inputs at the R&D level using us as the idea chain. I would think Freewing/Flightline could build whatever was deemed marketable without assistance from customer investments, though with that kind of financial support, we as customers might benefit with greater variety of aircraft from which to choose. Sounds good to me as I would like to see a feasibility paper on a 1800mm or larger B-1B and many would like an SR-71, or OV-10 etcetera.My $00.02USD. Best, LB

All good choices. I love a B-1 for sure. Have you ever noticed when you watch the LX SR-71 Vids they never show a landing. LOL That one is going to be a tough one. That air frame just was never meant to fly slow.

Woody

[xviper]

All good choices. I love a B-1 for sure. Have you ever noticed when you watch the LX SR-71 Vids they never show a landing. LOL That one is going to be a tough one. That air frame just was never meant to fly slow.

Woody

The SR-71 I had (LX) had only one good landing -- ever. I flew the thing maybe 4 times. The first 3 landings broke the thing in 1/2. Flew, broke, fixed, flew, broke, fixed, flew broke, fixed, flew and then one perfect landing at high alpha and touched down soft enough that it survived. That was my demo flight when I was giving it away to another flyer. I wanted to show him that it actually flew but I warned him that he may have to put it back together after the flight. Luckily, he got a perfectly intact plane.
If that plane was bigger, had bigger tires, had lots of CF rods running down the sides, top and bottom and had more power, it may have been an "OK" plane. An RC model SR-71 will be hard pressed to ever be a "good" plane.

[Woodcock]

Well, I think "James@motionRC" might have something he can sink his teeth into here. Just think he could make up his March Madness spreadsheet for a selection vote, then set up the crowdfunding app. What ya think Motion, you consider making a model we would like if we manage to foot the bill for the dev, and just hand over the rights and privileges for all future sale to ya? Think ya might consider something like this? I've probably spent 20K in the last 10 years on various kick starters crowdfunds. Some were very rewarding, some not so much. You might give some thought to this.

Woody

[Hoomi]

Hoomi and Woods, I just see this as a great way to test the feasibility of a Project without bettin' the farm. Perhaps, the distributor/manufacturing relationship is stronger with MRC and there is greater inputs at the R&D level using us as the idea chain. I would think Freewing/Flightline could build whatever was deemed marketable without assistance from customer investments, though with that kind of financial support, we as customers might benefit with greater variety of aircraft from which to choose. Sounds good to me as I would like to see a feasibility paper on a 1800mm or larger B-1B and many would like an SR-71, or OV-10 etcetera.My $00.02USD. Best, LB

One definite advantage of doing a crowdfunding campaign for a new model, is that it asks us, the people requesting the model, to put our money where our mouths are. We've all heard of too many cases where a manufacturer responds to a public request for a product, with loads of people saying, "Yeah, I'd LOVE to have one of those available," only to hear nothing but crickets when it reaches the market and it's time to buy.

The OV-10 would be a great test case for this. With the number of folks here that have expressed desire for a quality Bronco, how many would be willing to pony up the money for one ahead of development, trusting MRC to deliver a quality project within the projected timeframe, sight-unseen? How many others would be willing to invest a lesser amount, thinking ahead to when the model is available and they could afford the full price? Let's say the projected cost for the final product is $350 for a PNP version. At the $350 tier, you'll get the airplane once production begins. They could offer higher tiers with, for example, custom decals from Callie, or something similar to that effect, but at the lower tiers, you could essentially make a "down payment" on the model - $50 deposit against the full price. This not only helps fund the development for those who don't have the $350 right now, it also helps MRC gauge the market interest, so they know how many units to factor into the initial production run. They don't just have, for example, a thousand people saying they want one. They have a thousand people who plopped down the money to say they want one, so they know that an order of a thousand units is going to sell. They're not likely to end up with eight hundred units collecting dust in the warehouse, because only two hundred of that original thousand carried through. You put money down, you're not as likely to abandon that investment.

[Woodcock]

The SR-71 I had (LX) had only one good landing -- ever. I flew the thing maybe 4 times. The first 3 landings broke the thing in 1/2. Flew, broke, fixed, flew, broke, fixed, flew broke, fixed, flew and then one perfect landing at high alpha and touched down soft enough that it survived. That was my demo flight when I was giving it away to another flyer. I wanted to show him that it actually flew but I warned him that he may have to put it back together after the flight. Luckily, he got a perfectly intact plane.
If that plane was bigger, had bigger tires, had lots of CF rods running down the sides, top and bottom and had more power, it may have been an "OK" plane. An RC model SR-71 will be hard pressed to ever be a "good" plane.

My thoughts exactly. But you just confirmed it mate.

Woody

[Aros]

The SR-71 I had (LX) had only one good landing -- ever. I flew the thing maybe 4 times. The first 3 landings broke the thing in 1/2. Flew, broke, fixed, flew, broke, fixed, flew broke, fixed, flew and then one perfect landing at high alpha and touched down soft enough that it survived. That was my demo flight when I was giving it away to another flyer. I wanted to show him that it actually flew but I warned him that he may have to put it back together after the flight. Luckily, he got a perfectly intact plane. If that plane was bigger, had bigger tires, had lots of CF rods running down the sides, top and bottom and had more power, it may have been an "OK" plane. An RC model SR-71 will be hard pressed to ever be a "good" plane.

Yep, I went through 13, yes 13 LX airframes until I finally got one I could fly without crashing consistently. The kits were cheap enough to swap the electronics out of...I even had some nice ones with working pitot, LEDs, custom scale wheels, etc...The best success for me was converting to a hand tosser, limit the roll rate severely and increase pitch rate. Then fly it like it's a race car on a race track in the pattern. Any funky moves other than rolls and some inverted passes and she was toast. But I love the Blackbird so much I was willing to endure all the idiosyncrasies of the model. I still have #13 safely stored in my hangar. Now if Freewing was to release one I would expect nothing less than what we have seen with our next gen jets. Quality, reasonable scale detail and better performance and characteristics than any other of the same model ever released before. I know black has been a big issue but an A-12 would take care of that. Crossing fingers!!

[AirHead]

Sorry, that's 7:13!!! My bad, bad, bad!

[xviper]

You do realize that not everyone can fly like Pete. He's been doing it most of his life and that's what he does for a living. It's a promotional video specifically made to sell product and they aren't going to show you how many models it took to complete that one video. We have no idea how many really bad landings he had before he greased that one. As such, a professional promotional video does not count as representative example of all videos for this plane. You can even tell in that video that the SR-71 flies somewhat erratically. In the hands of someone who is not an expert, experienced pilot, that would translate into a very hard to control RC model. Pete makes the worst flying airplane look like a beginner's plane.

[AirHead]

You do realize that not everyone can fly like Pete. He's been doing it most of his life and that's what he does for a living. It's a promotional video specifically made to sell product and they aren't going to show you how many models it took to complete that one video. We have no idea how many really bad landings he had before he greased that one. As such, a professional promotional video does not count as representative example of all videos for this plane. You can even tell in that video that the SR-71 flies somewhat erratically. In the hands of someone who is not an expert, experienced pilot, that would translate into a very hard to control RC model. Pete makes the worst flying airplane look like a beginner's plane.

Yes, I do realize that is true. Like all promotional pilots, they make it look easy. It really is like flying a broomstick. Small wing area and lots of juice needed to keep her afloat. The turbine versions you might see on YouTube are proper size and highly powered pro models. I guess it does need a pro pilot to land that bird. Can't imagine what the real one was like to land....Obviously, a big Freewing model properly designed, balanced and tested could yield a plane that many could handle. Except for the threat of "gatoring" in the hot sun....

[Topshot19]

Are we going to see a f-86 v2?

[Aros]

Landing the LX SR-71 on her feet was always a crapshoot. That AOA had to be NAILS on final (too high and she would pitch straight up and come crashing down on the elevons - ask me how I know) too low and and she would smack down hard and likely break the weak gear. Belly landings are much easier...Just keep the nose about 10 degrees pitch up and lay her down. Like anything else, once you get the feel for it, it becomes no problem. But I have never met a more finicky model in my life.

I know FW with our help could blow the LX out of the water. Just like the 90mm F-4 Phantom is the nicest flying foam Phantom by a mile, I would suspect a Freewing 90mm A-12/SR-71 would be the same. Much easier to fly and manage than the LX. Now that's not to say it would be anyone's first 90mm jet though!

:Scared: LOL

[xviper]

Yes, I do realize that is true. Like all promotional pilots, they make it look easy. It really is like flying a broomstick. Small wing area and lots of juice needed to keep her afloat. The turbine versions you might see on YouTube are proper size and highly powered pro models. I guess it does need a pro pilot to land that bird. Can't imagine what the real one was like to land....Obviously, a big Freewing model properly designed, balanced and tested could yield a plane that many could handle. Except for the threat of "gatoring" in the hot sun....

To be truthful, if Freewing or even FMS made a slightly larger SR-71, with proper retracts and powered by the current generation of high powered 70mm or 80mm twins and properly reinforced in the mid section to the nose won't break off, I'd have to buy one, throw a gyro in it and give it a go. I've had planes in the past where they were a bit difficult to grease the landings, but with the addition of a nice gyro, the landings became quite easy and the gyro also helps to tame down any clumsy flying characteristics.
On mine, there was quite a bit of reflex (UP elevator) just for it to fly level. I think the published CG was inaccurate and not well tested. However, this is not unlike many of the delta wing type planes I've had. A proper flying model might have to be designed UNscale. Let's face it, the real SR-71 needed a bank of computers just to make it stay in the air. All we've got are little gyros and dumb thumbs.

[AirHead]

To be truthful, if Freewing or even FMS made a slightly larger SR-71, with proper retracts and powered by the current generation of high powered 70mm or 80mm twins and properly reinforced in the mid section to the nose won't break off, I'd have to buy one, throw a gyro in it and give it a go. I've had planes in the past where they were a bit difficult to grease the landings, but with the addition of a nice gyro, the landings became quite easy and the gyro also helps to tame down any clumsy flying characteristics.
On mine, there was quite a bit of reflex (UP elevator) just for it to fly level. I think the published CG was inaccurate and not well tested. However, this is not unlike many of the delta wing type planes I've had. A proper flying model might have to be designed UNscale. Let's face it, the real SR-71 needed a bank of computers just to make it stay in the air. All we've got are little gyros and dumb thumbs.

I had considered buying the SR71 from BH, but I knew there are major issues with it. I felt it was a no brainer to put a gyro in it and that would help a lot. But, the quality; the size; the foam; lack of reinforcement; underpowered edf setup and lack of parts helped me to pass. I think it's great that someone makes one, but why not go the extra miles and make it great! We all know very well why those companies don't bother. I would say it's Freewing or nothing. I wouldn't mind buying the kit version and making a great static display model to go with my Arrow. Those two planes were both in production within 8 to 10 years of each other...

[Hoomi]

I should ping a friend I went to high school with - his Dad was a Habu pilot. I think his dad is still alive, and it would be interesting to get his perspective on what the real plane was like to fly.

Myself, I haven't yet drummed up the courage to maiden my Stinger 64 EDF, let alone feeling ready to so much as think about an SR-71.:Sweating: