You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Freewing SU-35 or eflite su-30 after owning the MIG-29 . worth it ?

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Freewing SU-35 or eflite su-30 after owning the MIG-29 . worth it ?

    hello everyone
    this is my first thread here but i have been following a few for quite sometime and i have learned a lot from many members posts .
    as the title says i own the MIG-29 for about 5 months now and its quit a plane. i love how it fly , how it glides, its the fastest edf i ever owned, the quality of built is great and it lands super easy
    so based on that i started to look for the SU and found two available , the freewing su-35 and horizon hobby eflite su-30
    1- the eflite SU-30 ( what i like about it )
    - beautiful finish
    - super scale
    - air brakes looks great
    - landing gears look solid
    - its EPO foam so i can easily paint it

    2- the freewing SU-35 ( what i like about it )
    - i love the look and the proportion of the SU-35 more then the 30
    - it has thrust vector
    - from videos , it looks like its faster and has more power to weight ratio then the eflite
    so here i listed every thing i like about both of them.
    now i own the freewing MIG-29 and im super happy with the way it flies and its landing gears is very forgiving on landing ( so far i had only one hard landing but i like to have a room for error ) also i'm willing to get the thrust vectoring kit for the mig so i would love to know from someone who has both the MIG-29 and the SU-35 in (TV)
    also i owned the freewing F-14 loved how it looks but its not fun to fly from my perspective .

    so from all of the above information ( sorry for the blah blah ) what do u recommend for me from this two jets ?

    but i'm still in love with the look of the SU-35 from freewing . :D

  • #2
    1- It's EFlite and you need to know that they discontinue them and parts without notice quickly. Plus parts are typically very expensive.
    It does fly well, a nice big, good looking plane.

    2- While FW usually keeps their planes much longer along with parts support this is a very old aircraft with a different foam that very few/ no one uses any more.
    This is a totally different plane than the SU-30, light weight, agile, awesome flying with the TV's. It is fairly delicate. It is fairly old school...

    All that said you won't hear me recommend any HH product except the Apprentice. It's worth putting up with their marketing, stocking and prices to get what I consider the best trainer on the market. On the flip side I recommend Motion for exactly the same things, Honest marketing, great support and more reasonable prices.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have all 3 of the planes you cited. Keep in mind that all of them have been modified. All 3 have upgraded, more powerful fans. The MiG has TV as an optional feature sold separately. If I had to keep only one, it would be the SU-35. Now, if these were all stock, it would still be the SU-35 and it's on that basis that I'll make my comments below.

      1. The SU-35 is lighter and far more nimble. However, as mentioned, the foam is more fragile than the other 2. The landing gear can be weak if you thump it too hard on landings, while the other 2 can take a bit more abuse (but not a whole lot more). Mine and the 2 others at my field have all had the gear broken and replaced and nose gear re-enforced. I've gotten a lot better with my landings and so far, the gear have held up, as have the other 2 guys with theirs.

      2. The SU-30 is heavy and some consider it underpowered - I did. It just "feels" heavy when it flies. It has great presence in the air and very eye catching. Due to its weight and drive system, I used to fly it at high throttle, resulting in short flight times. It's also fairly expensive.

      3. The MiG 29 is also a big, heavy plane and flies that way. It's very expensive compared to the other 2. In the air, it looks magnificent and draws a lot of attention. It takes 2 batteries and still doesn't give remarkable flight times. Again, flown at high throttle settings for more thrills.

      When I need the space, the SU-30 will go first. Then likely the MiG. If I smash any to bits, I'd replace the SU-30, NOT the other 2.
      PS. I've had 3 SU-35s. I guess that might tell you something about how I feel about it. I just wish they didn't make it out of that taco chip foam, but then, that's how they keep it so light.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you want a plane that looks good on the ground or during a fly-by, get the 30.

        If you want a plane that will fly rings around every other EDF at the field, get the 35.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan D View Post
          1- It's EFlite and you need to know that they discontinue them and parts without notice quickly. Plus parts are typically very expensive.
          It does fly well, a nice big, good looking plane.

          2- While FW usually keeps their planes much longer along with parts support this is a very old aircraft with a different foam that very few/ no one uses any more.
          This is a totally different plane than the SU-30, light weight, agile, awesome flying with the TV's. It is fairly delicate. It is fairly old school...

          All that said you won't hear me recommend any HH product except the Apprentice. It's worth putting up with their marketing, stocking and prices to get what I consider the best trainer on the market. On the flip side I recommend Motion for exactly the same things, Honest marketing, great support and more reasonable prices.
          Thank you Evan D for ur reply, it seams from what u r saying that u would recommend the freewing SU-35 over the eflite su-30 despite any issues with both .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by xviper View Post
            I have all 3 of the planes you cited. Keep in mind that all of them have been modified. All 3 have upgraded, more powerful fans. The MiG has TV as an optional feature sold separately. If I had to keep only one, it would be the SU-35. Now, if these were all stock, it would still be the SU-35 and it's on that basis that I'll make my comments below.

            1. The SU-35 is lighter and far more nimble. However, as mentioned, the foam is more fragile than the other 2. The landing gear can be weak if you thump it too hard on landings, while the other 2 can take a bit more abuse (but not a whole lot more). Mine and the 2 others at my field have all had the gear broken and replaced and nose gear re-enforced. I've gotten a lot better with my landings and so far, the gear have held up, as have the other 2 guys with theirs.

            2. The SU-30 is heavy and some consider it underpowered - I did. It just "feels" heavy when it flies. It has great presence in the air and very eye catching. Due to its weight and drive system, I used to fly it at high throttle, resulting in short flight times. It's also fairly expensive.

            3. The MiG 29 is also a big, heavy plane and flies that way. It's very expensive compared to the other 2. In the air, it looks magnificent and draws a lot of attention. It takes 2 batteries and still doesn't give remarkable flight times. Again, flown at high throttle settings for more thrills.

            When I need the space, the SU-30 will go first. Then likely the MiG. If I smash any to bits, I'd replace the SU-30, NOT the other 2.
            PS. I've had 3 SU-35s. I guess that might tell you something about how I feel about it. I just wish they didn't make it out of that taco chip foam, but then, that's how they keep it so light.
            sorry for not quoting in one replay , i just don't know how yet !!
            Thank you xviper for your detailed reply, I was hoping to hear from someone who has 2 of them and u have all 3 of them so its even better .
            It's clear to me that you would choose the su-35 over the other two but as I understand from what u said these 3 planes are three different animals and every one of them has a different characteristics to it .
            Again I'm just trying to analyse what u said so between the two SU u will choose the freewing for its weight which will directly impact the flying time and maneuverability of the plane so u feel its more fun to fly and that's for u will overcome the weak landing gears( which can be fixed by upgrading it ) and the foam quality ( which can be overcome by either painting it or be careful with it )

            Although there is one aspect that we should keep in consideration which is the cost of the su-35 after doing what needs to be done ( landing gears, change servos , speed control and the reinforcing for the battery bay above the front landing gear. ) after all of this u still think that this SU-35 is still ur first choice plane and its worth the effort?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kallend View Post
              If you want a plane that looks good on the ground or during a fly-by, get the 30.

              If you want a plane that will fly rings around every other EDF at the field, get the 35.
              thanks Kallend for the replay. it seams that everyone thinks that the su-35 is the better choice here as it will fly better

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by masterssls1 View Post



                Although there is one aspect that we should keep in consideration which is the cost of the su-35 after doing what needs to be done ( landing gears, change servos , speed control and the reinforcing for the battery bay above the front landing gear. ) after all of this u still think that this SU-35 is still ur first choice plane and its worth the effort?
                Reinforcing the battery bay involves a bit of time and negligible cost.

                I am still running all but one original servos after 5 years (one elevator servo developed a lot of play early on and I replaced it).

                The stock ESCs are OK too, unless you upgrade the fans.

                I ran the stock main gear legs for 3 years and then replaced them with F-15 legs. Not a very expensive upgrade. My nosegear is still original (stock).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kallend View Post

                  Reinforcing the battery bay involves a bit of time and negligible cost.

                  I am still running all but one original servos after 5 years (one elevator servo developed a lot of play early on and I replaced it).

                  The stock ESCs are OK too, unless you upgrade the fans.

                  I ran the stock main gear legs for 3 years and then replaced them with F-15 legs. Not a very expensive upgrade. My nose gear is still original (stock).
                  from what i read here ( correct me if i'm wrong ) the stock ESCs are 60A but the continues draw of the main fans are 68A which means that they will overheat and once that happen , then it will drop the efficiency dramatically. although i'm not worried about that since i have 2 ESCs from the F14 which i believe they are 80A and another 2 100A from hobby king along with 17g servos and a few 23g servos from freewing so my intention will be replacing all of that once i get it , so i would be left with reinforcing the landing gears and creating a good setup with tailerons that can work with my 8ch receiver and transmitter. if you have any suggestions about doing that, i would appreciate it if u or anyone can help with that . i hope i'm not asking too much . forgive my ignorance .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by masterssls1 View Post
                    these 3 planes are three different animals and every one of them has a different characteristics to it .

                    that's for u will overcome the weak landing gears( which can be fixed by upgrading it ) and the foam quality ( which can be overcome by either painting it or be careful with it )

                    Although there is one aspect that we should keep in consideration which is the cost of the su-35 after doing what needs to be done ( landing gears, change servos , speed control and the reinforcing for the battery bay above the front landing gear. ) after all of this u still think that this SU-35 is still ur first choice plane and its worth the effort?
                    3 different animals .......................... Yes and no. All are variations of Russian fighter jets and they all have similar design features. However, when translated into an RC model, each one differs from the other due to the way they are made and powered.
                    The "weak" areas are only weak if those are the things you stress when operating these planes. Until you figure out for yourself what particular part is weak for you, nothing really needs to be addressed. In certain hands, each one of these planes can be flown without any issues right out of the box. As heavy and power hungry as the MiG is, I've seen and heard of some people who just float it around and can fly it leisurely for an insane amount of time. One of the other SU-35s at my field is flown extremely hard and can be made to do incredible things in the air. It can go a whole season without a single problem and then day, he lands it just a little bit too rough and all 3 gears get smooshed and the front end of the thing cracks. This same fellow also has the MiG 29 and after flying it flawlessly for a couple of seasons, he stalls it in high alpha and splashes it in the middle of a pond. He figures if he had TV nozzles on it, he could have saved it.
                    Yes, after all said and done, I would still favor the SU-35, but my view of these planes may be different than the way you see them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xviper View Post
                      3 different animals .......................... Yes and no. All are variations of Russian fighter jets and they all have similar design features. However, when translated into an RC model, each one differs from the other due to the way they are made and powered.
                      The "weak" areas are only weak if those are the things you stress when operating these planes. Until you figure out for yourself what particular part is weak for you, nothing really needs to be addressed. In certain hands, each one of these planes can be flown without any issues right out of the box. As heavy and power hungry as the MiG is, I've seen and heard of some people who just float it around and can fly it leisurely for an insane amount of time. One of the other SU-35s at my field is flown extremely hard and can be made to do incredible things in the air. It can go a whole season without a single problem and then day, he lands it just a little bit too rough and all 3 gears get smooshed and the front end of the thing cracks. This same fellow also has the MiG 29 and after flying it flawlessly for a couple of seasons, he stalls it in high alpha and splashes it in the middle of a pond. He figures if he had TV nozzles on it, he could have saved it.
                      Yes, after all said and done, I would still favor the SU-35, but my view of these planes may be different than the way you see them.
                      yes sorry for no being clear , i meant they would be different in RC form not the real ones .
                      i see ur point clearly . its not that the way i see them is different then u , its that i was looking for a perfect setup ( or at least a setup that is in my opinion is comparable to the mig ) since i like to fly scale planes and i know there is a more capable jets out there for the sport jets but i'm mostly interested in scale jets which narrows the field for me . and of course there no such a thing as a perfect jet , its a compromise but i wanted to take the comparison a bit farther then just how i feel about them . but again i get ur point clearly

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by masterssls1 View Post

                        from what i read here ( correct me if i'm wrong ) the stock ESCs are 60A but the continues draw of the main fans are 68A which means that they will overheat and once that happen , then it will drop the efficiency dramatically. .
                        I only know of one EDF pilot who flies at full throttle all the time. Don't be that guy.

                        Besides, I doubt that any battery you're likely to use would maintain 136A for very long without a voltage drop.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          dittos to kallend's last post.

                          full throttle/full battery charge amp measurements are momentary things at best, as the batterys start to droop almost immediately when that heavy full throttle load hits em.
                          when they outlaw R/C, only outlaws will have R/C

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kallend View Post

                            I only know of one EDF pilot who flies at full throttle all the time. Don't be that guy.

                            Besides, I doubt that any battery you're likely to use would maintain 136A for very long without a voltage drop.
                            Originally posted by mongo View Post
                            dittos to kallend's last post.

                            full throttle/full battery charge amp measurements are momentary things at best, as the batterys start to droop almost immediately when that heavy full throttle load hits em.

                            yes true and true about the batteries the mig is much easier on the batteries since every battery support one EDF for 100A max

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have all 3 jets. Or, should say had...the Mig died a violent dead. The Su-30 is by far my favorite military jet...but mine is highly modified to increase performance. In stock configuration I didn't like it much at all. It was too slow, no vertical climb, and very short flights on one 6000 pack. I changed the stock motors to FMS 70MM V2 12 BLADE PRO 1900KV EDFs and configured them to run on two 4000 batteries...one battery for each motor. Now the jet performs as it should and much better than the Mig 29 in some respects. It takes off from grass with no problem, climbs like a rocket ship, and gives 4:30 of sterling jet performance or up to 6:00 of just flying around in circles.


                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by radfordc View Post
                                I have all 3 jets. Or, should say had...the Mig died a violent dead. The Su-30 is by far my favorite military jet...but mine is highly modified to increase performance. In stock configuration I didn't like it much at all. It was too slow, no vertical climb, and very short flights on one 6000 pack. I changed the stock motors to FMS 70MM V2 12 BLADE PRO 1900KV EDFs and configured them to run on two 4000 batteries...one battery for each motor. Now the jet performs as it should and much better than the Mig 29 in some respects. It takes off from grass with no problem, climbs like a rocket ship, and gives 4:30 of sterling jet performance or up to 6:00 of just flying around in circles.

                                it diffidently looks fast and has the vertical climbing power in the video , so after you did the two battery setup , how it felt comparing to the mig ?

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  It flies similar to the Mig in many respects. It's a fast heavy plane with lots of power. Fortunately, it's not like the Mig in a couple of important ways...it won't "alpha lock" and won't dive into the ground if you drop the flaps at a little too high speed. I love the look of the plane in the air with the air show color scheme and it's ability to scream by and then pull to the vertical and climb nearly out of sight. My controls are also setup non-stock. The wing surfaces are used for flaps only...no ailerons. Roll and pitch control is done by the horizontal tail setup up in taileron mode.

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X