When will Freewing come out with a F-4 Phantom II?

[Ron1950]

gimmicks like a chute are cool id love to see that

[Evoman]

Reading through everyone’s comments I realized there are different expectations and wish list’s depending on each one’s situation. Therefore it seems like a model of the F-4 would have to strike just the right balance of scale looks, features and performance at the right price to appeal to everyone. Which would be harder to do and I fear would lead to some compromises somewhere that would limit this models full potential.
It would be fair to say there would be two main groups of prospected buyers. The cost conscious pilot that would be content with a model that performs good enough at a good price with a moderate operating cost. (single battery) Then there would be the pilot that expects a true to scale performing F-4 just like its real life counterpart where price is not an obstacle and has the operational budget that would be needed. (twin batteries)
It would be like comparing a Dodge Challenger R/T with 375hp, 16/25mpg vs a Challenger Hellcat with 707hp, 13/21mpg.
Instead of producing a one jet fits all needs approach I propose for there to be two models based of the same fuselage that would be modular. Because of the F-4 particular fuselage design it could easily be configured as either a single 90, 80mm or twin 80mm. This modular configuration would allow for the best flexibility to fit everyone's needs and expectations.
If you were to ask any former F-4 Phantom pilot what trait stood out the most that was unique to the F-4, they would say its raw power from its two big jet engines! https://youtu.be/62fIyD5ag_c?t=8m40s

[Alpha]

As much as it's in my nature to try to, I've come to accept that it is impossible to please everyone. I think we all learn that at some point in all our lives ;)

Unfortunately, building a modular fuselage isn't in the cards, it's just not how molds and their cost equations work. As the Knight Templar says in Indiana Jones, we must choose, and hope we chose wisely...

A twin 80mm fuselage would be much larger (heavier) than a single 90mm would need to be (and thus, the 90mm would struggle if in that larger fuselage). Also, even if if they did share the same outer fuselage, then that would imply they share the same wing. If at that point we control for all other variables (assume the same wing mold and thus the same airfoil, etc), then we're isolating the question of power output solely to a single 90mm or twin 80mm output powerplant. At that point, the single 90mm wins out in all of our tunnel tests --for the same size aircraft with a long bifurcated inlet and short bifurcated outlet, a single 90mm will outperform a twin 80mm with individual ducts in the speed, thrust, weight, cost, and efficiency categories If we're looking for Perceptible Performance, a single 90mm takes the cake. Whereas your example of horsepower fits nicely when comparing those two powerplants in cars, the example unfortuantely doesn't translate into EDFs as cleanly (get it? It's a fuel efficiency joke :D).

A bit of background. Nearly three years ago we experimented with a twin 70mm twin 80mm, single 80mm, and single 90mm F-15. The Venn Diagram on all those models simply did not overlap as strongly to any group of key performance categories. If the tradeoffs in any of our performance categories were slight, then that would be one thing, and a much easier choice. But in all iterations, they each quite clearly had a cost. The twin 70mm was cheap but had short flight time, the single 80mm was too small of an aircraft to carry the wingload, the twin 80mm was expensive, and the single 90mm was a jack of all trades but a master of none. Add to all of this predictive crystal ball math, we've learned that, we Scalenuts aside, the majority of the market is extremely, extremely price sensitive. $10 makes a big difference, let alone $100, in the *actual* sales performance of a model.

And so... that's my two cents.

[DCORSAIR]

I would love to see an F-4 with a single 90mm set up myself, one battery and your good to go. I'm ready to order one now...........;)

[agedflier]

Reading through everyone’s comments I realized there are different expectations and wish list’s depending on each one’s situation. Therefore it seems like a model of the F-4 would have to strike just the right balance of scale looks, features and performance at the right price to appeal to everyone. Which would be harder to do and I fear would lead to some compromises somewhere that would limit this models full potential.
It would be fair to say there would be two main groups of prospected buyers. The cost conscious pilot that would be content with a model that performs good enough at a good price with a moderate operating cost. (single battery) Then there would be the pilot that expects a true to scale performing F-4 just like its real life counterpart where price is not an obstacle and has the operational budget that would be needed. (twin batteries)
It would be like comparing a Dodge Challenger R/T with 375hp, 16/25mpg vs a Challenger Hellcat with 707hp, 13/21mpg.
Instead of producing a one jet fits all needs approach I propose for there to be two models based of the same fuselage that would be modular. Because of the F-4 particular fuselage design it could easily be configured as either a single 90, 80mm or twin 80mm. This modular configuration would allow for the best flexibility to fit everyone's needs and expectations.
If you were to ask any former F-4 Phantom pilot what trait stood out the most that was unique to the F-4, they would say its raw power from its two big jet engines! https://youtu.be/62fIyD5ag_c?t=8m40s

This is the first time I have watched a "clip" this long and have to say we in the west owe a lot to those pilots who fought for the freedom was enjoy today.

Dam those hippies who said you were wrong and dam that woman who rode on the barrel of a gun... WELL DONE GUYS

[Ks.jetflyer]

Single 80mm or 90mm, either way would have me hitting the buy button.

[seaviper]

Man I would like to see a good Rhino in the 80mm size with tough gear and no bottom cheater. I am limited to grass fields. The 80mm jets seam to have a good power system and the correct weight to blast off of grass.
The bigger ones get to be a bit questionable on grass.

Alpha thanks for the explanation. Well said sir! I have more respect for the people of Motion RC every day as I learn more about them and hear their thoughts on RC. This is truly a great time to be involved in the hobby.

[Evoman]

As much as it's in my nature to try to, I've come to accept that it is impossible to please everyone. I think we all learn that at some point in all our lives ;)

Unfortunately, building a modular fuselage isn't in the cards, it's just not how molds and their cost equations work. As the Knight Templar says in Indiana Jones, we must choose, and hope we chose wisely...

A twin 80mm fuselage would be much larger (heavier) than a single 90mm would need to be (and thus, the 90mm would struggle if in that larger fuselage). Also, even if if they did share the same outer fuselage, then that would imply they share the same wing. If at that point we control for all other variables (assume the same wing mold and thus the same airfoil, etc), then we're isolating the question of power output solely to a single 90mm or twin 80mm output powerplant. At that point, the single 90mm wins out in all of our tunnel tests --for the same size aircraft with a long bifurcated inlet and short bifurcated outlet, a single 90mm will outperform a twin 80mm with individual ducts in the speed, thrust, weight, cost, and efficiency categories If we're looking for Perceptible Performance, a single 90mm takes the cake. Whereas your example of horsepower fits nicely when comparing those two powerplants in cars, the example unfortuantely doesn't translate into EDFs as cleanly (get it? It's a fuel efficiency joke :D).

A bit of background. Nearly three years ago we experimented with a twin 70mm twin 80mm, single 80mm, and single 90mm F-15. The Venn Diagram on all those models simply did not overlap as strongly to any group of key performance categories. If the tradeoffs in any of our performance categories were slight, then that would be one thing, and a much easier choice. But in all iterations, they each quite clearly had a cost. The twin 70mm was cheap but had short flight time, the single 80mm was too small of an aircraft to carry the wingload, the twin 80mm was expensive, and the single 90mm was a jack of all trades but a master of none. Add to all of this predictive crystal ball math, we've learned that, we Scalenuts aside, the majority of the market is extremely, extremely price sensitive. $10 makes a big difference, let alone $100, in the *actual* sales performance of a model.

And so... that's my two cents.

I can totally understand the logic behind the simplicity and cost benefits of a single EDF unit. If a single EDF unit would be the most ideal setup to implement, then choosing the right mix of power plant components is crucial. If it can deliver a similar scale performance to do the mighty F-4 Phantom justice it would be a great achievement.
Since what gave the F-4 such raw power was its large jet engines why not follow the same philosophy and look at what a larger 110mm or 120mm single EDF could achieve.
Has any testing ever been done before on these larger size EDF’s?

[Alpha]

I've owned 100mm, 105mm, 120mm, and 127mm EDFs. But, I don't see us going toward those larger sizes in the near future for PNP. The price jumps, as most often they'll require HV ESCs, 8s-12s batteries, and beefy struts, servos, hinges, airframes.

If anyone is concerned about "raw power", I'd point to our most recent EDF, the 80mm MiG-21. It's roughly a 90mm sized aircraft that has no problem powering through any maneuver thrown at it, and can sustain a couple seconds of hover or an extended period of near standstill high alpha. In the context of foam electric in the size our primary market prefers, a 110mm-120mm just isn't needed. Designed to a price point, we could get an F-4 or F-106 or Hunter or MiG-15 to fly authoritatively and far beyond what the real aircraft could ever do, without the need for big, heavy, expensive power systems. It's just a question of how much scale detail (i.e. plastic and weight) we want to add to increase the "wow" factor at a cost of rank performance. I think the MiG-21 is a good balance between the two.

Now, I'm not at all saying that a 110mm or 120mm foam EDF wouldn't find a market (sign me up for two!!!), but I'd bet both my thumbs that we'd sell far more of any EDF subject in the 90mm size than the same jet in a 120mm size. We've seen the data time and again with a range of categories from a range of manufacturers at a range of price points. There is, simply, a ceiling. Yes, bigger flies better and we all want a huge aircraft for various reasons, but more often when it comes time to vote with our wallets, we see a precipitous drop in sales once a single engine warbird passes 1500mm wingspan for $339, or a jet passes 90mm in fan size for $399-$479.

The real key is optimizing an aircraft's features and performance and value as maximally as possible, while still landing within the sweet spot of most people's real world preferred price point. I look at the HSD 105mm F-16, for example. A nice flying plane, to be sure, with beautiful retracts and only a few things to be mindful of. Then I look at the Freewing 90mm F-16. Similar scale landing gear and profile, smaller than the HSD obviously, a couple nitpicks sure, but overall a nice plane as well. Aside from price and size, they're probably the best F-16s in their respective fan size categories for the money. Then I look at the sales data between the two... As I said, Precipitous. ;)

[F106DeltaDart]

Designed to a price point, we could get an F-4 or F-106or Hunter or MiG-15 to fly authoritatively and far beyond what the real aircraft could ever do, without the need for big, heavy, expensive power systems. It's just a question of how much scale detail (i.e. plastic and weight) we want to add to increase the "wow" factor at a cost of rank performance. )

:D:cool: Yes, please!!

Seriously though, thanks for the explanation. Makes a good bit of sense why we don't see that size often, the price points you listed are pretty much my limits outside of a select few models.

[Alpha10]

I've owned 100mm, 105mm, 120mm, and 127mm EDFs. But, I don't see us going toward those larger sizes in the near future for PNP. The price jumps, as most often they'll require HV ESCs, 8s-12s batteries, and beefy struts, servos, hinges, airframes.

If anyone is concerned about "raw power", I'd point to our most recent EDF, the 80mm MiG-21. It's roughly a 90mm sized aircraft that has no problem powering through any maneuver thrown at it, and can sustain a couple seconds of hover or an extended period of near standstill high alpha. In the context of foam electric in the size our primary market prefers, a 110mm-120mm just isn't needed. Designed to a price point, we could get an F-4 or F-106 or Hunter or MiG-15 to fly authoritatively and far beyond what the real aircraft could ever do, without the need for big, heavy, expensive power systems. It's just a question of how much scale detail (i.e. plastic and weight) we want to add to increase the "wow" factor at a cost of rank performance. I think the MiG-21 is a good balance between the two.

Now, I'm not at all saying that a 110mm or 120mm foam EDF wouldn't find a market (sign me up for two!!!), but I'd bet both my thumbs that we'd sell far more of any EDF subject in the 90mm size than the same jet in a 120mm size. We've seen the data time and again with a range of categories from a range of manufacturers at a range of price points. There is, simply, a ceiling. Yes, bigger flies better and we all want a huge aircraft for various reasons, but more often when it comes time to vote with our wallets, we see a precipitous drop in sales once a single engine warbird passes 1500mm wingspan for $339, or a jet passes 90mm in fan size for $399-$479.

The real key is optimizing an aircraft's features and performance and value as maximally as possible, while still landing within the sweet spot of most people's real world preferred price point. I look at the HSD 105mm F-16, for example. A nice flying plane, to be sure, with beautiful retracts and only a few things to be mindful of. Then I look at the Freewing 90mm F-16. Similar scale landing gear and profile, smaller than the HSD obviously, a couple nitpicks sure, but overall a nice plane as well. Aside from price and size, they're probably the best F-16s in their respective fan size categories for the money. Then I look at the sales data between the two... As I said, Precipitous. ;)

Absolutely... PLUS, let's not forget about transportation of such a large (100-120mm) model. Not everyone has a giant van or trailer.

I LOVE packing 5 planes in my little grocery getter and having a blast at the field all day. The 80-90mm is just more practical IMHO and you don't have to break down a single plane and only flying that one plane all day.

[apmech1]

Single 90mm pnp or arf plus. High performance option but not required. Retracts with doors. Flying stabilators, flaps, (i dont care about spoilerons) pogo pins connectors at the wing joints (similar to hsd f-16, or fms a-10) I would be all over that as a $459, or $499. I'm not holding my holding my breath but.... i would be all over it.

[apmech1]

Please don't let this thread die.... :)

[F106DeltaDart]

A few photos to keep the thread alive..

[Ks.jetflyer]

Nothing better than an F-4 done in SEA camo. Come on Freewing, need an 80mm or 90mm single.

[Aros]

Man was there ever a more meaner looking jet in history?

[dahawk]

I totally get Alpha's explanation on sizes, mold costs, edf sizes, etc. I would be 100% fine with a single 90 w/ bifurcated exhaust ducting. After all, the turbinesque sound of the single 12b 90mm aptly masks the fact that there's only one motor. When the F4 flies by, fellow flyers, neighbors and the farmer in the next county will know it. The faux twin appearance is fine. Modelers could add afterburner rings to make it even more scale looking. I would expect strong landing gear like FW has been providing lately, perhaps with simple gear doors similar to the Flightline TigerCat, 6S power, flaps, nice scale looking canopy with scale pilot and RIO ( F4J) and/or pilot & WSO ( F4E).

Costs can sometimes be managed when there's a minimum of non-recurring engineering involved. Borrow and re-use what has already been successfully developed for other models. Less parts to deal with. Can sometimes share mechanical spares with other models. Just as I would have loved to have seen decellerons on the A-10, I understand not everything transfers well from full scale to RC model. Thus, no need for the forward slats. How many actually used them on the T-45 anyway?

Priced along the lines of a Stinger 90 or the F-15, I think a good flying F4 would be a home run. The F4 is very appealing to the baby boomer market that makes up a good percentage of your customer base, at least in edf's. It's legacy resonates. It's also the native adversary to the Mig-21. How cool would that be to see the two flying together?

And no offense to Eflight or LX, but they totally missed the mark.



I will be all over it.

Hawk

[crxmanpat]

I would be all over a Freewing Rhino, be it twin 70mm, twin 80mm, or single 90mm. I'm currently working on an LX version that will sport the Freewing Me-262 fans/motors/ESCs, and I'm doing Col. Robin Olds' SCAT XXVII like the pic Delta posted above. This thing has so far required lots of work to get things "right", and I know Freewing could give us something that would work great out of the box with about 1.5 hours of build time. Let's hope our wishes are granted!

[Aros]

I'll bend Alpha's ear for FW to get on the Phantom. I'll bribe him with cases of Red Bull since the man never sleeps any ways. LOL ;) :f4phantom:f4phantom:f4phantom

[Alpha]

Aros, that exact image you used for the emojii has actually been my screensaver in year's past.