Freewing 90mm F-16 - Thoughts anyone?
Collapse
X
-
Might have to try one of those as well.. I have been using the Revo Gopacks 5800s and have been having great performance with them as well.Comment
-
Check me out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/user/gooniac33
I am an RC addict and innovator that loves to share my knowledge with those that need help. Ask me anything via PM if you need help! Check out my Website here https://www.gooniac33.me/Comment
-
Yeah man! It loves thrust so 12 blade setups are best... Higher rpm speed setups like JetFan, WemoEvo, and Schubies don't really transfer over too well in the Venom.
You should definitely pick one up!
They're so versatile, it's insane. I can practically hover and still do 125mph with my latest Red Swiss Venom and setup. :)Comment
-
I have a Leopard 4082 Inrunner in a Freewing Inrunner housing that would be at home in that plane. It made my F-15 a rocket and could work wonders with the venom!! If I had room for the plane I would get it!! But the next on my list is the T-45....
Yeah man! It loves thrust so 12 blade setups are best... Higher rpm speed setups like JetFan, WemoEvo, and Schubies don't really transfer over too well in the Venom.
You should definitely pick one up!
They're so versatile, it's insane. I can practically hover and still do 125mph with my latest Red Swiss Venom and setup. :)Check me out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/user/gooniac33
I am an RC addict and innovator that loves to share my knowledge with those that need help. Ask me anything via PM if you need help! Check out my Website here https://www.gooniac33.me/Comment
-
Nice! Yeah, the T-45 is a great plane, but it needs 8s to move decently and even still, it's draggy and heavy. (Not as bad as the 90mm F-16 though)
I love my gorgeous T-45, but if I had to chose between the two if wouldn't even be debatable. : )Comment
-
Comment
-
Agreed on the T-45. It looks great on the ground and flying scale, but it needs some serious upgrading of the power system to be a good flyer. With full flaps and gear down, it needs full power to stay in the air.
The best part about flying that plane is taking off and landing. Landing with high alpha....the plane looks great, and it's really fun and challenging to master.Comment
-
All planes require adapting to their flying characteristics. My buddy flies his T-45 with none of the issues noted!! It has more power than all but the Venom in stock set up!! I will need to get a video of this one as well....Agreed on the T-45. It looks great on the ground and flying scale, but it needs some serious upgrading of the power system to be a good flyer. With full flaps and gear down, it needs full power to stay in the air.
The best part about flying that plane is taking off and landing. Landing with high alpha....the plane looks great, and it's really fun and challenging to master.

Check me out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/user/gooniac33
I am an RC addict and innovator that loves to share my knowledge with those that need help. Ask me anything via PM if you need help! Check out my Website here https://www.gooniac33.me/Comment
-
Haha! I love it... Now the MIG21 is possibly the ugliest plane I've ever seen lolComment
-
Comment
-
Well, X-32 had a max airspeed of 1.6 Mach versus 1.5 Mach for the X-35. But, the X-35 had a much longer range (almost double) for most missions. And the bigger issue was that the X-32 had a last minute design change in wing/tail configs, but the prototype was already built with the delta wing config. So, the aircraft that was being tested wasn't even the same config as what was planned for the final production model. The photo on the ground is a mockup of the production version, versus the one in flight. In addition, it was heavier than planned, and all of the gear doors had to be removed in order to accomplish a hover. But, that's just I'm also a bit baised since I know several people who were on the X-35 team. No matter who won, I doubt it would have been a less challenging road to development for either company, it's an extremely demanding RFP to meet.
And Seaviper, you will love the F-16, it does not disappoint! Looks amazing in the air and the ground, easily one of the most detailed jets that Freewing has built to date.2 PhotosComment
-
It's VERY nice to look at :)Well, X-32 had a max airspeed of 1.6 Mach versus 1.5 Mach for the X-35. But, the X-35 had a much longer range (almost double) for most missions. And the bigger issue was that the X-32 had a last minute design change in wing/tail configs, but the prototype was already built with the delta wing config. So, the aircraft that was being tested wasn't even the same config as what was planned for the final production model. The photo on the ground is a mockup of the production version, versus the one in flight. In addition, it was heavier than planned, and all of the gear doors had to be removed in order to accomplish a hover. But, that's just I'm also a bit baised since I know several people who were on the X-35 team. No matter who won, I doubt it would have been a less challenging road to development for either company, it's an extremely demanding RFP to meet.
And Seaviper, you will love the F-16, it does not disappoint! Looks amazing in the air and the ground, easily one of the most detailed jets that Freewing has built to date.Comment
-
Just picked up a pretty well priced inrunner over on RCG, looking forward to seeing what the performance difference is with it installed.Comment
-
Nice! You'll pick up a little vertical, but it's going to cost you a bit of flight time and the weight doesn't exactly help the F-16s situation. : /
I'd recommend the FMS 1900kv 12 blader as it weighs only 336g and puts out 3.5kg... Much lighter and just as powerful. :)Comment

.png)




Comment