Next big jet from Freewing

[hotdogx]

F-106 80mm please.

[DCORSAIR]

am I the only one that wants a T2 buckeye?




https://www.hobbysquawk.com/filedata...408&type=thumb

I would love to see a T2 Buckeye, 90mm would be jut fine with me......:Cool:

[F106DeltaDart]

F-106 80mm please.

Yes please!!

[Mightywarhoover]

Twin 80 S-3B Viking please!!

[Mightywarhoover]

[Regatoni5]

A Viking would be pretty awesome. definitely dont see those too often. Maybe even a 90mm crusader with all of the bells and whistles

[gooniac33]

I think a 90mm A-7 would be awesome!! Or even an 80mm version!!

[Ron1950]

you got that right gooniac

[Patrnflyr]

Everybody's been saying an F-4 Phantom for months, even years. As someone said over on RCG, "we've been leaving a bread crumb trail for the F-4 that even a blind man could follow..." I loved that saying and will put it in my arsenal. I'm thinking of it this way. We've been banging on the F-4 for so long and the silence is deafening (from the powers that be). It reminds me of when I was a kid right before Christmas and I was able to guess what my present was. My parents would say, no it isn't and change the subject quickly, etc. Maybe that's what's going on

[DCORSAIR]

Just a hint would be good, I really don't make a big fuss about what is next and all that but maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, what is the big deal about not telling the public what might be coming down the pipeline anyway? My guess would be, if we knew what was coming we wouldn't purchase other jets or is it we would drive the sale reps crazy or manufacturers crazy with questions about the product??..........:)

Come on MRC, tells us whats next so we can get all excited and start saving some money for it..........:Cool:

[Having Fun]

I don't think the F-4 has a chance of being next. History (Eflite) tells us it didn't make for a good plane unless you have a long smoooooth asphalt or concrete runway. Look how short the landing gear is for you scale guys. Put a bomb rack or gas tank under it and you can kiss the manicured grass or tarp field goodbye. Also, the scale F-4 had to have its nose gear elongated so the AOA on take off would allow it to get off in a respectable distance. I think MRC has designed the next plane to fit like the A-10 did. Grass, asphalt, concrete, whatever for a runway. Wings on the bottom of the fuse, like the F-4, doesn't make for a very good grass field candidate. A mid wing or top wing airplane is much more suited for an all inclusive airfield operation environment. Just saying...

Also, the FW 90MM F-18 is due for a major overhaul. The only thing about it that resembles a scale F-18 is a static view. FMS is out with a 70mm F-18 that is very scale except for non flying elevators and a little discussion about the thrust tube not up to exact specifications. It sells for $269. If FW is bringing out a $500+ jet, it better be something special like the 80mm A-10 or the FMS F-18 will constantly be out of stock this summer.

[purduephigam]

At this point, I just want a big scale jet for everyone. The F4 will absolutely be something that will be sooner than later. I understand your points on appealing to the majority regarding grass ops, but this type of jet is and will always be one for the books. I would imagine it to always sell. That being said, I would imagine a new F4 would be more likely than an overhauled F-18. I think either way, if it's a super scale jet, I have all the confidence that MRC will deliver a fantastic quality product for everyone, whatever it may be.

[Patrnflyr]

The EFlite F-4 was also known as the flying brickster. Not only was it very heavy and tiny, the color scheme made it disappear in the sky. We had one in our club and it became a Hangar Queen because nobody was brave enough to assemble it and fly it consistently. Now a twin 80mm SEA version would be bigger, but lighter due to being a foamy and easier to see.

[PikeStaff]

The E-Flite F-4 was an experts plane; in every respect. Just like their F-86, they built an airplane that was fast and heavy - not a terrible challenge for truly experienced r/c pilots, but a disaster for everybody else. Like their 1:1 counterparts, they simply could not be slowed down to speeds average pilots are used to, and continue to fly. Thin wings and very high unit loadings are fine as long as speed is held - they are a guarantee of stalled failure if it isn’t. They were beautiful airplanes, excellent flyers in the hands of folks who understood what they needed to be successful - but not for the average, everyday foamy EDF pilot.

A big twin 80mm Phantom, done by the guys who understand their market (I.e., Motion crew), with real detail and attention to the necessary attributes - flying characteristics - would be a home run of probably unparalleled experience. Flaps and full-flying stab are absolutes; slats are a No. Gear doors, and reasonably-close-to-scale gear are mandatory......make the gear, especially the nose gear, stout enough to withstand grass use without failing in 10 easy landings. The extending nose gear was the Navy’s requirement, to get this mammoth fighter off a carrier deck, so unnecessary for us. Arresting hooks should be as per the Skyhawk; there, and attractive, but not operating. Weapons loads, cockpit details, paint / decal options, all are really strong sales incentives. And as big as this is likely to be, there ought to be lots of batt space for upgrades to 8s or bigger.

But if the sled doesn’t fly pretty doggone well, it will die a quick death. Like the E-Flite Phantoms and Sabres did. Make this fly right and they will have mucho trouble keeping them in stock.

[MOFO1]

Mucho Macho trouble say I. There was a clue given sometime back. Cannot recall if it was on this site or RCG. I do believe it was from someone at MRC. The clue was "don't give up hope or don't lose hope" when queried about the F-4. This was during the time the teaser photos for the 64mm F-105 were released. There are times when what is not said is as important or more important then what is said. This observation is based on decades of experience negotiating with some pretty tough hombres. Backwards keep talking I do.

[DCORSAIR]

I know and F-4 can be done and fly right, back in 1999-2000 I flew my Yellow Aircraft F-4 Phantom in several jet rallys and it flew great, powered by a single OS .91DF with a JMP pipe, springair retracts, burned 5% PowerMaster fuel at several thousand RPM's, wow, the good old days of nitro. It was heavy too and painted in the USS Constellation colors, flew good and very easy to land, even with no flaps. If FW comes out with one, I hope it flies like my YA F-4 did. I wish someone would have got the molds from YA and made us one from foam, it would make a great flyer.

[the snake]

I guess we'll see, seems like the majority wants a F4.

[Bobaroo]

Proper Landing Gear is the Key to this Flexibility everyone is seeking (Grass//Asphalt). BVM had vision enough to see guys Taking his High-End Jets off from grass and incorporated FlexPlates on his Gear Mounts, and that happened Years Ago. Springs are good enough if they are properly Tuned for your AUW, but let's say you're a HeavyJet kind of Guy.. Give different Spring Tension Options, or better yet, Oleo/Oil Dampner Struts !! Like some of the OffRoad Trucks are Running.

Crafty guys come up with solutions for these things out of necessity, they want to preserve their Jets and come up with nifty ways of doing that. While many of the ARF-ers it appears simply take what they get and reorder BrokenParts on Poorly Designed Landing Gear Systems. Now if the MFG'ers Can incorporate a few Simple and relatively Inexpensive Upgrades to their Landing Gear Systems much of the Grass or Unimproved Surface restrictions will disappear, and the Asphalt Guys will benefit also. Durability and FlexPlates seem simple enough to apply to any large offering. And Yes, The F-4 needs to be done right.

[gooniac33]

guys I think we may be getting an F-4.... will check back early AM tomorrow...

[DCORSAIR]

Oh no, not yet, just spent my F-4 money.................LOL:):Angry: