Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

[Quickstop]

I have never enjoyed flying an airplane vertically for a long time. you know, for 170 sized F3A aircraft, I can climb all day using only 45% to 50% throttle, but its really, really hard to climb a perfect straight line especially when its windy..

I enjoy more doing roll maneuvers or inverted low passes or in combination..so power has really not been a problem to me most of the time if not at all...

Nothing better than rotating, accelerating for a second Then climbing vertically, just like you see at the airshows....scale!
this is what i want

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYl_yRcR6k

[Airguardian]

I think, let everyone do what they please, right?
Those of us that like to hunt for scale is fine, as well as is trying to fly scale jets as if they were a sport aircraft.
Forcing one's preference onto others seems kinda silly to me.

THAT SAID, I will now kinda proceed to do exactly that!
(If you don't mind!)

I'm not flying a "real" plane.

You are indeed flying a REAL plane.
You may say you are not flying fullscale, but the plane is very real, unless you fly it only in your mind or on the computer...

I could care less if my models fly "scale". In fact, that is SOOOOOO boring.
[...]
When I see a new plane on the market and I hear people say that they have great fun flying it "scale". To me that means it's under powered and they have to fly it that way. I won't buy it.

Well, I don't quite agree there. I think there is a huge misconception regarding the use of the term 'scale', as way too often I see people referring to 'flying circles and eight-figure' flights as scale flying, and it drives me nuts... to me it's rather the other way round!
Performing scale-like means being able to replicate what the fullscale jet does with as much fidelity as possible, and fullscale jets do fly quite hardcore as demonstrated in public airshows. Getting to make your model fly anything like that can be all but 'boring' and requires skill.

People that just fly circuits around (hey it's perfectly ok, don't get me wrong), often will do so because they probably lack the ability to fly actual SCALE-like.
I just would like to reverse that tendency of people referring to scale as 'boring flights'. Real scale flights are badass.

Case in point, do you consider THIS to be boring?

If you don't, then you don't have a right to call scale-flight boring!

But then, on that same line, proper scale flight with these jets would require T/W ratios greater than those usually offered on the PnP products, so it's up to the modeler to install more power.
And as always, it's a trade-off.

[xviper]

Nothing better than rotating, accelerating for a second Then climbing vertically, just like you see at the airshows....scale!
this is what i want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktYl_yRcR6k

THAT'S the kind of "scale" I like. Oh, and that bus driving in and out of the frame is just the touch of "scale" realism we need.

[Pogo]

I don't think these have been posted...
Tom

[T-CAT]

I don't think these have been posted...
Tom

Those are some amazing photos.

[HFBZZX]

I think, let everyone do what they please, right?
Those of us that like to hunt for scale is fine, as well as is trying to fly scale jets as if they were a sport aircraft.
Forcing one's preference onto others seems kinda silly to me.

THAT SAID, I will now kinda proceed to do exactly that!
(If you don't mind!)



You are indeed flying a REAL plane.
You may say you are not flying fullscale, but the plane is very real, unless you fly it only in your mind or on the computer...



Well, I don't quite agree there. I think there is a huge misconception regarding the use of the term 'scale', as way too often I see people referring to 'flying circles and eight-figure' flights as scale flying, and it drives me nuts... to me it's rather the other way round!
Performing scale-like means being able to replicate what the fullscale jet does with as much fidelity as possible, and fullscale jets do fly quite hardcore as demonstrated in public airshows. Getting to make your model fly anything like that can be all but 'boring' and requires skill.

People that just fly circuits around (hey it's perfectly ok, don't get me wrong), often will do so because they probably lack the ability to fly actual SCALE-like.
I just would like to reverse that tendency of people referring to scale as 'boring flights'. Real scale flights are badass.

Case in point, do you consider THIS to be boring?

If you don't, then you don't have a right to call scale-flight boring!

But then, on that same line, proper scale flight with these jets would require T/W ratios greater than those usually offered on the PnP products, so it's up to the modeler to install more power.
And as always, it's a trade-off.

Awesome Post！

I think you are 100% right anyone can do it in any ways and especially this is a Hobby!

like I said its different enjoyment

[HFBZZX]

THAT'S the kind of "scale" I like. Oh, and that bus driving in and out of the frame is just the touch of "scale" realism we need.

That maneuver is done by accumulating enough speed flying close to ground right after take off and then pulling up immediately. so not 100% power problem. if you can control the aircraft well I bet you can do it with the freewing mig-29...actually this skill was extremely popular 2-3 years ago at all the international competitions...

[xviper]

I think, let everyone do what they please, right?
Those of us that like to hunt for scale is fine, as well as is trying to fly scale jets as if they were a sport aircraft.
Forcing one's preference onto others seems kinda silly to me.

THAT SAID, I will now kinda proceed to do exactly that!
(If you don't mind!)



You are indeed flying a REAL plane.
You may say you are not flying fullscale, but the plane is very real, unless you fly it only in your mind or on the computer...



Well, I don't quite agree there. I think there is a huge misconception regarding the use of the term 'scale', as way too often I see people referring to 'flying circles and eight-figure' flights as scale flying, and it drives me nuts... to me it's rather the other way round!
Performing scale-like means being able to replicate what the fullscale jet does with as much fidelity as possible, and fullscale jets do fly quite hardcore as demonstrated in public airshows. Getting to make your model fly anything like that can be all but 'boring' and requires skill.

People that just fly circuits around (hey it's perfectly ok, don't get me wrong), often will do so because they probably lack the ability to fly actual SCALE-like.
I just would like to reverse that tendency of people referring to scale as 'boring flights'. Real scale flights are badass.

Case in point, do you consider THIS to be boring?

If you don't, then you don't have a right to call scale-flight boring!

But then, on that same line, proper scale flight with these jets would require T/W ratios greater than those usually offered on the PnP products, so it's up to the modeler to install more power.
And as always, it's a trade-off.

I'll address your comments starting at the top.
"Let everyone do what they please". Firstly, remember that this poster registered here for the sole purpose of responding to one particular person's post. He, in fact, came on here to kick the guy in the ass for what he was said. Really, was that worth registering just to do that? I found that objectionable.

I'm not sure if there's a language thing or if it's a country thing, but your idea of "real" and my idea of real are NOT the same. I've seen this in some of your posts on the other forum over the years. No, we are NOT flying "real" airplanes. We are flying "models". We do not sit in them. We cannot feel what the plane does in the seat of our pants. We do not have a bank of instruments to show us what all the flight parameters are to know when to rotate, when to use the various controls when we feel and know the plane is about to stall or get the feeling of G forces on our bodies to know how to react.

As for "scale", again maybe it's a language thing. You are interpreting "scale" in your own way. I'm interpreting it in my way and to a degree, in the way that "HFBZZX" interpreted it when he signed up here to kick some guy in the pants.

Then there's the comment about "trade off". The trade off you're talking about is a different "trade off" than what others were using the term to reference.

[janmb]

I'm not sure if there's a language thing or if it's a country thing, but your idea of "real" and my idea of real are NOT the same. I've seen this in some of your posts on the other forum over the years. No, we are NOT flying "real" airplanes.

If it is a language thing, then the problem is at your end I'm afraid.

An RC model is of course very much a real airplane. It does exist, doesn't it? And that, alone, is the definition of real. A model is every bit as real as a full size aircraft.

[HFBZZX]

I'll address your comments starting at the top.
"Let everyone do what they please". Firstly, remember that this poster registered here for the sole purpose of responding to one particular person's post. He, in fact, came on here to kick the guy in the ass for what he was said. Really, was that worth registering just to do that? I found that objectionable.

I'm not sure if there's a language thing or if it's a country thing, but your idea of "real" and my idea of real are NOT the same. I've seen this in some of your posts on the other forum over the years. No, we are NOT flying "real" airplanes. We are flying "models". We do not sit in them. We cannot feel what the plane does in the seat of our pants. We do not have a bank of instruments to show us what all the flight parameters are to know when to rotate, when to use the various controls when we feel and know the plane is about to stall or get the feeling of G forces on our bodies to know how to react.

As for "scale", again maybe it's a language thing. You are interpreting "scale" in your own way. I'm interpreting it in my way and to a degree, in the way that "HFBZZX" interpreted it when he signed up here to kick some guy in the pants.

Then there's the comment about "trade off". The trade off you're talking about is a different "trade off" than what others were using the term to reference.

this is rather interesting, I was not trying to kick someone's ass but to simply protect my own interest by speaking up so that the manufactures don't think people here only want bigger, faster and stronger......that way i will eventually have no PNP to fly at some point in the future....

In fact, I do think that guy was bringing up something which is not correct. The progress of EDF Jets from 5 years ago is not only power wised.....He seemed only care about power, which its self is superficial...there are so many other aspects that the industry had made progress on and there has already been so much progress every year. If everyone only care about how much extra power there is left and no one cares about the aerodynamics, structure, and can't appreciate those efforts factories made, they will lose their motivation someday and you won't be able to enjoy the hobby with better and better planes...

[HFBZZX]

If it is a language thing, then the problem is at your end I'm afraid.

An RC model is of course very much a real airplane. It does exist, doesn't it? And that, alone, is the definition of real. A model is every bit as real as a full size aircraft.

It was me actually...

[janmb]

In fact, I do think that guy was bringing up something which is not correct. The progress of EDF Jets from 5 years ago is not only power wised.....He seemed only care about power, which its self is superficial...there are so many other aspects that the industry had made progress on and there has already been so much progress every year. If everyone only care about how much extra power there is left and no one cares about the aerodynamics, structure, and can't appreciate those efforts factories made, they will lose their motivation someday and you won't be able to enjoy the hobby with better and better planes...

I'll definitely agree to that. Advances are huge, and absolutely not limited to power or efficiency.

Something as simple as convenience and simplicity in building has taken huge strides only in a few years.

I recently built an old FW Eurofighter - which is an awesome model for sure - but a royal nightmare to build/populate compared to more modern kits.

It was me actually...

Yeah I realized.

[HFBZZX]

I'll definitely agree to that. Advances are huge, and absolutely not limited to power or efficiency.

Something as simple as convenience and simplicity in building has taken huge strides only in a few years.

I recently built an old FW Eurofighter - which is an awesome model for sure - but a royal nightmare to build/populate compared to more modern kits.



Yeah I realized.

Can't agree more

[T-CAT]

I'm happy the PNP's offered these days by Freewing (and some other manufacturers) are of great value, and generally contain much higher quality components than they once did compared to PNP kits in the past (especially by quite a bit of other manufacturers that were well known back then). The idea that PNP aircraft can be reliable, durable, and perform well in most circumstances is fantastic these days.

I'm glad we can save a ton of time and money by not having to tear all the junk out of of a foam PNP aircraft like we once did since many of us had come to the understanding back then that whatever electronics came with most of them were a disaster waiting to happen. Usually, many of us just bought kits to save some dough since all the innards were coming out anyhow, ha-ha. To top that off, we no longer have the need to add lots of structural modification to add durability and reliability to the airframe because reputable manufacturers engineer aircraft much better now a day's.

[mshagg]

A pair of R-27's (NATO AA-10 Alamo) on the inboard pylons, and 4 R-73's (NATO AA-11 Archer) on the outboards.

Legend, thanks Pat!

[Jdcrow]

Like to Classic Rock song by Styx - To Much Time on my hands.

How about we discuss Pros/Cons of battery selections for this bird.

(dual battery setup)
Green - Less than 1340 grams / under 3 pounds
Orange - Designated design pack
Yellow - 1464gr - 1562gr range (3 to 3-1/2 lbs)
Red - over 1600gr (3-1/2 lbs +)

Price listed are street price US$

[crxmanpat]

I'm going with either RoaringTop 5800 or 6250 35C. I fly the 6250 in my T-33 and it works fantastic. I also fly a pair of the 5800s in my A-10 and F-14, 4 mins of flight time, batts always come down fairly cool with 25% left.

RT 5800 35C weight is 780g, 2 packs are 1560g, 2-pack price is $174

RT 6250 35C weight is 803g, 2 packs are 1606g, 2-pack price is $186

[Evan D]

Everyone has their thoughts on batteries but I like the Hobby Star 5200 45C. I have 13 of them in 6S configuration and I think 8 in 2S. Other than using them in my 8S birds, a few 90mm EDFs, my 80mm Avanti, and Top Flight P-47 I use them 12S in planes and helos and regular old 6S in about 25 70, 80, and 90mm EDFs, a ton of airplanes and my 550 helo. They are very light and have good dimensions, very close in size and weight to the Admiral 4000 Pro, some would say exactly the same. And at about half the price of the Admiral when RC Juice has them on sale they are a good value. Down side is they are not the best quality, but value wise I like them and love the flight time. A 6S is 620-640g and add a 2S plus connector adapter and you are still under 880g.

I am thinking about pulling my 8S JF set up from my Avanti and buying a duplicate for the MiG but after the performance of the FW inrunner in my T-33 I'll try it stock first.


Edit, the RT 5800 I have are 765g. My HS 6200 50C are 822g and my E Speed 6200, also from RC Juice, is 760g. I'm planning flying with the 5200...

[Airguardian]

I didn't intend to open a can of worms with my comment, sorry.

"Let everyone do what they please". Firstly, remember that this poster registered here for the sole purpose of responding to one particular person's post. He, in fact, came on here to kick the guy in the ass for what he was said. Really, was that worth registering just to do that? I found that objectionable.

My statement was not aimed at you but rather tried to make it apply to all.
Anyway, that bit in particular was more of a reply to him although I didn't quote him especifically.

I'm not sure if there's a language thing or if it's a country thing, but your idea of "real" and my idea of real are NOT the same. [...] No, we are NOT flying "real" airplanes. We are flying "models". We do not sit in them. We cannot feel what the plane does in the seat of our pants.

A model airplane is a real airplane. Unless you are talking about a mathematical model of an airplane... I think your definition of real is way too specific and biased.
So, by your definition any unmanned aircraft is not a real plane? A Global Hawk or an MQ-9... a fullscale but remotely piloted F-16... none of these are real because there is no one inside to feel the Gs?
That's a bit of a short-sighted way to look at things IMHO.

We do not have a bank of instruments to show us what all the flight parameters are to know when to rotate, when to use the various controls when we feel and know the plane is about to stall or get the feeling of G forces on our bodies to know how to react.

I do on my FPV Su-35. I have speed, altitude, heading, coordinates, flight time, AHI, 'map view' (kind of) and other stuff... and I use them to fly. Does that make my FPV Su-35 a real airplane and my non-FPV Su-35 a model?
A real airplane is a real airplane. It is constituted of mass and flies through the air, interacts with air molecules, produces thrust, drag, lift and has weight to it, be it big or small. Your distinction is weird.

As for "scale", again maybe it's a language thing. You are interpreting "scale" in your own way. I'm interpreting it in my way and to a degree, in the way that "HFBZZX" interpreted it when he signed up here to kick some guy in the pants.

Probably there is not an agreed 'standard' for what scale flight is, so as you say, both of our interpretations may be just that, interpretations.
But if 'scale' isn't about representing with fidelity 'the real deal' as you would say, then I don't see what's the point in using that very word at all (scale) to describe the activity.
But since there are competitions on 'scale aircraft' I guess we could take their definition of 'scale-flight' as the better standard, and that would be more on the lines of what I was arguing, I think.

Then there's the comment about "trade off". The trade off you're talking about is a different "trade off" than what others were using the term to reference.

A trade-off is a trade-off, I don't see how we can have an argument on that...
You gain something at the expense of worsening other features.
Is not this what trade-off means in your mind? I'm legit confused now.

[Jdcrow]

Like to Classic Rock song by Styx - To Much Time on my hands.

How about we discuss Pros/Cons of battery selections for this bird.

(dual battery setup)
Green - Less than 1340 grams / under 3 pounds
Orange - Designated design pack
Yellow - 1464gr - 1562gr range (3 to 3-1/2 lbs)
Red - over 1600gr (3-1/2 lbs +)

Price listed are street price US$

3 setups that are mentally intriguing are a pair of Admiral 4500 40c's and the Spektrum Smart 5000 50c or 100c. All three under 3 lbs and the nearest to the 4000 Admiral Alpha designed around.

Maybe James will throw in a pair of Admiral 4500's for comparisons while we await aircraft.

Im inclined to go minimum 40c. My mind is all a venn diagram of weight/capacity/C/performance/price