Official Freewing 90mm F-16 Falcon Thread

[Aros]

Well I don't have the E-flight F-16 70mm but I can tell you it would be apples to oranges just due to weight differential alone. The 90mm F-16 is not a dainty dame. She has plenty of wing load but with the proper understanding of how she likes to be landed AND with the new inrunner setup she will reward you with terrific fun, scale sorties.

[N4Speed]

Well I don't have the E-flight F-16 70mm but I can tell you it would be apples to oranges just due to weight differential alone. The 90mm F-16 is not a dainty dame. She has plenty of wing load but with the proper understanding of how she likes to be landed AND with the new inrunner setup she will reward you with terrific fun, scale sorties.

Thanks! I am trying to figure out if I have the skills to fly the 90mm. I 've been flying EDF for couple of months, I have a Viper 70 mm and F-16 70mm, I'm very comfortable with both. I am not at ease when I fly the F-35 70mm. Also, does the 90mm F-16 do high alphas?

[Aros]

I would hold off on this F-16 until you get a bit more experience with the higher wing-loaded scale jets personally. The 70mm class are like feathers by comparison, lol. I would treat EDFs (generally speaking, there are always exceptions from class-to-class) in a linear way. Cut your teeth on the 64/70mm's first. Then move up to the 80mm's and finally the 90mm class. However each of us have our own learning curves so what may take one person a year or more may take you 3 months or so. These are just basic guidelines. In the end we're all just flyin' and crashin' anyways.

[Mizer67]

I don't find size as important as wing loading (and the type of wing). I, rightly or wrongly, equate higher wing loading with a more difficult to fly model. It's not universally true, but is a decent place to start.

I started a chart with those wing loadings that are in the Freewing instruction manuals and the A-4 was the lightest of those published at 112 - 114 grams/dm if I recall correctly. Lighter will usually mean more forgiving and maneuverable as well.

Many of the older 90mms like the F-15 and F-16 (and F-14) were higher than the newer designs. Deltas and modern designs with lifting bodies tend to distort that figure somewhat though. Deltas are very flexible and well, then you have the one giant wing of the F-22 with it's lifting body that's probably difficult to account for in the specs.

[Aros]

Good observations all around Mizer67 . It's true that you can't just look at class size. There are so many variables that come into play for higher wing-loaded models. However, as technology advances, as you pointed out (the older scale 90mm's have much higher wing loads than their current New Gen counterparts like the F-22, F-4, etc), the wing loads "generally" come down with advancement in material selection, engineering and so forth. This is why I was hoping to gently nudge N4Speed in a direction that wouldn't be too much of a surprise on the sticks, lol.

Airfoils, profiles, wing types, and yes size all come into play naturally. If I had to choose which jet N4Speed would have more success with between the Old Gen 90mm F-16 and the New Gen 90mm F-22, well the latter would be my vote and it wouldn't even be a fair fight. And yes that's due to new tech but also the giant wing/lift it provides with such a wide flight envelope to boot. The Old Gen F-16 demands much more respect and you had better fly her like she wants or look out below.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Good observations all around [USER="1711"]Mizer67[/USER. The Old Gen F-16 demands much more respect and you had better fly her like she wants or look out below.

Great Observation Aros , the F-16 is certainly one of the more challenging jets I have to fly, always keeps me on my toes, but if you treat her right, she's a dream. Interesting on how we give human qualities to our birds, and female qualities at that. Your comment got me thinking that I love this jet because it's exactly like my wife. If you treat her with respect and do things the way she likes it, your in heaven, but if not,............ welcome to on earth.

[Aros]

Your comment got me thinking that I love this jet because it's exactly like my wife. If you treat her with respect and do things the way she likes it, your in heaven, but if not,............ welcome to on earth.

LOL!! Ah Hugh that's why we love you around here...Always with the perfect levity! AND so true!

[Mizer67]

Good observations all around Mizer67 . It's true that you can't just look at class size. There are so many variables that come into play for higher wing-loaded models. However, as technology advances, as you pointed out (the older scale 90mm's have much higher wing loads than their current New Gen counterparts like the F-22, F-4, etc), the wing loads "generally" come down with advancement in material selection, engineering and so forth. This is why I was hoping to gently nudge N4Speed in a direction that wouldn't be too much of a surprise on the sticks, lol.

Airfoils, profiles, wing types, and yes size all come into play naturally. If I had to choose which jet N4Speed would have more success with between the Old Gen 90mm F-16 and the New Gen 90mm F-22, well the latter would be my vote and it wouldn't even be a fair fight. And yes that's due to new tech but also the giant wing/lift it provides with such a wide flight envelope to boot. The Old Gen F-16 demands much more respect and you had better fly her like she wants or look out below.

I quit the hobby a few years back so haven't flown many of the new models you guys have put out in the last 4-years.

However, of those five models I've owned and those seven I've flown, the F-22 is one of the easier ones to fly and land, even though it's a 90mm. It's large size makes it easy to see, orient and visually it appears slower than some of my others, even though it's not actually going any slower. Wing loading has a lot to do with that behavior, taking into account the effect of the lifting body actually makes it behave even lighter than the 142 g/dm would indicate. I wouldn't recommend it as a step-up model only because if you do make a mistake, it's more expensive to fix and has more complex systems but when I have had to work on it, it does seem the easiest to repair. The design is very well thought out r.e. maintain-ability.

Another "large" format jet that I've owned that's easy to fly is the 80mm Mig-21, also because it has a very light wing loading even though it's a ~circa. 2016 jet. It's the jet I'd pick for taking into tight spaces given the slow landing speeds, best main gear FW makes (those trailing links rock), barn-door flaps and stability on the ground given the wide stance.

Ironically the jet that I've own that I found the hardest to fly (mainly land) was the F-5, which is one of the smallest and a smaller fan size, but the Mirage is a real doll given the delta wing.

I do find the fan size discussions that come up when someone is talking about a step up plane not to to have enough detail for less experienced pilots to make a good decision. Most of the newer FW jets are more like the F-22 than the F-5 (or F-16 90mm) though, so eventually it might be "pick what you like and is in your budget" when someone asks.

I knew you were trying to steer him to something he'd be successful at and I'd strongly suspect the F-16 90mm is not that plane. I love Vipers and this one looks the best of all of them. I'd consider myself a solid intermediate pilot, but I've kept away from this F-16 because of concerns I'd stall it on base to final or get too slow in a turn and spin it in (plus the weight/wing loading makes the performance on 6S less appealing). I still want one though.

[SDRick]

I have been counseled to get another jet or two before this F-16, but I still want it. After 85 flights on my 70 mm F-16, I had a thought. My E flight F-16 comes with a Gyro with safe mode enabled by switch. I have never used safe mode until yesterday. I realized after taking off I had the wrong prescription glasses (I have monovision) so was really only utilizing one eye. Between that, and the crosswind I decided to land right away and flipped it into safe mode. It worked great!

So if I do get this bird and stick in a Spektrum receiver (with safemode), until I get comfortable, I could initially rely on safe mode if needed to safely land? Best of both worlds? What do you guys think?

[Aros]

SAFE mode or at least a gyro would definitely help but you still have to negotiate the heavier wing load of the 90mm F-16 from takeoff to touchdown. You will immediately notice the difference from your 70mm to this 90mm right away, especially the takeoff roll distance. I have flaperons added to mine which helped quite a bit in terms of takeoff distance and smoother landings and put them on F Modes to easily tweak during flight if need be (thanks again Hugh Wiedman ).

As for the right jet for the right person Mizer67 , again, a lot of great thoughts and it underscores that there are exceptions to every class range. I've flown 70mm models more squirelly than some 80 and 90mm models. I haven't flown the Mig-21 or the F-5. I have flown the Avanti S and F-86 and both are dynamite, stable and easy to fly where I would have no problem recommending them to anyone with even just a little EDF experience.

Speaking of wing load, I am about to load up my HSD 105mm F-16 for another "Pucker Flight" as I don't have the luxury of a wide-open field sans obstructions. I really need to get her to stop eating ding dongs and Ho Ho's but she won't listen.

[Mizer67]

Good point Aros. One thing that is rarely mentioned with respect to difficulty is what space one is trying to fly in and out of, runway length and obstructions.

Even the most difficult jet is easier to fly off of a long paved runway with long, clear approaches on both ends. These jets often will either come down or slow down, but not both at the same time.

If you have to drop down into a bowl and stop short, the difficulty increases substantially. Something to consider always.

[SDRick]

Aros, SAFE can provide some insurance if necessary on most critical aspects. Keeping it in the air between takeoff and landing and not stalling is always a consideration (and always preferred! I do not seem to have a problem with speed (or stalling), In fact I always wish my planes had a little more speed to them. I have a couple planes with flaps (albeit bush planes) and I am fond of how they can expand the flight characteristics. I was planning on setting up flaps on whatever plane would allow it; much as you described.

Have fun with your HSD 105. That is a beautiful bird and on my list (after I gain a little more confidence or money or both). How are the flight characteristics compared to your Freewing?

@ Mizer67, Field characteristics can make a big difference as can wind conditions. The bigger, longer and open, the better, especially on maidens! My clubs landing strip is 600x40 with an interstate on one end and an almost un-retrievable jungle on the other. So pretty good but not all ideal.

[vduniec]

Repaint complete! I present, the OH ANG Viper in the latest Have Glass V scheme with homemade decals.

[vduniec]

Some more shots:

[DCORSAIR]

Now that looks awesome, makes me want another one, I sold my last one not to long ago, had 5 of them so far, love the F-16.

[N4Speed]

I quit the hobby a few years back so haven't flown many of the new models you guys have put out in the last 4-years.

However, of those five models I've owned and those seven I've flown, the F-22 is one of the easier ones to fly and land, even though it's a 90mm. It's large size makes it easy to see, orient and visually it appears slower than some of my others, even though it's not actually going any slower. Wing loading has a lot to do with that behavior, taking into account the effect of the lifting body actually makes it behave even lighter than the 142 g/dm would indicate. I wouldn't recommend it as a step-up model only because if you do make a mistake, it's more expensive to fix and has more complex systems but when I have had to work on it, it does seem the easiest to repair. The design is very well thought out r.e. maintain-ability......

Thanks! F-22 seems to be one to consider. The first EDF I bought back in April was a FW F-14. I knew I didn't have the skills to fly it, but just had to have it. It's all put together and waiting for maiden flight hopefully soon. I also picked up a FW SU-35 couple of weeks ago and I'm in process of assembling it. I think I will try it once I have more flight time with F-35.

[N4Speed]

I don't find size as important as wing loading (and the type of wing). I, rightly or wrongly, equate higher wing loading with a more difficult to fly model. It's not universally true, but is a decent place to start.

I started a chart with those wing loadings that are in the Freewing instruction manuals and the A-4 was the lightest of those published at 112 - 114 grams/dm if I recall correctly. Lighter will usually mean more forgiving and maneuverable as well.

Many of the older 90mms like the F-15 and F-16 (and F-14) were higher than the newer designs. Deltas and modern designs with lifting bodies tend to distort that figure somewhat though. Deltas are very flexible and well, then you have the one giant wing of the F-22 with it's lifting body that's probably difficult to account for in the specs.

I would be very interested in seeing your wing loading chart. Any chance you could share it?

[Mizer67]

I would be very interested in seeing your wing loading chart. Any chance you could share it?

See if this works (looks like it did - I was only interested in scale 80/90mms. Pulled these figures from the manuals):

Aircraft	Wing Loading	Unit	Fan Size
JAS-39	105	g/dm^2	80mm
A-4	112	g/dm^2	80mm
T-33	113	g/dm^2	80mm
A-10	124	g/dm^2	2*80mm
Mig-21	125	g/dm^2	80mm
Mig-29	125	g/dm^2	2*80mm
F-4	140	g/dm^2	90mm
F-22	142	g/dm^2	90mm
L-39	144	g/dm^2	80mm
F-18	150	g/dm^2	90mm
F-15	214	g/dm^2	90mm
F-14	255	g/dm^2	2*80mm

[N4Speed]

See if this works (looks like it did - I was only interested in scale 80/90mms. Pulled these figures from the manuals):

Aircraft	Wing Loading	Unit	Fan Size
JAS-39	105	g/dm^2	80mm

Great compilation!! Thanks!

[Aros]

F-14 and F-15: "So you're calling us fat?"