Official Freewing 90mm F-16 Falcon Thread

[Mizer67]

Great compilation!! Thanks!

Anytime.

It's not perfect just using wing loading for comparison as to ease of flight. Some designs get more lift from their bodies and deltas in general have good low-speed handling. Others like the F-18 have a particularly large leading edge extension (LEX) which aids in low-speed flight. I don't think the F-15 for instance is particularly hard to fly for instance, once it's up to speed, given it gets a lot of lift from the body, but it always has to overcome its weight disadvantage if you're looking for performance. The F-22 behaves like a much lighter model given the huge lifting body.

[SDRick]

I did not see the wing loading for the F-16 on the list. Anyone know what it is? For that matter, it would be interesting to compare the loading of the 70 mm with the 90.

[N4Speed]

Anytime.

It's not perfect just using wing loading for comparison as to ease of flight. Some designs get more lift from their bodies and deltas in general have good low-speed handling. Others like the F-18 have a particularly large leading edge extension (LEX) which aids in low-speed flight. I don't think the F-15 for instance is particularly hard to fly for instance, once it's up to speed, given it gets a lot of lift from the body, but it always has to overcome its weight disadvantage if you're looking for performance. The F-22 behaves like a much lighter model given the huge lifting body.

Interesting you mentioned F-18, I have been eyeballing it also. I know you mentioned there are other factors besides wing loading, however, looking at your wing loading chart, F-18 with 150 g/dm^2 is pretty close to F-22 with 142 g/dm^2. Given the LEX on F-18, I wonder if F-18 would be a good candidate as my 4th EDF and 1st 90mm.

[Mizer67]

Interesting you mentioned F-18, I have been eyeballing it also. I know you mentioned there are other factors besides wing loading, however, looking at your wing loading chart, F-18 with 150 g/dm^2 is pretty close to F-22 with 142 g/dm^2. Given the LEX on F-18, I wonder if F-18 would be a good candidate as my 4th EDF and 1st 90mm.

It doesn't look too difficult to fly to me, if you've got some bigger EDF experience. Aros has mentioned that it flies "less like a trainer" than the F-22, but the F-22 will fly remarkably slow and is pretty easy to fly and land in my opinion.

Before FW released the Gripen, the F-18 was in my cart for purchase. I waited 24 hours to see the announcement before hitting "buy" and by dumb luck it was the exact model that was #1 on my "must-have" list. Not wild about the schemes on it, but was going to buy an airbrush and compressor and try my luck on the base grey in an aggressor scheme.

From what I've seen with the F-18, setup is more key than some others, CG in particular. I think most of bugs are ironed out now also with this model though.

[N4Speed]

It doesn't look too difficult to fly to me, if you've got some bigger EDF experience. Aros has mentioned that it flies "less like a trainer" than the F-22, but the F-22 will fly remarkably slow and is pretty easy to fly and land in my opinion.

Before FW released the Gripen, the F-18 was in my cart for purchase. I waited 24 hours to see the announcement before hitting "buy" and by dumb luck it was the exact model that was #1 on my "must-have" list. Not wild about the schemes on it, but was going to buy an airbrush and compressor and try my luck on the base grey in an aggressor scheme.

From what I've seen with the F-18, setup is more key than some others, CG in particular. I think most of bugs are ironed out now also with this model though.

Thank you! Gripen is a very interesting EDF.

[gooniac33]

Ok boys well as you know.... I finally got the F-16!! But I didn't do what anyone else has done yet... Yes it is 8s but it is not one that anyone has used yet. I am using the new FMS 1500kv 12 blade set up and OMG is it a beast!! It took a few flights for the motor to loosen up a bit but now that it has.... WOW!! The plane is insane and can climb straight up as soon as the wheels are off the ground! Here are a couple videos... more to come as well..

here is it's second flight! Already doing formation!

[Hugh Wiedman]

gooniac33 that thing is a rocket ship, looks like it could get off a carrier! I love my F'16 with the 1835 Kv inrunner, but as usual, the gooniac takes innovation to the next level and mine would be left to suck your fumes! That's an interesting runway, is that some type of Astro Turf?

[gooniac33]

gooniac33 that thing is a rocket ship, looks like it could get off a carrier! I love my F'16 with the 1835 Kv inrunner, but as usual, the gooniac takes innovation to the next level and mine would be left to suck your fumes! That's an interesting runway, is that some type of Astro Turf?

Its a blast to fly and I am getting more comfy with it after every flight.

The runway is Recycled Astro turf. This is a small field on the california coast in Half Moon Bay

[JLambCWU]

If you have ever considered a sound system for your EDF, I can’t recommend enough the Shockwave from Model Sounds Inc! 100 aircraft sound sets that you can switch between and they sound just like the real aircraft. Modern and Classics, Jets and Props.
Spool up, Spool down and even afterburner sounds. It is incredibly loud in the model as well.

I mixed the F-16 start up and shut down to this clip of theThunderbirds at Nellis. What you’re hearing at startup isn’t the real F-16, it’s the Model Sounds Inc system! I will upload more in my 90mm F-16 when it is ready to taxi.
Until then!

http://www.modelsoundsinc.com/index.php

[JLambCWU]

The Models Sound Inc sound system will be going in the 90mm Thunderbird you see here.
The fastest 6S 90mm I’ve yet to see, radar’d into a 10+ mph headwind at AZ jets at 124mph.

I’m running the Freewing 1835 inrunner on RT 5500mah 70C packs.

Also running the RCGeek Centerburner. Simply the most realistic afterburner available for your EDF.

https://thercgeek.com/the-centerburner/

[Hugh Wiedman]

If you have ever considered a sound system for your EDF, I can’t recommend enough the one from Model Sounds Inc!

Very Cool JLambCWU . I have the Mr. RC Sound system in all my prop warbirds and a couple Bi-Planes but haven't tried it in any of the EDF's and haven't tried the Model Sounds system. The Mr. RC system sounds great on the ground and while taxiing and flying close to the pits, but when it is outbound on the downwind a bit out there, it's not that great (but what do you expect). Of course if there's a gas or turbine bird flying at the same time, forget it. It seems to have the most "impact" on spectators at start up, take-off, flying along the runway, landing and shut down. When you get a chance, can you post a photo of where you put the speakers (or transducers or whatever they use) and control board in your F-16? Is it running on it's own small LiPo or off the main battery? Can't wait to see/hear a video of the system in your F-16.

[JLambCWU]

Very Cool JLambCWU . I have the Mr. RC Sound system in all my prop warbirds and a couple Bi-Planes but haven't tried it in any of the EDF's and haven't tried the Model Sounds system. The Mr. RC system sounds great on the ground and while taxiing and flying close to the pits, but when it is outbound on the downwind a bit out there, it's not that great (but what do you expect). Of course if there's a gas or turbine bird flying at the same time, forget it. It seems to have the most "impact" on spectators at start up, take-off, flying along the runway, landing and shut down. When you get a chance, can you post a photo of where you put the speakers (or transducers or whatever they use) and control board in your F-16? Is it running on it's own small LiPo or off the main battery? Can't wait to see/hear a video of the system in your F-16.

Agreed on all points! I too have the MrRC sound system in my F-4 Phantom and F-4U Corsair.
After evaluating both extensively, I prefer the Model Sounds Inc. The MrRC sound exciter/speakers get VERY hot, while the MSI exciters are only warm after a flight. The price of MSI initially put me off until I realized it came with 100 aircraft sound sets and superior sounds already on the micro SD card.

I just ordered another MSI for my Mig-29 and the it now has a Doppler speed effect option you can add for that realistic at speed sound. Looking forward to playing with it and the Gripen in the air.

Link on the page here http://www.modelsoundsinc.com/shockwavesoundmodule.php


I will post up pictures and videos of the F-16 install as soon as I have it done. I’m just leaving to go fly out of state with some friends again. (Not with the Motion Boys this week ;) )

[Hugh Wiedman]

I’m running the Freewing 1835 inrunner on RT 5500mah 70C packs.

Also running the RCGeek Centerburner. Simply the most realistic afterburner available

Did the same with mine JLambCWU , and left the stock ring afterburner in it as well, double the pleasure. When I told Chris I was putting his AB in and leaving the ring, he thought it was a bit unusual, but then that's me in a nutshell. The 2 actually work well together. Lined the exhaust nozzle with AC aluminum foil, but only back to the clear plastic sheeting covering the ring. I also installed the 12 blade 4068-1835 Kv inrunner, a great EDF, IMO.

BTW, I also initially used only the RT 5500 70C pack, excellent battery. But I found that the HRB 6000 mah 50C-100C burst worked just as well (virtually the same IR readings/Actual C/& power readings). The HRB is only 829 g vs the RT at 801 g but get at least 15-20 seconds more flight time. And the cost was only $78 for the HRB's. Additionally, at the suggestion of Phantom I tried the HobbyStar 8000 100C because he said it just fit in and flew quite well, but I have to admit I thought he would be full of . After trying it, I have to "eat my words" though. It CG'd just fine, just barely fit with no modifications and I could hardly tell the difference in flight, it still took off of grass in the same distance and had plenty of vertical, even though it weighed an additional 70 g at 899 g. And gave me an additional 1 minute or more over the RT 5500. The actual C is just barely below the RT and HRB (100c my rear), but at $179 per battery, that's an expensive extra 60 seconds ($3 bucks a second-would like to get a job that pays that)! Tried it in my SU-30, but it did not do well there, vertical was a struggle, although take-off was fine, but had to use more throttle to keep it cruising and in the end added only about 15-20 seconds of struggling flight time.

Without Ring Burner:



With Both Burners, adds a bit more red to the "Fire"

[JLambCWU]

Did the same with mine JLambCWU , and left the stock ring afterburner in it as well, double the pleasure. When I told Chris I was putting his AB in and leaving the ring, he thought it was a bit unusual, but then that's me in a nutshell. The 2 actually work well together. Lined the exhaust nozzle with AC aluminum foil, but only back to the clear plastic sheeting covering the ring. I also installed the 12 blade 4068-1835 Kv inrunner, a great EDF, IMO.

RCGeek Centerburner for the win!
Dual or single, it’s the most realistic I’ve seen!

[Alpha]

Hugh Wiedman I like that tail flash, Hugh! Throwback!

[gooniac33]

Did the same with mine JLambCWU , and left the stock ring afterburner in it as well, double the pleasure. When I told Chris I was putting his AB in and leaving the ring, he thought it was a bit unusual, but then that's me in a nutshell. The 2 actually work well together. Lined the exhaust nozzle with AC aluminum foil, but only back to the clear plastic sheeting covering the ring. I also installed the 12 blade 4068-1835 Kv inrunner, a great EDF, IMO.

BTW, I also initially used only the RT 5500 70C pack, excellent battery. But I found that the HRB 6000 mah 50C-100C burst worked just as well (virtually the same IR readings/Actual C/& power readings). The HRB is only 829 g vs the RT at 801 g but get at least 15-20 seconds more flight time. And the cost was only $78 for the HRB's. Additionally, at the suggestion of Phantom I tried the HobbyStar 8000 100C because he said it just fit in and flew quite well, but I have to admit I thought he would be full of . After trying it, I have to "eat my words" though. It CG'd just fine, just barely fit with no modifications and I could hardly tell the difference in flight, it still took off of grass in the same distance and had plenty of vertical, even though it weighed an additional 70 g at 899 g. And gave me an additional 1 minute or more over the RT 5500. The actual C is just barely below the RT and HRB (100c my rear), but at $179 per battery, that's an expensive extra 60 seconds ($3 bucks a second-would like to get a job that pays that)! Tried it in my SU-30, but it did not do well there, vertical was a struggle, although take-off was fine, but had to use more throttle to keep it cruising and in the end added only about 15-20 seconds of struggling flight time.

Without Ring Burner:



With Both Burners, adds a bit more red to the "Fire"

Just disabled the Red Ring.... pretty happy with how mine turned out! 8s is wicked!!

[Hugh Wiedman]

Looking GOOOOOOD gooniac33 !!!

[RCJetFanatic89]

I just started in EDFs. Got the L39 and had a successful maiden and three more flight directly after that. This is a bird I definitely would want to add, however, I want to be smart about it. What would be the best path from the L39 to eventually get into the 90mm F16? I figured I’d get the 90mm first because my ultimate dream plane right now is the HSD 105mm F16 to go along with the 90mm

[DCORSAIR]

I just started in EDFs. Got the L39 and had a successful maiden and three more flight directly after that. This is a bird I definitely would want to add, however, I want to be smart about it. What would be the best path from the L39 to eventually get into the 90mm F16? I figured I’d get the 90mm first because my ultimate dream plane right now is the HSD 105mm F16 to go along with the 90mm

Glad to see you going about it the right way, some guys just jump right into flying the F-16, not a good idea, great flyer but takes a certain technique to land it successfully every time and it requires more runway than usual. So I would get either the F-18 or F-22 might be your next choice but only after you get a lot of flight time on the L-39, maybe the T-45 or F-15 later on, those two both fly heavy like the F-16, but if it's too expensive to go that route, just get the F-15 or T-45 next, the T-45 is really easy to fly but flies heavy and you have to stay on top of it on landing or you will push the retracts through the wings if you plop it down, the F-15 is easy to fly also but requires your attention on landing, so that is my opinion and others will disagree I'm sure, or just get the F-16 next and go for it ..

[Mizer67]

I've flown the F-16, but don't own it. As far as how it behaves, it's a heavy wing-loaded scale bird with no flaps. It takes a lot of runway and a nose high, throttle controlled descent to slow it down, more so than the other FW birds I own and have flown.

I have the F-22 and F-18 currently and neither fly like the F-16. The performance of both is better and they fly light in comparison. The F-18 is closer to the F-16 than the F-22 is by a fair margin, but it'll still float and you can get away with landing technique that would damage the F-16, plus it has big barn door flaps that really add a lot of drag.

I found the 6S outrunner F-16 performance uninspiring, but man it looks great in the air and is surprisingly robust.