your best guess please

[DerShark3]

Getting my first ARF soon and I'm confused.

An ARF glider that is advertised as weighing 2.5 pounds "in the air" and comes with zero hardware.
I guess that "in the air" means with battery, receiver, pushrods, and servos.
None of these items are included in the box.
So the actual airframe in the box should be around 2.2 pounds I'm thinking.
It has a 75" wingspan - 3 piece wing - 41 inch overall length.

OK - here is the question.......
How much would the box weigh (as it sits in the hobby store - not packaged up for shipping ) ???

I have had people say anywhere from 4 to 11.5 pounds.
How much can some cheap styrofoam or bubble wrap and a cardboardbox weigh?

glider link (http://www.lanierrc.com/lrcprivate/LRChtmpages/hawk.htm)

[Ollie]

Some ARF suppliers have a reputation for being loose with the truth. Let the buyer beware.

The glider you refer to is not widely known in the glider community. The low aspect ratio and fat fuselage will definitely keep it in the trainer catagory as it is advertised. Please keep us posted on what you experience with this model.

[DerShark3]

Thanks for your comments Ollie.
I have been trying to get real info about this glider for 3 months.
Done searches all over the net. No luck!
The best I can determine is that I am the only person to have ever purchased it!!! lol.
Since it has all the attributes that everybody says is sought after in a trainer glider....

- plenty o dihedral
- flat bottom wings
- slow speed
- sturdy construction
- rudder / elevator control
- very low wingloading
- 3 piece wing makes for easy transport
- reasonable price
- established manufacturer

I can't understand why nobody has ever tried one.
Maybe just because it is not sexy in appearance.
Any thoughts are appreciated

Oh well - I will give a report when I get it.

[Ollie]

What makes you think it has sturdy construction? The manufacturer is a manufacturer of power planes and may or may not know what stresses are involved in launching a glider. Extensive power plane experience does not translate into extensive glider experience. The fat fuselage in conjunction with low wing loading means the structural weight budget has not been properly allocated. The wing structure should have gotten more of what went into the fuselage. The center of the wing is a very highly stressed area and it is hard to make it too strong. My advise is to launch it gently to avoid folding the wings.

[fprintf]

Not to shoot you down, but this thing looks like it would be only comfortable with a power pod, landing in a lake as a seaplane. If you want a trainer there are a whole host of other planes to pick before this one for about the same money.

Whatever you choose to do, please come back and let us know how you made out.

[DerShark3]

Ollie:
plywood bracing in an abs plastic fuse.
ply wood spars in wings.
plastic sheeting over foam wings.
Also the weight for it's size.


fprintf:
The plane would not be comfortable without a power pod, you say?
I'm not sure what that means - could you explain "comfortable" please?
Why would I want to pick a different plane as a trainer as you suggest?
What features of this plane are bad for a trainer?

Sorry guys - I'm just not getting anything concrete here to go on.

[Ollie]

I hope you continue to like it after you have used it awhile.

[DerShark3]

Well - I may not, because once I have learned to make good landings etc. I will probably get bored with it's slow speed.
But if it is still in good shape, I can modify it to become an aerial camera plane. Since I am a pro photographer specializing in elevated views, this will be handy. It has a spacious fuse and large wing area to accomodate lifting a good camera. I will use a good strong brushless motor in a power pod at that time. The pod will be removable for going back to just cruising for thermals without the cameras.
Then I will move on the the composite hollow molded 1.5M warmliner that I bought a while ago, then realized " what the hack am I doing? I oughtta get a trainer first!!!"
So this Lanier Hawk fits into an overall plan I have developed to get flying experience before I fly the faster composite craft and also to recycle the trainer into an elevated view photo machine.
I know the Hawk seems a bit ugly but otherwise all other aspects fit perfectly with the plan.
I wonder how many first time flyers chose their first plane because they liked the way it looked.
No doubt this led to many a dissapointment/disaster.
I'm trying to avoid that.
Anyways - Since I'm having such difficulty trying to get this craft delivered to me, I may be forced to choose something different.
What I don't want is something that will turn into a pile o toothpicks upon the first mishap. And there a lots of those out there.
I don't have time/desire to spend multi mega hours at the building/repairing/rekiting table and so all my craft are arf.
I have much to learn that most people here are well past me on that - but I want to get started avoiding the usual newbie pitfalls and I think the Hawk will let me do that for the most part.

[fprintf]

By learning to build you will learn the techniques required to repair your plane when (not if) you do crash. These techniques will apply no matter what kind of plane you choose for the future - including your warmliner.

Might I recommend searching this forum a bit more before deciding. If you want to go with an Aerial photography plane you can't go too wrong with the usual recommendations of a Slow Stick for electric flight, and any one of the beginner gliders - Gentle Lady, Spirit, Sovereign etc.

[DerShark3]

fprintf:

I have building skills already - so that is not a factor in the decision.

The plane would not be comfortable without a power pod, you say?
I'm not sure what that means - could you explain "comfortable" please?
Why would I want to pick a different plane as a trainer as you suggest?
What features of this plane are bad for a trainer?

[fprintf]

Basically it looks ugly, looks like a flying kids baseball bat with the really fat end to make it easy to hit. It actually looks a lot like a flying boat with a really fat fuse so the plane will float. So I was recommending that you forget about gliding that plane and instead put a power pod on it and fly it like a flying-boat model.

I think the features that are bad are that it will come down too quickly, leading to frustration about short flight times. If you want a good flier and can stand the occasional rebuilding it is better when learning to soar to pick a proven winner - Sovereign, Spirit ARF, Gentle Lady etc. If durability is a concern then you need to stick with a foam glider such as the Mountain Models Gentle Foamy.

[DerShark3]

regarding looks........
I know the Hawk seems a bit ugly but otherwise all other aspects fit perfectly with the plan.
I wonder how many first time flyers chose their first plane because they liked the way it looked.
No doubt this led to many a dissapointment/disaster.
I'm trying to avoid that.
Also, As I said, I need the big fuse for camera equipment later.

The wing loading is 7.5 ounces.
This should provide good flight time, no?

It IS a foam glider - except for the fuse which is hollow for the eventual photo application.

As for choosing a proven winner - these planes don't cut it for eventual photo platforms with the size and weight of camera I will use.

You just don't like the looks of it It seems.
This is not a concern for me.
My warmliner looks hot tho! Take a look.....

[fprintf]

One thing to consider is that you will need a strong wing to handle the launch loads imparted onto the plane by the additional weight of a camera, even the light ones. You don't say how you are going to launch - electric, histart, winch or slope soaring.

If you are histarting or winching then you will need to consider carefully whether the wing can handle it. Many of the more popular foam gliders have been tested by experienced fliers at launch. In this case we don't know because none of the experienced fliers here have spoken up regarding any experience with this particular plane. My foam glider, a Highlander, will take a full pedal launch and can carry quite a bit of ballast (read: a camera), so if this glider is like my Highlander then by all means have fun and report back here with the results.

[DerShark3]

The wing spars are plywood.
I turn them into carbon/ply sandwich spars to cut weight and add strength when I move to the photo setup.
For training I'll use a highstart and for photo setup later will add a power pod.
I've heard nothing but good things about your highlander!

Since nobody has any experience with this Hawk craft I will give a full review if I ever get it lol.

Thanks for your comments.

Talk soon.

[DerShark3]

Well it finally came today.
Below is the email I sent when I got it.
It explains what happened.

Hello Mark's Hobby,

I am pleased to report that I just now received the Lanier Hawk ARF today.

A few comments......

It was in good condition - only minor damage.
It was sent "ground" ( not air ) because there was insufficient postage on it.
The postage paid was $23.35 which is for an UP TO 11 pound package sent "air".
Problem was that the package weighed 11 pounds and 10.4 ounces.
The post office ending up sending it "ground" because the postage paid was not enough for the OVER 11 pound weight.
This is why it took so long to arrive.

Also it was mailed on Jan 9th.
Since my credit card was billed on Jan 6th, I was led to believe it was shipped on the 6th.
Most vendors will not charge the card until shipping is ready to go.

Anyways - I finally got it.

Final analysis = ordered Jan 1st , received Feb 5th.
Took 35 days to arrive after ordering. Since the Lanier web site says 4 to 10 days in transit you can understand why I became very worried and unhappy with it all.

[fprintf]

I understand now. You had already ordered the kit and were not looking for alternatives, but were looking to justify your purchase.

Good luck with it!

[DerShark3]

Luck ran out!!!!!

Lets see.....

AUW is close to double that advertized. 75 oz!!!
fuse has longditudinal warp about 10 degrees.
One wing 1 inch longer than other.
broken plastic sections due to poor packaging.
warped wing spars.
need to add 10oz to nose to balance it.
defective moulding where stab meets fuse.
loose covering seams.


It's a giant piece o crap that will take longer to get right than if I had built from a kit.

Oh well - learned a lesson about Lanier and cheap kits.

By the way Ollie - lanier says 5/8" throw for elevator and 3/4" throw for rudder. Is this measurement for both directions or each direction. Lanier wont answer my inquiries.
Thanks for any help.

[Ollie]

DerShark3,

Your question about control throws implies an "appliance" mentality that you need to loose. You made your own "luck" when you ignored the advise and caution that you got repeatedly from people here.

The sensitivity of the controls depend on a lot of things like CG location, control surface area and, tail moment arm length. Moreover, the best adjustment of throws depend on the skill level of the pilot.

My approach to control throw determination starts with generous control throws that would be too much for an inexperienced pilot to handle and, also,a forward CG. The reason for this is to be able to control the model even if it is misaligned as your is. Then do some glide testing to observe the control response. This is typically followed by more flight testing with reduced throws, better alignment and a more aft CG location. These steps are iterated. This process stops when the plane is adjusted to the pilots skill level and the purpose of the model. It requires an experienced pilot (read flight instructor) to execute it properly but it is universally applicable and doesn't depend on the misinformation from a disinterested supplier. The catch 22 is that you can't adjust a plane properly until you have some flying skill and you can't develop that skill efficiently with a badly adjusted plane. That is why I am a very strong advocate of clubs that offer the beginner advice on what equipment to buy, mentoring of the building and adjusting process, followed by flight instruction. If you don't think you have time to do it right, you will be forced to do it over and that takes even more time.

Diplomacy isn't one of my strong suits but, you asked and this is my answer.

If you want a diplomatic answer then it is,"I don't know."

[DerShark3]

Thanks Ollie.
What is an "appliance" mentality?
Just was wondering what Lanier meant when they gave measurements for the throws. They don't indicate each direction or both directions together is all I was asking.
I figured the makers recommendatios were a good place to start as long as I understood them clearly.
If you don't know then maybe somebody else does knows.
I of course will be repairing all the misalignment and other problems before I fly it.
I don't appreciate you telling me that I need to adjust my mentality.
That seems rather rude.
Having a bad day are you?

[Ollie]

By an "appliance" mentality I mean a mind set that there is one best CG, one best set of control throws and that the thing should work when you take it out of the box by just "plugging it in." I think that a model plane is more like a musical instrument than an appliance. To get it to work properly you first have to tune (adjust) it. Sometimes it even takes someone with perfect pitch like a piano tuner.

How many times must you be lied to by this manufacturer before you stop relying on what it says?

Put as much throw in the control set up as you can get and then be careful not to over control it for the initial test flights. That way you will have the control authority that you may need without relying on the manufacturer's possibly unreliable instructions and any one's guess as to what they mean. You already know from the previous posts that none of us have any experience with this dog. Neither does any test pilot have experience with a new design. The proceedure I have outlined will allow you to arrive at reasonable control throws without any other prior knowledge.

I forgot to mention that the control sensitivities vary as the square of the airspeed. This model has a wing loading that puts its trimmed airspeed above the normal range for this type of model so, be doubly careful not to over control on the initial test glides.

I'm just an old grouch that shows his impatience with a person who asks for advice, doesn't take it and keeps repeating the cycle. You may not like my style but I'm just trying to get through your resistance to taking good advice.

[DerShark3]

right from the beginning of this thread the model was already ordered.
I started the thread to try and get suggestions for making it work.

Thankyou for your suggestions on control set up.
I will take your suggestions.
Thanks Ollie.

What amazes me is how such a lousy maker of planes (Lanier)can stay in business in this competetive marketplace.
Apparently they have been foisting off this POS onto us modelers for about 30 years!!!
Boggles the mind.

[Ollie]

First of all, this manufacturer is primarily a maker of power planes where the technology and rule of thumb designs are much more appropriate than for gliders. Lanier isn't the only one. If you want a quality ARF sailplane model, be prepared to pay a lot more.

Secondly, there is a culture change in our society that puts making money and buying mass produced stuff ahead of taking the time to develop ones skills in a hobby. As a result poor quality ARFS at a low price appeal to lots and lots of people based on advertising hype and the bargain hunting mentality. The tragic thing is that many people can't or won't break free of this dependency.

The bitterness of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.

A thief can steel your stuff. An unscrupulous marketeer can lie to you and cheat you if you allow it. However, time spent developing your knowledge and skills can never be be stolen. If you design, build and fly models for your self, no one can cheat you. It is your choice and your responsibility. Besides, creating something of your very own is just about the most enjoyable thing you can do sitting or standing.

The moral of the story is don't work to buy stuff of little and transient value when you could be developing knowledge and skills that will last a lifetime and can even be passed on to the next generation.

That's my sermon even if it isn't quite Sunday yet.