HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jun 01, 2012, 08:17 PM
Registered User
Joined Feb 2008
145 Posts
Discussion
Flyzone Fokker Dr1 Review (not good)

Picked up the Flyzone fokker today. Its a very light wind day outside and beautiful. Normal weather that I fly the night vapor, citabria, p51 and j-3 cub. I charged up all my batteries and was ready to go. I went down to the school for added space, set the throttle to 50 percent and let her rip. Well, first thing I noticed is the immediate dolphin climb over and over and over. So I trimmed the elevator negative and still dolphined. Set it all the way negative and the plane flew horrible. Very unstable. So i reset the trim to default and very slowly and carefully applied throttle and it became pseudo flyable for a few minutes.

Ive tried it now 4 times and have had 4 horrible flights. I have flown RC now for 5 years. This is by far the worst RC plane I have ever purchased. I HATE when planes are out of balance and the dolphin climbing over and over is just beyond frustrating. Yes I know most folks would say to "ADD WEIGHT" to the front but im just going to hang this plane up in the hobby room and call it a "operating loss". I wanted to warn anyone else in case they were interested in this plane.
Im not sure if its a quality issue, its just "my plane" or these planes in general. If you want a comfortable, quality, stable plane, AVOID THIS ONE. I can't recommend this in good concience.

Sad thing is I could have picked up the pz micro corsair.. had it in my hand. If I had it over again I would have got it instead.

Good Luck and happy flying.

StevenX
stevenxowens79 is offline Find More Posts by stevenxowens79
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jun 02, 2012, 03:35 AM
Team30 Micro EDF
NitroCharged's Avatar
Adelaide, Australia
Joined Apr 2004
11,196 Posts
errr, you made no mention of checking if the CG was correct before the flight???...

tail heavy planes do the dolphin dance. Tail heavy planes will fly horribly.
NitroCharged is offline Find More Posts by NitroCharged
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 07:54 AM
Registered User
PeteSchug's Avatar
Elmhurst, NY (Queens in NYC)
Joined Apr 2004
7,030 Posts
I only flew mine once and that was in too much wind, but it was quite controllable and looked great nearly hovering. Got smart and put it back in the box, but did manage three or so short flights. I didn't notice anything unusual in how it flew and despite the conditions I enjoyed flying it.

Pete
PeteSchug is offline Find More Posts by PeteSchug
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Some Books About Flying
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 09:25 AM
Registered User
Vrated's Avatar
United States, UT, Marysvale
Joined Aug 2004
1,113 Posts
2 things I found out the little Fokker dosn't like..... being tail heavy and, the wind. With over 2 hours of flying time on mine, it's still looks like new. Mine balanced out good with a Hyperon 160 mAh battery mounted all the way up behind the fake radial engine (I had to cut out a small amount of foam to to place the battery that far up. cut the notch in the foam a little smaller than the width of the battery to help hold the battery in place) and just a tiny bit of down trim. She flys really nice with that set up on mine.
Good Luck!
~Fred
Vrated is offline Find More Posts by Vrated
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 10:53 AM
SlingWinger
San Bernardino, California, United States
Joined Oct 2004
1,629 Posts
My my, how things have changed! I'll be 60 in a month, and I've been flying model planes since I was the proverbial knee-high.

My first experience with how much things have deteriorated was a few years ago, when i read on a forum that a guy had ordered new tail feathers from the factory for his Slow Stick, I mean, come on, they're only sheet foam!

Now I read that someone would simply hang a plane up rather than tape a dime on it to balance it!

These modern people simply blow my mind. Incredible? No, as we see it actually happening, so it must be credible. But amazing, you bet.
dayhead is offline Find More Posts by dayhead
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 12:03 PM
Registered User
Taildragger55's Avatar
Anchorage, Alaska
Joined Nov 2008
603 Posts
Ditto, dayhead. My first models were purchased as a box of sticks and sheets of balsa. You actually had to BUILD the plane, balance it, and make it fly correctly.

My Dr1 fly's just fine.
Taildragger55 is offline Find More Posts by Taildragger55
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 01:06 PM
Registered User
Vrated's Avatar
United States, UT, Marysvale
Joined Aug 2004
1,113 Posts
Yes, this is the new age I guess. But, RTF, UM planes are pretty good considering. I also started out on 29 cent Comet kits. Used pointy, broken razor blades to cut out the parts. It was a major accomplishment to just get one built, yet alone flying good. The way things are going with the economy ,we just might be going full circle! So lets enjoy it while we can.
~Fred
Vrated is offline Find More Posts by Vrated
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 07:43 PM
semper mitis
gentle ben's Avatar
Paducah, Kentucky
Joined Nov 2004
925 Posts
Anybody who says this plane is not fragile is howling at the moon. I have repaired, reglued, or replaced: Landing struts, wheels, wheel retainers, axel, upper wing, dummy cylinder, tail skid, and rudder hinge. I can not think of a flying session that I didn't have repairs to make.

Don't get me wrong, I love the way it flys and the way it looks in the air but, like the full scale ship, landings and takeoffs are less than forgiving.
gentle ben is offline Find More Posts by gentle ben
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2012, 08:43 PM
Registered User
Machy2k's Avatar
Ft Lauderdale, FL.
Joined Jan 2007
2,241 Posts
I checked my cg and it still flew like Stevenx's plane, and like Gentle Ben says nothing but repairs, mine sits in the box, till I feel like putting it back together.
I will get it to fly right, but that won't keep the landing gear on it, why is this thing so fragile?
Petey...
Machy2k is online now Find More Posts by Machy2k
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2012, 10:40 AM
Power Wheels Guru
UNGN's Avatar
Southlake, TX
Joined Jan 2008
7,327 Posts
The original Flyzone albatros fell apart in the first day I flew it. I glued every joint with UHU por and strengthened the weak areas with tape and CF, put a Mix in the TX that varied Elevator with throttle and it became one of my favorite planes to fly.

If I had tried to build one myself, it would have been 10X more frustrating and wouldn't look anywhere near as nice.

I have 2 corsairs. Both were tail heavy out of the box and flew like crap. Using a dremel to hog a tunnel into the cowl so the battery could go halfway into the cowl made it fly decently... but I've found the wings to tear/fold very easily. Both Corsairs have had the wings fold in flight and required glue/tape to strengthen the root area.
UNGN is offline Find More Posts by UNGN
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2012, 01:40 PM
SlingWinger
San Bernardino, California, United States
Joined Oct 2004
1,629 Posts
A neat thing about modern tech is being able to mix elevator to throttle, unfortunately I don't have it so I have to remove and re-mount the motor adding downthrust. But I don't mind, I've been doing it for decades.
dayhead is offline Find More Posts by dayhead
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2012, 02:54 PM
Registered User
jimjim06's Avatar
Sweden, Västra Götaland, Partille
Joined May 2009
493 Posts
If a company labels anything as Ready To Fly (RTF) and the plane is out of balance, its not "RTF", is it?

If it needs re-glueing, its not a finished product, its false marketing.

Of course if you already know how to fly and balance your planes its not a huge problem, just annoying. But if you come from anything like the Champ, and expect your next "RTF" to be a finished product its a mayor hassle to have to learn about balancing and maybe the makers of the "RTF´s" should be clear about where the CG should be and how to check it...

Why not put a marking on the planes to show the correct CG, for starters?

Tommy
jimjim06 is offline Find More Posts by jimjim06
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2012, 03:54 PM
Power Wheels Guru
UNGN's Avatar
Southlake, TX
Joined Jan 2008
7,327 Posts
The Champ has set the bar pretty high for RTF planes. Even it had a few glitches as RTF TX's are "99%" instead of "99.99999%" like Real TX would be as far as build quality goes.

People forget the Champ was at least a 3 year evolution from Cessna to Citabria to Vapor to Sukhoi to Cub to Champ, with both HH and Kyosho working together and separately to fix all of the "glitches" like stripped servos, poor range, weak ESC's, fragile tail surfaces and low thrust motors.

A Scale WWI Triplane is a much harder subject to recreate and mass produce in 35 grams than a Champ, too.
UNGN is offline Find More Posts by UNGN
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 03, 2012, 06:08 PM
I am GBLynden
GBLynden's Avatar
United States, WA, Lynden
Joined Mar 2011
2,547 Posts
So much this!!!

I bought a jet shortly after my Champ and it was labeled RTF. It had a ton of pieces, no instructions, and I was referred here by customer support. Needless to say that I eventually figured it out, but it was not easy for a first timer and the RTF designation was beyond laughable.

I actually received a bunch of flack on here (different subforum, but still on the message boards) for assuming that it would take little to get it into the air, which was irritating. I can see where the older guys are coming from, but these are sold ready to fly and fly well literally out of the box. When they don't, one has every right to warn us about issues with said plane. Some people like the modeling element of this hobby, but not everyone does. I know I just want to fly and repair things only when I have to do so. It is good for keeping my from making too many stupid choices in the air

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjim06 View Post
If a company labels anything as Ready To Fly (RTF) and the plane is out of balance, its not "RTF", is it?

If it needs re-glueing, its not a finished product, its false marketing.

Of course if you already know how to fly and balance your planes its not a huge problem, just annoying. But if you come from anything like the Champ, and expect your next "RTF" to be a finished product its a mayor hassle to have to learn about balancing and maybe the makers of the "RTF´s" should be clear about where the CG should be and how to check it...

Why not put a marking on the planes to show the correct CG, for starters?

Tommy
GBLynden is offline Find More Posts by GBLynden
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 04, 2012, 12:49 PM
semper mitis
gentle ben's Avatar
Paducah, Kentucky
Joined Nov 2004
925 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNGN View Post
The Champ has set the bar pretty high for RTF planes. Even it had a few glitches as RTF TX's are "99%" instead of "99.99999%" like Real TX would be as far as build quality goes.

People forget the Champ was at least a 3 year evolution from Cessna to Citabria to Vapor to Sukhoi to Cub to Champ, with both HH and Kyosho working together and separately to fix all of the "glitches" like stripped servos, poor range, weak ESC's, fragile tail surfaces and low thrust motors.

A Scale WWI Triplane is a much harder subject to recreate and mass produce in 35 grams than a Champ, too.
Flyzone didn't learn much from the albatros use of fragile foam and plastic landing struts. Both of my Dr-1s are probably from the first production run. I submit that 35 grams is too heavy for my plane's landing struts.
gentle ben is offline Find More Posts by gentle ben
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article Hobbico Flyzone Fokker Dr.1 EP 2.4GHz RTF Review Michael Heer Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 71 Jun 04, 2013 08:28 AM
Build Log DPC Fokker Dr1 (It will NOT be red!) CarreraGTSCS Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 14 Dec 04, 2011 08:07 PM
Oh No! Not another Fokker Dr1 !!! shakysticks Foamies (Kits) 34 Feb 20, 2005 09:10 PM