Originally Posted by haoyang wang

pulsar pro is now made by vladimir's models, the maker of ava?

I think that was a typo/mistake.

Is the fuselage (front glass/Kevlar part) 2.4 ghz friendly? I was under the incorrect impression that the front parts were glass/CF requiring external antenna leads. Is it the same scenario for Kevlar or not?

Originally Posted by Leadchucker

Is the fuselage (front glass/Kevlar part) 2.4 ghz friendly? I was under the incorrect impression that the front parts were glass/CF requiring external antenna leads. Is it the same scenario for Kevlar or not?

No Kevlar is fine. Only CF has problems.

My Supra is a kevlar/carbon weave and my Futaba FASST receivers range check just fine from inside the fuse even with the nose cone on, which would be two layers of carbon/kevlar weave.

Thank you Esprit and Mr. Anderson.

The new Pulsar-e 4 meter is radically different from the plane reviewed here. The chord is much narrower, the center section now has dihedral, the square inches are drastically reduced, and it is a one piece pod. So it should turn better and not be as much of a gas bag. Servos, motor and speed control should be close to the same, though I think a 1506 is overkill, by a lot. An 1112 should be more than enough.

All I'm saying here is that while this is a good review for the older version, it does not reflect the changes made by the manufacturer to the 4M e-Pulsar.

It would be nice to see a new review of the updated model.

You could stop by at SEFF, there will be one. Red Pulsar Pro 4E (All 4m are mine :-)

Zb/Esprit Model

Originally Posted by Esprit Model

You could stop by at SEFF, there will be one. Red Pulsar Pro 4E (All 4m are mine :-)

Zb/Esprit Model

If there was a NEFF in Boston, I would.

So, someone post a review on the new one .... please!

Originally Posted by aeajr

So, someone post a review on the new one .... please!

At the end of this post (from the E-Pulsar owner's thread) I make my offer:

For those of you considering the 4M e-Pulsar (which should be an awesome plane) please be advised of the following:

There are significant differences between the older version (two piece pod, etc.) and the new one. And there is, as of yet, no review of the new version.

The new Pulsar-e 4 meter is radically different from the plane reviewed on RCG. The chord is much narrower, the center section now has dihedral and is the same one used on the new 3.6 e, the square inches are drastically reduced, and it has a one piece pod. So it should turn better and not be as much of a gas bag. Servos, motor and speed control should be close to the same, though I think a 1506 is overkill, by a lot. A Neu 1112 should be more than enough. I have an 1110 in my 3.6 e-Pulsar and that motor will just about rip the wings off.

I can tell you this...the Pulsar quality has improved quite a bit over the past several years and is now pretty much on a par with the ***.

All I'm saying here is that while the existing 4M review is good for the older version, it does not reflect the changes made by the manufacturer to the 4M e-Pulsar.

It would be nice to see a new review of the updated model - which I would be more than happy to write...if only David would send me one to review.

I think that's more than fair, Ed, don't you?