Do you find that you use the crow, flaps, reflex, or camber on this plane a lot?

Originally Posted by fishon2

Do you find that you use the crow, flaps, reflex, or camber on this plane a lot?

You use this as conditions require them. Here's how I typically use mine...

Normal flight I have no flaps/camber/crow. That includes launching. When I find a thermal and start climbing in it, I'll flip on the camber to maximize lift. Leave the camber on as long as you're climbing. I wouldn't say it makes a huge difference, but it does help the lift. As soon as I leave a thermal to head back upwind, I take the camber out and maybe even go to reflex if there's a ton of sink I want to get out of.

As for flaps/crow, I just use that to make steep descents to landing if I feel like it. A lot of times I just fly it to myself without flaps/crow and handcatch it.

Does that help?

Andy

I use the crow more than anything.

About how high is that slope?
Slopes are hard to come by here. The best one I can think of is the levee, which is only about 50 feet high. Unfortunately, next to it is a canal from which the dirt for the levee was excavated. between the canal and the levee is a line of trees.

I expect that the trees will turbulate the wind such that it will not flow smoothely up the levee, unfortunately. It may be that I can get up above the trees and catch some lift where the wind is being funneled over the trees. Just have to be careful to stay above the trees so as not to lose sight of the plane. Seems a bit risky and not ready yet to lose this plane.

That slope is a very gradual terraced slope that only rises 40 feet or so above the flat fields below. It's not an ideal slope for flying, but it's what we've got to play with. I'd give that leveee a try. Yes, you can slope a treeline. In fact, Gary has video somewhere of me sloping a treeline with my Radian Pro. I wouldn't recommend spending a day sloping a treeline or anything, but slope lift from a treeline can be used when needed.

Originally Posted by chip.greely

Gary,

A few of our local fliers have had problems with the original folding props that came on the early releases of the Pro. Apparently, the prop/hub lose power and become out of balance. The replacement prop fixes the problem, but I was wondering if you knew;
1.) what was the problem and 2.) how we're suppose to tell if we have a bad(?) folding prop.

Thx

My understanding was that the first props were a little bit small, and didn't give the rate of acceleration some people (mostly non-glider flyers) wanted. Later props are a little bit bigger (or higher pitch). Don't remember anything about balance?

Originally Posted by dee-grose

That slope is a very gradual terraced slope that only rises 40 feet or so above the flat fields below. It's not an ideal slope for flying, but it's what we've got to play with. I'd give that leveee a try. Yes, you can slope a treeline. In fact, Gary has video somewhere of me sloping a treeline with my Radian Pro. I wouldn't recommend spending a day sloping a treeline or anything, but slope lift from a treeline can be used when needed.

Thanks,
I think I'll take a ride up the levee and try to locate a section which in not obstructed by trees. Then I'll watch the forecast for winds in the right direction for that section of the levee. It's generally laid out south to north, but also has sections which go east and west and various angles in between so hopefully soon I can give slopin a try.

Just don't like flying near trees, for obvious reasons.

This section of the levee runs East-West, so our prevailing southerly wind should work here.

Originally Posted by dee-grose

And I'll put on my "RCG Author" hat...

When we are sent airplanes for review, we are supposed to build/fly them as-is and give a fair and objective review of the product. We may be expert pilots, but we are supposed to view the product from the eyes of the average consumer out there. We can also only report on our experience with the product. If we had no problems with the wing attachment method, why should we report that it is faulty or defective? As you pointed out, there are other threads full of that kind of info. Hacks/mods/hop-ups have no place in a product review of this nature. Only in cases where serious airframe defects or shortcomings are found will deviations from the stock build happen. And even then, any changes would probably done in coordination with the manufacturer.

Take a step back and look at the target audience for the original Radian. I'd bet that the majority of Radian owners have never owned a sailplane before. They are the guys that got hooked on the ParkZone warbirds and couldn't resist buying a Radian. Horizon never intended to target the pro pilots with these foamie sailplanes (although just about every good glider pilot I know owns a Radian because they're so much fun). Those same pilots are the ones that will be reading this review looking for how the Pro compares to the original Radian. I think Gary did a fine job making those comparisons both in the article and the video.

As far as not being for a beginner, Gary backed up that claim by saying the Pro has ailerons...not necessarily something a beginner pilot needs. I don't think that statement warrants a review so chock-full of high-level stuff that goes right over a beginner's head. This review hit the mark in my opinion.

One other thing about reviews...they are reviewed by the manufacturer before they are published. If Horizon wasn't pleased with certain aspects of the article, they would ask that they be reworked. That's not to say we would hide bad stuff, but if they had wanted the article to highlight or emphasize something else, they would have said so. The fact that the Radian Pro review is there for you to read says it has their blessing. For example, when I did my review of the ParkZone Night Vapor, they asked me to emphasize the design changes of the modular airframe that made it easier to repair. That was one of their biggest improvements to the airframe. I had mentioned the airframe was different in my original draft, but not in that light. A quick edit and everybody was happy.

Just remember that reviews are written for an audience. Does that help you see where we're coming from when we write these articles?

All that being said, I do hope you found the review somewhat helpful...and maybe a little entertaining.

Andy

ok. no problem. i wasn't trying to slam the review, just give impression. and i would consider myself the "target audience" since i bought one. like i said "that was a decent basic review. but it was very introductory level. good for beginners or someone looking at the RP at a glance. sometimes it seems more of a basic flight instruction than examining how the plane performs/compares."
the RP was my 1st RC plane. i saw it in on the shelf, then went to the web to do the research about it. as a buyer trying to make an informed decision, i wanted to know if it flew well, had problems (and what they were), would last, etc. honestly, if i'd have seen this review, i'd say it was nice, but not good enough to answer enough questions to make a purchase. it showed me what was in the kit/box (helpful), then some general basic flight (which is hard to evaluate from a video). the conclusion was rather elementary, too. not bad, just elementary. (the part about the wing fasteners is misleading, though).
.
all in all, it does appear very close to a sponsored HH RP sales video, and after hearing your explanation of the process, i see why.
.
again, not being mean-spirited, just giving my impressions on the review. nice for a basic open-the-box-build-fly-in-one-day review. not-a-beginner pilot may still have a lot of questions, though. and maybe even an inquisitive beginner.

Go check out any review...you won't see a hundred things mentioned about what you're talking about. If you want that, go see the huge RP following threads. You should be happy there...somewhat happy.

Originally Posted by cvanscho

My understanding was that the first props were a little bit small, and didn't give the rate of acceleration some people (mostly non-glider flyers) wanted. Later props are a little bit bigger (or higher pitch). Don't remember anything about balance?

if you weren't following that monster thread at the time (it's all buried deep now), the RP was purchased by experienced glider pilots who had the R1 and noticed it significantly lacked the climb rate of the R1. upon investigation (by them) with ammeters, they found the motor to draw siginificantly lower amps than the original radian. the RP had less power than the R1 but was advertised to be the same system. HH responded with a replacement motor. wasn't the fix. users/owners then experimented with larger props and were able to obtain satisfactory power levels, very similar to the R1's power draw.
.
i don't recall anything about balance, either. check all the motor mounts and make sure they are tight. if the motor shaft isn't bent, and the spinner is good, then check to see if one of the blades is crooked. if all appears well, i'd wonder if the blades were not matched.

Originally Posted by pretendpilot

(the part about the wing fasteners is misleading, though).

I don't get it. What is misleading about stating that the wing attachments on the Pro are stronger than the original Radian? Nothing misleading there. And if you want me to be perfectly honest about all the hub-bub about the wing attachments...if you'd fly the plane as it was designed and stop crashing it, there would be no problems with the wing attachments. If you keep cartwheeling your landings or doinking it into trees, yeah, you're gonna break something. Folks tend to forget that manufacturers fly the stew out of their planes refining the design before it ever goes to full-rate production and hits the shelves. I trust the wing attachments on the RP.

Originally Posted by pretendpilot

all in all, it does appear very close to a sponsored HH RP sales video, and after hearing your explanation of the process, i see why.

Horizon did provide the airplane for review. I wouldn't say they "sponsored" the review. I don't believe my comments would lead anybody to think that.

Originally Posted by pretendpilot

not-a-beginner pilot may still have a lot of questions, though. and maybe even an inquisitive beginner.

And that's exactly why these reviews have this nifty little discussion feature tagged onto the end of them.

Jumpy,

I just noticed the Google Earth file you posted. I looked at it and went to streetview from the I-10 bridge to check out the slope. I doubt you'd get much slope lift with the trees on each side like that. Find a place with no trees and it would be worth a try.

Andy

Originally Posted by ghee-grose

Go check out any review...you won't see a hundred things mentioned about what you're talking about. If you want that, go see the huge RP following threads. You should be happy there...somewhat happy.

that's where i was. someone by the name of "dee-grose" posted on those threads about this review and to check it out. that's what i did. this is my response. sorry if i didn't break out the champiagn and give 3 hoorahs to you and HH.
.
those threads ARE getting too dang huge to be useful (hard to find info after a bit). but there are some gems that are VERY useful. that wing fastener issue is one, and HH should remedy that as a future design fix. i'm kinda thinking you didn't see that one before the review? if you'd have flown the plane more than once or twice, any slight impact would've changed your review in that regard.
i won't mention the other things, though useful to someone looking to buy and fly this plane. they can be found in the larger owners' threads.

Are you gonna tell us how you made your wing attachments fail? And how did you repair them? How would you improve them?

Andy was there and saw a massive impact of my RP with the ground. Fuse broke behind the wing and tore one of the aileron horns out. Guess what, zero damage to the wing mounting area. I think Andy has a story about his RP wing durability as well.

You're new to this I see. You won't make many friends the way you are doing. If you want to finish this then do so as a PM. Don't trash up this review.