Anyone flying one of these RTF models? Opinions? TIA

Ed Cregger

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:21:42 -0400, "Ed Cregger"
<ecregger@homtail.com> wrote:

>Anyone flying one of these RTF models? Opinions? TIA

Ed-
If you're looking at one sold by Hobby People, forget it. I got one
for my granddaughter to learn on - a real mistake. Barely gets off
the ground with the supplied cobalt 400 motor, and then only if
directly into the breeze. Any slight measure of crosswind and it will
weathercock and spin around. Requires full power just to barely
struggle around, and generally handles like a lead sled - not the
relaxing putt-around model it appears to be, and certainly no trainer.


Abel

"Abel Pranger" <abel_pranger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4266874a.218758235@news.toast.net...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:21:42 -0400, "Ed Cregger"
> <ecregger@homtail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone flying one of these RTF models? Opinions? TIA
>
> Ed-
> If you're looking at one sold by Hobby People, forget it. I got one
> for my granddaughter to learn on - a real mistake. Barely gets off
> the ground with the supplied cobalt 400 motor, and then only if
> directly into the breeze. Any slight measure of crosswind and it will
> weathercock and spin around. Requires full power just to barely
> struggle around, and generally handles like a lead sled - not the
> relaxing putt-around model it appears to be, and certainly no trainer.
>
>
> Abel


Thanks, Abel. You saved me lots of frustration.

Ed Cregger

"Ed Cregger" <ecregger@homtail.com> wrote in news:Eaw9e.4340$f6.2623
@fe04.lga:

>
> "Abel Pranger" <abel_pranger@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4266874a.218758235@news.toast.net...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:21:42 -0400, "Ed Cregger"
>> <ecregger@homtail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone flying one of these RTF models? Opinions? TIA
>>
>> Ed-
>> If you're looking at one sold by Hobby People, forget it. I got one
>> for my granddaughter to learn on - a real mistake. Barely gets off
>> the ground with the supplied cobalt 400 motor, and then only if
>> directly into the breeze. Any slight measure of crosswind and it will
>> weathercock and spin around. Requires full power just to barely
>> struggle around, and generally handles like a lead sled - not the
>> relaxing putt-around model it appears to be, and certainly no trainer.
>>
>>
>> Abel
>
>
> Thanks, Abel. You saved me lots of frustration.
>
> Ed Cregger

Two different planes. The Lazy-***E***Bee is a great little foam copy of
the orignal Lazy Bee and flies great. Tons of fun, but perhaps not the best
trainer (not bad, though). Adequate power as sold. It really has that
Clancy feel. Can make a great back yard flyer for an intermediate pilot,
but should only be flown without wind in a football/soccer/baseball sized
field for training.

The Lazy Bee ARF with the Cobalt 400 is a different bird. The ARF is good,
but not as great as the kit due to some minor changes in the nose
configuration and lack of shock absorbing axle box. However, I think the
ply bulkheads in the ARF are a good improvement over the orignal kit. It
flies great if the optional Wattage planetary gearbox is added to that motor
and a larger prop is used (about an 11x8 should be good on 8-9 cells). The
direct drive C-400 is a bad power plant for this plane; you are right about
it being a mistake as sold. Shame on Hobby People!!! With a gearbox it is a
great, but not perfect motor. It will rock and roll with great snaps and
tumbles with the geared C-400, but of course, more power is better!!!! The
overall plane construction and covering is quite good. Yaw stability seem to
be a bit less with the ARF, but not a problem.

-- Alan

"Alan" <alan@cox.net> wrote

> Two different planes. The Lazy-***E***Bee is a great little foam copy of
> the orignal Lazy Bee and flies great. Tons of fun, but perhaps not the
> best
> trainer (not bad, though). Adequate power as sold. It really has that
> Clancy feel. Can make a great back yard flyer for an intermediate pilot,
> but should only be flown without wind in a football/soccer/baseball sized
> field for training.
>
> The Lazy Bee ARF with the Cobalt 400 is a different bird. The ARF is
> good,
> but not as great as the kit due to some minor changes in the nose
> configuration and lack of shock absorbing axle box. However, I think the
> ply bulkheads in the ARF are a good improvement over the orignal kit. It
> flies great if the optional Wattage planetary gearbox is added to that
> motor
> and a larger prop is used (about an 11x8 should be good on 8-9 cells).
> The
> direct drive C-400 is a bad power plant for this plane; you are right
> about
> it being a mistake as sold. Shame on Hobby People!!! With a gearbox it is
> a
> great, but not perfect motor. It will rock and roll with great snaps and
> tumbles with the geared C-400, but of course, more power is better!!!!
> The
> overall plane construction and covering is quite good. Yaw stability seem
> to
> be a bit less with the ARF, but not a problem.
>
> -- Alan


Thanks, Alan.

Ed Cregger