Kyosho F- 16 or Twin Jet? - RC Groups
Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Sep 28, 2001, 01:29 PM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar

Kyosho F- 16 or Twin Jet?

I'm looking for a new plane that can use my 8-cell 2000/2400 packs.
My question is which is the better plane out of the F-16 and TJ?
If the F-16 is being discontinued i should get it soon.
I've seen the TJ fly on 8 cells and it seems pretty fast with a fantastic roll rate. However i like the idea of EDF and the F-16 really appeals to me.

So which one?!
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Sep 28, 2001, 01:47 PM
Dude, where's My Plane?
JasonJ's Avatar
2400 SCR cells are kinda heavy and I dont think the F-16 in stock trim can keep that pack in the air. If you are limited to that batt config, I think the twinjet is better suited. You can also convert it to EDF if you ever want to and from what I understand it is all but industructable.
Sep 28, 2001, 02:31 PM
Lithium Member
Herb's Avatar
???? The stock F-16 flies just fine with 8x2400's ... I think it achieves about 60-65mph, a bit faster & less noisy than the twinjet.

On the stock setup the f-16 is markedly faster than the T-33 and I have seen about 3-4 stock setup of each type (f-16 vs t-33) fly at my field over the last 1-2 years... They all performed "decently" out of the box.

The only total failure I witnessed was two weeks ago when somebody (...obviosly ill advised...) tried to fly the F-16 with a BL 480-33 & Graupner 400 fan (??!!) recycled from a Comet. Not unexpectedly a total disaster, not enough thrust, stall after stall to keep it in the air & airframe completely demolished in two ill fated attemps.

BTW the Twinjet is a lot of fun and is a nice flying plane out of the box, I don't have one but it's very popular at my field - better than the zagi scourge ... It flies with the nose, without it etc.
Last edited by Herb; Sep 28, 2001 at 04:44 PM.
Sep 28, 2001, 02:54 PM
Lithium Member
Herb's Avatar
...On the other hand thrust vectoring is easier to do on the Twinjet...

<img src= width=400 height=300>

Spunki has had all these ingenious ideas....
Last edited by Herb; Sep 28, 2001 at 04:35 PM.
Sep 28, 2001, 03:08 PM
Registered User

Do you have a site that has more information about your vectoring thrust setup? Specifically how it changed the flight performance and a write up on how you created the vectoring thrust?

Also what are you using to control it? Rudder input?
Last edited by kenny_dilger; Sep 28, 2001 at 03:11 PM.
Sep 28, 2001, 03:29 PM
Registered User
Ed Waldrep's Avatar
I didn't get but three good flights on my F-16 and it had a 609 and 1406/2Y in it, and I haven't seen one fly stock (people who fly electric in this town seem to be 'closet fliers', they do it in parks and other out of the way places, moreso than at a regular flying field), so I can't really say how the F-16 flies but it can't be much faster than the T-33 which I have much experience with. The ducting probably is cleaner overall than the T-33 but not by much.

Stock T-33s have a hard time climbing due to the low power to weight ratio and low mass/high velocity airstream of a ducted fan. Direct drive and geared props are the opposite, high mass of air, lower velocity, and they give greater climb rates (that's why sailplanes use geared motors and not edf units). I sometimes think a Kyosho Ferias could almost outclimb a T-33. T-33s seem to climb better if you don't go for maximum climb rate with lots of up elevator but instead give just a bit of up elevator to keep the speed up. Of course lighter is better, I've heard the stock T-33 is quite a bit better if your use the lighter CP1700s or 2000NiMH cells.

I've got a Twinjet and loved it at first. I'd say it can outclimb a stock T-33 on the same 8x2400 pack, and it draws about 22-25 amps, compared to the T-33s 35-40 amp draw! That's sad, but can be explained by two factors.

First, the Twinjet uses direct drive props. They together have more disk area than the Kyosho edf unit. They affect a greater mass of air but impart a slightly lower velocity to it than the fan unit, so the outcome is more efficient.

Second, the T-33 inlet ducting is horrible. It's not area ruled, the aileron servo and linkages are in the way, as are the power wires. Better inlets would give probably 5mph more speed.

The Twinjet has a decent climb but overal power is still low, so don't expect two vertical rolls, or even one unless it's lightning quick. Another thing is, the double delta wing of the Twinjet has lots of drag in tight turns, more so than the T-33. I have smacked my Twinjet in the ground coming out of loops at least five times, and this is what finally made me set it aside to mess with later. It needs more power for the way I like to fly, ie lots of vertical maneuvers. Maybe twin P450s would be better, or one geared car motor or brushless. Gearing down and swinging a big prop is the way to get better vertical performance/climb rate

I should also mention that I've smacked T-33s in the ground probably at least five times coming out of loops. Both models need a slight dive to do nice loops. More power or geared motors (for the Twinjet) is the answer.

As for speed, I haven't flown the Twinjet alongside a stock T-33. Two of my buddies used to fly the T-33 and that was a nice way to compare speeds by flying in formation. But both of those T-33s are gone (one killed by smacking out of a loop and the other a Wattage IC550 BEC failure-what a piece of junk that is). I'd say the T-33 is probably a bit faster but not by much.

Overall the T-33 while ugly does have the EDF coolness factor, and with a brushless motor it's be a better performer. Now that they're cheap I may try one again and put in a Kontronic Fun 480-33. In durability, the Twinjet can take a lot more abuse, and the stall characteristics put the T-33 to shame. The Twinjet wont tipstall, but the T-33 will, which usually means a cartwheel and a busted wing, unless you use a 6-32 nylon bolt which may shear and save your wing (70 bucks to replace last time I checked).
Sep 28, 2001, 03:45 PM
Registered User
Dangerous Dick's Avatar
Hi Peter,

I got a TwinJet earlier this year, and loved every minute of it - it flew after only an evening work building it (kept mine stock for simplicity) and it 'bounced' extremely well!!?!

The F16 stayed on the shelf for some time whilst I made up my mind about how to build / power the thing. Eventually got around to constructing it with tailerons (to keep weight down) and it flies very well indeed - not as forgiving as the TJ but I prefer it. The tailerons give a nice steady roll (more scale) without ailerons and it will loop from level for the first 3 minutes or so.

The TJ will fly longer both in individual flights and will probably outlast the F16 due to the nature of the construction. Both will fly happily on 8 cell packs (I mainly used 7, but have one 8 that gave that little extra umph).

How much can you get hold of the F16 - now that it's discontinued if you can get one for under 60 then I'd go for it. The TJ will cost you more (still pretty popular) but both will put a big on your face.

P.S. The TJ went a few weeks ago (had to make room whilst moving house) but I'll not let the F16 go until it gets to such a state that I can no longer make decent repairs on it .
Sep 29, 2001, 06:05 AM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar
Thanks for the input everyone.
I was pointing more towards the TJ anyway due to the simplicity, toughness etc.
EDF is cool but i'm put off by the 'sometimes' lower flight times.
Would the TJ be too fast as a progression from my twinstar?
AND is a ten cell TJ worth it cos 12v packs aren't that bad now. 29.99 i think.

Thanks for your quick responses.

Sep 29, 2001, 06:07 AM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar
That thrust vectoring looks well made. What exactly does it do in terms of flying? Do you have two ESC's too?
Sep 29, 2001, 06:16 AM
Registered User
Dangerous Dick's Avatar
I don't think the duration of the TJ will ever be below that of the F16 (unless contact with terrafirma before batteries are dead)

Wouldn't go with the 10 cell idea unless they are smaller than the SubC type - you don't want to add weight to an electric model unnecessarily and if you use the stock motors, you will fry them in a hand full of flights. Stick to 8 max and you won't go far wrong.

Progression from the TwinStar to the TwinJet could be a bit of a leap but as the TJ is a bit forgiving you can learn 'on the fly'
Take it easy, and don't turn sharply otherwise you will blead off the speed very quickly with the delta wing. Take your time to build the speed from the launch (don't pull the nose up until you have full flying speed) and for the landing, just come in without the throttle feeding the up elevator contacting the ground 'tail first' - with the delta wing, you will find it very hard to stall (remember what Concord looks like when landing) although you may find the limit, so practice high up first.

P.S. You'll find a whole lot of information on the foamies board for the TJ.
Sep 29, 2001, 11:02 AM
Registered User
Peter, get the TJ. It flies better without nose(Mig nose).

Sep 29, 2001, 11:51 AM
Registered User
Hi Peter,

I've seen a F16 fly with 8 subCs and a Kontronik Fan Drive Set, I don't know which of the two it was, but it flew well enough, and for long enough (look at around 150 for the Fan Drive set in Germany) I was impressed enough to think of buying exactly the same setup, however, it is a high step up from a Twin Star!
I saw the same model crash - the owner has been flying over a year.

I have a Twin Jet flying on 8 RC2000, and it is not too fast as a step up from the Twin Star - quite gentle actually with no bad habits using the recommended CG and control throws, and performance is "decent" - far better than an 8 cell/400 Twin Star. As for duration I have never come close to emptying a pack, but I am tending to land after 7 minutes or so.

I think it is worth paying the extra 35 or so for the Star Jet Competition Drive set using the more effiecent Speed 480 motors that give close to 1000 revs more on similar props and batteries, and they allow the use of 10 cells - though you wouldn't want them initially! 10 subCs will NOT fit, but the CP1700(SCRC) and 2000 NiMh do, and give quite a step up in performance. After trying a 10 pack of 2000 NiMh, that is what I'm looking at putting together this week - at last!

29 for the 10 packs? The last I saw at Overlander they were wanting 38 for 1700SCRCs. I would appreciate you letting me know where to get ten packs at that price as I am currently looking to buy in Germany at a little less than 3 a cell for Panasonic 2000 NiMh.

The short answer? You will enjoy the Twin Jet
Sep 29, 2001, 03:15 PM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar
I'll learn on an ic trainer first then.
In R/C Model World I saw in an advert space for sussex model centre that they sold 12v 2000 packs for 29.99. Would this be good for the graupner competition set? I guess you'd only want or need two of these packs so it's not that expensive.
Go on the ripmax site. Unless i'm totally ignorant of today's batteries and prices they're 30 squid.
Part Number Description SRP

O-10N2000MLT 12.0V Match 2000 Pk Tam Conn 29.99
O-10NRC2400LT 12V 2400mAh Flt Pk Tam Conn 59.99

Does the 35 quid also get you those nice machined hubs?

Sep 29, 2001, 03:17 PM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar
Silly me! They're sub C's.....aren't they?
Couldn't you squiiizze e'm in?!
Sep 29, 2001, 04:10 PM
Registered User
Peter W's Avatar
It keeps happening! When ever i look at the F-16 i want it. But then i read something bad about it and don't want it. Then someone says it's wonderful and i want it again. Why are kyosho discontinuing it anyway?
How long will they be available for? Christmas? Maybe if i can fly really well by then i'll get it and count on the TJ being around in 6 months or so.

The bad thing about the fighting falcon is that it requires 4 micro servos which costs 54. I've heard some people use tailerons or something similar.
One last thing, how do you land without the air intake getting smashed/dented. Is it tough? The TJ sound alot less fragile.

Cheers lads.