New Skywalker fiberglass clone by hobbyking:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...5063405&ref=mf

First things I've noticed:

1- simple plastic canopy, can't use it for fpv (will they ever start to build cool lexan fpv usable canopies ?)
2- landing gear too weak ?
3- no side window ready
4- no flaps (this is what I really don't like)
5- maybe even more tail heavy than the skywalker?
6- no slots for pan&tilt servos ready

but it looks very good anyway... ok who's first?

What advantages does this have over the EPP FPV? Seems like a pretty comparable plane, other than it's not foam. Is fiberglass that much better? It does look more streamlined than the flying block of foam that the EPP FPV is...

I'm all for choice, and it looks more professional than the EPP FPV, just curious as to why HK would copy something when they have a similar piece already available...

for sure the tail section is more rigid, the epp version is not rigid at all. Fiberglass is thinner so you have more space inside. It looks better, and it looks better when you paint it but it's not so easy to make holes where to put your equipment like video TX, pan&tilts, antennas...

We need to wait and see prices, weight and see if they add flaps in the final version ( I really hope so).

I also love the landing gear, but it needs a better one.. that one is bent already under the weight of an empty airframe.

also, if it needs the same weight amount for correct CG this is going to be too fast for me...

Originally Posted by zaguruinzasky

for sure the tail section is more rigid, the epp version is not rigid at all. Fiberglass is thinner so you have more space inside. It looks better, and it looks better when you paint it but it's not so easy to make holes where to put your equipment like video TX, pan&tilts, antennas...
.

Seems like the control surfaces (at least the ailerons) are smaller, so wouldn't they have less authority than the EPP FPV? Theoretically it should have less flex, but I wouldn't think that would make up for the lost surface area.

I was hoping they'd make a twin boom FPV clone instead of this. Oh well, maybe next time. Hopefully they'll get some airframes in the US as well, so shipping isn't so crazy.

I would like to make this twin engine with counter props, mounting the engines in the center wing section... more efficiency, less CG problems, less noise...

I think this plane should be very able to cover some ground, and have to agree there needs to be a smooth clear canopy to preserve the airflow.

there are also no airscoops to chill the ESC and motor

I just wonder why these people don't come here and ask what we want first... ?

Haha the Chinese copy the Chinese for a change.

it's here.. https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...dproduct=15236
should i or shouldn't i..
like this plane.. got the epo version..
it doesn't mention any carbon stiffener at the wing..how is the wing held together..pics here shows 3pcs..at hk is one solid wing..

looks nice, just that it will be harder to repair than a EPO plane, and it looks like a Skywalker epo, which is also 1680mm wingspan

Dry weight is 1300gs, whats the dry weight of the EPO version?.

I agree, i thought the same thing when looking at the landing gear, & no flat spot on the tail boom for equipment.

Cheers, Kev.

here created a swarm to save some ship cost..

https://www.hobbyking.com/SwarmSale.asp?id=89163