Thread Tools
Jul 27, 2001, 10:51 PM
Real Men Fly Pink Planes...
kepople's Avatar
Thread OP

Vote my new aerobatic plane in...

I am torn so help me decide...

I need an aerobatic sport plane to round my fleet...

Which one SR x250, Hobby Lobby Fire Cat, Hobby Lobby Crazy Sparrow...

Best Performance, Best Value, Best Look...

Thanks for your help...Write ins will be concidered.

Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jul 27, 2001, 11:03 PM
Registered User
member73's Avatar
I'm in the same situation. Sort of have it narrowed down to X-250 and mini Laser 3-D, but open to other suggestions (don't even start Buddly6 or Daren!). So if any one else has some suggestive comments (ok, I couldn't resist ) please let me know.
Jul 27, 2001, 11:13 PM
Real Men Fly Pink Planes...
kepople's Avatar
Thread OP
Opps forgot to put the mini Laser on the list...Now what!?!?!?!
Jul 28, 2001, 01:03 AM
what motor are you planing to use ?
Jul 28, 2001, 03:26 AM
Registered User
I got my mini laser in the air yesterday and I'm very pleased with it. It builds very well, it's the first laser cut kit I've built and it was very easy to put together. I'm only using 7 cells and I think it flys very well so it should be exceptional on 8. The x250 would also be a good option as I only ever hear good things about it.
I'd suggest looking at the equipment you already have. The Laser needs 7/8 cells and the X250 needs 10. That was certainly a factor for me (that and the fact that I'm in the UK and importing things gets expensive ;-)

Jul 28, 2001, 05:25 PM
Registered User
Brian Lyle's Avatar
My vote would be for the X250 - I am over the moon with mine. I think it flies faster and much more smoothly, like a pattern ship, while the laser 3d seems more like a fun fly. Depends what you want. But one comment, if you have the odd heavy landing, the x250 is much tougher - I've seen a Laser snap clean in half when the fin touched the ground in a low manoevre that went wrong. There seems to be a weak point in the fuselage at about the t/e, where there is only about 1/2" of wood. The x250 wing in particular is fairly bomb-proof, thanks to the carbon l/e and spar, and although I've done a front-end rebuild twice, it is still flying beautifully. You also have more options for upgrading power trains - see other threads.

Jul 28, 2001, 06:17 PM
Registered User
RonJ's Avatar
O.K., my opinion. I trashed 20 plus years of nitro burners after watching a cheap little ElectroStreak on a Magnetic Mayhem. This same pilot built an X-250 and after flying it a few times put it up for sale. Asked him why? His response - "it's no E-Streak". I will be building one this winter.
Jul 28, 2001, 06:22 PM
Registered User
dave morris's Avatar
squeeze a rudder on a flea and put in 020 astro and go smoke everybody.
Jul 29, 2001, 12:43 AM
The larger question is: What is your definition of "aerobatic"? Next question, "What level are your flying skills?"

I have flown many model 'planes, and like the higher-powered (Watts per pound or kilo) models. I have an X-250, and changed out the motor for a cobalt 480...thereby doubling the power, or more. It was Really tame...for me. Have you seen one fly?

If you want Fast aerobatics, then as RonJ noted, there is the Electrostreak - but I would not build one of them, but instead the similar model which (Bob Sliff?) designed and Aveox boxed up and sells. Less mods to do to put 10 cells into; modern airfoil; and other "newer" twinks.

The Crazy Sparrow is a Park Flyer. Do you want that kind of "light wind only" flying, and a foam model than you may not be able to rebuild when minor tweaks occur?

The Hobby Lobby FireCat - Not even in the same county, when considering the Crazy Sparrow or the X-250. Look here for a video clip:

The FireCat may be beyond your flying skills, with the recommended control settings. Your call. Although it is an ARF, it is wood with iron-on covering, so it is repairable.

Your bucks, your choice! Enjoy.

Jul 29, 2001, 09:37 AM
Visitor from Reality
Little bit of horn tooting here.

Either find someone with a copy of "Radio Modeller" for February 1995, or you can buy the plan from Radio Control Modeler in the US - it's their plan number 1243. It's my old "SquErt" design and will still do as many aerobatics as your list, but for peanuts in construction costs.

It was built when all I could buy was a 7.2V 400 motor and flew on 7 x 600 "AA" sized nicads, suggesting that it would really go on a 6V and 7 or 8 AE cells. Would do a Cuban Eight on the above at a time when most 400 electrics rated 'climbing' as tricky stuff.

Value - costs peanuts in wood, you assess building costs of local labour . Performance - kept me happy, the designer had high standards Looks - that I can't help, its a little boxy, but has a high degree of form following function.

Really needs a rudder, but that's easy to fix. I even have copies of the plan (paper only, it was pre-computer and CAD days). Heck, there were two at my funfly this year!


Jul 29, 2001, 08:49 PM
Real Men Fly Pink Planes...
kepople's Avatar
Thread OP
Thanks for the input so far. I would have to say that my flying skills are intermediate, although I have a Sim and a Zagi to get all my bad habits worked out. I would like to be able to perform solid, skilled aerobatics, and that includes a Torque Roll, 4 & 8 points, Barrel Rols, and Cuban Eights in a straight line. I dont have a plan for what motor so am open to suggestions. Only rule there is that the motor should not cost more than the plane as I see it.

Whats the thinkning on the recommended power kit for the 250 that SR has.

Thanks agian.
Jul 30, 2001, 03:24 AM
[BOLD]I would like to be able to perform solid, skilled aerobatics, and that includes a Torque Roll, 4 & 8 points, Barrel Rols, and Cuban Eights in a straight line.[/BOLD]
[BOLD]Only rule there is that the motor should not cost more than the plane as I see it. [/BOLD]
i know this is going to get me in trouble but....

line 1 and line 2 are basically a contradiction. also you have it the wrong way around. remember the motor moves from plane to plane - its the longer term investment.

if you want a plane to perform a Torque Roll you have to have more thrust than weight. although its possible to do this without a brushless the 90 seconds of motor run time is likely to get old in very short order. imho you should actaully start out the other way around, pick a motor and then pick an airframe to go with it. planes are much cheaper than motors as a rule so it will cost less to buy a new plane than a new motor if it doesnt fly to your expectations.

dont be afraid to lay out the bucks for a brushless, im very glad i did now. would have saved a bunch of pissing around trying to get brushed to perform like you need. right now i have a crazy sparrow that you can read about in the foamies section. beware the foamies, when you get to this level of performance (read weight) they get, shall we say, fragile.

hope that helps.

Quick Reply

Thread Tools