E-Flite 1.5m AT-6 BnF - RC Groups
Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Nov 09, 2017, 12:58 PM
Sagitta Fanboy
New Product

E-Flite 1.5m AT-6 BnF


Looks like another entry from the infamous Vapor HP video is real.

https://www.horizonhobby.com/at-6-15m-bnf-basic-efl8750

1.5m, split flaps, optional retracts, What looks like the Timber's power system. SAFE Select, although I'm not sure how you get both SAFE Select and the retracts to work on a 6ch radio.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Nov 09, 2017, 02:33 PM
DFS#000178
Rampage's Avatar
3s power on a 1500mm 'warbird' is a joke, right?

Right?

And really, we needed another trainer like we need a hole in the head. There are numerous AT-6s, T-28s and Stearmans on the market, why do we need another one? If someone was going to release a full-house trainer I'd much prefer it be a T-34 Mentor, since nobody's done one yet, and finding the T-34 PTS is damn near impossible because it flies so good people won't part with it..

I honestly think a nice T-34 would've been a much better candidate.
Nov 09, 2017, 03:21 PM
Sagitta Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampage
3s power on a 1500mm 'warbird' is a joke, right?

Right?

And really, we needed another trainer like we need a hole in the head. There are numerous AT-6s, T-28s and Stearmans on the market, why do we need another one? If someone was going to release a full-house trainer I'd much prefer it be a T-34 Mentor, since nobody's done one yet, and finding the T-34 PTS is damn near impossible because it flies so good people won't part with it..

I honestly think a nice T-34 would've been a much better candidate.
Umm, this is an AT-6, not a T-28. What's wrong with 3S power on a 1500mm advanced trainer?.An AT-6A is 600HP, while a T-28D is 1425HP.

And there's a reason why the T-6 is very common, while the T-34 is very rarely seen. One had almost 16,000 examples built, lasted 60 years in service (First flight in 1935, finally retired from the SAAF in 1995), was flown at one point or another by basically every western or western-oriented air force in probably 100+ paint schemes and is a staple of airshows everywhere, is quite a hot performer for a trainer and there's only minor visible differences between the the variants (mostly canopy changes, plus fixed gear on the Yale).

The other saw 2300 built, was used by about 1/3rd as many operators, and that's split between two extremely different variants, the original T-34 and the T-34C Turbo Mentor, and is only occasionally seen on the airshow circuit, in part because it's a very subdued performer (185HP vs 600Hp on the T-6), although the Turbo Mentor is another story (it's a LOT faster and hotter than the AT-6 or the Continental-engined Mentor)
Nov 09, 2017, 03:33 PM
DFS#000178
Rampage's Avatar
It's 1500mm and it's a pound heavier than a Timber.

It's not going to perform like a warbird on 3S. That's just a given. It's not going to perform as well as a Timber on 3S because it's significantly heavier using a similar--if not the same--power system. It's also using a much more aggressive prop than the Timber (12x4 vs 12x8.5) so I'm really thinking 4S is the way to go here, and I wouldn't trust pushing 4S through the stock 40-amp ESC with a prop that aggressive.

And by "common" I meant within the RC market itself. Numbers built is pretty irrelevant when it comes to that, or we'd see a lot more B-24s...
Nov 09, 2017, 03:55 PM
Sagitta Fanboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampage
It's 1500mm and it's a pound heavier than a Timber.

It's not going to perform like a warbird on 3S. That's just a given. It's not going to perform as well as a Timber on 3S because it's significantly heavier using a similar--if not the same--power system. It's also using a much more aggressive prop than the Timber (12x4 vs 12x8.5) so I'm really thinking 4S is the way to go here, and I wouldn't trust pushing 4S through the stock 40-amp ESC with a prop that aggressive.

And by "common" I meant within the RC market itself. Numbers built is pretty irrelevant when it comes to that, or we'd see a lot more B-24s...
And an AT-6 doesn't perform like a Warbird in real life either. It's a 200mph trainer, not a 400+mph fighter, or even a 300+mph high performance trainer like the T-28D. If you've ever seen them fly in real life, they fly like an old-school 60-sized pattern ship that's had a somewhat hot .40 stuck on the front. Lots of big broad turns & loops, very little vertical and lots of energy management (quite frankly, most RC warbirds are wildly overpowered to start off with, scale flight involves mostly energy-managed vertical even on something really overpowered like a F8F or F4U-5).

The Timber can hover with low-sag batteries, that's more power than a T-6 should need, even hauling around an extra pound.

The RC market tends strongly towards iconic single-engined aircraft. The T-6 certainly is such an aircraft, being arguably the most legendary advanced trainer aircraft in existence. The T-34 is an obscure non-entity in comparison.
Nov 09, 2017, 08:03 PM
Registered User
Mikey 68's Avatar
I dont think people undersand power on a plane. Yes it flies on a 3s but your at full power all the time. What I and others like is have more power when or if you need it but also can fly it nicely still at 3/4 power.
Nov 09, 2017, 08:05 PM
Registered User
Mikey 68's Avatar
But do we need a 3rd thread open for this plane
Nov 09, 2017, 09:20 PM
I'd rather be flying!
turboparker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampage
It's 1500mm and it's a pound heavier than a Timber.

It's not going to perform like a warbird on 3S. That's just a given. It's not going to perform as well as a Timber on 3S because it's significantly heavier using a similar--if not the same--power system. It's also using a much more aggressive prop than the Timber (12x4 vs 12x8.5) so I'm really thinking 4S is the way to go here, and I wouldn't trust pushing 4S through the stock 40-amp ESC with a prop that aggressive.

And by "common" I meant within the RC market itself. Numbers built is pretty irrelevant when it comes to that, or we'd see a lot more B-24s...
A bone-stock Timber has unlimited vertical with a decent, low-sag 3s pack. It can hover with the floats on. So, the Texan's thrust-to-weight should be more than high enough for any scale aerobatic maneuvers.

Joel
Nov 10, 2017, 01:37 AM
Registered User
Mikey 68's Avatar
Its a LT-6D Mosquito
Nov 10, 2017, 01:26 PM
<<<<I|I>>>>
phoam's Avatar
Seems to fly well enough on this power system for what it is.

E-flite AT-6 1.5m BNF Basic and PNP (3 min 3 sec)
Nov 11, 2017, 10:29 AM
Registered User
Mikey 68's Avatar
Its the same size as the 1200mm planes . it just the wing is so long that its why its 1500mm .


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Product E-Flite Timber 1.5m BNF Basic/PNP Mattfly Electric Plane Talk 13725 Today 07:40 AM
News E-flite Cirrus SR22T 1.5m BNF Matt Gunn Electric Plane Talk 798 Yesterday 12:06 PM
Discussion E-flite AT-6 1.5m Dave Eichstedt Electric Warbirds 79 Nov 18, 2017 09:05 PM
Review Horizon Hobby E-flite Timber 1.5m BNF - RCGroups Review kingsflyer Electric Plane Talk 49 Nov 09, 2017 12:06 PM
Discussion E-Flite Timber 1.5m BNF Basic RC Airplane TruthorDare1 Electric Plane Talk 2 Aug 03, 2017 03:13 PM