Question for someone in the know... how does this new air-frame compare to the Valiant 30cc in terms of flight envelope range and performance. From what I recall about the marketing of the Valiant, they are similar. If you have stick-time on both, please let us know what each does best and where each is challenged against the other.

Having flown the 20cc valiant, and having flown the small foamy timber and the extreme flight turbo bushmaster, I think I can give a little guidance.

The valiant, in any of its sizes, flies very smoothly. I've never flown a high-wing plane that feels as much like a pattern plane. It can do a four-point roll as smooth as I can do on any airframe, despite its high wing. I'm sure a better pilot would notice the difference between the valiant and a dedicated pattern plane, but I really couldn't. Add the flaps to its flying ability, and it is a really smooth sport plane that can do some STOL flying- it can do really short takeoffs. However, the valiant has a slow roll rate, that doesn't really seem to improve much with higher aileron throws. It has a glider-like high aspect ratio wing and a slick airfoil. In fact, the valiant almost feels like a glider when dead stick. Please note that the valiant is not very good at snap rolls or spins- that slick airfoil just doesn't want to stall.

The smaller timber (and the turbo bushmaster, different airframe but similar flying style) is a true STOL plane, can take off within its own length, can also land in a very short distance (if you like full-flap "plop" landings). It is much less "smooth" than the valiant doing things like slow rolls, but is much more capable of snaps and spins. I've seen guys fly the regular, old fashioned timber in full 3D when the throws are increased. That's without using flap/aileron mix that the timber 30cc has.

If you want to fly big, smooth aerobatics and have some STOL capabilities, the valiant is awesome. If you want to really fly from rough country, be able to fly very slowly with full flaps, and try some snap and spin type aerobatics, and also be 3d capable, then I think the timber airframe will be much more exciting for you.

Originally Posted by LM300

Question for someone in the know... how does this new air-frame compare to the Valiant 30cc in terms of flight envelope range and performance. From what I recall about the marketing of the Valiant, they are similar. If you have stick-time on both, please let us know what each does best and where each is challenged against the other.

In general, when comparing the Timber & the Valiant, the Timber has better STOL capability, better ultra low speed handling and somewhere between marginal and competent 3D capability depending on build (and the Timber X takes that even further). The Valiant has a much wider speed range and is easier to fly at mild speeds (it is not as wind sensitive as the timber, due to the lower lift wing and lower drag design). The Valiant can be flown as a trainer, sport plane and even fly basic Pattern sequences, take the gear and prop off and it's a spiffy little sloper too, at least in the smaller 10cc and 1.3m variations. It is low on roll and working out full-span ailerons could really help it out.

Now my experience is from the foam ones, but I expect that to scale well to the big guys too. They look similar but fly very differently and it's worthwhile owning both IMHO (of course, owning both is harder to justify with the 30cc sized ones).

Frankly, We need a 10cc Timber and a UMX Valiant to go with the ones we already have, these are arguably the two most versatile and fun generalist airframes in Horizon's catalog.

A local guy here flew the foamy valiant with a folding prop, and flew it like a glider, full throttle ‘till speck size, glide it down, repeat. 12-15 min flights easily and he left the landing gear on.

After flying my 6-cell turbo bushmaster this summer, I will decide if I want another STOL. I have the “guts” (motor, esc, servos) needed to assemble a 50cc electric, and I’m not sure if I want an aj raven , the big timber or some scale job.

I was pre ordering parts for the electric power version and noticed there wasn't any recommendation of size batteries for the 180 version. Any recommendations?

12s 5000~7000

It was further suggested that if a single cell in the 12s fails,, the entire battery is unusable. Checking further, in the parts list, the 22.2v 500 mah 6s 50c is listed. I assume two batteries are required for flight.

yes, two packs to make a 12S setup. if a cell fails, that 6S pack would be unusable, however, i've never actually had a cell "fail" except from crash damage or improper charging, and I've been electric-only for the last 20 years (yes, pre-lipo). I have numerous large 6s packs used in 6s and 12s aircraft, that are a few years old, with literally hundreds of cycles. We have a bunch of 6s packs used when testing eflite and hangar 9 aircraft, that are quite old, used, and greatly abused.

https://www.facebook.com/15939737756...768244&sfns=mo

Regarding batteries for this plane. In the 'Completion" description it lists a 5000 MAH 6c pair of batteries. Is there any reason to either use these or go to a 12C battery? I assume the weight is comparable. What about the CG? As I am relatively new to all of this I would welcome any comments on battery selection. The whys and wherefores would be interesting to learn from the more advanced modelers.

Originally Posted by Camper Bob

Regarding batteries for this plane. In the 'Completion" description it lists a 5000 MAH 6c pair of batteries. Is there any reason to either use these or go to a 12C battery? I assume the weight is comparable. What about the CG? As I am relatively new to all of this I would welcome any comments on battery selection. The whys and wherefores would be interesting to learn from the more advanced modelers.

Depends upon your charger (many can't charge a 12 cell pack), and then there's the possibility of developing a bad cell. Getting a bad cell in a 12 cell pack means you have to replace a 12 cell pack (unless you're experienced enough to replace a bad cell.) If you get a bad cell in a 6 cell pack, you replace a 6 cell pack - which is approximately half the cost.

Joel

I agree. Haven't found anyone who has experienced a bad cell. I will stick with two 6 cell batts. Was just wondering what if any benefits to using a 12 cell. Now that you mention it, I believe my charger will not charge a 12 cell. Hadn't thought about that.

Originally Posted by Camper Bob

Regarding batteries for this plane. In the 'Completion" description it lists a 5000 MAH 6c pair of batteries. Is there any reason to either use these or go to a 12C battery? I assume the weight is comparable. What about the CG? As I am relatively new to all of this I would welcome any comments on battery selection. The whys and wherefores would be interesting to learn from the more advanced modelers.

Something to consider is understanding the number of cells “S” rating versus the battery current (amps) draw “C” rating. S rating defines voltage and C ratings defines nominal amps at rated capacity. Both are important to know when selecting and using batteries for electric powered planes.

You can search RC Groups or Google for more info.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Camper Bob

....Was just wondering what if any benefits to using a 12 cell...

The only real benefits are that a 12-cell pack of a given quality/capacity/true C-rating is typically a bit cheaper than a pair of 6s packs of the same quality/capacity/true C-rating, is also usually a bit lighter, and usually sags a bit less under high load because there's no extra wiring needed for the series harness that a pair of 6s packs would need. Usually not enough difference to be a big deal for the average RCer...

Joel

Thanks for the input. Will order a pair of 6c batts.