SuperStick

while im not building a t 34, i couldnt help but put my 2 cents in. I am building a h9 cap 232 I paid 100 bucks for it from cheif and yes I am haveing to make some mods and comprimises, overall id have to say i would buy another one and hope to get enough bucks to get one for a spare. I am one of the guys on a tight budget and this plane will be my first sport scale. I build all my planes from kits and I would rate myself as an average builder, THe covering was done excellent, but the sheeting is very soft. sso far everything has lined up. THis will be my 2nd h9 arf first one was a super stick. IT is 4 yrs old and still going. the covering was that sticky back stuff, but the plane is tough. Any way untill I get one of those monday morning newbie arfs form h9 I d ahve to say THey are cool with me.

patternflyer1

My Feedback: (11)

I bought the h9 cap 232 73" quite some time ago. Sent them emails about one half of the wing being very warped. They told me to send it back, they would check it and if it was warped they would send me a new one. RIGHTTTTT Like I'm gonna send back a wing and pay the shipping. Come on now. I ended up pulling all of the covering off of the bottom of the wing and to my suprise all of the ribs, well lets say, their glue didn't quite hold up. Wait what glue? They tacked them in place. HAHAHA Oh yeah, then a little further back than the firewall major stress cracks after 30 flights. Don't hit a pebble with the wheel pants that are on there either. CRAAAACCCCKK Three times now. Yeah, well I could go on but why. I can say I probably won't buy them again either.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Well.. it's a bit harsh to compare the original H9 ARF to the present day airplanes. That 73" Cap232 was really the 1st foray into the ARF world for Hangar 9, and their product quality has improved so much over the past few years.

My new H9 46% Ultimate Bipe is as good as I could have built honestly. I have run into NO problems whatsoever. My Su-31 was the same way, and the H9 Taylorcraft was great as well.

patternflyer1

My Feedback: (11)

I think their quality may have improved also by the looks of the ultimate, but, don't pull the covering off, it may fall apart. LOL, anyway good luck h9 folks.

w8med

just purchased the t-34 i upgraded the retracts with robarts very easy mod will be adding saito 72 so far so good no problems yet

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

Just a question, why did you change out the retracts? - Past experiences or just to be extra safe? I've been using the stock H-9 units on out very rough field with no problems whatsoever, then again the stock H-9 units on my P-51 have been bouncing along for months now with no problem either. Just wondering if you had encountered any failures.

quint

smswi

Hi guys,

Thought I would add my thoughts to this subject. First off I’m new to this sport/hobby, started flying this spring (2003). The H9 T-34 is my 3rd plane. First was a HobbyTown trainer (RTF) next was a GP Cessna 182, and then I purchased the H9 T-34. If you’re thinking of getting one please read my whole story before you decide.

First off to me it seems the instructions for the ARF airplanes I purchased assume you have built a hundred planes before. My Cessna took a lot more time then they advertised but I got it together and love flying it. After looking at the instructions and seeing the parts a figured the T-34 would be a breeze compared to the Cessna. After I had already started building I found some broken parts, the tab on the front of one of the wings was broken off and the tab on the tail for mounting the tail cone. Neither proved to be a major problem. Then the blind nuts for mounting the engine were missing. After I got home from the hobby store with the blind nuts I noticed the screws were also missing. (Learned to check everything before going to the hobby shop)

Radio installation went well, the holes for the servos fit perfectly (better then the Cessna) I was however a bit frustrated that you had to invent you own way to mount and secure the receiver, battery and fuel tank.

Then came the push rod installation. After making the needed bends for the throttle control rod it was too short to reach the servo. No problem with the elevator push rod, then I came to the rudder! First the control rod rubbed against the elevator control horn, not a huge problem, but the wood dowel portion of the rod gets caught on the last former of the fuselage. Big problem, at least for a newbe. Fortunately I had the experience from my Cessna and was able to easily substitute the wood dowel type of push rod supplied with a rod and sleeve type employed by my Cessna. At first in stalling the steering control rod seemed to be no big problem, then came the cowling installation. First they either supplied the wrong screws for the cowling or told you to drill the wrong size holes, hence another trip to the hobby shop. (O. K. here I must admit that if you have built more planes and have a nice stuck of parts this is not a big problem) Then after cutting the necessary holes for the engine something was preventing the cowling from going on. Turned out it was the nose gear steering arm, it was hitting the front of the cowl. Best I could see to solve this problem was to move the gear aft about a quarter inch, use the inner most hole on the control horn and cut off the rest. Now I’m not sure if I did something wrong or if this is a design flaw.

Anyway at this point I feel about like rcfireman does. What a pile off @#%.

After setting the throws and the CG it was time to fly! After an hour and half trying to start my engine (that has nothing to do with the airplane) I taxied out hit full throttle. And nothing. Ran down the full length of the runway and never got in the air, tried several more times and no lift off. O. K. time to tell you the engine I’m using, O. S. 46 LA with a 10X6 prop. After a run home to get an 11X6 prop time to try again. Full throttle, and just before I ran out of room it took to the air and climbed out nice. A few clicks to trim it out and all the problems I encountered building were forgotten. Flew beautifully, easy, sharp rolls with only little down elevator input, true loops and just cut power after turning final and let it land. Came in beautifully. After a couple more flights I loved the airplane, with one exception, using ever inch of runway and barley getting it off the ground. Seems to have plenty of power off the ground? Why wont it take off? Someone watching suggested larger wheel to cut though the grass. Next day, with larger wheels, time to try again. And again every inch of the runway was needed. ??? Under powered? Flaw in the plane? Angle of attack? Yes angle of attack! On the way home picked up a longer nose gear wire, fitted it and added ¾� to the length. Next day at the field, came out getting the plane ready to go I told someone else of the problem I was having getting off the ground. Told him the plane was designed for a .40-.58 engine. He said yes but in planes other then trainers they mean the FX not LA. (These are the thing use new people need to know) however I had a .46 LA in my Cessna, which is a little bigger, and it flew fine. Anyways time to see if the increased angle of attack worked. Taxied out, hit full throttle and…..in only a few feet she was off the ground! Great! Going to love this plane.

Now for the sad part of the story. Second flight of the day, again nice short take-off but on clime out it seemed weak, after turning down wind (over tall trees) I heard the engine sputtering and was losing altitude, FAST! Made a quick turn to short final, over shot a bit and made another turn to line up with the runway. Well all the experienced flyers probably know what happened, and for the beginners… DON’T MAKE A STEEP BANK TURN, AT LOW SPEED, CLOSE TO THE GROUND!!! Well she hit hard on the wing tip, then the other, then the nose. The result, two holes in the wing, fuselage almost in half aft of were the wing bolts are, ripped the wood that hold the wings clean off, and the tabs at the front of the wing that hold them to the fuselage.

Well that was a long way to go to get to my point. Sorry about that!

Yes there maybe some design flows in the H9 T-34, There was some missing parts, and it took longer to put together then I thought. But it looks great, fly’s great and I think it’s a good plane for anyone, and especially good 2nd or 3rd plane for a beginners. It’s easy to fly, (It’s easier to fly then my 182.) lands nice and looks good and performs well in the air. As a novice I’ve learned the key word in Almost Ready to Fly is ALMOST! Yes it takes some time and maybe some reengineering but its nothing compared to kit and scratch building. Hats off to you guys doing that! Oh yeah my plane? Well I think it’s reparable, but it’s going to take some time. More time then I have right now with winter coming soon, so despite the problems I had putting it together I bought another one and hope to have it flying next week (and keep it flying). And this time I’m putting in an O. S. .46 FX. The .46 LA did have enough power but no extra and the difference it made in my Cessna was huge, so I can’t wait to see what it dose in the T-34.

Happy Flying! And remember RUDDER not ailerons at low speed!

Ducted Fan Dan

My Feedback: (2)

On the long takeoff runs, did you give it any up elevator?

Whizwaz

RE: Instructions
The instructions for the T-34 are written more for someone who has built more than just a few aircraft. When a manual is written the target audience is taken into consideration even before the writing process begins. In a trainer, there is a lot of “hand holding� to get the modeler through the process, and to keep them from getting frustrated during the assembly. With a model like the T-34, excess wording and steps are usually (not always) a waste of space and time. In my estimation, only a small percentage of modelers will actually read the manual when building. Most all ready have a preconception to their own processes and ignore what has been written.
Another thing to consider is the majority of manuals are written using prototype aircraft. Inevitably, there will be minor changes from the manufacturer that differ from the manual. There is just no way around this due to lead times and a variety of other factors that exist during the development of a product.
If there are any comments regarding the manuals of any of the Hangar 9 products, feel free to email those comments. We are always trying to improve our manuals, and the best way is to incorporate your comments into our products. If you look at manuals produced just a year ago, you will see major differences between them and our current manuals.

John Palmer
Horizon Hobby
Technician/Manual Writer

BTW: Look at the GP Cessna and H9 T-34 manuals very closely. You should see many similarities, as the same person wrote them.

ekrcflyer

Good point Dick:

My understanding always was that you are buying kits TO BUILD a plane, and one certainly can not expect manufacturers to test new kit with ALL possible engines, servos, landing gears, etc. It's all about YOUR CREATIVITY.

And if you don't like the idea that you have to drill extra hole in the firewall then go and buy RTF...

Although I like av8r4aa's idea of "RC shake and fly" model.

rcpilotjae-RCU

My Feedback: (21)

I don't mean to 'reply' to you Ekrcflyer, but with the new forum you can't reply to 'ALL'.


Just my comments on ARF's. I have to agree with one of the posts. Seems that sometimes you'll find a ARF that wasn't as good as the next guys. Why? Well, someone building the ARF didn't take the time, didn't care, or was new! And yes, QC should have rejected that ARF when it came time to be boxed up and shipped.

A good example of this is one I had. I'm now on my 2nd GP Patty Wagstaff Extra. The first was a original with the card board wing tube. A lot of folks had problems with this, I didn't. But I had problems with the wings fitting on the tube. Well, I sanded the ^$#@$ out of them and they where fine. BUT, the ARF itself was beautiful. All the joints where well glued, everything fit perfectly, and best of all the covering job was perfect! After it's demise, I wanted another. My 2nd Patty was terrible. Yes, it had the new fiberglass wing tube, now so lose you put in the tube and it slides on through and out the other side! No biggie, but the joints wheren't glued as well, had to re-do a lot. And the fit on some parts wasn't that good. And the thing that really got me was the covering was terrible! Took me almost 5 hours to straighten it out and I still know where the imperfections are. I should have sent it back and got another. I was in a hurry to get another back in the air. That won't happen again.

But this all boils down to QC. If someones not making the planes up to snuff, QC should reject them instead of passing them through and letting the consumer have the hassles. Sure someone will say, profit, but the heck with that. If it's only happening on a few planes, don't send them out. Re-do them or scrap them and build another, the right way. But there's a lesson here, and as someone said. Check the ARF out, up, down and sideways when you get it. If you see things that aren't right, send it back for another until you do get a good one. I know that can be a royal pain, but most of these companies want you to be happy and they'll bend over back wards to get you a product that you'll be happy with, because they don't like negative responses either. They want word of mouth that their product is great, they stand by it and want you for a customer. And I learned a lesson in not being in a hurry. I should have sent back my 2nd Patty and got one I was happy with, just like the first one.

Also, ARF's have come a long way in just a few short years. There's still some bad ARF companies out there, beware. But you'll find that the big shots in the industry will always have a good product. Just my 2 cent's on ARFs. I love to build, but like everyone in these crazy times, I just don't have enough time to build so I rely on ARF's. And that's what ARF's are supposed to be, a time saver. Just check it over and make sure it's a good one.

Miloh

FYI..... if you guys want an american built ARF check out VectorFlight's site
http://www.vectorflight.com/default.asp
also check this thread http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Vect..._943924/tm.htm

Miloh.

Flyin4Fun

av8r4aa

What are the servo covers that you are talking about? I cant seem to find them? I did a search at Tower and Horizon. I would like to also put the servos inside the wing because it looks much nicer.

Thanks,

Ed

bradj11

Well, I see I may be too late to join in on the discussion, but I sure would want to be a part of this. I bought and assembled my H-9 T-34 and I had little problems with it. I added the retracts after about 1 month of flying it. It does land pretty hot but i think its a nice flying airlpane. After reading this entire post, I feel like I should be worried about its flight capabilities. I am no pro by any means, infact I just graduated my trainer last year. I have had no problems so far in buidling but I do have a bit of discomfort with its flight capabilities.
I have an OS .50sx engine and JR radio & gear with hitec servos for the retracts along with H-9 mech. kit. So I hope that i can keep this one for a while. If i had the money & time, I would have gone for the Top Flite T-34 kit, but for now, I am happy!

jrotor

My Feedback: (5)

Hi,
This may be off of main subject here, but I'm planning to build my t-34 with H9 retracts and
Magnum 91 XL(4stroke) engine(I don't have 70 size 4stroke engine).
Do you think it's too heavy ?
People use OS 70 Surpassfor t-34 and this is only several oz lighter than the magnum.
Advice please.
Thanks !!

quint-rcu

My Feedback: (24)

Not to sound like a broken record, but the H9 T-34 has a heavy wing loading which is not a prblem for those experienced with scale ships or warbirds. It does need to be mechanicaly rotated for take off, slightly higher landing speeds and moderate building (OK, assembling) experience on ARFs. As posted on a number of previous T-34 threads, I added flaps and the plane lands sweet as a trainer with them at 30 degrees deflection and -2% elevator mix. Using a Saito .72 and 12x6 MA 3-bladed prop it flies extremly well. Overall I'd say the folks at H9 have a very good product in the T-34.

quint

P-40LUVR

I have built Many ARFS and it sort of got boring because everything pretty much always went as expected.
I have had Kyoshos that were a piece of crap..wing didn't fit right,balsa in elevator was broken..ect. ect..
Im now going to try my hand at a kit plane..now the fun REALLY begins.[sm=lol.gif]

bradj11

Listen Man!!! This is a sweet plane, an adreline rush.... I like the phrase... "fly it like you stole it!"
Keep it moving! Landing is a challenge, but becomes easier with 1/3 throttle on decent. Point nose in & flair @ the last second.... pure adreline!
This baby will make me want to get the Top Flite larger scale version....cuz it soooo sweet!
OS .50sx engine kicks ***** in this plane. My friend has a Saito 72 in his and that rocks too! Mine lands smoother than his as I have changed out the stock wheels to soft Dubro 2 1/4 on the front & 3's on the main!

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

I fany of you guys are crazy for the T-34, I have the Top Flite version built and ready to fly. Engine probelms have grounded it thus far. I am thinking of selling the airframe, (it is built with flaps, retracts, complete cockpit, fully loaded). If you are in the area and want to come and take a look at it, I am oppen to trades or will sell it ofr a lot less than I have in it.
Tommy

bradj11

Here's a pic of my T-34. I will have a few more pics of her in the air on Sunday. So this will be my maiden flight out with retracts.... flew her already with fixed gears for about a month....So we'll See!

smswi

Hi guys,

I see this thread is active again and I have to add to my post from last year. (2nd post on page 2). I now have a second season flying my H9 T-34 and still love it! I considerer it my relaxing plane, knock around plane, and windy day plane. Actually it’s the plane I fly almost all the time. I’m a bit surprised to see a few posts stating it a bit tricky to fly and/or land. I’m only on my second year of R/C and beside my trainer it’s the easiest plane I have to fly. (Not that I have flown a lot) It’s a little easier then my Cessna 182 and tons easier then my Lancair. It does nice aerobatics and recovers well if you get into trouble (given you have altitude). On landing I cut throttle all the way off before turning crosswind and just let her glide in, with a shot of power if it starts to sink too much. Then just start bringing the nose up just off the runway and let it flare. The only problem I’m having is the main gears are starting to bend and it’s getting squirrelly on take off. Yeah its have a few hard landing including a cartwheel in a strong crosswind landing, with no damage. As I said in my first post I’m on my second H9 T-34. This winter I hope to repair and recover my first and have considered buying another and keep it on the shelf in case I destroy this one and they stop making them. I’m using an OS 46 FX, fixed gear, larger wheels and raised the nose gear a touch to increase the angle of attack on take off. I still think it would be a good first low wing for a beginner. You have peaked my interest on the Top Flight T-34?? Still would love to see a T-28 ARF. Have fun!

bradj11

Well, I guess I could say that I could also take some credit for helping to revive this post. Actually I was in this post zone looking at comments for the GP Cessna 182 when I saw the heading "H9 T-34 What a pile of crap" and since I just got mine about 2 months ago, I decided to check it out.

smswi, I see you and I have similar airplanes. Except that I bought my H9 T-34 then the great planes Cessna 182. I just installed retracts on the t-34 and about to fly this Sunday (Oct. 31, 2004). I will be getting my GP Cessna completed next week and will add some pics of them both in flight. I am using a TT Pro .46 engine with a pitts style muffler and JR gear in the Cessna & an OS .50 SX ringed with JR gear in the T-34. From reading your post, it sounds like the Mentor is easier to fly. Is this true? I will be practicing a bit more on the T-34 before I maiden the GP Cessna then. I was thinking that the Cessna, becuz it's a high wing airplane would be much easier in flight and also landings due to more ground clearance. I have not performed too may aerobatics with the T-34 as yet, as I am still getting used to it. It rolls beautifully though & flies very fast. Landing is still a bit touchy for me. I have not figured out the formula as yet, though I have managed to set her in without any hard ones.... I just got back into flying this past May, though I have been flying for 3 yrs on and off. I also have a GP EasySport 40 which I have been flying since I graduated from the Kadet LT 40 trainer and it flies perfect.

I guess you are more the pro with the T-34 & Cessna so please provide me with some insight and any comparisons to look for.

Pics coming soon!

Flyinbrian2005

My T-34 fly's great under power....Dead stick in flight and it will fall out of the sky like a rock. Landings for me...always keep power on until I hit the numbers, then chop the throttle. I've just installed retracts in and the ZFW is 7.5 lbs. Current engine is a OS .46/FX and not sure how the aircraft will handle now with this extra weight.

bat_21

I recently purchased a hanger 9 t-34. Building has gone well. I am now to the part where i have to install the engine. I am undecided between the OS .46 fx and the OS .50 ringed engines. In reading the threads it seems it is a toss up to other pilots. I m not reno racing but would like to have power to keep me out of trouble.


Always open for advise.

jrotor

My Feedback: (5)

Hi,
I have T-34 with OS 46 AX and Hangar 9 retracts also. Total weight is around 6.7 lbs.
With OS AX and 11x6 prop and 15% nitro, it's fast and enough power.
I fly 75 % throuttle and good vertical climb too.
I'll be enough to get u outta trouble.
But, I got used to this speed quickly alrady, i'm thinking about getting os 50 sx.
So, my advice is, OS 46AX will be enough but get OS 50 SX if your budget allows.