ag4ever

I would still buy it. I am happy with my F-22 and the OS 55ax I have on it. I still have the wing tip extensions on it, and I am sure they are slowing it down a bit.

This is not meant to be a speed plane, but it does feel lathargic at times, even as a trainer. I have worried that it was going to stall and fall from the sky it was flying so slow at times, but it seems to be doing just fine, even at those slow speeds.

telejojo

Flew mine last weekend and it flew great.I have an OS 55 and it was plenty with an 11/5 prop. and pretty fast.no flaps or wing ext. Fun plane to fly......I would buy it again. The nose needs reinforcing but other than that it's a good airplane.

c hardy

Wow, lots of varied opinions on this plane.
I like the looks of it, and I have a .91 without a home. What would people recomend getting, This Raptor or a Bobcat type of plane.
I have been looking at this Fly cat.
http://www.kmp.ca/product_info.php?c...roducts_id=162

Thanks.
C Hardy.

ag4ever

Are you looking for a more docile plane, or a fast plane that is more challenging?

That will help you decide what to get.

roxyndav

My Feedback: (2)

[sm=thumbup.gif]Looks like the general agreement is that the F22 Raptor fly's very well with a OS 55ax. So if you are thinking about buying one I would not suggest putting an Evo 46 on it. Go with the larger size engine I don't think you well be disappointed.
[quote]RC is the funest thing you can do with your pants still on.[/quote]

tman52748

My Feedback: (1)

What's the concensus on prop sizes for the .55os? 10x8 or 11x8?

dragraces

My Feedback: (2)

that Flycat looks awsome i have a bobcat best plane i have ever had more fun and easyer to fly than f22 but both planes are fun i want them all so its tough to decide good luck

nothinbetr2do

i was reading some where on here, guys were talking about putting washers or spacers behind the bottom of the engine mount. does anybody know what that was for? also how many? thanks guys

c hardy

Well. I went to the City this weekend. Found a Raptor in grey. So I bought it and a GMS 61.
I have it about 90% together and will try and fly it this week.
I added some yellow and black checker stripes to the stabs and elevator to make it easier to see.
I will send some Pics when it's done.

Thanks for the info on the planes.

C Hardy.

tman52748

My Feedback: (1)

What prop is the best for the OS .55AX and the Raptor? 10x8, 11x8??????

heli_Rod

I think I'm going to try the 10x8 apc first. I'll have to do some tach testing when I get it set up to see what's working. The 55 ax is rated 1.75 hp @ 16,000 rpm, so I don't want to bog the engine.

Rod

adaptabl

MY son's F22 flys great on the EVO 46 with a 10x7(muffler baffle removed) 13,600 RPM. The thing has very good speed and does nice very large loops. The 46 is a good match to the plane.

da Rock

I just flew the pts trainer out of the box and it sucks as a rtf trainer.

The prop isn't a good match to the engine.
The engine on this one wouldn't turn max rpms because the needle valve limiter wasn't set properly.
If the flaps had been positioned down the sucker would never have taken off on our 300' runway.
The main landing gear was positioned incorrectly. Tricycle gear design is so well known that H9 never should have made this error.

It's rather pathetic, no actually it's simply stupid, for a number of our ARFs to have the main gear almost directly under the CG. This is the THIRD chinese made ARF that I've seen in person that had that ridiculous mistake. And all of them have had straight main struts which compounds the problems. Tricycle gear design isn't hard to understand. The mains should place the tire footprints aft of the CG adequately to provide decent enough weight on the nosewheel so the darn thing can steer efficiently. And when the tires are directly under the CG, when the airplane is landing and in the slightly noseup attitude that is almost always the landing attitude, when the too far forward mains hit the ground, the CG is behind those tires and drives the rear of the airplane down. That increases the AOA of the still flying wing and what happens???? Nothing good. It is so amazingly simple to get this design right. And so amazingly easy to see that the dumb layout is wrong. Who actually is doing QA on these things.

I'm rather disappointed in our hobby re-sellers in the US. We might not be mfg'ing the suckers, but we really ought to be rejecting the lousy ones.

We got that sucker through it's maiden alive. And got the owner a couple of buddy box flights, his first flights ever. But we had to develop the airplane to do it. And I've never experienced an airplane that is supposed to be so easy to fly it'd be called a trainer that was so evil on it's first flight. After we slightly defeated the safety device on the needle valve and got a bit more rpm, that sucker was flying just under a stall when I got it airborne on it's first takeoff. It took almost a full lap to get on step. So let's consider that power production from that engine was just a case of a bad one from the factory. We pretty much solved it by pulling the issue propeller and replacing it with one the engine would turn. The 2nd flight was still less than "trainer easy". Turns out we needed to knock the elevator throws down about 1/3 from the book recommendation. The airplane was hard to stall (characteristic of delta wings and it's almost a delta) but my trainee was doing what beginners often do, pulling too much elevator. And it'd kill the airplane's speed.

The one we encountered might have been badly setup by the manufacturer. That's another fault, not an excuse, if it's true. IT'S A FRICKIN' TRAINER after all. But it also has at least one really stupid design flaw.

I've posted in this thread earlier, counceling for less harsh criticism of this model. But yesterday I actually saw one in the flesh. And one of the first things that popped into my head is just how miserably our reviewers are letting the average modelers down. I treated that model yesterday as many of our reviewers proudly bost they do reviews. I used what was issued. And it sucked. I've read a couple of reviews on this thing. Turns out that I now know how badly they sucked.

It's really cool that some people's encounters with this thing turned out great. It's always the case when you report your personal experience and it's bad, that some say, "mine was excellent", indicating that you either got a bad one or don't know what you're talking about. Well, maybe we did get a bad engine. But we got the issue prop. And the gear was straight from the factory. And we did get an airplane that sucked. And it cost this guy about $500.

Now that sucks.

da Rock

I flew one yesterday. It would do axial rolls decent enough. It was ok inverted although with those wing droops, the resulting camber does demand more elevator than a symmetrical wing would. And it's loops couldn't be too small, but it did eights ok. I sorta opened the eights a bit wider to let the thing gather back some speed in between the loops. It really isn't a bad flying airplane. I suggested to the owner and his mechanic that when they're bending new gear with 15-20degrees aft rake, that them give the gear an inch more height. That airplane would be very good with enough ground clearance to swing a good prop for the engine. I didn't try a knife edge, and it really didn't want to snap roll, but the sucker has potential.

adaptabl

The gear placement is perfect. Just a few MM's behind the CG. Thats were it should be. The ground handling is good and on landing the CG is almost right over the gear, that allows the plane to land at any speed without forcing the tail or nose down(the thing looks great on a slight nose up landing rolling on the main gear until speed drops and the nose settles down). The stock prop is a bad choice(10x7 works great). Everything else is great. The best part is my sons friends never had an interest is his R/C planes. After seeing the F22 they are interesting in going to the field. I think thats the point of having a F22 trainer. H9 did a good job in producing a good looking,interesting,good flying airplane. Cubs just don't interest the younger generation anymore. High wing trainers although they may be the best for a new or older pilot are not very interesting.

PaulWR

I have just finished my ARF version of a Hanger 9 f22 but have yet to fly it. I fitted it with a Super Tiger 51 and with flap servos (one position down). I am not using the wing extensions.

Would you please let me know what the travel measurements you found works best on your Raptor. That is, what you have on the ailerons (low and high rates) and on the flaps.
Thanks
Paulwr

da Rock

One of the best pictures of the accepted design for tricycle gear happens to be in the book, "BASICS OF R/C MODEL AIRCRAFT DESIGN" by Andy Lennon. Basically the same can be found in aeronautical engineering textbooks. But I knew where to find this one fast.

telejojo

set your flaps level,it flys just fine.All that will do will slow you down and want to climb.................

PaulWR

Thanks..
I had the impression that it was better to use the flaps for landings and particularly during takeoffs (to help get it off the ground earlier). Maybe not for this plane? I have read that depending on the motor installed it take a long run to get off the runway. Also I have read that in some cases it wants to keep flying on an attempted landing and in other cases it want to drop quickly when landing? It is a bit confusing. Maybe the difference is whether it is flown with the "trainer" stuff on it?
However, if because of the design, it slows down quickly at low throttle on a landing, I can see your point.

heli_Rod

There seems to be a wide varity of opinions on the way this plane flys. I've seen several fly now, and have flown them. I think a lot will end up being a personal preferance thing. Try the flaps at different settings, 12 degrees and 28 degrees seems to work best so far. Flying characteristics change quite a bit with flaps. Speed will bleed off fast in a hard turn with lots of up elevator. A good engine and prop combination will make or break this airplane. The stock RTF version right out of the box is a turd! However, with a little work and extra care with the proper equipment and setup, it should be a nice sport plane, though not for the beginner. No matter how you set the plane up, don't try to drag in in on approaches! Keep the speed up....it can get ugly quickly with tip stall! The flat surfaces on the engine intakes act as speed brakes. Carry a little power on final approach. Takeoff rolls will be long regardless of the engine (excluding a .90).

Take your time setting it up and read all the posts you can find on the F-22. There is a lot of information here on the forums. Use your own judgement on what you try. Understanding the plane and how it flys will enhance your enjoyment. It can be a beast, but then, you will be flying something that not everyone else is! I hope you have success with your Raptor..\

Rod

PaulWR

Rod,
Thank you for your detailed advice on the flight characteristics of the H9 F22. I really appreciate it.

I agree that how I finally set it up will be a personal preference thing. I just thought that it would give me a head start to know how other flyers, experienced with this plane, had set it up.
Right now I have the flaps set at about 45 degrees - maybe a bit on the extreme side and will start by reducing the throw closer to what you have suggested. I had wondered also about the 3/16" suggested in the manual for the ailerons. Maybe that was for the "trainer" equipped version?

I am beginning to wonder now if the different flying characteristics reported by some H9 F22 flyers can be attributed to the CG adjustment chosen in combination with the power source chosen. Maybe the balance (5 3/4 to 6 1/4') point/engine size combination chosen will make a dramatic difference in how this plane behaves in the air? As I mentioned I have installed a Super Tiger 51 which, if I have listened to the forum comments correctly, will certainly not overpower the Raptor.

I noticed also from watching two review videos of the plane in the final stages of a landing that there is a tendency for the plane to lose airspeed and drop rapidly if, as you suggested, the motor is throttled back to much during the last stage of the landing
Thanks again for taking the time to give me your comments.
Paul

yodajedi

for those of you that are interested the FS One F-22 sim is up for download at www.fsone.com

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

I apologize for getting into this thread late. With reference to the drawing of a tricycle grea plane on page 2, please don't use this. I have Andy Lennon's book and he is brilliant, but much of his stuff is not applicable to normal flight.

1. You should never angle the nose gear forward. We put caster in every wheeled vehicle so they track better. Angling it forward will cause it to try to reverse itself just like the front wheels on a grocery cart is they are backwards-they flip around. With the nose gear angled forward, the plane will try to zig-zag as you steel.

2. Don't angle the nose down. Set the plane level. If the nose is down, as you gain speed, the plane will be pushed down on the runway. You'll need extra back stick to life off and the plane will tend to jump off the ground.

3. 20 deg back is too much. in my opinion. 15 deg is the number I've always heard. You really want the plane light on the nose gear so is can rotate easily on take off and you can land on the mains without slamming the nose down.

4. Never use a T tail, except on a sailplane. When the plane rolls, the tail will scoop air, making the tail pull out in a conical fashion. Terrible looking rolls. Ever see a pattern plane with a T tail? The only power planes with T tails that I know are successful are the flying boats, Seamaster, Neptune and Sea Monster. They also have the engines up in a pod and the T tail puts the stab right behind the engine on the thrust line.

nothinbetr2do

do you guys think that new f-22 download will work on the solo sim that came with the raptor

heli_Rod

Yes it will work with the solo sim, but you need to download the FS One Solo Patch 1.0.3 and install it first.

Rod