Question : Tomahawk Futura 2.5 or T3 ??
02-04-2023, 09:04 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Question : Tomahawk Futura 2.5 or T3 ??
Im looking at getting either a Tomahawk Futura 2.5 or a Pacific RC Jets T3.
The price when all said and done on both of these jets are pretty close.
So can anyone shed some light on what are the differences and what jet you would obtain and why.
Thank You!!
The price when all said and done on both of these jets are pretty close.
So can anyone shed some light on what are the differences and what jet you would obtain and why.
Thank You!!
Last edited by PowerDrum; 02-05-2023 at 09:37 AM.
02-05-2023, 09:39 AM
#3
Thread Starter
02-05-2023, 11:27 AM
#4
The T-3 is quite a bit larger. I never liked the look of the Futuras but some of the later schemes make the plane look very nice. The T-3 looks more conventional and has many nice schemes available (I personally don't like the one above 
). Though I have seen both fly great the Futura is more of a pattern type jet.
). Though I have seen both fly great the Futura is more of a pattern type jet.Last edited by causeitflies; 02-05-2023 at 11:30 AM.
02-05-2023, 11:37 AM
#5
My Feedback: (1)
I ordered a Futura 2.5M because of the flying qualities. It is also a Jet that has been offered for a long time so I expect that all the issues have been fixed by now. I also expect a lot from a German manufacturer. This said, I did not know about the T3 and I can only say nice things about my mini T1. Let us know what you end up getting.
The following users liked this post:
bodywerks (02-22-2023)
02-08-2023, 03:12 PM
#8
The following users liked this post:
Canadian Man (02-22-2023)
02-22-2023, 09:29 PM
#10
I had a friend who on the initial performance reports, ordered a 2.5 M Futura.
He spent a lot of time trying to get the gear to work with the strut covers, never succeeded. When we finally talked him into leaving those off, he had a number of successful flights. It turned out that there is not nearly enough down elevator authority for inverted flight. Basically the model required full down elevator to maintain level inverted flight with nothing left to spare.
While he learned to deal with that, what he could not deal with was the completely inadequate main gear mounting in the wings. Didn't matter how smooth his landings were, one slight screwup tore the main gear out of it's mounts in the wing.
The fuel tank was also a joke; a giant round fiberglass "bottle" that had all sorts of problems with leads and cracks which we constantly had to repair at contest meets.
I would not recommend this model over the T-3.
He spent a lot of time trying to get the gear to work with the strut covers, never succeeded. When we finally talked him into leaving those off, he had a number of successful flights. It turned out that there is not nearly enough down elevator authority for inverted flight. Basically the model required full down elevator to maintain level inverted flight with nothing left to spare.
While he learned to deal with that, what he could not deal with was the completely inadequate main gear mounting in the wings. Didn't matter how smooth his landings were, one slight screwup tore the main gear out of it's mounts in the wing.
The fuel tank was also a joke; a giant round fiberglass "bottle" that had all sorts of problems with leads and cracks which we constantly had to repair at contest meets.
I would not recommend this model over the T-3.
02-23-2023, 09:20 AM
#11
I had a friend who on the initial performance reports, ordered a 2.5 M Futura.
He spent a lot of time trying to get the gear to work with the strut covers, never succeeded. When we finally talked him into leaving those off, he had a number of successful flights. It turned out that there is not nearly enough down elevator authority for inverted flight. Basically the model required full down elevator to maintain level inverted flight with nothing left to spare.
While he learned to deal with that, what he could not deal with was the completely inadequate main gear mounting in the wings. Didn't matter how smooth his landings were, one slight screwup tore the main gear out of it's mounts in the wing.
The fuel tank was also a joke; a giant round fiberglass "bottle" that had all sorts of problems with leads and cracks which we constantly had to repair at contest meets.
I would not recommend this model over the T-3.
He spent a lot of time trying to get the gear to work with the strut covers, never succeeded. When we finally talked him into leaving those off, he had a number of successful flights. It turned out that there is not nearly enough down elevator authority for inverted flight. Basically the model required full down elevator to maintain level inverted flight with nothing left to spare.
While he learned to deal with that, what he could not deal with was the completely inadequate main gear mounting in the wings. Didn't matter how smooth his landings were, one slight screwup tore the main gear out of it's mounts in the wing.
The fuel tank was also a joke; a giant round fiberglass "bottle" that had all sorts of problems with leads and cracks which we constantly had to repair at contest meets.
I would not recommend this model over the T-3.
The following users liked this post:
FlyJ (02-23-2023)
02-23-2023, 09:21 AM
#13
My recommendation is the Futura. The T-3 was a good airplane 5+ years ago when the 3m jet world was sparse. Now it's an outdated design that is far too heavy. It flies OK, but not great. There's a better option than both of these though...Why not go for a Rebel Pro or Max? It's marginally more expensive and a significantly better airplane.
The following users liked this post:
sewbusy (02-23-2023)
