Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hello,

I had the chance to built and fly many of the TT arfs over the years and I am very impressed with the advancement in their planes. Their earlier efforts like the plastic/foam Tiger 40 trainers are very poor in construction and quality. However, with their later offerings of Ultracote/balsa/fiberglass construction, the quality is flawless (better than I can built!). I think that TT has a very strict QA control and it shows on their planes. I bought a Sparky ARF and I am very impressed with the quality in terms of construction/covering. I wonder if the stock engine/battery is adequate for this bird? Dai Phan

Fastsky

Battery tip: For the first charge, bE sure to completly charge the battery with a slow charge. If you use a fast charger for the first charge it won't take a full charge properly and the plane will barely fly. [8D]

RLefebvre

My Feedback: (1)

I agree. I have no experience with their early planes, but their new Decathlon is simply amazing. I would have thought it was built and covered by a professional modeller taking great care and with exceptional skill. I'm no kidding or exaggerating at all. The whole thing went together like a jigsaw puzzle, and the covering is razor sharp.

There seem to be a number of problems with the Rare Bear however.... it seems to be a sore point. Almost like they bit off more than they can chew (too big, too detailed).

warhwk

My Feedback: (3)

My experience with TT was with their 40L. Great flying little low wing trainer...'cept it started falling apart (plastic turtle deck, firewall, wing tips) almost immediately. Only lasted one season. I'm glad to hear they are doing better.

McFlyboy

The Giles 40 is a great wee plane, tainted only by the weakness of the u/c mount, but this seems common on a lot of Giles. Their Trainer 2000 is a great one as well, taught one of my mates to fly in quite a short time and he's soon moving on to large scale 3d.
My £0.01