power for the funtana x50?

[aerodreamer]

hey guys

i was just going to order the funtana x50. according to specs, it looks the same as the funtana 40. however, its got a new color scheme and apparently a slightly modified airfoil.

Anyways, my question to all of u with funtanas is :

shud i power it with a saito 82 or 91??

this plane was designed around the saito 72, and will require some mods if one puts the 91 on that. Anyhow, i am looking for a plane to 3D. so weight : thrust is probably most important.

so lets hear your opinion....

Thanks in advance

[Ramz]

if it were me, i would go with a Saito 91. I had a Saito 100 in my Funtana 40 and it was ballistic to say the least...almost too much power as hovering was tough to keep it at the same altitude without poping up whenver you slightly advanced the power. Never had any balance problems. The Saito 82 would also work well and it would be easier to install. The Saito 91 and 100 has the same mounting holes, so check out my build thread here on RCC at http://www.rccanada.ca/reviews/index.php?at=funtana40 to see how it would fit.

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want. If 3D is all you are looking for, get a profile (their's lots of really good flying 40 size profiles on the market in the 130-160$ range) and a Saito 82. The X50 will still 3D, just not as well as a profile.

[Terry Gauvin]

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want.

Ramz, just wondering how you can say that about a brand new plane just hitting the market that you haven't seen yet? Are you assuming it is the same as the older Funtana?

[SJrcflyer]

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want.

Ramz, just wondering how you can say that about a brand new plane just hitting the market that you haven't seen yet? Are you assuming it is the same as the older Funtana?

I think hes baseing it on the fact that no full fuse plane in the 40 size range will ever 3D like a profile. Just not gonna happen because of weight and given that no plane would come close to the side area of a profile.

For pure 3D and heck even some precision a profile is the $hit.

[Ramz]

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want.

Ramz, just wondering how you can say that about a brand new plane just hitting the market that you haven't seen yet? Are you assuming it is the same as the older Funtana?

I'm assuming that becuase of the weight.

[Terry Gauvin]

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want.

Ramz, just wondering how you can say that about a brand new plane just hitting the market that you haven't seen yet? Are you assuming it is the same as the older Funtana?

I'm assuming that becuase of the weight.

No weight is published on the Hangar 9 website for this plane :?: Bashing things on assumptions is not the thing to do. After all, you bought a Brio right?

[aerodreamer]

Ramz,

i was thinking about a profile, but i guess i want a full fuse plane and also since this is my 2nd plane, i want something that tracks on the rails. Not a profile that pokes holes all over the sky. With that said, i am not saying i dont like profiles, my next plane will probably be a profile. i fly profiles on AFPD and simply love them.

well now back to my topic............saito 82 or 91???

need some more opinions. shud have done a poll here :roll:

[SJrcflyer]

i was thinking about a profile, but i guess i want a full fuse plane and also since this is my 2nd plane, i want something that tracks on the rails. Not a profile that pokes holes all over the sky.

Alright well not to hijack your thread again, but I've had a couple different profiles over the last 3 years or so, and I can tell you 100% for certain that they track just as well if not better than some bigger planes, in fact I think they track way better than my Funtana 90 did. Not to mention for a second plane a profile would float much more than the 40 or x50 whatever you want to call it.


If your convinced on the F40 I would say go with the 82, and keep that bird light.

[hillmanr2]

i was thinking about a profile, but i guess i want a full fuse plane and also since this is my 2nd plane, i want something that tracks on the rails. Not a profile that pokes holes all over the sky.

Alright well not to hijack your thread again, but I've had a couple different profiles over the last 3 years or so, and I can tell you 100% for certain that they track just as well if not better than some bigger planes, in fact I think they track way better than my Funtana 90 did. Not to mention for a second plane a profile would float much more than the 40 or x50 whatever you want to call it.


If your convinced on the F40 I would say go with the 82, and keep that bird light.

I agree. Keep it light! 40 size fuse planes do not track well. If you want something that tracks on rails you need to get into a much bigger plane if you plan on flying a scale aerobatic plane.

[aerodreamer]

i was thinking about a profile, but i guess i want a full fuse plane and also since this is my 2nd plane, i want something that tracks on the rails. Not a profile that pokes holes all over the sky.

Alright well not to hijack your thread again, but I've had a couple different profiles over the last 3 years or so, and I can tell you 100% for certain that they track just as well if not better than some bigger planes, in fact I think they track way better than my Funtana 90 did. Not to mention for a second plane a profile would float much more than the 40 or x50 whatever you want to call it.


If your convinced on the F40 I would say go with the 82, and keep that bird light.

Well not like your hijacking my thread. I really appreciate your inputs. I didnt mean to be rude by writing in a big font, i just wanted to bring out my point again.

I have plans for a profile after the funtana. in a little while, my OS46Ax will be freeing up from my trainer. Its pretty new(10 flights or so) and has loads of power. So i was thinking of getting a BadboyV2 or a Katana v2 from copperhead aviation. But for the timebeing i was looking for a plane with a fuselage. besides, i also have some others at my club performing good 3D with funtanas. and probably also ordering the funtana x50s

yes i do agree that a profile is the way to go for small scale 3D, and i will be going that way sooner or later.


man i am so confuseddddd...............somwhere deep down i want a profile........do some crazy 3D. but just the eyes say i want a funtana.

omg.....just over the course of this reply, u guys have made me realise that profile is the way to go. and i probably will be able to handle it.
So thanks a lot ramz, sjrcflyer and hillmanr2. I know i wont regret this.

PS:this reply will make me sound crazy, but i think the 3D bug has bitten me, and these random fits seem to have no cure :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[SJrcflyer]

HAHA sorry to corrupt you to the profile, but trust me you won't regret it. I have one mix on my current profile and thats all it needs to really do quite well. I'm practicing some basic IMAC on it as well, since I'm just a beginner on that front, and am only in construction phase on my 50cc ship.

If you deceide to indeed go with a profile I would recommend either the Extreme Flight Edge 540T, or the TmPro V2 Katana, I have the Accell hobbies Katana and its great but the TmPro V2 is supposed to be even a bit better.

To resurect a very old video of my Katana heres a link. (Plane was not mixed out and was nose heavy). Plus I like to think I have improved since then. :lol:

http://videos.pitsbros.com/chris2005.wmv

[Ramz]

Also, if your looking for a pure 3D plane, the X50 is not what you want.

Ramz, just wondering how you can say that about a brand new plane just hitting the market that you haven't seen yet? Are you assuming it is the same as the older Funtana?

I'm assuming that becuase of the weight.

No weight is published on the Hangar 9 website for this plane :?: Bashing things on assumptions is not the thing to do. After all, you bought a Brio right?

The only thing i'm assuming is that a lighter plane will generally 3D better than a comparable heavier plane which, from everything i've read, is true. As a matter of fact, I did look in to the weight differences between the F40 and the X50. Here's a quote straight from Mike McConville from Horizon, the designer of the F40 AND the X50:

"On the 50 the differences are: (between the F40 and X50)

1. SFG (these rock and add a ton tothe model)
2. Taller LG
3. A hardwood elevator joiner to elinimate asymmetrical throw because of flex
4. New trim scheme."

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_4295472/anchors_4295472/mpage_1/key_Funtana/anchor/tm.htm#4295472

I wasn't bashing anything on any assumptions. I said "for PURE 3D, the x50 is not what you want."...meaning their are better planes out there for pure 3D. If you look at the X50, it's obvious that it's a modified F40, and most of the F40's were coming in around 5.5 to 6lbs whereas a decent profile is in the 4 to 4.5 lb range. I've flown a few profiles and the F40 and IMHO, a profile will 3D much better than the F40. I had very little quarrels with how my F40 flew as it was a joy to fly.

As for the Brio, I bought it becuase:
1) I was looking for a F3A plane, not a 3D plane.
2) I didn't know it was coming out heavy when i purchased it.
3) I was unaware of the abnormal snapping tendencies of the airframe

[hillmanr2]

I think you can assume that a light plane will fly better no matter how you fly :wink:

[Midair]

I'm not getting involved :wink: :D

Peter

[aerodreamer]

I'm not getting involved :wink: :D

Peter

well actually peter, there is no Funtana now. thanks to some advice from some of the 3dflyers here, i decided to buy myself a profile.

I got my MOJO ARF:twisted:
just looking for some time to piece it together.

will post pics here when i am done.

[Midair]

I'm not getting involved :wink: :D

Peter

well actually peter, there is no Funtana now. thanks to some advice from some of the 3dflyers here, i decided to buy myself a profile.

I got my MOJO ARF:twisted:
just looking for some time to piece it together.

will post pics here when i am done.

aerodreamer:

In the immortal words of Austin Powers - once you have your mojo, you'll be unstoppable :wink: I'll look forward to the pics.

Peter

[aerodreamer]

..

[moo]

It seems that many at RCC have the oppinion that bigger is allways better.

Why not drag around an engine that is much heavier than your needs? Wing loading!

3D test pilots and designers at H9 determined what they liked best (strangely its a horizon hobby product).

Geht Deutschland!!!!!!!! Ich hab schon gegangen.

[Ramz]

It seems that many at RCC have the oppinion that bigger is allways better.

Why not drag around an engine that is much heavier than your needs? Wing loading! Ich hab schon gegangen.[/quote]


Coudl you please elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "better"?

[aerodreamer]

Geht Deutschland!!!!!!!! Ich hab schon gegangen.[/quote]

Ich bedeutete "Deutschland vollständig" für die Weltschale. Übrigens spreche ich nicht Deutsches. Ich tue dies auf babelfish. Ich bin ein deutscher Verfechter gerecht.

By the way long time since i've seen u at the field. more like i've not being coming out that much. well congrats on your 9C.

[moo]

Coudl you please elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "better"?

The aircraft has been engineered by people who fly it 3D. Why would others (who have never flown it) know better?

[moo]

By the way long time since i've seen u at the field. more like i've not being coming out that much. well congrats on your 9C.

Familial commitments; I did mow the field on Monday, and will mow again on Friday.

9Z-WC2, its much heavier.

[Ramz]

Coudl you please elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "better"?

The aircraft has been engineered by people who fly it 3D. Why would others (who have never flown it) know better?

Have you ever flown 3D?