From: tkopp@earth.execpc.com (Thomas Kopp) Newsgroups: rec.models.rc Subject: Hobbico Extra 300 ARF Date: 5 Jun 1995 02:59:02 GMT Hey all... Just thought I'd post some words on my new aerial entertainment. On the negative side, I've gotta fault hobbico for certain details of the advertising photographs not being CLOSE to what you get...namely the cowl and tailwheel. In the ads, the cowl looks like a 1 piece molded job and the tailwheel looks like a nice spring-supported, heavy duty tailwheel. In actuality, the cowl is a 4-piece plastic job (although it goes together well..) and the tailwheel is a piece of wire which has the approximate spring tension of overcooked spaghetti. Also, the book mentions the fuse having a mark on the fuse showing CG range, and even has an underexposed photograph of said mark on the fuselage. (several photographs were underexposed as bad or worse, also). Therefore, CG location requires a bit of experienced guesstimation (and you've gotta be close - Extra 300s are rather close-coupled) The fuse is certainly not marked. The manual I got was version 1.0 with a copyright date of 1990! I doubt it was "old stock" as I got it from Tower. Enough of the negatives, however. I got the ARF together in roughly 15 hours by working on multiple steps at once...(i.e. slap the wing halves together and build the cowl while the wings are drying, etc. etc.) For power, I put in a Webra .50 GT motor that used to be in my Ultra Sport ARF (RIP). This motor turns an 11x6 at 13,000 and I would not want to fly this plane with anything less. You'll also want a motor that's 100% reliable, because although this plane flies well under power, and glides well in a straight line, I have a feeling it would drop like a brick if you had to turn more than about a 10-20 degree bank without power. The only dead stick I've had was when it flamed out on final due to me idling too low. I didn't even realize it was dead until about 2 seconds before touchdown. As a cautionary note, yes, the throws in the book are quite correct. Elevator throw is only 9/16 each way, and that turns out to be plenty. The ailerons at 3/16 are so sensitive that if you look crosseyed at the stick, it'll roll inverted... My favorite moment with the bird, however, was the takeoff of her maiden flight...ran up the juice, let her build 'til the speed felt right and eased back and she was airborne. I put it into about a 40 degree climb and realized it was nearly rock steady. I went hands off and showed the transmitter to someone with the plane doing an ever-so-slow roll to the left...about 5 degrees per second - I had the plane perfectly trimmed during the initial climb out! Putting it through it's paces...well..it flies like an Extra. 'nuff said! It snap rolls almost twice as fast as my US40 did...spins well in both directions, knife edges well, though I've seen better, stall turns with the best of 'em, and inverted flight is effortless. And when it comes time to end the flight, it slows down well due to the large frontal area on the fuse, and it's pretty easy to grease 'er in, and it doesn't seem to bounce much if you don't grease it. I even spent 1/2 a tank shooting touch and goes today...something I'd never do with the US40ARF, because anytime I didn't grease it in, it ripped the (non-retract) gear apart. Landing at those same speeds/attitudes make my extra bounce about six inches with practically no corrective action needed - it just settles right back in. I would caution, however, that I'd recommend this be a 4th plane - third if you're really good. This is because of: Interpreting the CG, pitch/roll sensitivity, bizarre engine mount system (The engine mount is HUGE - the flanges are so far apart my Webra can pass through 'em without touching the mounting lug on either side! instead, you mount metal plates to the engine mount, then mark/drill the plates with the bolt pattern for your engine.) In short: Hits: Flight performance, covering job (includes simulated rivets..whole thing looks real nice - gets attention from spectators), CA hinges pre-glued on everything but the rudder. Misses: Assembly photos range from acceptable to almost-black underexposure, poor quality tail wheel assembly, thin bent-wire pushrods for elevator and rudder (the kind you "assemble" by putting 4 or 5 bends in an 6-8 inch piece of 2-56, glue 'em to dowels, and secure with shrink-wrap tubing.), and elevator pushrod insertion into fuse. I feel the plane "hits" on the really important aspects (much can be forgiven if the plane FLIES well, and this one does), and the misses are more annoyances that a pilot who can handle a bird like this should be experienced enough to handle...but I feel for the price I'm paying, I should be getting a little higher quality. Tom -- Thomas J. Kopp tkopp@earth.execpc.com