Modeltech ARF kits.

I am considering getting either the Magic 3D or the Magic extra 300L. How is
the quality of these ARF's? Is it comparable to other ARF kits like Hangar
Nine or Sig?
Kevin.
Reply to
Kevin
Loading thread data ...
Kevin, I did a product review of the MAgic for RC Report. Great value for the money. What engine do you plan to use? Sparky
Reply to
Elmshoot
I have a TT pro46 and a Saito 56 that are sitting idle right now. I am leaning towards the TT right now.
Reply to
Kevin
I had the 60 size ModelTech Mustang. Build quality was ok, but not as good as Kyosho or World Models stuff.
Flight experience needed on the Mustang was "expert". Needed FULL rrudder on takeoff to stay straight, land it hot because it dropped a wing easily, refused to steer at all with the tail wheel etc. Typical scale mustang. Looked brilliant in the air though. Unfortunately met with it's demise because the Rx crystal packed up in flight. Freak incident.
I would probably buy another one - just to stay sharp. :-)
Cornelis
Reply to
CG
I have a Magic w OS46 and Pitts muffler. Wing converted to bolt on. Fuel tank cracked after about a year, so iit was only giving short flights. Fortunatel I bought it from the fellow that put it together & he epoxied the inside for fuel proofing. Fine flying plane, I'm sure it can do more than I can make it do. Let us know what you get & how it goes. Andy
We can make a box of wood.....FLY!!
Reply to
RCPILOT48
I've been flying the Magic for about a year now. It's really a fun airplane. I have flown better 3d aircraft but it does 3D fairly well. Easy to hover , great slow flying characteristics with no bad habits that I've found. One thing I don't like is that it's very poor at knife edge flight , actually , hardly knife edges at all.
Kit quality is as good as some ARF's costing more , and IMO gives you quite a bang for your buck. It does does have a poor landing gear, so I put a heavier landing gear on it. I stayed with a wire gear but just a little heavier. I like to have some flexibility there. Better to straighten out the gear than repair the bottom of the fuse.
I have an OS .46 FX and it has great vertical. Will hover a little over 1/2 throttle and pull out with authority.
Hope this helps.
Ken Day
Reply to
Ken Day
I have heard mostly good commentary on both. I have the Magic Fun-Fly. It is value for the money. It has a wide flight envelope that will suit many personalities you may want to give it. The covering is heat shrinkable. The manual is helpful though some printings have had a couple confusing passages. The balsa is a little soft but good and light as the design is for. You would want to check the visible glue joints and reinforce the firewall and landing gear blocks as you see fit common to most arfs. Overall the airframe is good. Numerous members of the local club have one and praise it. Many have two and some are getting their third one this month, they support modifications well.
Reply to
Newsreader
I have been flying the Magic hard for over one year and have been impressed with its flight charactoristics and durability. I use a Saito 56 and it is a pleasure to fly. I just finished "building" the Magic Extra and hope to fly it this weekend. Good planes for the money.
Reply to
Dvagge
|Kevin, | I did a product review of the MAgic for RC Report. Great value for the money. |What engine do you plan to use? |Sparky
Ever review the Impress by Wattage? I am thinking of using it as a trainer that can progress into something more interesting. If nothing else it will make a good park flier.
Reply to
R. David Steele

David, I'm not into electric/park flyers. Sparky
Reply to
Elmshoot
The Impress we had was a pig. Underpowered and wallowed around like a pregnant yak. Finally destroyed itself during a launch by stalling and augering in. I suppose it is possible they have improved as this was 2 years ago.
Reply to
Fubar of The HillPeople
Most wattage planes are totally underpowered. No idea why. They fly quite well if upgraded, but that rather spoils the point of a cheap ARTF supplied with motor...
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
|> The Impress we had was a pig. Underpowered and wallowed around like a |> pregnant yak. |> Finally destroyed itself during a launch by stalling and augering in. I |> suppose it is possible they have improved as this was 2 years ago. |> |> | |Most wattage planes are totally underpowered. No idea why. |They fly quite well if upgraded, but that rather spoils the point of a |cheap ARTF supplied with motor...
here is the web page
formatting link
It has a 27-turn Super 400 Cobalt Motor, is that good?
BTW, it is now called the Super Impress.
Reply to
R. David Steele
Would have to be better. The one we had wasnt called a super anything and had a stock speed 400 motor which wasnt enough oomph to make it fly worth a damn. With a cobalt motor, it would probably have flown much better.
Reply to
Fubar of The HillPeople
|Would have to be better. The one we had wasnt called a super anything and |had a stock speed 400 motor which wasnt enough oomph to make it fly worth a |damn. |With a cobalt motor, it would probably have flown much better.
Just out of curiosity, how does one evaluate electric motors. Nitro is somewhat easy with .40, .60, 1.2 and such.
Are there equivalents?
Reply to
R. David Steele
Far from being an expert it is something to do with the motor size. I had heard, at least with the small can motors they are measured by the shaft size. As I said, this is what I heard and I could be completely wrong. Comparing types of same sized motors you have can motors (ferrite magnets and brushes), cobalt (stronger magnets still using brushes) and brushless motors which are controlled electronically. The power increases in that order. So does the dollar amount.
Reply to
Fubar of The HillPeople

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.