Do you want to build or buy one? The viggen would be a great scratch build. The eflite F-16 or F-15 would be great PNP/BNF jets. I have the F-16 and love it.
The EDFs are a skill in and of their own to fly. You've got to have a fair amount of room to land the smallest ones; the guys at my field who have skill and experience use all of our available 600' runway to land on when bringing down an EDF plane; you generally can't just "chop the throttle" and glide it in; do that, and it'll be like trying to land a brick with wings.
The easy flying planes that you've probably flown before are likely things that have gyros on them, the "toy" grade planes that don't take much to fly. One of the big clues for those is that they won’t roll into a barrel roll or do loops; the gyro will limit its action to keep it to where you can fly it smoothly.
If you’ve honestly not flown an actual RC plane (and by that, I mean something that would likely be found at a hobby shop as opposed to the toy aisle at Walmart or Target) I would suggest something more in line with a Tiny Trainer, Storch, or Bushwacker. Learn to fly that smoothly, then move up to a warbird like the FT Mustang, or the MiG-3, before you move up to an EDF. Learn to land a warbird, because you generally need to bring those in a little faster for landing so they don’t stall on the landing and you end up with a wrecked plane.
If you’re really dead set on an EDF, you can go get yourself one, but it’s going to be expensive. Expensive for the transmitter, expensive for the battery and charger (there aren’t many chargers that can charge 6S batteries, which are commonly used for EDFs), and lastly, expensive when it crashes if you’re not an experienced pilot.
I say this all, not because I want to discourage you from flying, but because I don’t want you to think you threw away several hundred dollars on something that lasted for 30 seconds in flight before it has a potentially bad landing. I’d rather have you crash a cheap foamie that costs you less than $10 to rebuild anew numerous times before you step up to an EDF that will run you $250 just for the plane (and I think that’s being conservative on the cost).
The easy flying planes that you've probably flown before are likely things that have gyros on them, the "toy" grade planes that don't take much to fly. One of the big clues for those is that they won’t roll into a barrel roll or do loops; the gyro will limit its action to keep it to where you can fly it smoothly.
If you’ve honestly not flown an actual RC plane (and by that, I mean something that would likely be found at a hobby shop as opposed to the toy aisle at Walmart or Target) I would suggest something more in line with a Tiny Trainer, Storch, or Bushwacker. Learn to fly that smoothly, then move up to a warbird like the FT Mustang, or the MiG-3, before you move up to an EDF. Learn to land a warbird, because you generally need to bring those in a little faster for landing so they don’t stall on the landing and you end up with a wrecked plane.
If you’re really dead set on an EDF, you can go get yourself one, but it’s going to be expensive. Expensive for the transmitter, expensive for the battery and charger (there aren’t many chargers that can charge 6S batteries, which are commonly used for EDFs), and lastly, expensive when it crashes if you’re not an experienced pilot.
I say this all, not because I want to discourage you from flying, but because I don’t want you to think you threw away several hundred dollars on something that lasted for 30 seconds in flight before it has a potentially bad landing. I’d rather have you crash a cheap foamie that costs you less than $10 to rebuild anew numerous times before you step up to an EDF that will run you $250 just for the plane (and I think that’s being conservative on the cost).
whackflyer
Master member
First off, these are all good points, and I'm not here to cause controversy, but it appears you're basing them off of a big jet. I have the FMS 64mm F-15, it's a great jet. Runs on 4s, has a lot of power, glides very flat even with throttle off, and is very easy to land once you get used to the long glide slope. In fact it glides better then most FT planes I've flown. It takes a bigger area to fly than an FT plane, even at low throttle settings. It cost me 160$ PNP. As you said, the OP is going to be better off building a FT plane to learn on. The F-15 is fairly easy to fly for an intermediate to advanced pilot like myself, and is my first EDF. I still wouldn't recommend it to a beginner. So to sum it up, build a few FT models, learn how to fly decently, and then get an EDF. It may seem disappointing to build a prop plane that doesn't have the cool factor of a jet, but in the end you'll thank yourself that you did that instead of a jet. Hope this helps!
I personally would either build a flitetest plane or buy a cheap trainer and just get some time in the air and build your confidence then think about moving on.
I'd not flown an EDF before the other day when I picked up a used original UMX habu, not sure how different it would be to a bigger one, its pretty fast, but its pretty easy to fly if you dial the rates back and add a bit of expo.
Not sure its a first plane though, but I think the newer one has safe so could be doable, also the new big one looks pretty beginner friendly
I'd not flown an EDF before the other day when I picked up a used original UMX habu, not sure how different it would be to a bigger one, its pretty fast, but its pretty easy to fly if you dial the rates back and add a bit of expo.
Not sure its a first plane though, but I think the newer one has safe so could be doable, also the new big one looks pretty beginner friendly
leaded50
Legendary member
I can agree on a Habu style plane as first EDF, because its wingstyle. Its more like a normal wing layout, than a deltastyle, who normally is more "twichy" to fly.
quorneng
Master member
Timmy
You need to consider the reasons why want to get into EDFs.
EDFs are basically prop planes with a very small coarse pitch prop. It is inefficient so requires a bigger battery and motor to achieve the same level of performance. Weight and thus wing loading generates their own problems, not least of which is it will crash faster.
You might do better to first fly slightly heavier, faster prop planes to get an idea of the sort of characteristics you will have to master.
If you do decide on an EDF remember it is the streamline quality of the internal airflow (it is moving faster than the plane flies) that is important, if not more so, than the exterior.
You need to consider the reasons why want to get into EDFs.
EDFs are basically prop planes with a very small coarse pitch prop. It is inefficient so requires a bigger battery and motor to achieve the same level of performance. Weight and thus wing loading generates their own problems, not least of which is it will crash faster.
You might do better to first fly slightly heavier, faster prop planes to get an idea of the sort of characteristics you will have to master.
If you do decide on an EDF remember it is the streamline quality of the internal airflow (it is moving faster than the plane flies
) that is important, if not more so, than the exterior.
Timmy
Legendary member
Good advice! I'll be getting my EDF in December, in the mean time, I'll build a war bird.Timmy
You need to consider the reasons why want to get into EDFs.
EDFs are basically prop planes with a very small coarse pitch prop. It is inefficient so requires a bigger battery and motor to achieve the same level of performance. Weight and thus wing loading generates their own problems, not least of which is it will crash faster.
You might do better to first fly slightly heavier, faster prop planes to get an idea of the sort of characteristics you will have to master.
If you do decide on an EDF remember it is the streamline quality of the internal airflow (it is moving faster than the plane flies
Yusernaym
Well-known member
I just finished converting my X-29 from a pusher prop to an EDF. I've only been flying for about five months, and the X-29 as a pusher was a stretch for me at first. It's twitchy, unstable, hard to land, and I absolutely love it. It hasn't flown on the EDF yet, which should be changing later today. All of that is to say that the platform is important. The X-29's wing loading, glide slope, and other factors do not lend it to be a good first jet, even though they give it some characteristics that are a lot of fun. If you want to stick to Flite Test, the Viggen would be a better first EDF for sure. It's lighter, has more wing area, and seems to be more stable in general. Otherwise, the F-16 mentioned earlier in this thread would be good, for similar reasons.
quorneng
Master member
Timmy
Something like a Skyray is not a bad design for a beginner. A delta has a generous wing area for its span and the limited span also means the wing can be strong for its weight. The Skyray's 'integrated' body and wing improves this characteristic still further.
My first foray into a foamy 'jet' was a Skyray although it actually used a small diameter (a slightly trimmed 5x4.5) as a ducted prop.
Relatively big (915 mm span) and very light built it flew really well with an impressive duration from its modest 1500 mAh 3s in the cockpit.
The diameter of the prop (125 mm) required slightly over size inlets and exhaust.
It was electronically simple too with just two servos (one for each elevon) and no rudder.
Such a plane is so like a conventional foamy to fly it would make an ideal first 'EDF' but like all delta you do have to get the CofG just right.
Something like a Skyray is not a bad design for a beginner. A delta has a generous wing area for its span and the limited span also means the wing can be strong for its weight. The Skyray's 'integrated' body and wing improves this characteristic still further.
My first foray into a foamy 'jet' was a Skyray although it actually used a small diameter (a slightly trimmed 5x4.5) as a ducted prop.
Relatively big (915 mm span) and very light built it flew really well with an impressive duration from its modest 1500 mAh 3s in the cockpit.
The diameter of the prop (125 mm) required slightly over size inlets and exhaust.
It was electronically simple too with just two servos (one for each elevon) and no rudder.
Such a plane is so like a conventional foamy to fly it would make an ideal first 'EDF' but like all delta you do have to get the CofG just right.
Timmy
Legendary member
Do you have a link to a thread? Also thanks for the suggestion!Timmy
Something like a Skyray is not a bad design for a beginner. A delta has a generous wing area for its span and the limited span also means the wing can be strong for its weight. The Skyray's 'integrated' body and wing improves this characteristic still further.
My first foray into a foamy 'jet' was a Skyray although it actually used a small diameter (a slightly trimmed 5x4.5) as a ducted prop.
Relatively big (915 mm span) and very light built it flew really well with an impressive duration from its modest 1500 mAh 3s in the cockpit.
View attachment 182006
The diameter of the prop (125 mm) required slightly over size inlets and exhaust.
It was electronically simple too with just two servos (one for each elevon) and no rudder.
Such a plane is so like a conventional foamy to fly it would make an ideal first 'EDF' but like all delta you do have to get the CofG just right.
