Freewing F-8 Crusader: My First Serious EDF

[Vimana89]

Freewing F-8 Crusader EDF Jet PNP FJ10811P – Motion RC

So I've scoped this out for a while just ordered one. Plenty of 4ch experience, but just with my custom builds. This lookslike a great entry level EDF, plus, I like cold war jets and swept wing planes in general. I'll be sure to review it and post pics and video.

 

[Merv]

Great looking plane

 

[The Hangar]

@Vimana89 awesome! I’m sure this time around will be better than your last attempt. Keep us posted for sure!

 

[telnar1236]

It's a great plane, but it needs to be flown light with a 1600 at the heaviest. Much heavier and it goes from a good entry level jet to one of the hardest to fly planes I've ever flown. Also, the book rates are far too much for the ailerons. You'll need to decide what you like, but < 50% throw is a good starting point.

 

[Vimana89]

It's certainly heavy and inefficient for it's size and wingspan, and I fly a lot of low aspect planes. I think this one will be fun and fly good though. I'll be maidening with a 1300. I've flown some twitchy planes before, but I've got channel one at 50% and elevator at 100%. I have a tiny bit of positive reflex, and will maiden with CG on the dot or a hair nose heavy.

 

[Vimana89]

This one didn't go well for a number of reasons. The first flight had some issues with the control system, broke and repaired the nose. I simplified it to just elevons. The second flight, the EDF blades basically shredded themselves somehow right after launch and the thing just crapped. There's a number of things that could have contributed, aaaaannnndddd that's exactly why I'm done with EDF's again for a while, a long while. They are certainly cool, and for very skilled builders and pilots they work well for certain applications, but they are a niche thing, and generally just not as efficient and user-friendly as props. To me, they are overly complex and under performing, not to mention inefficient in battery consumption. Unless I'm going for exact scale with a jet, I'm not sure why I'd even use one.

All that for a four minute flight if I actually got it to work well? I can get a lot more out of a prop plane. Some of it is probably the product itself. I didn't like the control system, which was basically a complicated 3ch control system and not a smooth 4ch.

It was a learning experience though. There is still a lot more I can do with prop designs. Next time I want to get a plane other than my own design I'll either get an FT kit or some other ARF or bind and fly model with a regular prop.

 

[The Hangar]

This one didn't go well for a number of reasons. The first flight had some issues with the control system, broke and repaired the nose. I simplified it to just elevons. The second flight, the EDF blades basically shredded themselves somehow right after launch and the thing just crapped. There's a number of things that could have contributed, aaaaannnndddd that's exactly why I'm done with EDF's again for a while, a long while. They are certainly cool, and for very skilled builders and pilots they work well for certain applications, but they are a niche thing, and generally just not as efficient and user-friendly as props. To me, they are overly complex and under performing, not to mention inefficient in battery consumption. Unless I'm going for exact scale with a jet, I'm not sure why I'd even use one.

All that for a four minute flight if I actually got it to work well? I can get a lot more out of a prop plane. Some of it is probably the product itself. I didn't like the control system, which was basically a complicated 3ch control system and not a smooth 4ch.

It was a learning experience though. There is still a lot more I can do with prop designs. Next time I want to get a plane other than my own design I'll either get an FT kit or some other ARF or bind and fly model with a regular prop.

Too bad! In all honesty though, I much prefer to fly prop planes as well. Yes, I have several edf jets, and yes, they are fun, but I overall prefer doing 3D or sport flying than low fast passes. They are fun, but get boring after a while. As far as battery life goes, my eflite f-16 (64mm) gets roughly the same amount of flight time as my eflite extra on the same battery (2200 4s). I'd say 4 minutes is typical for an EDF but 4 minutes on the extra? That's short!

 

[telnar1236]

This one didn't go well for a number of reasons. The first flight had some issues with the control system, broke and repaired the nose. I simplified it to just elevons. The second flight, the EDF blades basically shredded themselves somehow right after launch and the thing just crapped. There's a number of things that could have contributed, aaaaannnndddd that's exactly why I'm done with EDF's again for a while, a long while. They are certainly cool, and for very skilled builders and pilots they work well for certain applications, but they are a niche thing, and generally just not as efficient and user-friendly as props. To me, they are overly complex and under performing, not to mention inefficient in battery consumption. Unless I'm going for exact scale with a jet, I'm not sure why I'd even use one.

All that for a four minute flight if I actually got it to work well? I can get a lot more out of a prop plane. Some of it is probably the product itself. I didn't like the control system, which was basically a complicated 3ch control system and not a smooth 4ch.

It was a learning experience though. There is still a lot more I can do with prop designs. Next time I want to get a plane other than my own design I'll either get an FT kit or some other ARF or bind and fly model with a regular prop.

A bit late to the game, but I never really liked the control system on the F-8 either. Definitely elevons are the way to go, but the F-8 pretty much only flies in a straight line fast even with that modification and still requires an absurdly fast launch. I also had a similar issue with the EDF unit. I replaced it early on with a slightly better unit, but the stock unit shattered several flights in on a different plane. It may be a common issue. If you're ever looking to get back into EDFs, the Freewing F9F, or Lippisch are both much better planes. You can achieve 5+ minutes flying gently with either, and 10+ minutes on the Lippisch with a 2200 mAh 3s. I haven't personally owned either, but I have flown both, and flown my F-8 in formation with the F9F, and either can fly circles around the F-8. The 64 mm F-86 and MiG-15 are also both good planes but they both have very poor stall-spin characteristics.

Don't give up on EDFs because of a few bad experiences. They are annoying, but they are also worth it. I'm a bit biased, but there is something that is so much cooler about seeing a fast jet fly by, and once you get the hang of retaining energy and relying on the EDF's power instead of its thrust, you can fly most of the same maneuvers as with a sport plane for most EDFs.

 

[L Edge]

This one didn't go well for a number of reasons. The first flight had some issues with the control system, broke and repaired the nose. I simplified it to just elevons. The second flight, the EDF blades basically shredded themselves somehow right after launch and the thing just crapped. There's a number of things that could have contributed, aaaaannnndddd that's exactly why I'm done with EDF's again for a while, a long while. They are certainly cool, and for very skilled builders and pilots they work well for certain applications, but they are a niche thing, and generally just not as efficient and user-friendly as props. To me, they are overly complex and under performing, not to mention inefficient in battery consumption. Unless I'm going for exact scale with a jet, I'm not sure why I'd even use one.

All that for a four minute flight if I actually got it to work well? I can get a lot more out of a prop plane. Some of it is probably the product itself. I didn't like the control system, which was basically a complicated 3ch control system and not a smooth 4ch.

It was a learning experience though. There is still a lot more I can do with prop designs. Next time I want to get a plane other than my own design I'll either get an FT kit or some other ARF or bind and fly model with a regular prop.

There are 2 reasons for shredding, an unbalanced fan blade setup or ingesting something in the intake. Most of the time it is due to ingesting. Wet grass, damp sand or from repairs vibrate loose and get sucked up. 2 rules to follow with EDF's are to buy spare fan blades when you purchase the plane and always check out the inlet before launching. The other that downed one of mine was the wire from a servo was in front of the fan and it loosened up and was sucked in.

Sorry about your bird getting destroyed. Hope you try later.

 

[Kai-003]

maybe you just need to slap on a variable incidence wing onto it and try again. can't be that hard to make right? just a servo at the front and a pivot at the back.

 

[Thomas B]

Late to this party, but thought I would chime in anyway.

Happy owner and operator of the great little Freewing F-8 Crusader. I have more than 100 flights on mine.

Hints for better performance and handling:

Better than using the elevators alone as tailerons is to reduce the aileron/elevons to minimum throw and increase the elevators/tailerons to a good amount of throw. I have tried it both ways. Also, it needs some expo in roll to calm it down a bit near neutral.

Agree that the best battery option is an 1600-1800 3s. I use both with great success.

If your TX allows for it, program a switch to add some up elevator for the hand launch. Makes it far easier to get a clean hand launch and you don't have to rush to get up elevator in after tossing it. After you are up and away, turn off the up elevator with the switch. I do this still all my hand launched EDFs.

I suspect that Vimana damaged the fan when he broken the nose off the F-8. The fan could have flexed enough to get a blade strike. I have seen it happen before, where the fan comes apart on the next launch after a crash. I always carefully inspect the fan after any mishap.

There is a good reason this model has an average 4.4 out of 5 stars over 120 reviews on MRC. It is great!

 

[quorneng]

It may sound odd but choosing a swept wing jet for your first EDF is likely to be quite a jump. For the thrust they produce EDFs use alot of power awhich means weight and the one thing a normal swept wing fighter is short of is efficient lifting wing area.

A delta although not particularly aerodynamically efficient at model speeds, if structurally well designed, will give about the biggest wing area for its weight and can be made aerdynamically pretty stable.

So my first EDF was a home designed foam light weight scale delta, a Douglas F4D Skyray. In full size it had a really big jet engine for the size of the airframe so the only deviation from scale required for an effective EDF was slightly over size air inlets. With elevons only control it only needed two servos. This in conjunction with the light airframe and a modest EDF meant it could fly slow enough to be easily hand launched.

Pick the right plane for your first EDF.

 

[telnar1236]

It may sound odd but choosing a swept wing jet for your first EDF is likely to be quite a jump. For the thrust they produce EDFs use alot of power awhich means weight and the one thing a normal swept wing fighter is short of is efficient lifting wing area.

A delta although not particularly aerodynamically efficient at model speeds, if structurally well designed, will give about the biggest wing area for its weight and can be made aerdynamically pretty stable.

So my first EDF was a home designed foam light weight scale delta, a Douglas F4D Skyray. In full size it had a really big jet engine for the size of the airframe so the only deviation from scale required for an effective EDF was slightly over size air inlets. With elevons only control it only needed two servos. This in conjunction with the light airframe and a modest EDF meant it could fly slow enough to be easily hand launched.

Pick the right plane for your first EDF.

The only thing I have to add to this is that there are exceptions. F-86s, Hawker Hunters, and some of the other earlier swept wing fighters have plenty of wing area and handle pretty similar to warbirds. But supersonic (in real life) + wing sweep = bad first edf. The F-8 has a pretty poor plan form for a first EDF.

And a word of caution on deltas. They are great, but they bleed a lot of energy very quickly, so you can get into trouble fast. A high TWR gets around the problem though, and a lightly loaded delta is a great first EDF.

A straight wing is even better, like an L-39 or a P-80. The biggest advantages over a delta are the more conventional handling, better energy retention (longer flights), and better power off glide slope for easier landings.

The F-8 is a great plane. You should just start with a different EDF and move up to it.

 

[Thomas B]

Wing loading is more important on an EDF than wing planform (low wing loading being better) and determines a lot about how the model will fly and behave.

I think this F-8 Crusader is a pretty good choice for a first EDF as long as the pilot has flown a number of different smallish electrics, with one of two of them having a good turn of speed.

 

[telnar1236]

Wing loading is more important on an EDF than wing planform (low wing loading being better) and determines a lot about how the model will fly and behave.

I think this F-8 Crusader is a pretty good choice for a first EDF as long as the pilot has flown a number of different smallish electrics, with one of two of them having a good turn of speed.

I agree wing loading is important, but I'd caution against relying too heavily on it since it doesn't tell the whole story. Spanwise flow on heavily swept wings can cause all sorts of problems with lift efficiency and stall character. On the other hand, deltas can generate vortex lift which means they can generate more lift than any other plan form at the cost of drag. The real F-104 and F-16 have about the same wing loading, but have very different flying characteristics and stall speeds, in large part due to the F-16's ability to exploit vortex lift.

The F-8 is a good plane, but its wing is not well suited to slow speed flight and the elevon in the wing makes it worse. I like my F-8 and fly it regularly and a beginner to EDFs CAN have a good experience with it, but of all the 64mm EDFs from Freewing, it is the hardest to fly.

 

[Thomas B]

I agree wing loading is important, but I'd caution against relying too heavily on it since it doesn't tell the whole story. Spanwise flow on heavily swept wings can cause all sorts of problems with lift efficiency and stall character. On the other hand, deltas can generate vortex lift which means they can generate more lift than any other plan form at the cost of drag. The real F-104 and F-16 have about the same wing loading, but have very different flying characteristics and stall speeds, in large part due to the F-16's ability to exploit vortex lift.

The F-8 is a good plane, but its wing is not well suited to slow speed flight and the elevon in the wing makes it worse. I like my F-8 and fly it regularly and a beginner to EDFs CAN have a good experience with it, but of all the 64mm EDFs from Freewing, it is the hardest to fly.

I respectfully disagree. I find mine to be a great flying small model. I agree that the other 64mm EDFs from FW are also great flyers. It does need to have the ailerons reduced to very small throws and have the elevator travel increased (still operated as elevons mixed together.)

Span wise flow is not a significant issue at the speeds we fly at. When talking about wing loading being more important than planform in this thread, I am referring to models and not full scale. If the model and it's wing loading is light enough, it does fine as a swept wing model or a delta model or a straight wing model. An F-104 is an edge case where the lift and inertia effects from the fuselage starts adding some interesting effects to how the model handles, even on lightweight models. Still flyable. I own a Freewing 70mm F-104 and is is not a bad flyer at all. Just not for beginners.

If you take a close look at a drawing of an F-8, you can see that the aircraft approaches being a tailed delta wing, rather like an F-16 or an A-4. Small tip cord, large root cord, swept leading edge, but not much trailing edge sweep. If you draw a line from one wingtip trailing edge to the other, it is not missing much area at all from being a delta.

 

[telnar1236]

I respectfully disagree. I find mine to be a great flying small model. I agree that the other 64mm EDFs from FW are also great flyers. It does need to have the ailerons reduced to very small throws and have the elevator travel increased (still operated as elevons mixed together.)

Span wise flow is not a significant issue at the speeds we fly at. When talking about wing loading being more important than planform in this thread, I am referring to models and not full scale. If the model and it's wing loading is light enough, it does fine as a swept wing model or a delta model or a straight wing model. An F-104 is an edge case where the lift and inertia effects from the fuselage starts adding some interesting effects to how the model handles, even on lightweight models. Still flyable. I own a Freewing 70mm F-104 and is is not a bad flyer at all. Just not for beginners.

If you take a close look at a drawing of an F-8, you can see that the aircraft approaches being a tailed delta wing, rather like an F-16 or an A-4. Small tip cord, large root cord, swept leading edge, but not much trailing edge sweep. If you draw a line from one wingtip trailing edge to the other, it is not missing much area at all from being a delta.

I have no interest in starting an argument, and I think it's possible that different people will have different experiences. Each person has different preferences. And as I've said, I have an F-8 and enjoy flying it.

In terms of aerodynamics, spanwise flow is absolutely a thing for RC planes. In fact separation occurs more easily at low Reynolds numbers.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?926739-Spanwise-flow-and-swept-wings

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?806512-Question-about-swept-wing-airfoils

The F-104's poor characteristics have very little to do with body lift. If you want proof try flying a model of a CL-1200 (a proposed upgrade to the F-104 with larger wings, wing root extensions, and a relocated horizontal stab). Instead the characteristics primarily come from the interaction between the wing and horizontal tail. I too have a 70mm F-104, and it's one of my favorite planes, but my Freewing F-5, with higher wing loading, will run circles around it all day because the F-5, like the F-16, can generate vortex lift. The Freewing F-104 also has a very different airfoil from the real one which helps A LOT at low speeds.

To clarify, deltas only generate significant vortex lift after the LE sweep angle exceeds about 50 or 60 degrees and a similarly swept non-delta, like on the English Electric Lightning, will also generate some vortex lift. The F-16 and F-5 only generate vortex lift because of their wing root extensions. The wing on the F-8 is not swept enough to generate vortex lift. The dogtooth on the F-8 wing helps reduce spanwise flow, but doesn't eliminate it and the F-8 wing remains firmly in swept wing territory. Aspect ratio is different from wing sweep.

Again, I like the F-8. It's a good plane and fun to fly. Its wing is just objectively poorly suited to slow speed flight. That doesn't make it a bad flier though.

 

[MicroMan75]

I bought one of these and it arrived last week. What a piece of junk. The jet looks great, but the EDF is way underpowered. I opted for the landing gear, which makes it even worse.

I like the way Freewing jets look and the airframes are nice. However, this is the 3rd model I've gotten from Motion RC that was underpowered (I had the F105, F22 & F16 64mm).

Compared to FMS their EDFs are terrible. I have the FMS 64mm F35 and that thing screams on 3S.

I'll have to order Freewing stuff and put a different EDF in them, or just stick to FMS, EFlite & Arrows. I've had great luck with all of their EDF jets.

I was very disappointed with the F8, which stinks because I really wanted that jet because it looks awesome.

 

[telnar1236]

It might be worth checking to make sure that the power systems in the planes are set up right and calibrated to your Tx Rx combo and that you are using a battery with a high enough C-rating and a pack of the right size and voltage. I have personally owned the F-8 and F-22, flown, the F-105, and seen the F-16 fly. The F-22 isn't a rocket, but has plenty of power (at least with the 4s setup) and the F-8 is as fast as I could want from a jet this size and had a ton of vertical climbing power even on a heavy 2200 mAh pack. I have heard bad things about the Freewing EDFs from people who live at high altitudes, so if you're high above sea level, I have heard that other EDF units work better. The F-8 has many issues, but at least in my experience a lack of power is not one of them and it's still a great little plane.

 

[MicroMan75]

It might be worth checking to make sure that the power systems in the planes are set up right and calibrated to your Tx Rx combo and that you are using a battery with a high enough C-rating and a pack of the right size and voltage. I have personally owned the F-8 and F-22, flown, the F-105, and seen the F-16 fly. The F-22 isn't a rocket, but has plenty of power (at least with the 4s setup) and the F-8 is as fast as I could want from a jet this size and had a ton of vertical climbing power even on a heavy 2200 mAh pack. I have heard bad things about the Freewing EDFs from people who live at high altitudes, so if you're high above sea level, I have heard that other EDF units work better. The F-8 has many issues, but at least in my experience a lack of power is not one of them and it's still a great little plane.

I wish I could have experienced flying the ones you received. I was using a 1500 3S battery with 100C rating. I have had many EDFs, and overall, I have to say I've been rather unimpressed with the Freewing 64mm series. I've had some of their 70s, and those seemed to have more than enough power. The 64mm F22 does have enough power to take off and fly, but I still feel it is underpowered compared to other brands, such as the FMS F35 64mm. I put a 50 amp ESC on it and sometimes will fly a 4S pack in it. It screams! I only do it once in a while, though, as the jet is plenty fast on 3S.

I did some research on the F8 and F105, and it seems I'm not the only one who has complained about the lack of power. I opted for the landing gear set on the F8, and it would only take off after I brought it to a field where there was a 125-foot runway. It used about 100 feet of it, and then when it did take off, it would barely stay airborne. I know you are supposed to hand-launch some of these, but I'm at a 50/50 success rate with tossing, so I try and avoid it. I also like the challenge of having to take off and land the jet.

I live in Arizona, so it's some above sea level, but I don't think would affect it to where it would barely lift off.

Maybe I just got a dud. Motion RC was not too helpful, either, simply pointing me to the video where theirs flew...

Anyway, it's only FMS, Eflite, and Arrows jets from now on. I have had several, and they've all been awesome.

Xfly jets are good also. I have the 64mm T7A, and it is a joy to fly.