Hi, I’m John Beech and like you, I’ve caught the modeling bug. Got a full dose as I built my first RC model, a high wing trainer, over the winter of 1972. Joined AMA in the spring and set about learning to fly. Over the next +50 years, while there have been many models to include giant scale, helicopters, and jets, the one constant‘s been my AMA membership . . . yeah, I’m a lifer!
Along the way, I formed Audacity Models (2004). My goal? An easy to build and fly RC model helicopter. But over time, one issue kept nagging at me. Basically, helicopters are absolutely brutal on servos because of the high vibration environment.
As an engineer, I knew the fix was easy because Uncle Sam overcame shock and vibration long ago by adopting MIL-STDS. Since nobody was willing to build to such demanding specs, the solution was to do it myself. We formed ProModeler (2013) and offered up our first two servos; one for cyclic control, plus a high speed gyro-optimized version designed for tail rotor.
One day a defense contractor, curious about what we were doing, reached out. One thing led to another and today, servos became the tail that wags the dog! Our lineup? Now 7 classes of PWM servos priced $35-385 and ranging from 75-5255oz-in.
Like all Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), drones trade off range for payload. Yet whilst noisy and hobbled by the limited duration of lithium batteries (sourced from precarious players), autonomous quadcopter drones nevertheless offer interesting capabilities in civilian and battlefield operations.
Leveraging the incredibly stealthy sonic profile of low-frequency single-rotor physics, helicopters pair increased maneuverability due to collective pitch control loops with much lower observability. This opens new doors to mission planners.
Then because engines offer loiter capabilities extending to an hour, with payloads ranging 100KM from launch, the P6 Utilty airframe offers intriguing capabilties through added versatility. This means fulfilling missions in new ways. If your project engineers find these concepts appealing, we invite you to lay out your requirements.
All content on this site including website design, text, graphics, logos of ProModeler brands, the selection and arrangement thereof and all software compilations, underlying source code, software and all other material on this Internet website are copyright ProModeler. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED and are protected to the full extent of U.S. and International copyright laws. Permission is granted to electronically copy and to print in hard copy portions of this Internet site for the purposes of placing an order with ProModeler. Any other use of materials on this website - including reproduction for purposes other than those noted above, modification, distribution, or re-publication - without the prior written permission of ProModeler is strictly prohibited. ProModeler is not responsible for any content placed online by users. Each user warrants that all the content the user places online is not violative of the copyright of third parties.
Trademarks
Trademarks such as ProModeler referenced on this website are either trademarks or registered trademarks of ProModeler. These trademarks may not be used in any way, except by the express written permission of ProModeler, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion or dilute the company’s marks, or in any manner than discredits the company. Other product and company names mentioned on this website may be the trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
YouTube® and its logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Google Inc. Facebook® and its logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Facebook, Inc. Twitter® and its logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Twitter, Inc.
Liability
Except as specifically stated on this website, to the fullest extent permitted at law, neither ProModeler nor any of its affiliates, directors, employees or other representatives will be liable for damages arising out of or in connection with the use of this website or the information, content, materials or products included on this site. This is a comprehensive limitation of liability that applies to all damages of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory, direct, indirect or consequential damages, loss of data, income or profit, loss of or damage to property and claims of third parties.
ProModeler and its agents are not responsible for errors and omissions on this site.
Price or Description Changes
All information, prices, and descriptions on this site are subject to change. Photos may show options or products, which are not included. ProModeler disclaims all responsibility and liability for unintentional errors. In the event of such errors on our site or in our publications, ProModeler reserves the right to cancel or refuse orders at our sole discretion. Please contact ProModeler immediately if you become aware of any errors or discrepancies.
Internet Sales Policies
ProModeler reserves the right to only provide warranty coverage for products purchased from authorized retailers and to refuse warranty coverage on products purchased from unauthorized agents.
User Agreement
All users agree, through the use of this site, to the terms and conditions contained on this website and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, without giving effect to its conflict of law provisions. User hereby agrees, through the use of this site, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Florida and of any United States’ courts located within that jurisdiction for purposes of any and all litigation arising out of the use of this site, or the purchase of any goods made through this web site. User waives any objections to the forum of Florida for lack of venue, forum non conveniens, or any other jurisdictional ground.
Site Policies, Modifications, and Severability
Please review our other policies, such as Privacy, posted on this site. These policies also govern your visit to ProModeler’s website. We reserve the right to make changes to our site, policies, and these Terms and Conditions at any time. If any of these conditions shall be deemed invalid, void, or for any reason unenforceable, that condition shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining condition.
Link to Other Sites
ProModeler is not liable for materials on Non-ProModeler owned sites linked through the web site. ProModeler does not regularly review these materials, does not necessarily endorse all the material appearing on these linked sites and any decision of a web site visitor to view any of the said web sites is at the visitor's own risk.
User-Generated Content Terms of Use
ProModelerour affiliates, and our designees ("ProModeler," "We," "Us," or "Our") owns and/or operates various websites, social media and other online properties ("User-Generated Websites or "Sites") that permit users to submit or publish various content. Such websites may include, but are not limited to, message boards, blogs, social networks, and comment boards which allow users to submit information including, comments, information, photos, videos and other material ("User Content"). By registering or using any of our User-Generated Websites, you accept and agree to the following Terms of Use.
Appropriate Conduct and Content; Personal Use Only:
Unless otherwise noted, the products and services on the Sites are intended for personal, non-commercial purposes only. Except as expressly permitted in these Terms of Use, you may not use, reproduce, distribute, reverse engineer, modify, copy, publish, display, transmit, adapt, link, license or in any way exploit the content of the Sites.
You agree to use the Site only for lawful, noncommercial purposes and in compliance with all international, federal, state and local laws. International users agree to comply with all local rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content, including laws regulating the export of data from the United States to your country of residence. You are solely responsible for your conduct and any data, text, information, photos, links, comments and any and all User Content created or generated by you that you submit, post and display on any of our Sites.
Eligibility:
You represent and warrant that you (a) are above the legal age of majority in your jurisdiction of residence, (b) have not previously been suspended or removed from any of our Sites, (c) do not have more than one (1) account at any given time for any Site; (d) you will only provide us with true, accurate, current and complete information and (d) that you have full power and authority to enter into the Terms of Use and in doing so will not violate any other agreement to which you are a party.
Your Account:
When you set up an Account, you are required to provide your name and email address and select a password (collectively, your “Account Information”), which you may not transfer to or share with any third parties. If someone accesses our Sites using your Account Information, we will rely on that Account Information and will assume that it is really you or your representative who is accessing the Site(s). We may refuse to grant you a username that impersonates someone else, is or may be protected by trademark and proprietary rights law, or is vulgar, offensive or otherwise inappropriate, as determined by us at our sole discretion. You are solely responsible for any and all use of your Account Information and all activities that occur under or in connection with the Account. Without limiting any rights we may otherwise have, we reserve the right to take any and all action, as it deems necessary or reasonable, to ensure the security of the Site and your Account, including without limitation, terminating your Account, changing your password, or requesting additional information to authorize transactions on your Account. You agree to be responsible for any act or omission of any users that access the Site(s) under your Account Information that, if undertaken by you, would be deemed a violation of these Terms of Use. In no event will we be liable to you for any liabilities or damages resulting from or arising out of (i) any action or inaction by Us under this provision, (ii) any compromise of the confidentiality of your Account or password, and (iii) any unauthorized access to your Account or use of your password. You may not use anyone else’s Account at any time, without the permission of the Account holder. You agree not to register for more than one Account, register for an Account on behalf of an individual other than yourself without such individual’s authorization, or register for an Account on behalf of any group or entity.
User Content:
We welcome user comments, information and submissions. Subject to our Privacy Policy, all User Content that you post to the Sites will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary to you and may be viewed by you and/or other users of Our Sites. You also agree that Audacity, our affiliates and our licensees are free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques generated by any User Content for any purpose whatsoever, including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products, services and content using such information, without any credit, notice, approval or compensation to you.
Our Right to Use User Content:
If you choose to submit any User Content to any Site, it will be deemed non-proprietary and non-confidential and may be used by us, our affiliates or others without restriction. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control any and all rights in and to the User Content that you submit and that our public posting and use of that User Content will not infringe or violate the rights of any third party in any manner, including without limitation any privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other intellectual property or proprietary rights. By submitting, sending, posting, uploading, modifying or otherwise providing information, material, or any other communication to us, whether solicited or unsolicited, you grant us and our designees the royalty-free, fully paid, unrestricted, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, and fully transferable, assignable, sublicensable right and license to use, copy, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, improve, distribute, commercialize, perform, or display such User Content (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed for any purpose, including, without limitation, advertising and promotional purposes, reproduction, transmission, publication, broadcast and posting without any further consent by you or notice, credit and/or compensation to you or any third parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, personally identifiable data, if any, included in User Content shall be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Review of Submissions:
We have no obligation to verify the identity of any users when they are connected to a Site or to supervise the User Content that has been provided by users. You acknowledge that we may or may not prescreen, monitor, review, edit or delete the User Content posted by you and other users on any Site. We and our designees retain the right to modify, move, refuse, block or remove any User Content, in whole or in part, for any reason or no reason, with or without notice. We and our designees also reserve the right to access, read, preserve, and disclose any information as we reasonably believes is necessary to (i) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, (ii) enforce these Terms of Use, including investigation of potential violations hereof, (iii) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, (iv) respond to user support requests, or (v) protect our rights, property or safety, users of the Site and the public. In any case, we are not responsible or liable for damages of any kind arising from any failure, non-failure, or delay in removing such User Content even when we are advised of the possibility of such damages.
No Endorsement:
We do not control the User Content posted on the Site and, as such, we make no representations or warranties regarding User Content or its truthfulness, accuracy, reliability, integrity or quality. We do not determine whether User Content violates the rights of others, and we have no control over whether User Content is of a nature that you or other users may find offensive. User Content includes the opinions, statements and other content of third parties, not us. You acknowledge and agree that the information and views expressed by you and other users in User Content appearing on the Site do not necessarily reflect our views or those of our content providers, advertiser, sponsors, affiliated or related entities, and we do not support or endorse any User Content or any other content posted by you or any other user on or otherwise accessible through the Site. We do not assume, and expressly disclaim, any obligation or liability with respect to User Content and no confidential or fiduciary understanding or relationship is established by our receipt or acceptance of any such materials.
Getting into RC model helicopters is like sex, a bit scary until you learn how (it's even been said helis are the most fun you can have with your pants on). Since we've fielded pretty much every question there is, this FAQ highlights themes we hear pretty often whilst offering a little bit of insight into what to expect.
How does $40/gallon for nitro fuel make sense vs an electric 600?
I occasionally shoot a round of golf at our city-owned course with pal who owns a restaurant. He goes 2-3/week, but because golf's not really my 'thang', going with him a few times a year is plenty. Sets me back $150 for greens fees and my share of the cart and we have some fun.
So I was reflecting on this recently while someone with a brand new SAB Goblin RAW 580 Nitro was getting his balls busted by one of the electric guys. Like he was yanking his chain about a gallon of nitro fuel going for $42 at the local hobby shop!
And it wasn't just the electric-crowd ganging up because even one of the guys who flies gasoline-powered models popped off about the price of nitro fuel. This, even though he ponies up $27/gallon for ethanol-free Trufuel premix (no room to talk, in my opinion, but whatever).
So here's the thing, for most pilots, a gallon of fuel lasts about a month, maybe a bit less. Saying if $10-15/week calls your participation in the sport into question, then I've got nothing because we're talking about fuel - for an entire season of flying - adding up to a lousy round of golf!
And things aren't as clear cut as electric guys would have you believe. The unspoken flip side of electric flight includes . . . 6-minute flights, eternally waiting to charge, plus the risk of tacoing a $150 pack in a crash. And it only took mention of destroying a pack for the tide to begin turning. Suddenly a couple of the more experienced pilots were nodding because we've all tossed $150-200 crash-damaged packs!
Added to it, what nobody likes about electric models is waiting on packs to charge. True, whether it's at the field, or beforehand at home because packs are dangerous and you can't let them charge unattended (fire risk). So electric is not exactly rainbows and unicorn farts because nobody gives away packs, you actually sacrifice a fair bit of your life babysitting the stinkin' things, and 6 minutes is just not long enough!
Meanwhile, with nitro, you land, fuel up in minutes, fire it up, and launch. And we're talking 15 minutes flights! So look, it's not like the zzzzzz of an electric going by is boring, but straight up, the rush of flying a screaming nitro model is special. Like if you know, no explanation is necessary. And if you don't, then no explanation is possible (but consider this me taking my best shot).
I've heard helis are really hard to fly . . . are they really?
TL;DR: True - but not impossible - and if you get a cheap fixed-pitch toy heli plus a simulator, you'll learn to hover in a matter of an hour, or so.
Works like kids learning to steer and pedal trikecycles 'before' tackling a 2-wheeler. Turns out learning to fly a collective-pitch model helicopter is easiest with the equivalent of training wheels . . . toy-grade department store model helicopter, plus a computer flight simulator!
The toy plus the sim are tools. Use them to master hovering and more quickly get the hang of things. Believe me, you can do this!
Look, we don't sell the fixed-pitch models or the simulators - but - because we've helped thousands, we know these are the tools to master hovering in no time. And once you can hover, then the world's your oyster because 'all' helicopters feel about the same in the hover. I know because I amazed a full-scale instructor by being able to hover the first time I was in the right seat. And your major benefit comes if you get in trouble, because then you just bail out into a familiar hover to buy time to think . . . even from 200 feet away. Believe me, hovering is like hitting the pause button before deciding on a course of action!
And when it comes to computer flight simulators, there are many. They include RF (Real Flight), popular because it's available in hobby shops, (but a bit expensive). Plus my personal favorite, HELI-X, which costs much less and has a very realistic feel of actually flying. Best part about this one is if you buy an inexpensive USB dongle (<$15), then you may use your own transmitter instead of the flimsy type included with other sims.
Anyway, don't be afraid. If you're Jonesing helicopters - and true whether it's our P6, or one of our competitor's - if you first buy a fixed pitch toy and then beg, borrow, or steal some simulator time - then you can fly helicopters too!
Wouldn't a small collective-pitch model be better than fixed-pitch for learning to hover?
TL:DR Don't confuse a $50 toy great for honing reflexes with a $200-300 indoor model capable of 3D in the right hands.
Small collective pitch models can be fun - if - you have where to fly them. Problem comes in when you realize YouTube experts may fly them in a bedroom but when you go to fly one, hovering is about the size of it. But it gets worse because if you take a tiny small model outside, then even a light breeze is overwhelming. Bottom line? Unless you have access to a gymnasium, small models are limited by the physics of the real world.
Helis range from 180-700mm, but the sweet spot according to crowd wisdom is 600mm . . . and nitro gives you more bang for the buck!
Why not a SAB Goblin Kraken 580 instead?
TL:DR - a P6 is appreciated for being larger, more like a 700 size-wise. And repair costs are lower, which is a big deal (unless you never crash).
Many consider a P6 being larger than other high performance models like an SAB Goblin Kraken 580 Nitro an unfair advantage. But that it helps with orientation at a distance is a big deal you cannot overestimate (and a $10 dress kit further improves visibility).
Added to which, a P6 is so durable because of how plastic flexes - inherently tougher because it's not rigid like carbon fiber. So where carbon fiber breaks, plastic flexes . . . like the story of the willow vs the mighty oak.
Then there are parts cost, where a P6 tail boom costs a fraction of an $88 a Kraken boom. Means unless you're buying your model to fit in with others, then repair costs are part of the calculus in determining if the juice is worth the squeeze.
Look, in all honesty, if your dream is 3D, then the SAB is more capable because it's smaller and lighter. It simply reacts more quickly than a P6. But if the drunk mosquito routine doesn't float your boat, then a big P6 with it's super smooth handling is probably better for you.
Or put another way, it's the story of the young bull and the old bull all over again!
What makes a 600mm the best size?
In truth there's no one best size model for everybody, but you can make some generalizations. For example, that a simulator plus a tiny fixed pitch model are great for practicing orientation and hovering are uncontested.
Also uncontested is this . . . the bigger the model, the better it flies. Of course, and no surprise, the flip side of bigger means these models also cost more. Meanwhile, collective pitch helis range from 180-700mm.
. . . but the three popular nitro engine classes of .37, .55. and 1.05ci correspond to 500, 600, and 700mm main rotor blades. And if you survey 100 flying fields, the most popular warhorse for day-in and day-out use is a 600-class model. By a wide margin, and it's not even close!
Basically, 600-class is the cross over for kit/repair prices, the cost of avionics, fuel consumption, blade prices, and enough size to be largely unaffected by winds that ground smaller model. This isn't a new trend but one that's developed over the course of decades!
600-class is historically the sweet spot for good reason.
What does the P6 use a flybar, what's with that?
TLDR: models with flybars simplifying your experience and greatly reducing your total cost.
Flybars (mechanical gyros) were eliminated in favor of FBL-gyros to save money (by reducing parts count). But then surprising exactly nobody, the prices of 3-axis FBL-gyros skyrocketed. Now, instead of a flybar equipped model sporting a dirt cheap single-axis $90 gyro, FBL models require a pricey 3-axis gyro at $200-500 - so not exactly chump change!
Bottom line? Making models cheaper to build by offloading the cost of the well proven mechanical gyro (flybar) in exchange for an electronic flybar-substitute, the 3-axis FBL-gyro shifted the monkey onto your back (avionics-wise) because now you spend 2-3X more for the gyro!
Worse, while you can adjust a single axis gyro is less than 10-seconds, FBL-gyros are more complex. Worse, some require a special interface box, ot force you to drag a laptop to the field to dial them in!
Anyway, because we saw this coming a mile away and resisted the trend to eliminate the flybar. This makes you the winner if you're satisfied spending $90 for the gyro and enjoying the simplicity of the mechnical gyro. We recommend the Futaba GY470.
Is it true you can convert the P6 from assisted mechanical gyro to FBL?
It's true. If you want to ditch the mechanical gyro in favor of electronics, step 1 is move the mechanical hardware and use a couple skinny screws.
If you'd just rather an flybarless head, then behold the infamous red neck flybarless conversion (usually abbreviated RNFBL).
Converting the Mk II head to FBL is just a matter of using two long 2mm bolts (M2x25) after you remove the mechanical gyro (the flybar hardware). Then switch out the el cheapo 1-axis gyro for one of many 3-axis FBL gyros from the likes of Futaba, Spektrum, IKON, et al and follow the crowd into complicating your life.
We can say that authoritatively, and by way of heads up (so you can't say nobody told you), it'll still fly the same as with the mechanical gyro.
Can the P6 be converted to use 700mm main rotor blades?
TL;DR - Yes, the P6 may be fitted with 700mm blades with a rotor head RPM limit.
As horses go, they P6 is never gonna be mistaken for a Kentucky Derby 3D type model, it's more of a solid quarter horse. But when fitted with the awesome load carrying Quattro fitted, especially with 700mm main rotor blades for low-RPM ops to reduce the noise footprint, the P6 becomes something of a stout little donkey. A good one, too!
Just know this, a stretch kit doesn't give you a 700 on the cheap. The rotors are made for 600mm loads, not 700mm. And note; Quattro production is unavailable for civilian sale, sorry.
We developed a P6 for an OS105 engine. Fitted it with OS ENGINES 15GT gas burner, also. This leads back to the question of 700-on-the-cheap by using a stretch kit to fit 700mm main rotor blades (and 115mm tails instead of 90mm to hold it).
Look, while a 55 likely doesn't have the stones to overspin the Mk II even with 700mm blades, an 105 may well blow it up. Yo want to be a test pilot, go ahead but we're telling you don't do it. It's a 600. Period. So because we don't want to be associated with someone taking the risk we offered to buy back the ones we'd sold. Sorry, but we don't make these conversion parts available any longer, sorry.
Is a Pantera P6 difficult for fly?
TL;DR: Yes, but a little simulator time plus a $50 fixed-pitch toy helicopter will soon see you hovering.
Not gonna lie, flying model helicopters is challenging. A Pantera is easier than a model optimized for 3D, but make no mistake, it's still no walk in the park. Silver lining is this; just as kids first learn to pedal trikes, then add balancing skills before swooping around on a 2-wheeler, helicopter flight is similar (plus there are cheat codes). No kidding, the secret to more quickly developing the skills to fly a model helicopter just involve a toy-grade department-store model helicopter plus an über sophisticated flight simulator!
Spend $50-75 for a fixed pitch toy, plus a few hours access to a simulator, and you'll be hovering in no time. Toy is surprisingly good to develop reflexes, and if you want your own simulator, they're about $200. Point being, once you can hover, the world's your oyster. Get in trouble? No matter what . . . bail out into a familiar hover to buy time to think - even from 200 feet away! Hovering is a complete game changer compared to model airplanes and trucks because when things are going pear shape, you can essentially hit the pause button and enter a hover before deciding on a course of action.
So buy a toy helicopter, beg, borrow, or steal simulator time, and just like sex, helicopters are fun immediately!
Are indoor models the way to go?
TL:DR Don't confuse a $50 toy great for honing reflexes with a $200 indoor model capable of 3D in the right hands.
In truth, there's a lot of good to be said for teeny-tiny <200mm rotor blade models. Especially sophisticated 3D-capable collective-pitch helicopters like the fabulous Blade Fusion 180. Problem comes when you go outside and realize even a light breeze is overwhelming.
Put another way, it doesn't matter they're sophisticated, they're limited by physics. Means great fun in the hands of an expert pilot, but for most they're a pricey bauble because you don't have easy access to a gymnasium and in the real world, flying one at home is a non-starter. So if you're flush, then KYO but if money is tight, you're smarter to stick to the $50 toy and a sim to get the basics of hovering and then investing in a model large enough to be classified as all-weather which in our experience means 600-class, and larger. Look, you don't have to believe us, visit your local flying field and use your eyes to see what others mostly fly.
That said, everything has a downside. Knowing the larger they are the better they fly, the drawback of 700-class models (what fly the best), is they're costly to buy, equip, and repair. And like cubic money is the plague of 700-class models, the nemesis of indoor models include wind, walls, people, cats and dogs!
However, there's a sweet spot in the helicopter world, and crowd wisdom guides you toward 600-nitro as the best bang for the buck! That's what a Pantera P6 is all about.
What makes a Pantera better for me?
TL:DR - reason a Pantera is best for you is it builds easier, handles great, is more durable, and is larger than 600-class alternative thus, easier to see at a distance.
When compared to competing 600-class designs, a built-in Pantera P6 advantage include durability.This is down to plastic construction being inherently tougher than carbon fiber 'because' it's not as rigid. Means instead of breaking, it flexes like the willow vs the mighty oak.
But another advantage is it's just physically larger. This makes it easier to see and control. Proof? When an inexpensive 700-class fiberglass canopy finds its way onto a Pantera, it doesn't look stupid size-wise. Saying it fits perfectly and doesn't look out of place. This is because a Pantera is as large as most 700-class and a 'lot' larger than competing 600-class models!
Your immediate payoff is it helps with orientation when the model is larger because you can see what's going on from further away. Look, it's not rocket science, bigger pays off with better flight characteristics but also in terms of visual orientation. And believe me, with no wing to help, orientation is a big deal with helicopters.
What's with the Pantera flybar?
TLDR: models with a flybar vs FBL gyro are easier to setup and fly, and use less costly gyros. In short, simpler 'and' you save money!.
The mechanical flybar gyros was largely eliminated in favor of FBL gyros to save money (fewer parts). But then (and surprising exactly nobody,) prices for electronic stabilizers (FBL, or flybarless) gyros skyrocketed.
Once upon a time, models equipped with a flybar were common as dirt and gyros cost <$100. These days, when even entry level FBL 3-axis gyro go for $200 and $300-$500 is quite common, or not exactly talking chump change!
Bottom line? Manufacturers eliminated the cost of the flybar mechanism to lower their parts costs, but in ditching the mechanical gyro stabilizer, they've forced you forced to embrace more costly electronic flybar-substitutes. So the monkey is on your back, avionics-wise. You're forced to spend more money, or opt for a more simple experience with a Pantera!
Bottom line? We saw this coming a mile away and stayed the course. Now you reap the rewards of well proven mechanical stabilizer technology and save money!
How many channels does it need?
TL:DR Bare minimum is 5-channels, and you can get away with 6-channels, but if you're a lifer in the sport, then our advice is is invest in a 7 channel RF system as the minimum, but if you're smart you get a 10-channel. Collective pitch helicopters call for 5-channels, minimum. These being 3 servos for cyclic/collective (pitch, roll, and collective), another for tail rotor (yaw) makes 4, plus a 5th channel for engine throttle (or if electric, then the ESC). The 6th channel is for gyro gain. We guide you a 7-channel, instead because you can avoid destructive lean engine runs with a Pantera. How? Simple, by installing a $30 servo to adjust the needle valve. Can't you do this with other helis? Nope, Pantera is equipped with mounts for up to 8 servo mounts vs the usual limit of 5 servos. Being more versatile means it's trivial to install another servo. What for? Maybe for adjusting the carburetor's needle valve to richen the engine's fuel mixture in the air instead of having to land to do it. Needle is a great use for an added channel.
Why do you recommend more than 6-channels?
TL:DR ordinary collective pitch models are quipped for 5 servos, the Pantera has mounts for up to 8 servos. being more versatile allows more functions. means your transmitter has to be up to scratch.
An overlook feature of the Pantera are the added provisions for mounting additional servos. Your benefit is obvious as the luxury of adding servos means other possible functions. For example, what if you get the itch for a model equipped with a horizontal stabilizer? One that pitches downward during descent like the Sikorsky Blackhawk, which is famous for the huge horizontal stabilizer it pitches negative to hold the aircraft in a level orientation when recovering from to a level attitude after making an aggressive combat descent so it can unload troops more quickly. The extra servo mount aft by the tailboom makes this trivial makes deploying this function trivial. Doesn't even have to be installed in a scale model, you can install a large aircraft-like horizontal stab just for the fun of it! Or perhaps you want a set of mechanical retracting landing gear units for a Bell 222. Since you'll need to install a servo to operate them, then use one of extra forward frame mounts. Similarly, if you were building a Jet Ranger in the livery of either your local newscaster or sheriff department, then because a Spectrolab SX-16 Nightsun searchlight is a common full-scale feature, then the extra servo mount comes in handy for the scale function (the spotlight is often rotated off to one side). Or for those wicked stinger of a gunship's twin barrel machine gun which is aimed with an extra servo. You get extra servo mounts to help you achieve versatility, not impose limits!
If buying for yourself, how many channels would you get?
TL:DR Bottom line? The Pantera is great to install in scale models! So our advice is don't box yourself in channel-wise. Beginner level RF-advice is often to buy a Spektrum DX-6 for about $280. Saving money with this unit seems smart but is actually pretty dump. And many guide you toward the nearly $500 NX8+ transmitter, instead.
The 6-channel radios a re a bad idea. Proof? Look at how easy they are to buy dirt cheap on forums and Facebook Marketplace. Means folks have wised up and are trying to pawn them off on the unsuspecting.
The Spektrum NX8+ is actually a pretty darn good unit. Note; while they don't hide the fact, if bought as a bundle with a BNF model, while it may not be obvious, you'll end up buying another receiver when you go to more complex model. Making the purchase this way means ending up with a minimum level receiver, which ends up costing you more money vs getting what you need up front. Or put another way, if you overlook the fine print . . . gotcha!
That said, I purchased an NX10+ instead of the 8+. Your money, do as you please, I'm just sharing our experience. And in a similar vein, we also own a Jeti DS12 (12 channels for $650 but can be upgraded to 16), and it's a great unit. Similarly, I own a Futaba 16SZ, which is hands down our favorite. But we don't sell RF and thus, don't have a dog in the hunt.
One more tip, these things are sold in fixed-wing and rotary-wing specific configurations. The heli version eliminates the ratchet/detente on the throttle/collective stick (one on the left), and moves the 2-position switch from top-left to top-right (where experienced heli pilots are hardwired to flip the switch to perform an autorotation in the event of trouble).
Otherwise, the software is the same in both. And while you can open the back of the transmitter to remove the ratchet/detente yourself, moving the switch ranges from impossible to inconvenient. Buy the heli-oriented transmitter!
Last thing; basic reason we don't get in bed with any of the RF suppliers, e.g. we leave the transmitter/receiver/gyro decision up to you, is we feel you're better off using what local pilots use. Honestly? That may well be Spektrum because they make good stuff. But it could also be Futaba, Jeti, FrSky, or someone else.
Worse, dealing with FBL gyros is a complete can of worms, which is why we produce a model with flybar, instead. Means you only need an inexpensive (<$100) single-axis gyro instead of a 6 MEMS 3-axis gyro The single axis is dead nuts easy to set up in comparison. Night and day.
Regardless, using a transmitter your pal already knows how to program is a big help because then they make excuses for not helping you, or have to break out the manual to suss it out first. Heads up.
How important is simulator training before flying my model?
TL;DR flight simulators significantly enhance skills, thus allowing you to practice maneuvers and develop muscle memory without risking your model.
I'm strongly in favor of using a computer flight simulator. Which one is best? Not my monkey, not my circus. Saying these aren't our products. Since this has never stopped me sharing an opinion, here goes.
To begin, I'm not advanced 3D pilot by any stretch, but am a quite competent sportsman pilot. That said, I've never found any particular simulator to be the reason for my lack of progress. Also, when I spend some quality time with the sim, then I see progress at the field. Saying whichever one you pick, it'll be fine for learning to hover.
Why so many? It's a long story involving a son-in-law who forgot the 10th commandment and while I could make the story longer, ultimately, the RealS sim has been good enough I haven't bothered investigating another.
Note, all but RealFiight have demos available so try them and see for yourself. Also, all are available on Steam. Last thing; PhoenixRC is now free because it's been discontinued, and although it's somewhat outdated, it remains extremely good as a free option.
Finally, and proving which simulator doesn't matter, the other day I found my Skylark RC Flight Simulator disks. Wasted half a day giving the old wire-frame graphics a try and the physics remain superb more than 30 years later!
What are the real costs?
TL;DR costs build up quickly so our inclination is to blow smoke up your skirt and dissemble. But I predict you're gonna tear up $2000 before you're done.
This answer is quite tricky - and dangerous to the business - because if we're not careful we potentially talk ourselves out of a sale. This is because we don't know what you have already. Or what your hopes and dreams include. Or much of anything, really, so asking this is akin to asking how high up the sky extends (~60 miles, but it depends).
Short answer, you enter the game with $300 for the Pantera. Then add whatever you decide is wise in the way of servos and gyro. There are alternatives in the way of engines ($200-400), mufflers, $10-70, and for our parts, we offer cyclic servos ranging from $40 to $140 (think beginner outfitting his model versus professional UAS, which because defense contractors represent 3/4 of our market, means we know exactly what servo works best).
To this add whatever you desire in the way of a transmitter but $300 is the floor for new equipment and another $500-800 isn't unreasonable. But maybe you already have a transmitter, we don't know! Or maybe you're queer for engines and slipping bearings into a used OS Max 50SX you found on eBay for $50 sees it flying for a $75 investment (we make this easy with a how-to on updating engine bearings). As always, costs will depend.
How much are crash costs?
TL:DR - sorry, there's no such thing as an average crash.
Crashes vary in the costs because no two are the same. I've tipped over following an autorotation and spent $100 one time, only $10 another. Similarly I once lost an engine whilst hovering inverted, the model settled into the grass and if I'd have found a lost link cost would have been zero. Yes, my friends were amazed. But another guy pulling the same dumb stunt may fork over $100 in repairs.
Sorry, but the question is too broad. That said, what we call the usual suspects don't vary too much from brand to brand and include main rotor blades, tail boom, all shafts (main, tail output, and feathering spindle), plus other bits and bobs, e.g. landing gear struts (you can straighten the alloy skids).
That said, blades range from $20 for wood upwards to $150 for carbon fiber, so as usual, it depends. And note; don't pooh-pooh wood blades because world championships have been won with wood blades. In fact, if you're a model airplane craftsman, then fiberglassing a few sets over the winter is a fun activity.
What are smart safety precautions?
TL:DR - preflight the machine like your life depends on it, hover with skids above eye level, stay 50 feet away, and keep spectators - especially children and pets - completely out of the picture.
When we're asked about safety precautions a few specifics immediately spring to mind but mostly it's down to enlightened self-interest, or put another way, self-preservation.
Think about it; a lawnmower with a 20in diameter blade will make a mess of your foot, right? So what do you think may happen with even a small model helicopter, say one sporting 230mm rotor blades spinning at 3000RPM?
Note; main rotor blades commonly extend into the 700mm range, and often larger in diameter (hence more energy). Significantly larger diameter than most model airplane propellers. I once wrote an article about the dangers or props after a pal shared photos of how badly contact with a spinning prop damaged his hand (don't look if you have a weak stomach, it wasn't pretty).
Point being, you're responsible for pre-flighting the machine before flight. By this meaning to look it over carefully and ensure it's safe for operation. As the pilot in command, you decide when and where to fly and our advice is don't do it near spectators, especially children and pets who will be unaware of the danger posed. And even with regard to yourself, 50ft is a prudent distance to stand clear in my opinion, at a minimum before spooling up to hover. Speaking of which, we advise hovering with skids at or above eye level in hopes any blade component gets slung off the model sails safely over your head.
Bottom line? Model helicopters may seem like neat toys, they may even be referred to as toys for big boys, but they can hurt you. Stay as vigilant as you would around someone holding a hand grenade.
How much wind is too much?
TL:DR - it depends because technically, a model helicopter can fly in winds up to it's maximum forward airspeed.
As a practical matter, larger helicopters fly at higher airspeed and thus, have higher performance capabilities. Put another way, the larger the model, the more wind it can handle. But as always, it depends. That said, let's try to put some numbers to it.
To begin, I've flown a 600-class model in any wind a 700 can handle. That said, 20mph gusts are getting to the limit at which 'I' no longer want to fly because flying is less fun when fighting a strong wind. However, we have Midwestern customers who routinely fly in 20mph winds because it's always blowing on America's plains. Saying if they don't fly in 20mph winds, they don't fly at all.
What's the effect of size? Simply this, even a 5-7mph breeze is enough to make a 450-class model less fun. And that amounts to a hurricane for 200mm bade model. So because it seems there's always wind, if you look around at what others have selected, the vast majority fly 600mm rotor blade models.
How long will the model fly on one tank of fuel?
TL:DR - it depends on how aggressively you're flying the model.
Main rotor RPM is generally determined by engine speed. However, main rotor length and blade pitch angle play a role. Point being, engine RPM determines fuel consumption so if you're a beginner spending a lot of time hovering, achieving a 20 minute flight is fairly common. However, another factor rears its head and that's fuel mixture. Basically, you have full control over the air/fuel ratio and the leaner the mixture, the longer the fuel will last.
Problem is too lean will destroy and engine and too rich won't let it develop enough power to fly. While it's easy to say 'somewhere in the middle' in practice this turns out to be good advice. Added to which, Pantera pilots benefit by having where to install a mixture servo to adjust the needle valve in flight, which is far more convenient than what other pilots have to do, which is land to make adjustments.
In practice, this means if you're going to practice nose-in hovering, for example, you can lean the mixture in flight so the engine develops maximum power because this is also where it consumes the least amount of fuel (because the mixture is lean). Why do this? To let the model fly longer missions! Each sortie results in longer flight so you log more time and build experience more quickly!
The flip side is if you're practicing aggressive flight, you'd rather have the needle nice and fat (means rich) so the engine runs cooler because you'll be loading it with aggressive pitch setting, think tick-tocks, or rainbow maneuvers where the engine experiences heavy periodic loads. Now the fuel economy plummets and 12-13 minutes is normal.
How long with my receiver battery last?
TL:DR - again this is akin to asking how high is up. In general, expect to use a 5000mAh pack for the avionics and it'll last 7-8 flights of 12-15 minutes each before recharging. But no matter what, always confirm battery pack voltage is in the safe range before departing on another sortie. No exceptions!
Helicopter servos are in constant motion. Means higher current consumption than that experienced by fixed wing models. Think about it, if the main rotor is turning at 2000RPM, during the hover, this means three cyclic servos are making adjustments non-stop (moving from one side of neutral to the other) on the order of 30X per second.
This, as the main rotor rotates and cyclic servos make adjustments to blade pitch as the blades rotate (because they pitch up and down depending on where they are in the cycle). But the tail rotor servos is busy counteracting torque the whole time, and the engine throttle is making adjustments, too.
So while the avionics may operate on a 2S lithium chemistry pack to use the right voltage level, you determine the capacity, which from us may range from 650mAh to 6000mAh. Most pilots select a B2S5000, a 2-cell, series pack, of 5000mA capacity and are happy.
But no matter what, always confirm voltage is in the proper range 'before' embarking on another sortie. As pilot in command it's your responsibility to operate the model in a safe manner and just like you wouldn't drive from Baltimore to New York on a near empty tank, the prudent pilot never flies without checking there's enough juice in the pack to complete the mission. Heads up!
What's required in the way of routine maintenance?
TL:DR - routine maintenance varies and includes, but is not limited to, examining the main and tail rotor blades for damage before flight, ensuring all nuts and bolts are secured, and that nothing has come loose (muffler bolt, fuel line, blade bolt, landing gear bolt, etc.) before operation. Look the machine over as if your life depended on it!
Other maintenance includes lubing the tail pitch slider ring with light machine oil before commencing operation for the day. Ditto the main pitch components. Check for lubrication at the main-rotor and tail-rotor thrust bearings, that the dampers have a dab of grease, and that in general the machine is airworthy before taking flight.
While there may be emergency landings, there's really no such thing as an emergency departure so take your time and confirm everything is safe and ready for flight before flying your model.
What's available in the way of places to fly and other with whom to fly, community?
TL:DR - we advise joining the AMA and ensure you have your FAA documents in order.
We're blessed in America to have a community level organization known as the AMA, for Academy of Model Aeronautics. The FAI (the World's Air Sports Federation or in French, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale), are the world governing body to which AMA represents us on the national level with regard to air sports. The AMA is our umbrella for organizing, operating, and competition.
A nice thing is the AMA maintains a directory of clubs, so do a state lookup and then see who is nearest. While most folks only have one or two clubs nearby, I live in Central Florida and find it convenient to be a member of three different clubs out of maybe a dozen clubs in nearby driving range. Saying most folks have choices!
Beyond this, a few years back the Feds got involved with model airplanes and helicopters because big business was gearing up to enter the drone market in a big way. While this hasn't really panned out as some predicted, the unfortunate byproduct is modelers have been bigfooted and have come to the attention of the Federal Government. means you also need to comply with their regulations. Don't want to be caught with your pants down so heads up.
How do I improve my flying skills?
TL:DR - burn more fuel
Short and sweet, getting better means flying more, and flying with a plan. This last means don't just bore holes in the sky. Not if you want to improve. Specifically?
Simple, your body will clue you in. Find you don't like landing approaches left to right because the prevailing wind sees you landing into the wind right-to-left? Switch to the opposite side of the field and begin shooting approaches from left-to-right instead. Saying our body tells you what needs practice based on what you don't like doing.
For example, I once knew a fellow who could only fly left hand circles about himself. Couldn't fly left hand circles in front of himself if his soul depended on it! I tried and tried to get him to do otherwise, he didn't care.
So happy as a clam in the mud, he only flew left hand circles around himself. Smart guy, too, and with plenty of money (fancy turbine powered German model costing like $6000) but perfectly happy flying left hand circles around himself. Who's to say he's wrong?
However, in general, flying with a plan leads to improvement. So plan the flight, then work the plan. You'll get better. I, for example, spend half a tank each day practicing nose-in hovering. If I don't I find myself shying away from nose-in maneuvers. Works for me!
What upgrades are available?
TL:DR - the sky's the limit, or put another way, how much money you got?
Upgrades exist in two basic categories, functional and cosmetic. Amongst the lowest cost functional upgrades include a pair of 5mm flanged bearings that'll set you back all of ten bucks for the pair. They replace a pair of nylon bushings on the elevator pitch control lever within the side frame assembly.
Similarly, upgrading from wood to fiberglass blades is considered functional upgrade. Ditto upgrading to faster servos or a fancy gyro. But the fundamental helicopter you buy from us for $300 that's all you need to have fun.
Cosmetic upgrades include many, which some companies will persuade you are functional but in the real world - in our opinion - really aren't. Examples, which we ourselves offer, include all the carbon fiber goodies - 100% are cosmetic. That said, if you persuade yourself you can't live without a snazzy carbon fiber tail boom, I promise the justification will be this thing may improve yaw response because it's significantly stiffer than the stock alloy tail boom.
However, included amongst cosmetic upgrades are our custom painted fiberglass canopies, and these can blur the line. Like are they cosmetic because the look is appealing, or is it a functional upgrade because the reason for selecting one is because you'll be able to see the model better at a distance?
What can I do to make the mode more visible?
TL:DR - fluorescent stickers and training gear help.
Unlike model airplanes with a stab, wings, and fuselage to visually anchor your orientation, helicopters, especially so-called pod-and-boom style like the Pantera (meaning no fuselage, just the fish head over the mechanics) are much harder to see.
Adding stickers to the tail boom helps. Amongst those included on the stock sticker sheet are two yellow ones which help the black boom stand out better. But a visit to a local sign shop may result in even better sticker material you can trim to size/shape and apply, instead.
Brings up this fact, just because we supply them doesn't mean the stickers actually stick. Reason is the HDPE from which the canopy is molded has the incredible virtue of being nearly indestructible (a big plus when you're learning to fly), but is also so slick even spray paint comes peels off easily.
Point being, we include a large sticker sheet of largely useless decals and it's up to you which ones you chose to use to decorate your model. Some guys want every single sticker and then add ones for their equipment and engine brands (ending up resembling a race car with sponsor images). I, myself, am famous for applying no stickers whatsoever and flying the white canopy with just the windscreen attached. For most photos, we've trimmed the tribal barbs off creating a long blue swoop, etc.
Finally, although it's gonna flake off in a crash (meaning using spray-type or brush-on paint remover and hosing the scheme off to begin again), we detail techniques in a white paper for how to relatively successfully spray paint the HDPE canopy to achieve the look that suits you! Getting something highly visible is a common goal of pilots who don't want to pony up the dough for our Hotliner paint scheme.
What's the plan if my model behaves unpredictably in flight?
TL;DR - when I've had a model do the unpredictable, I immediately flip the switch and auto to a landing as quickly as a I can. I practice these expressly for engine out emergencies - but - an added benefit of a split drive model like Pantera is you can disengage the drive train with the flick of a switch. This effectively sets aside many components that could possibly be the cause. An autorotation, or how helicopters glide to landings without the use of propulsion, is a handy maneuver to master for this reason.
Bottom line, if the model does something untoward, land immediately and investigate because broken and lose components don't heal themselves. Note; shout (loudly) to declare an inflight emergency so other pilots will give your the right of way.
How do I transport my model safely?
TL;DR - most transport the model on the skids with blades folded back stored in a foam carrier. Safer in the trunk where in the event of accident it won't become a projectile (Newton's 2nd Law) and thus, pose a danger to human life, but with the prevalence of SUV-type vehicles, then strapping it down through the landing gear struts is about the best I've seen most folks do.
That said, I've been messing with model helicopters for more than 50 years and here's the thing; humans are inventive critters! As a consequence, I've seen more inventive ways of transporting models than you can shake a stick at.I'm guilty myself. For example, I have a roadie case custom made to fit two models I can check with the airlines, or hand over to UPS in reasonable confidence they'll arrive at their destination - shaken but not broken - meaning intact. Expensive. Less costly, a hardcase gold-caddy works just as well. This is an area for expressing yourself, I welcome photos.
It's spring, what maintenance should I pull?
TL;DR - ensure the model is safe and ready for flight as if it were a brand new model and your life depends on the outcome. And if you fly with a pal, ask him to be a 2nd set of eyes and look it over, also.
At a minimum, after wintering, I thoroughly asses the condition of the flight batterypack (the 2S that provides juice for receiver, gyro, and servos). I also strip down the fuel systems and replace the fuel tubing with new tubing. I replace the fuel filter (or backwash it). I wash and lube the air filter. And I do a super thorough preflight and lube.
Afterward, using the radio system, I fully exercise the flight controls and ensure everything works, looks, and sounds like normal. Note; I'm old school and still lie to do what's called a range check. Some radios have a range check function where output power is reduced. Check your manual for the specifics as these broad directives aren't adequate for all RF systems.
I also carefully inspect the main and tail rotor blades for damage. Finally, I toss last season's radio on-off switch in the trash in favor of a new one ($10 insurance policy).
What's best practice with regard to charging the flight pack?
TL;DR - follow the manufacturer's instruction.
As a general rule, I avoid discharging batteries below 80% of their capacity. And with flight packs, try HARD not to use more than 60% capacity. Overly conservative? maybe, I'm relating what I o and recommend.
In practice, this means a Pantera equipped with a B2S5000 pack (battery, 2-cells in series, rated at 5000mA of capacity) never sees the charger report returning more than 3000mA back into the battery. Grade school math, which some can do perfectly well in their heads works out to 5000mA x 0.6 = 3000mA. Means 2000mA of overhead. Excessive?
Honestly? I'd rather put the pack on the field charger and wait whilst running my mouth with my pals than risk 'any' possibility of flying with a pack too close to empty. Then again, I'm more conservative today than John at 30 y/o, when I might well have flown out the limit of 80% of the capacity, leaving just 1000mA.
Can I fly my Pantera indoors?
TL;DR - can you? Yes! Should you? Maybe, you're a big boy, take what risks you desire. Put another way, not my monkey, not my circus so you do you. Me? I wouldn't!
That said, I've seen a fellow hover a Pantera within the confines of his garage. Yes, the double car garage door was wide open, and for my part, I was peering around the corner like the big chicken I am. And no, he didn't do it routinely, mostly I think he wanted to prove a point and maybe say he had. Whatever.
What about within a gymnasium? Again, maybe you will, but I only fly mine outdoors and advise you to do the same. But in America people have carte blanche to do stupid stuff, and I'm not your Daddy so you do you.
Just remember the wisdom of Tom Hanks' words in the movie Forrest Gump, when his character infamously uttered . . . 'Stupid is as stupid does!' and consider yourself warned.
I got a toy-like fixed-pitch heli at Walmart, when do I ditch it?
TL;DR - basically, once you're comfortable flying a fixed-pitch model helicopter and have learned fundamental flight maneuvers like take off, hovering (both tail-in, nose-in, at 45° angles, and side-on), perform pirouetting turns in both directions, and execute landings without a bounce, then yes, you’re probably ready to make the move to your all-weather model.
I field this question surprisingly often. Usually couched in the form of, 'When do I know I'm ready for a Pantera?' And the answer is invariably the same; once you can comfortably demonstrate mastery of the hover and slow maneuvers in both directions, you're pretty much done with that model as a tool because you've learned what it can teach you.
Here's the test;
Can you hover without the skids touch the ground for the entire flight pack?
Can you do three pirouette turns both clockwise and counterclockwise directions?
Can you slowly hover or fly the model away from you, come to a stop 20 feet away, make a 180° pirouetting turn, then hover/fly back back slowly toward yourself 'without' turning your body to look over your shoulder thus presenting the model as if it were going away from you?
Can you hover out a full battery pack with the model hose-toward you without skids touching?
Can you hover left-side toward yourself (nose left). What about in the opposite direction, nose right? Ditto 45° angles to yourself both away and toward yourself - so tail-first and nose-first, but at a 45° angle to yourself, both left and right sides?
Can you fly a hovering loop maneuver where where the model moves to your right, comes to pause after ten feet, now climbs 5-8 feet and pauses again, performs a 180° turn, then hovers back toward yourself, but now higher than when you began and past you about 1 feet again, then come to a pause, let the craft settle to the original maneuver entry altitude, pause again, execute a 180° pedal turn again so the model is oriented in the original direction, hover taxi slowly to where you began the maneuver with the hover, and settle in for touchdown? Can you do this in both directions?
Mastering a fixed-pitch model to this degree probably takes a few weeks of motivated effort. Some a bit faster, others a bit slower. I find simulator use is the key accelerator.
What are the most common errors you observe novice pilots making?
TL;DR - jumping straight to the Pantera before learning everything the toy plus simulator have to teach you.
This could be a 1000 word essay with no effort. I'll try and keep it short. Biggest mistake is assuming once you can hover the fixed-pitch toy helicopter you're ready for your Pantera. Maybe you are, but more likely you aren't.
If you're of a certain age then the phrase 'patience grasshopper' may resonate (70s vintage television series, Kung Fu). My point is, what's the hurry?
More to the point, the more time spent with the toy (mastering what it can teach), then the less time and money you'll spend repairing your Pantera. Trust me, enjoy that toy until you've wrung every possible lesson from it!
How do I adjust gyro sensitivity, and what is it I'm looking for?
TL;DR - too sensitive results in shaking. There are two principal conditions to check the gain is not too high; whilst hovering, and while in forward flight.
Gyro gain is a holdover term from the early days of radio and gain is the same as volume. So if the gain is too high on the television, this means the volume is too high. So when the volume is too high for the gyro, the response is a rapid side-to-side jittering motion. Lower the gain until it stops. Do the same whether it's in forward flight or just hovering. But these are general instructions, consult your equipment manual for the specifics steps.
What does bind mean?
TL;DR - check the manual of your specific brand of RF system regarding this topic.
In the early days of remote control models, any transmitter on a channel (frequency) would control another model on the same channel. This was such a big deal modelers collectively worked to impound their transmitters in a common area (sometimes informally in Larry's trunk) but more often in an entire structure built at the club field for this express purpose because interference from another transmitter would result in a crash as the receiver couldn't distinguish which transmitter it should listen to and often ended up 'listening' to the one closest. Not good.
In 1991, the AMA worked a deal with the government to give up a swath of 20 low frequency exclusive-use channels (again, individual frequencies) for 50 shared-use frequencies. And subsequently, they gave up those in favor of using frequency hopping equipment on a much higher range of frequencies, 2.4GHz, again, non-exclusive use.
These systems put paid the days of worry about transmitters creating a conflict and models crashing. I'm not criticizing the AMA decision to give up exclusive frequencies as hindsight is 20/20, stating the facts of how things went down. Point being, with the introduction of frequency hopping systems, we needed a way to tell a receiver to listen only to one specific transmitter. This process is called binding. To learn more, consult your specific RF system manual.
When do main or tail rotor blades need replacing?
TL;DR - pretty much any time they show ANY evidence of damage, e.g. nicks, delamination, or anything but perfectly like they were when brand new. This is the kind of stuff that can kill you so pay close attention to their condition.
What's the ideal place to fly my Pantera?
TL;DR - there's really no such thing as an ideal place but a 10 acre open field is about as good as it gets.
I've seen pilots hover within a 2-car garage. Pretty stupid stunt but that's pretty much the lower bounds of the volume in which you can possibly fly your Pantera. Once watched a guy put a Pantera through a full 3D routine, to include piroflips, ticktocks, slow rolls, and more within a high school gymnasium (he was janitor and yes, he had secured the principal's permission, believe it or not). I have outfitted my model with inflatable floats and flown off a lake, which is a trip to watch as the mode hover and you see just how far the doughnut ring extends.
Best however - in my opinion - is a 10-50 acre field of wheat or rapeseed. This, so in the event of a crash, it lands in something relatively soft-ish. Close to ideal as I can envision.
Is a governor necessary?
TL;DR - strictly speaking no. In the real world, it makes life easier as holding engine RPM near constant makes a gyro's life easier.
Back in the day (and transmitters 'still' have the programming to do this), modelers would tinker with pitch and throttle curves. Basically, full throttle, max pitch. Hover-pitch, about 60% throttle. Low-pitch, about 20% throttle opening. In fact, I do this with my own models before ever engaging the governor just on the off chance the gizmo bites the dust then I stand a reasonable chance of recovering my model.
In my little corner of the world, it's only been a fun exercise because I've never had the misfortune of experiencing governor failure. However, because I believe with all my heart in the words of Lord Baden-Power . . . be prepared (author of the Boy Scout Guide), I set up basic pitch/throttle curves to this day.
Anyway, two additional resources, first, your specific RF-equipment manual will have greater detail and second, Dr. Google is your friend if you're curious, but these are the basics.
Isn't a Blade 32mCPX better for indoor flight?
TL;DR - for most pilots, you need to temper what you think you'll get from a high performance Blade-type indoor model and reality. Saying it's my opinion you can learn everything you need before moving to an all-weather fighter from a $50-75 department store-grade toy-helicopter - but it's your money.
Basically, it's NOT my place to say buying a Blade, or not buying a Blade model is any of my business. But since opinions are like assholes in that we all have one, here's mine. And while admittedly, many will disagree, it's my opinion these uber capable indoor models are more of a toy than a tool and largely turn out to be a novelty soon relegated to a shelf.
So if you've got more money than God himself, why not buy one because seriously, who cares what I think? What's more, the more velocity of money within the economy benefits so you buying one is better for the country!
Also not saying they're completely a waste of money because some of us do have where to fly them, e.g. gymnasiums and other large open indoor venues like conference rooms, etc. Large enough to be practical. However, I don't and I only once knew a guy with gym access and that was a special occasion so otherwise, nobody I know has access to the required amount of space to really let fly with even a 180mm Blade model like a 32mCPX or Fusion 180s, but whatever, you do you.
Really saying motivating the purchase for most guys is the dream of flying in a hotel room with the panache of a YouTube star, but when facts rear their ugly head, this turns out to be nothing but mental masturbation. But your money, do what you want!
Just don't fool yourself into thinking you'll actually fly it indoors more than once or twice before your wife puts her foot down and relegates you to the garage, where first you'll have to move the cars! Just saying.
What do you think of a Fusion 360 as an intermediate step?
TL;DR - Fusion 360 models are incredibly advanced, but when flying outdoors in the real world, bigger is always better.
I get asked a lot about 425mm blade models (called 450-class for whatever reason, I no longer expect consistency in the world). I hold the same opinion about these as with the sweet little Fusion 360, which isn't a heck of a lot smaller and is so sophisticated they appeal to me, also. Don't.
And seemingly, I'm always asked my opinion about one as an intermediate step between toy-like fixed pitch model and an all-weather model like a Pantera. Bottom line? I've heard better ideas. Here's the thing; when fighting mother nature, bigger is better. Period.
Same reason <51Kg Manny Pacquiao in his prime (best Flyweight ever) wouldn't stand a chance against any Heavyweight ever. Putting him up against a +91Kg fighter like George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, or Mike Tyson would be ugly. Likely result in murder charges!
So just as those two fighters would be an unfair match, comparing a small collective pitch model to an all weather 600-class is similarly, no contest. Like maybe when when the wind is pretty calm, OK, but how often in your experience is it really calm? Do what you like, it's your money, but in the real world, these models are just too small to be your main fighter. Great second model, but much too light for fighting wind. It's just physics. Bigger is better.
Especially considering two things. First, one of these puppies is more than loose change in the couch cushions because it'll set you back a cool $540 (before you add in for a few battery packs, plus a decent charger). Second; it's marketed as a 'perfect first high-performance collective pitch helicopter for any intermediate heli pilot', which begs the question; are you already an intermediate pilot?
If you are, then why are you asking me, you know the answer! And if you're not, then it's my opinion because in the real world, the wind is always blowing too much smaller helis, you should pass on one of these until you have a season or two under your belt. After that, then one of these is crazy fun. Last thing, if you get one now, in a year or two when you're actually ready to enjoy it, it'll be two or three generations back and they'll have improved it. Bide your time, hold off. There's a reason 600-class helis are most popular!
What makes a 600mm the best size?
In truth there's no one best size model for everybody, but you can make some generalizations. For example, that a simulator plus a tiny fixed pitch model are great for practicing orientation and hovering are uncontested.
Also uncontested is this . . . the bigger the model, the better it flies. Of course, and no surprise, the flip side of bigger means these models also cost more. Meanwhile, collective pitch helis range from 180-700mm.
. . . but the three popular nitro engine classes of .37, .55. and 1.05ci correspond to 500, 600, and 700mm main rotor blades. And if you survey 100 flying fields, the most popular warhorse for day-in and day-out use is a 600-class model. By a wide margin, and it's not even close!
Basically, 600-class is the cross over for kit/repair prices, the cost of avionics, fuel consumption, blade prices, and enough size to be largely unaffected by winds that ground smaller model. This isn't a new trend but one that's developed over the course of decades!
600-class is historically the sweet spot for good reason.
Returns
So you've changed your mind and want a refund, or have a Product to return for repair? We make it simple, just call 407-302-3361 for an RMA number, and use it within the address below;
ProModeler RMA # 2255 Pine Way Sanford, FL 32773
And also use the RMA number on your note regarding package contents. Then be smart; insure the package against loss since it's not our responsibility until we get it. But be really smart and write the RMA number on the side of the box with a Sharpie and circle it. Won't mean anything to UPS or USPS but it will to us and your package gets expedited handling at the facility.
This may be the shortest Privacy Policy you'll ever read. It's short and sweet because one loaded with legalese and gotchas isn't our style. Basically, we view your doing business with us as a privilege and don't want to let you down.
However, doing business with us means we'll inevitably learn a little bit about you. Like your name and address, contact info like email and phone number, even what you bought and how you paid. We'll also know which pages of the website you visited, which products you put in your cart but didn't buy, plus techie stuff like which browser you use because we work to optimize the site for the major browsers.
What we won't know is enough of your credit card number to run a charge without permission, or your password to the site. As background, credit card numbers and password-data is hashed with a formula and why our site URL begins with https instead of http . . . a bit of inside baseball regarding how the added 's' means secure.
Point being, what information we have is for us to effectively do business, and it's private in the old fashioned sense, which means unless it's the long arm of the law doing the asking, we're not selling your data or sharing with anybody!
While both UPS and USPS truck runs noon-ish (meaning orders placed before 11:00 AM may get processed and shipped the same day), due to relying on boutique delivery methods, SDS is quoted upon request.
Service
USPS service include 1st Class, Priority, and Express. UPS offers Ground, Next Day, and 2nd Day service while SDS includes Commercial, Private, and Orbital. By way of an explainer;
Commercial is usually via Southwest - best to large cities, e.g. Orlando, FL to NY, NY or Los Angeles, CA
Private is via small aircraft - best for out of the way places, think Sanford, FL to Hanksville, UT
Orbital - via SpaceX - best to planet Earth - think in terms of the ISS, and soon, the moon and Mars, too!
Orbital, especially, is a great value for clients who don't blink at Mr. Musk's fee schedule beginning at $50M.
Note: SDS does not include a gratuity, but not rewarding front line staff who make things happen would be gauche.
Q&A
Why is there no free shipping?
It's our position so called Free Shipping is fundamentally unfair. And it's a fiction due to TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such things as a free lunch). Think about it, if we build shipping into the price, then because we're in FL, it means a guy in nearby GA who should pay less is effectively subsidizing the shipping cost of someone in CA (who being further away should be paying more). And it's unfair for locals who would be underwriting all mail order customers!
Can I get Insurance and Signature Confirmation
Yes, our optional services include Insurance and Signature Confirmation; here's the general added fee schedule;
Insurance - $2 for the first $100, and $1.50 for each additional $100
Signature confirmation is $4, while adult-signature confirmation is $7
We’ve been at this since 2002, and unbelievably to some, we continue offering spare parts for our first helicopter, the Tiger 50 (discontinued 2009). If nothing else, our good track record for support should put your mind at ease as you contemplate investing in our P6. That said, we don't promise to sell anything tomorrow because God determines our future. Added to which, we're keenly aware with whom you chose to do business, is entirely up to you. We welcome you to join our model family, and for more regarding our backstory, please continue reading.
ABOUT US
If you find yourself daydreaming about model helicopters at work, you're not alone. Maybe you're going to bed late at night with helis on the brain. Perhaps you dream about them, only to awaken in the morning with helicopters still on the brain! If so, then you may see yourself reflected in Audacity Models because we live and breathe model helicopters . . . just like you!
While founded in 2002, we actually have our genesis in a Cox toy helicopter I once got as a Christmas present. That, plus a set of magazine plans and instructions for a Superbird created by a fellow name of Ed Sweeney Jr. The toy and plans are strongly interrelated because together, they're what set us on this path. A winding path that has in inexorable fashion - in this instant in time - brought us together on the shores of Audacity Models!
Never thought of things this way? Never heard mention of this name? Then pretty much just like a present day iteration of Paul Harvey, kindly allow me to explain by sharing the rest of the story!
Setting the scene:
Let's wind the clock back more than 50 years to 1971, and I've received a Cox toy helicopter called Sky Jumper. Picture it as 13 y/o me receives what turns out to be the very last Christmas 'toy' I'd get from my parents. Clothes and practical gifts going forward. Point being, while I didn't know this would be my last toy, the clues were there because I'd already graduated from a primitive Tecumseh-powered minibike to a Suzuki motorcycle, and with girls increasingly on my mind, quite honestly, a toy helicopter wasn't top of brain.
- From an observation role to wounded transport
Let's see why it nevertheless came to influence me so strongly. And by the way, this particular Sky Jumper (they had others, including a green Huey, because Vietnam was ongoing) was loosely based on the famous Bell 47G. But instead of the same Army-green as the Huey, for whatever reason, they molded it in bright yellow. Somewhat strange considering M.A.S.H. had been Oscar-nominated 5X the previous year, and the rotary-wing aircraft, equipped with a litter on each side for use evacuating the wounded, was widely recognized . . . but I digress.
Sky Jumper: continued
Back to the model; the detailed injection molded airframe (complete with truss-type tail boom plus bubble canopy), had four somewhat droopy but airfoil shaped main rotor blades. And each main rotor blade was equipped with a tiny counterbalance (near the tip, on the bottom, protruding well past the leading edge). And strangely, affixed to the center hub of the main rotor assembly was a tiny Cox .020 nitro-powered engine. Note; whilst not my first experience with a Cox engine (their Dragster followed soon after by a control line PT-19, both with the bigger .049), this was by far the smallest displacement engine I'd ever encountered and I was mesmerized!
Why? Quite honestly I've been queer for engines since my first Cox-experience. And this teeny-tiny thing had me in its thrall. So the engine is actually what drew me into helicopters. And thanks to Cox's superb engineering and tight manufacturing tolerances, with a small prime, and a good battery, it immediately fired up with a spring assist starter and ran every bit as well as its bigger brothers.
- Torque reaction between .020 engine and its prop meant the Cox Sky Jumper flew amazingly well
On how torque counters torque:
So how did it fly with an engine attached to the top of the rotor disk? Propulsion was achieved via torque reaction. Way it worked is once the engine started, the engine spun the 4-1/2 inch diameter prop counterclockwise - like usual - and this created thrust. Then due to the engine's torque, the crankcase spun itself in the opposite direction (clockwise) and because the crankcase was fixed to the rotor disk, this caused the main rotors to spin, also creating thrust. The thrust off the prop and thrust from the rotor blades combined to allow soaring flight easily over 100 feet into the sky (limited by the engine run due to a minuscule fuel supply).
- Cox .020 affixed to the hub meant prop and engine spun in opposite directions
A zero sum game:
So because there's no torque to counter (because the spinning prop versus the engine making the main rotor blades rotate in the opposite direction, thus summing to zero and cancelling each other out), then the tail boom and rotor blades were purely decorative. They merely helped it weathervane into the wind. And in effect, with both sources of thrust on the same vector, this functioned thrust-wise exactly like today's tiny co-axial RC model helicopters!
Anyway, once you released it (the blades instead of drooping, rotated and thus, now arched upwards toward the sky), and with no method of control, your freely flying model helicopter was at the mercy of the wind. Fortunately, the fuel tank was tiny and the engine would shut down before it flew away completely and the helicopter then floated in for landing via autorotation - pretty as you please - because Cox had it all down to a science!
So it flew and sparked the imagination of legions of kids . . . me included! This, because I was absorbed by the tiny .020 engine, which I once dismounted to start and run whilst holding it in my fingers (yes, stupid). Anyway, as this 51-sec video shows, these things are still capturing hearts today. As for me? I was hooked for life!
Note;MECOA purchased Cox assets and trademarks in 2019, and today operating as Cox Models & Engines are your source for not only new Cox-engines and parts but amazingly, they are also offering some of the models. These, to include the Huey version of the Sky Jumper and PT-19 . . . brand new all over again!
Du-Bro Whirlybird 505
Different, but the same:
Our story picks up when in 1972 a mechanical genius by the name of Dave Grey developed a model he named Whirlybird. Hired soon after by Du-Bro, they eventually put his invention into production. And it used the exact same torque reaction method of propulsion as the Cox. Moreover, equipped with servos going through a swashplate and a tail rotor, plus a 20X larger displacement K&B .40 nitro engine mounted to the main rotor assembly, it flew decent.
By decent, meaning propulsion was accomplished exactly like the Sky Jumper. E.g. such that between prop thrust and rotor disk thrust, and with a total of four channels, you could control it in flight. Two-channels were for cyclic pitch and roll control (or elevator and aileron). A third channel was for controlling yaw (tail rotor), plus the fourth channel (throttle) for altitude. This meant flying up a storm with it. Primitive? Yes, but that it worked is indisputable!
- 4-channel Du-Bro Whirlybird, designed by Dave Grey introduced many to helis
Beggaring the imagination:
So just like that, the previous impossibility of my flying a model from anywhere (no runway required) had me (and many others) dreaming of a Whirlybird of my own. Alas, it wasn't meant to be because fixed wing was costly enough, so I knew I would never be able to afford a helicopter . . . until fortune intervened. You see, the rich guy in the club owned one. I was building Royal scale kits for Mr. Moreno and he liked me around because I could get the engine to run (everybody's not good with engines, but they like me). Point being, try as he might he couldn't get it to fly and following another of many crashes, in frustration he finally gave it a mighty boot. I know because I was there. Then later, apologizing for loosing his cool, he stuffed it in the trash.
Me? Bold as brass, I asked if I could have it and when he said, yes (he'd already scavanged the radio and engine), I salvaged the remains and scurried home with my prize. A huge stroke of luck followed when as providence would have it, not long after (days, weeks?), my December 1973 issue of American Aircraft Modeler magazine included a surprise; a conversion article regarding the Whirlybird! One for modding it into a totally different model called Superbird. And it was this model, Superbird, which was destined to become my first RC model helicopter!
Seeing is believing:
Anyway, because nothing is quite as convincing as seeing it fly with your own eyes, this YouTube link to my friend Steve Poretz flying his Whirlybird is the next best thing to being there.
Note; because Steve's doing this on his own (meaning nobody helping) and because the camera is on a tipod, then kindly overlook the fact the model occasionally wanders out of frame. Also, please realize this footage predates 4K resolution and 16:9 aspect ratios. I'm glad it exists!
Before moving on; the wah-wah-wah sound is the exhaust port rotating toward and away from the microphone on each revolution (Doppler effect in miniature). Also, I'm grateful Google has followed through on the promise of YouTube such that this rare footgage is available to us to watch! Especially as I've never actually seen a Whirlybird fly because my neighbor's would lift off and immediately crash. So this video is my only proof Whirlybirds actually fly!
Moreover, because nobody praises a Whirlybird for its high precision flight (and because I've only witnessed postflight chicken dances), then I'm really impressed by Steve's courage at being so near the darn thing!
Sweeney Superbird
Metamorphosis:
The Superbird was the creation of a fellow name of Ed Sweeney (founding publisher along with Bill Winter), as well as managing editor, of American Aircraft Modeler magazine. And it was based on the Whirlybird as invented by Dave Grey (then of Du-Bro). But critically, and unlike the Whirlybird, the Superbird relied instead on an engine with half the displacement to drive the main and tail rotor blades.
The engine was the famous Veco .19 and it drove the main rotors through a model car's centrifugal clutch and gear reduction through belt and cogged pulleys. So just like a modern day model, the engine directly drove the main rotors for propulsion, as well as the tail rotor to counter torque of this highly modded Whirlybird. Moreover, not just an all new drive train, but the main rotor head was also a totally new design!
And more than displaying incredible mechanical ingenuity (the rotor head is based on a hardware store turnbuckle), what resulted from a Superbird conversion was a far more agile 4-channel fixed-pitched model helicopter than the Whirlybird could ever hope to be. And not just better by a country mile in flight, all this whilst consuming about half the fuel, so by every measure, most definitely win-win!
- Line drawing of Superbird layout contained within 12/73 issue of American Aircraft Modeler magazine
Resources:
If you find this kind of stuff fascinating, then I have some material and resources for you. First, this is a link to my scanned copy of the article within the December issue of American Aircraft Modeler (yes, I'm such a pack rat I have the issue). This, to include the cover of the magazine featuring a full scale Pitts Special biplane, plus the 4th cover (the back cover), which featured an advert for the famous Yamada YS .60 pumped engine. I've included all this because a) I suspect many of you will find even the adverts interesting and b) some may want to build the model.
My next move involved setting to gathering up the bits and bobs required to convert the remains of my Whirlybird into a Superbird. Never has anyone devoured the written word with more enthusiasm as me because all I could think of was creating a Superbird like Ed's. Oh, if life were so simple! And note; I had no lathe or machine tools beyond a drill and file and thus, I turned to Mr. Willoughby, the metal shop teacher, whom I didn't really know. This, because interested in becoming an engineer, I'd opted to take mechanical drawing, instead! Yet despite this, he generously helped me anyway (and in a strange twist on fate, because I found the machine tools fascinating, this eventually put me on the path toward one day acquiring my own machine shop).
Anyway, then, as now, model helicopters weren't easy to fly. And while I (an affirmed hard head) eventually managed to piece a Superbird together, the flying of said model was another story. One that never came to be. You see, and quite honestly, it was a tale of failure after failure. This, usually because some part of the machine's tail rotor drive mechanism giving up due to the significant rotational forces (many years later I discovered my neighbor soldered together the components with 60/40 instead of silver solder).
Note; and coming as no surprise to the experienced helicopter-oriented modeler, once the tail drive itself was lost, or a tail rotor blade departed, the model crashed. The latter especially as it immediately led the now unbalanced assembly (with engine still screaming away) to strip the gears and immediately tackle itself (thereby performing a chicken dance whilst scattering components in all directions). Yet despite the setbacks, I'd patiently gather up the remains and being completely and utterly focused on getting it flying, I'd set about ordering parts to repair the model. Note, this sentence takes two minutes, but in real-time this process occupied nearly a year. Anyway, long story shortened, the last time I crashed it (didn't know it would be the last time, of course), I was lightly bloodied by a small piece of flying debris, which grazed my brow. At that, my Mom put her foot down.
Folks, if you're young and reading this, frightening your Mom is always bad juju. Thus, while Dad took me to get patched up (four small stitches), she destroyed my model with a broom (according to my grandmother). She then disposed of same, and despite my entreaties and endless pleading (she could give Sicilians lessons in omertà), she never told me where and that was that. From there, while subsequent life in the guise of motorcycles, girls, cars, university, marriage, job, and progeny were yet to come, the helicopter-hook was forever set.
However, what I really took away from the experience is this; no design is sacrosanct. Meaning 'anything' can be improved and thus, when I first heard the engineer's dictum (we stand on the shoulders of giants who precede us), I immediately flashed back to modding the Whirlybird into the Superbird.
Thus, Mr. Sweeney (whom I never met) is another who had an outsized impact on my life. Simply put, his example fixed the pattern for tinkering and iterating, which has defined my approach to this very day. Anyway, before moving on, let's briefly circle back around to how early helis evolved just before the Whirlybird.
The early days
In the late 1960s a German guy named Dieter Schlüter (RIP, 2021) began prototyping a collective pitch model helicopter using model airplane-type servos and nitro engine. To say he's the father of modern collective pitch RC model helicopters is not an exaggeration (and I was greatly saddened to learn of his passing a few years back).
- The father of model helicopters, Mr. Dieter Schlüter holding an example of his eponymous Heli-Baby
How helis came to be is an interesting story and in brief, by early 1971 (and following a 27 minute flight demonstration), Mr. Schlüter commercialized on his incredible technical achievement by introducing to the market a set of collective pitch model helicopter mechanics clothed by a fiberglass fuselage (Bell-Huey Cobra).
For context, at about this same time I was a kid just getting my feet wet with RC model airplanes.
- A young John Beech adjusting an elevator linkage on his Fox .59 powered Midwest Cardinal Squire model
Anyway, while Mr. Schlüter's personal interests were scale models, commercially, folks just wanted to fly a model helicopter. Meant looking like the real thing took short shrift. Recognizing this reality, he pivoted to what the market for model helicopters wanted, and released models like Heli-Baby, which if you squint sort of looked like a Hughes 300 (the model he's holding in the first photo).
This was followed by others like Mini-Boy, Superior, Champion, and Scout (the Scout II with System 88 being 'my' personal introduction to his products, this ca. 1990). Then came Futura, which you could equip with a 2-stroke, four-stroke, or gasoline engine, and finally, culminated with Millennium (a superb model, of which I own two). The latter, by the way, beneath the aegis of Robbe (which these days has abandoned helis altogether).
Meanwhile, another German company (Kavan), an American outfit (Du-Bro) and a Japanese company (Hirobo) were quickly on Schlüter's tail.
Out of the gate first was the 1972 Du-Bro Whirlybird. Du-Bro followed up with a scale model of the Hughes 300 the next year. This followed by a sport model called a Shark Tristar the next (1974) and which built on their Hughes 300 scale offerings with Hughes 500D and Enstrom F-28 fuselages. After 1976, with the introduction of the Shark 60 (with the O&R 60 engine), they threw in the towel for reasons of their own.
Also at about the same time (1972) Kavan showed off the Jet Ranger. Again, mechanics housed in a scale fuselage. This was actually the creation of work of German-engineer FW Biesterfeld for Mr. Fraz Kavan. I eventually owned several Kavan models, but not until the 1990s when I purchased the Jet Ranger 2nd hand and an Allouette and Lockheed 286L NIB (new in box). And I still own two Jet Ranger fuselages (both NIB).
Next on the scene were the Japanese (principally represented by Hirobo) who in 1976 brought an incredible scale offering, the Gazelle to market. Soon followed by Bell-47G, and even an astonishing achievement, a twin rotor Vertol. These, plus non-scale machines like 555 culminating in their Eagle for F3C competition.
Anyway, turns out what mostly sells in America are non-scale models. We prefer what in Europe is referred to as a 'trainer'. Basically a model with a canopy of some sorts to give the illusion of a heli, and nothing more. What's more, the trainer-type are all vaguely similar in design and appearance (derisevely called flying fishheads), and pretty much immediately recognizable to anybody who flies a present day model.
By this meaning they were comprised of two flat side frames, spaced apart by aluminum blocks holding bearings for the various shafts, plus engine and fuel tank. For example, in this next photo, if you exchanged the alloy side frames of this 1983 Schlüter Superior for a set of carbon side frames, then the basic look and layout of the model is largely the same as present day designs . . . +40 years after the fact!
Injection molded plastic:
However, and almost contemporaneously with the Superior, in 1985, with the introduction of a small thermoset plastic side frame model called a Shuttle 30, Hirobo stole a march on everybody in the flight training market. Basically, plastic was a game changer because compared to aluminum, it was tough and durable.
This, because instead of twisting out of shape on impact, plastic models tended to flex and bounce . . . thus, coming away largely unscathed! Added to which, by using an .28-size engine, they were far more thrifty to operate than a .61 class engine. So me saying the Shuttle was a game changer is not hyperbole.
So as Hirobo - deservedly - printed money selling Shuttles by the gazillions (their Shuttle literally became the hottest toy in the industry), others seeing their success jumped into the fray. Chief amongst these were other Japanese companies like Kalt and Kyosho.
The latter, especially, were famous for their injection molded model cars and trucks. Thus, using their expertise in injection molding, they introduce a design created by a brilliant engineer, a fellow name of Shigetada Taya. The model was the Concept 30 and it soon challenged the Shuttle for market dominance. And as an aside, it was seeing magazine advertisements for this, which led to my own purchase of a Concept 30 in 1989.
And just like that, my 15-year dormant desire to fly rotary wing models was awakened, once again! But before we go there, let's touch on a couple more things, flight training, and why plastic made such an impact.
Flight training
The tyranny of aluminum . . . it bends:
Today, plastic and carbon fiber models dominate but back in the day, all models were made of aluminum. So switching gears into reverse for a little bit, back then flying model helicopters (as they still are, today), were harder to master than fixed wing models. In fact, if you wanted to learn to fly a collective pitch model helicopter you typically bought a Schlüter Mini-Boy, Du-Bro Shark, or a Hirobo 555 . . . all comprised of all alloy-frames.
Then once you had it built, you basically taught yourself to hover and fly (no internet back then, either). What's unchanged is just like today, you were largely on your own because compared to model airplane guys, there just aren't as many folks interested in helis. Saying getting help was rare. And note; just as this predated the internet, all this was also before computer flight simulators existed!
So the one fly in the soup of alloy helis was this; it bends. So when you lost control, upon impact with the ground, these aluminum-based models immediately bent and twisted themselves out of shape. Let me tell you, straightening alloy is tricky and few guys could do it properly. Not whilst maintaining perfect gear alignment. Sure, straightening shafts is/was easier using V-blocks (and holding your tongue just right, always helps), but alloy frame parts mostly required replacement (not saying it was impossible to get them perfectly straight, just difficult). And close wasn't good enough because then the model would eat gears quickly.
Added to which, replacement parts were expensive and time consuming to obtain as you faxed your order in (no websites or email, yet). Point being, it could easily take a week before they actually shipped. Basically means without patience and a money pump, the average guy was pretty much priced out of the game. Or put another way, not heck of a lot has changed as regards some models and modelers!
Real point being this; plastic was a game changer because these things would often bounce and come back for more instead of becoming a twisted mess of aluminum, and if not totally undamaged, only be in need of rotating parts, blades, and tail boom (which are nearly always going to be damaged whether frames are called for, or not.
So let's touch on one other development, flight.
7-and-7:
So in parallel with all this, by the early 90s a new style of flight had developed in America called 3D. Led by a guy name of Mike Mas. He was the very first guy to ever fly switchless inverted using what he called a 7-and-7 setup (and these days, it's more like 9 each way due to the more powerful engines). This totally revolutionized RC model helicopter flight because before his innovation, flying inverted meant resorting to a switch on your transmitter to reverse the controls.
Switch? Yes, just like what it sounds. Basically, you'd roll inverted, flip a switch and then keep flying - as if the model were upright because with the flip of a switch the collective pitch and elevator servos were reversed. Anyway, in my view of things, this was cheating, but that's how inverted flight was accomplished back in the day.
So Mike's 7-and-7 setup changed all that. His idea was to put 0° at mid-stick instead of hovering at mid-stick. And then full collective of about 7° (max at the time for a 60-class model), and -7° for (min pitch). This meant, with his setup, you hover both upright (at about 5/8th stick) and inverted (at about 3/8-stick), and all without a switch. Revolutionary stuff!
Anyway, the next big thing was the arrival of a fellow name of Curtis Youngblood. And this Texan really put 3D on the map (along with an American company called Miniature Aircraft). Miniature, once the exclusive distributor of Schlüter’s models, came out with their own product, but now I digress and thus, let's move on because whilst all was happening, my interest in helis came to the fore once again.
Kyosho Concept 30
Our tale picks up in 1989, 15 years have passed since my adventure with the Sweeney Superbird - gone but not forgotten. And five years since Hirobo astonished the world with the Shuttle Z, the Japanese company Kyosho (until then, best known for fantastic injection molded RC cars and trucks) released their competitor to the Hirobo in the form of the Concept 30.
Magazine advertising soon cropped up, and just like that, the urge for rotary flight bit me once again. But this time, I was bitten so hard I've never stopped flying model helicopters despite the passage of several decades!
- The magazine advertisement, which both hooked and reeled me back into RC model helicopters
Anyway, and as I've mentioned, flying model helicopters is easier said, than done. But I persisted and one year, whilst in Birmingham, a fellow name of Gary Wright came to my aid. Seeing me struggling, he introduced himself and told me the engine RPMs were too low. Yup, me, accustomed to model airplanes had been tuning by ear, and with no optical tachometer, then sure enough, with too much main rotor blade pitch this was leading to the clutch shoes dragging (to the point of failure by overheating). And just like that he solved a mystery for why my model was going through so many clutches . . . it was down to operator error (aka, my fault).
After befriending me, and generous to a fault, because I could already hover, he set to getting me comfortable in forward flight by buddy-boxing my transmitter to his. Note; at this time he was flying for Robbe and was testing the very first Futura in the world. Yet despite being 'the' name-amongst-names, he made time for a nobody like me. Shows you the high caliber of the man, eh? For my part, I remain grateful to this day for his generous offer of help.
What's more, after telling me I should learn to hover nose-in, Gary introduced me to a computer flight simulator. This was my first initiation into software mimicking a model helicopter and used for training. Running on a PC powered by an Intel 486 (yes, a long time ago), said software was named R/C Skylark. And whilst the graphics were merely wireframe (utterly primitive by today's photorealistic standards), the physics of flight itself were 100% faithful to the real thing and thus, totally and utterly convincing. Ultimately, I had to have my own . . . and the disks are still kicking around here, somewhere!
Anyway, over the course of the next few years I'd settle into helicopter modeling with a succession of machines to include Shuttle ZX, Scout II, Kavan Jet Ranger, Concept 46VR, Concept 60SR, Enforcer 30, Nexus Legato (powered by an OS .52 Surpass 4-stroke engine), Venture 30, GMP Legend, Logo 20, and Millennium 60 - until something unexpected came into the market . . . the Thunder Tiger Raptor.
Thunder Tiger Raptor
When lightning strikes twice:
When 1997 rolled around, lightning struck again because Mr. Taya, now working for the Chinese company Thunder Tiger, released his latest design in the form of their new offering, the Raptor 30. Honestly? If you compare a Concept 30 and a Raptor 30 - both designed by Mr. Taya - share absolutely no similarities. Like nothing whatsoever is the same (beyond plastic single rotor helicopter along with a tail rotor for managing torque, plus blade size). Otherwise, zero similarities.
Anyway, it's my further opinion Mr. Taya is the most brilliant model helicopter designer to ever grace the planet. So the Raptor 30, once again a molded plastic fantastic, totally changed everything! But what especially differentiated this model from that of everybody else (think Shuttle ZX, Concept 30SX, Kalt Enforcer), was it had enough collective-pitch range to perform 3D maneuvers . . . right out of the box. And this is what the American market was crying out for because by then 3D was a thing.
So straight up, the Raptor 30 was another game changer. And for three years they ate the lunch of Hirobo, Kyosho, Kalt, and everybody else! Interestingly, what else was new was a business model that saw that heli being immediately upgraded with alloy parts, often before it had even flown! Anyway, it's fair to say the Raptor gave birth to the whole idea of 3rd party machine shops making upgrade parts.
And yes, Hirobo sold factory branded 'Gold' parts to upgrade their Shuttle from plastic to alloy (I briefly owned a Shuttle Gold, no plastic whatsoever). Love it until I sussed out an 8lb model, even when powered by the most powerful Enya .35 engine and tuned pipe fed 30% nitro was so much heavier than a plastic model (at about 6.5lbs), that it performed like a dog. Minor point being, I sold it to a pal who lusted for it (and in his stewardship it remains to this day). But the major point remains, which is the Hirobo product performed superbly without any 3rd party alloy bits and bobs while the Raptor 30 straight out of the box was basically a model most consumers viewed as necessitating upgrade parts to truly function well.
I know because I had one, and had a love hate relationship. Loved the design, hated having to buy upgrades right out of the box. Until that point, a Shuttle, Concept, or Enforcer did what the manufacturer said as delivered. No longer. And in the meantime, fate was about to throw me a curveball . . . a job offer!
Audacity Models Tiger 50
When fate intervenes:
In 2001 I get a call from Hyundai (yes, that Hyundai), or more accurately, someone in their plastic division (big company, finger in a lot of pies). Turns out Pat Crews (Editor-in-Chief at RCM) had recommend me as someone to write a technical manual. Flattered, my interest grew when they explained they needed a manual for a model helicopter they'd designed on spec for Japan Radio.
When I asked why they didn't just have Horizon do it, they explained JR (Horizon was their USA distributor) had turned down the design preferring instead, to stick with their existing Venture 30 design. While the Venture was plenty decent (I knew because I owned one), and basically the horse saddled by Horizon for making a run at the field of competing plastic fantastics (Thunder Tiger, Hirobo, and Kyosho), I immediate viewed it as a huge JR-misstep.
Reason was simple enough, and maybe hubris on my part, but I felt the sample I had in my hands was clearly a superior helicopter to the Venture 30 (not even close). Really saying; had marketing pros like Horizon had it in their hands instead of the Venture, it probably does way better in the market. But we'll never know and thus, I digress.
Recapping, the upshot was; they were waving money under my nose and I was loathe to turn them down.
- A solid flying 50-class with a mellow nature, the Tiger 50 found immediate success with modelers
Cutting to the chase, I began taking photos documenting the build and FWIW, their manual (in Korean, of which I don't read a lick), was actually a pretty useful guide. However, I could readily see where they really needed a native-English technical writer.
As it happens I'm pretty decent at this. This, in part for acing technical writing at university, but also due to once having had a stint as a math teacher. Allow me a brief birdwalk.
8th grade math:
As an aside, I became a teacher after selling my engineering company in 1991. Soon growing bored, and for want of something to do, I returned to university for the credentials for teaching math and science. Took a job as a middle school math teacher.
My role on the team of 60 educators at the middle school were the kids who had failed at math their whole lives. Kids themselves called it bobo-math (bobo being spanish for dummy). For my part I viewed it as a plum assignment because by 8th grade, you either turn them around or lose them forever. Others in the math department viewed my having the assignment as their having dodged a bullet. This, because the kids could be a handful (since they hated math). But I viewed it as a challenge, and enjoyed it while eventually growing to realize why so many educators ultimately leave the profession.
Easy decision because on a lark, I'd started a modest business part time. Once that took off I turned in my papers and put the classroom behind me. But let me tell you, it's a profession populated by better people than we deserve society-wise. That, and anyone says teaching is an easier gig than engineering and thus, deserving of less pay is full of shit.
Real point being, it's how I learned a thing or two regarding how to really teach. After all, writing a how-to manual is a form of teaching, thus closing the circle on the birdwalk.
- John and a group of his 8th grade math kids at Curundu Middle School ca. 1992
Behind the scenes:
Anyway, and circling back around to the helicopter, once the manual was done and I'd been paid, I moved on with life. But fate wasn't done with me as Hyundai subsequently called upon me once again. This time they hired me to help find them a distributor. Problem, was (and I didn't know it at the time) I was about to run into a brick wall.
And nothing to do with how good or bad the product is, just an obvious reality of business. In my defense, I'm trained in engineering, I wasn't a business major. So because I'd never tried managing the sale of a product line, and they knew this, I took on the job with the understanding they'd get my best without guarantee. That I didn't understand everything this would entail when I undertook the job was my lookout. Here's how it went down.
First, Horizon wasn't interested because they had their hands full with the JR helicopter lineup (and never knew the Tiger could have been theirs as a JR-branded product). And absolutely nothing to do with which helicopter was better or worse because from their viewpoint, taking on a similar line would be counterproductive. And as I learned, same held with Great Planes because they had Kyosho. Ditto MRC because they had Hirobo on their plate.
Similarly, I had an incredibly brief conversation with Ace (Thunder Tiger) with the same result. And when I reached out to United (the last of the majors, and the only one without a heli in their lineup), they said the helicopter market was too small and they weren't in tune with it. And finally, when I knocked on the door of Miniature Aircraft, since they totally looked down their nose at 'all' plastic helicopters, that conversation went nowhere fast, as well.
In a nutshell, I completely and utterly failed at the task of finding a US distributor for a pretty neat product. And to be honest, it left a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth. Nevertheless, I'd done the work to the best of my abilities. And to their credit, Hyundai ponied up the agreed upon sum despite the lack of positive results, and that was that. Or so I thought.
On the audacity of asking:
There's a reason beyond familiarity with mathematics (statistics) regarding why I don't buy lottery tickets. It's because I've already used up my entire lifetime quota of good luck. How's that?
Quite simple, actually. You see, after meeting Lynn, I instantly knew she was the one. And from that point on I did my darnest to win her over. Point being, after she eventually said yes, I've pretty much always figured I've bothered God, enough!
- John, wearing the shit eatin' grin of success after the 'I do' part of the ceremony concludes his pursuit
That said, and not to put too fine a point on it, but Audacity Models is entirely Lynn's fault. You see, she believed in me, and on her advice, I approached Hyundai inquiring on exactly what becoming the exclusive distributor would entail. Moreover, as had Lynn before them, when I asked if I'd be acceptable they said yes . . . and just like that, I'd gotten myself into another business!
As to the name Audacity Models, it's because after approaching my banker about a loan (and no surprise, beyond capital requirements, this meant a business plan), they quickly turned me down. Bad biz-plan? Not really, they're all pretty much the same. By this meaning you dissect the market, competitors, set goals, show how you'll achieve them, e.g. sales, money matters like prices, margins, income, expense, and importantly, how we pay the loan back, etc. There are books on the subject, it's not difficult.
Anyway, after a (very) brief look at the document and just a few minutes of conversation, his dismissive assessment was something along the lines of; 'Son I appreciate your enthusiasm and audacity in thinking you can take on these established players (Thunder Tiger, Hirobo, Kyosho, Kalt, et al.) but we're going to pass on this opportunity'. And just like that, he showed me the door. Start to finish 'maybe' 20 minutes at the bank. Saying not only did they not think much of my idea, but they wanted absolutely no part of it.
So that afternoon, after Lynn and I got home, we prayed on it. Then we put pencil to paper and looked at our net worth (cash on hand, my 401(k) after paying IRS penalties and taxes, plus mortgaging our home), and decided to make a go of it without the bank . . . yup, we made the deal anyway! As for our business name? That part was easy; when we went to register ourselves with the state (and still a bit chapped at being dismissively turned down, but clearly recalling the gist of the guy's words), we proudly became Audacity Models!
After all, if you don't believe in yourself, what do you believe in?
Tiger 50:
What followed was a bunch of hard work. Took until 2004 to launch the product. Honestly? A lot longer than I ever envisioned but we stayed the course. The model was christened Tiger 50 and maybe too cute by half, I included a set of sharks teeth on the decorative sticker sheet (thinking of the Curtis P-40 and the Flying Tigers over Indochina).
- With a sleek canopy design, and colorful stickers, the Tiger 50 resembled nothing else on the market
Regarding why I was so taken with the Flying Tigers? Simple, it's because I was girding our loins for war and Chennault's boys had faced impossible odds. They comported themselves well. That, and I just liked the name ever since I almost bought a Sunbeam Tiger, once. Oh, and quite honestly? Nothing whatsoever to do with Thunder Tiger because that incredibly obvious similarity never occurred to me.
Anyway, and maybe in part because I might be confident - but - I wasn't stupid, I knew good and well taking on the big guys wasn't going to be easy; I had been reading Sun Tzu. From this I realized winning means being smart. Also, that, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog. So under the guise of getting right mentally (it's said business is war) and because the mission of taking on established players wasn't going to be easy, I was overly influenced by martial thoughts and those sharks teeth appeared on the art work.
And speaking of artwork, these were our on initial magazine adverts for the Tiger 50.
Misstep #1:
Welp, the shark teeth stickers turned out to be a misstep. Totally dumb idea. You see, some people liked them, but way more people thought they looked ridiculous. Seriously, like they'd stop to see the model at a trade show and first words out of their mouths (before examining the mechanics beneath the canopy) was something along the lines of, 'What's with those weird looking shark teeth?'
Nope, I kid you not and I'll go to my grave believing someone with marketing chops, like Horizon, wouldn't have done the teeth. Chalk it up to lesson learned? Nah, we're not marketing types, we're engineers! So sure enough, we doubled down on dumb a few years later, but that's another story.
- Attending trade shows to show off the product, plus going to fun flies is how we got the word out
Anyway, the long and short of it, not only did the market speak, but amongst those who bought the model, many folks omitted the teeth when decorating the canopy. And some resorted to custom paint schemes for their canopy, instead!
- Shot at dusk, Bobby Smith's custom painted Tiger 50 really stands out during a high speed pass
So the decals were my fault but otherwise, pretty good looking model, isn't it? Little known fact; if you like the Tiger 50 look, this canopy fits the P6 also because we kept the mount-post spacing the same-same.
And by the way, as a true believer, I remain convinced this was a decent looking model. But it may just be like the mother of the world's ugliest baby proudly holding it up as an example of handsome. Dunno. Anyway, what's undisputed by anybody is this; it's a model, which flew and handled remarkably well.
- BJ Nichols' gorgeous Tiger 50, one of many great paint scheme photos accumulated over the years
So sales began auspiciously well but over time we discovered weaknesses in the Tiger 50 product.
For example, while solid for sport, and superb for learing to hover, the rotor head simply wasn't cut out for 3D. It just wouldn't hold up to abuse. Basically, hard flying pilots could bend the spindle at will. This meant we had to go back to the drawing board.
What resulted is the Tiger 50 Mark II.
Mark II
All this reads fast but in the real world, it takes time to sort out. The Mark II head has a larger spindle than the Tiger 50 head. Means larger bearings and dampers, also. Ditto the grips themselves are beefier. And the seesaw carrier is not only revised to give us both 70% and 100% ratios to make 3D easier, but the flybar diameter is increased 33% to make it stiffer plus the Hiller lever are drooped 15° to give more clearance for Bell input. Basically, it's an all new head and because the head is the heart of the model, it one of those things, which can't be rushed.
And not least because the previous iteration could be made to fail by pilots flying really hard. Fail as in tweaking the spindle shaft in flight. Blades would go out of track and it was time to replace the spindle when you landed. So because there were maneuvers (like where the pilot dives tail first at high speed and performs a violent pirouetting snap, the so called tail-ripper) which could fail the spindle shaft, then this wouldn't do.
This meant we needed to beat on and abuse the Mark II ourselves. Meant putting it in the hands of abusive pilots and asking them to have a go at making it fail. So there's a guy who flies harder than anyone on the planet. Name of Henry Caldwell. Reputation for breaking shit. Critically, he's one of the pilots who helped us because our thinking was, if Henry can't break it, nobody can. Major point being, if the new head was going to fail, it would do so before it saw the light of day in customer's hands because the market (meaning pilots like you) will forgive a mistake once, but not twice in a row.
Another bite of the apple
Anyway, we released the Tiger 50 Mark II in the spring of 2005. This next photo shows off the results of our hard work, the Mark II rotor head assembly. The final product had bigger spindle, bigger grips, bigger bearings, harder dampers, bigger flybar, and revised seesaw. And it's a sweetheart in flight!
- The Mark II main rotor head got it right
Darkest before the dawn
Only thing is, all through 2006 sales decelerated . . . right through 4th quarter. Beginning in the spring, it was like the phone lines had been cut. Spindles bending in flight will do that, don't you know? And let me tell you something else, developing the new head was taking serious money. Lots.
But at the same time we're investing, the pace of sales were slowing. Went from our assembling enough kits to fill a container every two months (6/year) down to 3/year by the end of 2006. Then it got worse as 2007 ended up at two containers for the year. Honestly? We weren't built for these kinds of numbers. Things got to the point making payroll became dicey because we'd already cut what we could expense-wise. So cutting further meant letting people go, or maybe turning off the lights. Then it got worse.
2008 looked to be a one container year and then the second half it perked up a little bit. Ended up 1-1/2 containers for the year (down from 6). Then 2009 was a tiny bit better, also (the half-container from 2007, plus two more). Was this light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe. Anyway, we ended 2009 with three containers as well and for all intents and purposes, we had staunched the bleeding and there was definitely an economic upswing ongoing, but let me tell you something, there was a time in 2007 going into 2009 when I was feeling I'd made the wrong bet.
And not just that the guy at the bank was right, and I was wrong, but that I'd let everyone down. Worse, from a personal standpoint, going from owing nobody, to owing everybody under the sun (because I'd hocked the house and both cars) was disheartening. Note; and to her great credit, Lynn never flinched. There was no woulda, coulda, shoulda and she 'stood by her man' with her usual calm savoir faire. Anyway, we ended 2009 with every possession that wasn't nailed down, in hock, or sold to raise money. That, 'and' I was in debt up to my eyeballs. But the phones had begun ringing and containers were flowing, again.
These days we look back and refer to this time as the Great Recession. People always talk about coming out of it in 2009 but for us, it wasn't until 2009 when things 'began' turning around. The real recession years for us were the stretch beginning in 2005 because of the spindle issue, and healing took time. Business didn't really get cracking again until 2013. But of course, this wasn't just the recession's fault.
Regardless, believe me when I say, sometimes being in business for yourself sucks! Moreover, like I said, there were business reasons it took until 2013 for things to get going really well again, lots of reasons. And one of the guys who helped guide me was a Texan name of Ron Lund,
Ron Lund
'I can fly anything I want but the Pantera is my favorite for rolling circles and shooting autos.'
Allow me to speak to the quality of this man. For example, he loved to shoot autorotations (how helicopters glide to a landing without propulsion power). Like maybe the best God put on the planet at shooting them. They frightened me until I'd done one and realized, 'That's all there is to it?' and shot a few more. Had a total blast! Turns out, like everything else, managing potential energy to a spot landing is easy with a bit of practice!
Anyway, Ron flew west in 2020 and I was blessed to have known him. Took a shine to me and shared business insight regarding the best approach with Pantera. Huge factor in our surviving the Great Recession of 2009 (else we're not be here to tell the story). But when things were darkest, I'm glad I had his counsel. He not only liked the design, but gave me advice from the heart.
Guy who knew more than any ten people in the sport about running a helicopter hobby shop freely shared his thoughts with me. Honestly? Without his advice, maybe we don't make it. Anyway, his thoughts boiled down to these three things;
Bring sales in-house (cease selling through hobby shops).
Invest in improving the model.
Vertically integrate, like Align.
I implemented them all and the last point, vertical integration? That was a masterstroke by Align. You'd buy a combo and in one box, besides your model helicopter, you had everything needed to complete it, and all branded Align. Those guys were so strong even the engine carried their brand! As did the servos, gyro, blades, muffler (everything but the exhaust's bark). This last only missing because one of the sharpest guys alive, never bothered selling Align-branded fuel!
In a nutshell
Recapping, and as regards the Great Recession, we felt it coming on early because folks are always going to pay their bills before buying toys. And credit where it's due, my friend Ron Lund helped us through the bad times we encountered. I'm speaking of economic times so bad folks were losing their homes, and jingle mail referred to mailing in the keys before the bank repossessed it.
So at a time when our very survival was at stake, I'm not ashamed to admit things got touch and go (like taking out a 2nd mortgage just to make payroll). Anyway, we also owe a debt of gratitude to folks who stuck by us.
- When it comes to customers sharing photos, and showering us with praise, it can't be bought - it's priceless!
Recapping - Tiger 50 Mk II:
So I did what I always do, I tinkered and worked to make the model better. The major improvement was creating the larger Mk II main rotor head with larger grips, spindle shaft, and bearings. However, while Tiger Mk II sales were decent, Thunder Tiger hadn't been standing in place and their Raptor 50 V2 introduced a split gear drive train allowing autorotations with a driven tail rotor. Game changer once again - sigh!
In summary, our original idea was to offer an inexpensive plastic fantastic, but one powered by a .50 class engine instead of a 30-class because the difference in cost was nil. Our thinking was slotting it in besides the 30-class models price-wise would give us an edge. And it did, so our intent of attacking the flight training market on the theory that offering a larger model would give us an edge because it also meant better for handling what mother nature threw at you wind-wise, worked.
However, while it was a good theory, in practice, once the industry's big boys improved their own models, our window of opportunity began closing. And in brutal honestly, when flown hard, weaknesses in our Tiger 50 design revealed themselves. In short, it meant going back to the drawing board . . . again!
Finally, the important thing from a business viewpoint was this; the whole while we're losing our ass. Why? It's not just because of the expense of developing and bringing to market the Mk II rotor head, and it's not just down to slowing sales due to our own missteps. Neither is it just because of poor economic conditions. Instead, it's because at the same time, we're digging into our pockets and taking on debt for new molds. For what purpose? Pantera 50.
Pantera 50
Fast forward to the middle of 2006. We've been up to our necks in not just developing and bringing to market the Tiger Mk II main rotor head for 2005 but at the same time, laying the foundation for the next step, what would become the next generation model, the Pantera 50. Why not Tiger Mk III? Simple, to move away from the Tiger name due to Thunder Tiger.
Our print adverts showed faces, but not famous faces. Instead, we featured regular guys. In this one, Nick Crego, a commercial pilot by vocation, with an avocation of flying RC model helicopters. A friend to this day!
Anyway, our goal was clear; to offer a product capable of going up against the Raptor 50 V2 and Sceadu Evo 50 with a shot at earning your business. This meant we needed innovations like split gear drive to enable a driven tail during autorotations. Not that mere mortals needed this feature - but - the hot dogs at the fun flies loved showing off by performing aerobatic maneuvers during autorotations. And of course, people being people this meant monkey-see, monkey-do (meaning 'we the people' lusted for this, too). Human nature.
- Pantera 50 helped guys get into 3D, here Dag Roppe of MN shared a photo of having a go at inverted hovering!
Reaching deep
So we swallowed hard and made the commitment to the Pantera design. Meant new frame molds (really large and super expensive). We also refined the gear ratio (from 8.9: 1 to 8.7:1) to better accomodate the greater torque of the larger displacement engines, so this meant molds for new gears, also! Plus, of course, we also went to a split gear driven tail solution, so this meant another gear mold. Then while we were at it, we also increased the tail gear ratio to 5.33:1 to speed up the tail rotor blades to kick things up a notch, so yet another mold. Also, we created a new fuel tank (larger for thirstier engines), as well as ponied up for a new canopy mold. So of course, this also meant new stickers (plus new box art).
On top of all this, we innovated a little bit by designing an air filter assembly. This, to improve engine service life. Basically, we're of the opinion engines are too darn expensive to prematurely wear them out by allowing them to needlessly ingest dust and grit. Of course, if you're made of money, there's no need for an air filter!
- Anyone saying an air filter isn't smart for protecting your engine investment isn't the one paying!
Pulling the trigger
Anyway, it was mid-2006 when we made the decision to produce the first batch of Pantera models . . . this, while Tiger sales are dropping off a cliff due to competition plus the general slowdown known as the Great Recession! Anyway, believe me in this, if nothing else, when I say this was a real gut check moment (because it meant delving deeper into our financial assets 'and meant taking still on more debt), I'm not kidding.
And while I swallowed hard for this one, here's the bottom line; we felt good about it. Basically, producing the Pantera 50 felt like the right thing to do right from the get-go.
- Chris Gregory of Resaca, GA having a blast flying his Pantera 50 way down low on a screaming high speed pass!
Ignorance is bliss
So because our focus was solely on improving our model (so we could better compete with Thunder Tiger, Hirobo, Kyosho, and Kalt), we missed the big picture of what was happening around us economically.
Anyway, I didn't have a clue the housing crisis was coming, but then again, if I could predict the future I'd own the world. Major point being, investing at the same time as sales are falling is not a happy time for any business on this planet. Yet such was the strength of our conviction in what we were doing, we did it anyway - with our eyes wide open.
And while the Pantera ultimately turned out to be very good for us because at last we had a worthy competitor to Hirobo Sceadu and Raptor 50 V2, there was a problem brewing. You see, we were so focused on the competitors right before our eyes, we weren't watching our six. Oops!
Basically, we were about to get bitch slapped silly by the T-REX 600 release. Here's how this came about.
figure
- Juxtaposed side-by-side are a Pantera P6 and T-REX 600, both similar lengthwise but P6 is deeper/chestier
Align T-REX 600
As we're attended fun flies to promote the model in 2005, we saw something interesting developing. And not just at fun flies, but also at events like the Nationals. Basically, when they weren't flying the machines they were there to represent, team pilots were playing around with a tiny model taking the country by storm, the Align T-REX 450.
Cute as a bug, this little thing had the world's best pilots farting around with it. This, despite team orders not to. Why? Just because it was tremendous fun. And when regular people are seeing the pros having fun with the 450, then they wanted one, too (even if we couldn't piroflip within a 2-car garage).
End result? This flooded Align with cash, which they promptly reinvested into the dagger aka, the T-REX 600. And folks, that product was like pulling the pin and tossing a hand grenade amongst Thunder Tiger, Hirobo, Kyosho, Kalt, and us. In fact, it was just as bad for the big boys like Bergen, Miniature, Robbe, and TSK.
Basically the shit hit the fan because what made the T-REX 600 special was being made of carbon fiber at a great price. Price due to China's über competitive cost structure. This put it $200 above 600mm plastic fantastics, and $600-1500 below the big boy 700mm models.
And do you recall what I mentioned regarding size; e.g. a 600 is significantly more capable than a 525mm bird in wind, being for all practical intents, just as good as a 700mm in the real world? Then as a practical matter, what an inexpensive 600-class carbon fiber model meant is everybody flying a 600 and Jones-ing for an X-Cell 700 (but who really couldn't afford it), saw themselves clear to get one. So they eeked out an extra 200 bucks beyond a Sceadu or Raptor 50 to afford the carbon fiber T-REX 600, and at the same time, they were getting enough heli to give up virtually nothing performance-wise 'and also at the same time, they got to feel virtuous for not ponying up an extra dough for a 700-class model. So this instantly put not only us (but everybody else offering plastic helis) in a pickle, and the big guys. Seriously, I am not overstating what Align did to the whole industry with the T-REX models. It was a genius move to get your foot in the door with a 450, and then follow up with a 600 and 700 model. But they had advantages the rest of us didn't.
Note; what follows is NOT a political statement, it's just laying out the facts. China's entry in the WTO at the end of 2001 saw them ramp up to sell to the west beginning in 2002. And as had happened with Japan in the 1970s, (where people dismissed their stuff as 'Japanese junk' only to see Japanese products become world class), well those with their eyes open saw the same happening with China. So while idiots dismissed their stuff as 'cheap Chinese chit', those in the know saw Chinese people's superb work ethic and ever improving manufacturing prowess, doing the same thing as had Japan before them (just take an Apple iPhone, Made in China, as proof). Moreover, ever eager for bargains, consumers world wide voted with their wallet.
However, what business in Taiwan could do better than anybody else in the orient (where the Japanese hate South Koreans and Chinese, and vice versa, they're hated in turn), recapping, what the Han Chinese in Taiwan could do better than anyone else is engage with the Han Chinese in the PRC, aka China. This was a huge economic advantage. Huge!
So in short, it wasn't just the Great Recession that threw us for a loop, but also the T-REX 600 that hurt our sales. Heck, they hurt everybody making a plastic fantastic to include us, Hirobo, Thunder Tiger, Mikado, Kalt, et al. Honestly? Our only two advantages were size and price.
Size-wise, a Pantera is significantly larger than the T-REX 600 at half the price. Bigger than a Raptor, bigger than pretty much any competing 600-class model. Yet in further honesty, the T-REX 600 beats our ass in 3D precisely 'because' it's smaller and lighter. This makes it more agile same as a halfback can side step a tackle a fullback powers through on the football field. So if 3D is your thing, then it was game, set, match in favor of Align.
Fortunately, there are folks in the know, for whom a larger size still mattered and thus, while things got grim for a while, we held on and gamely fought back.
- While smaller and lighter is important for 3D, the Pantera platform has advantages for sport and scale
Copy cats
And seeing the success of Align, Chinese companies by the dozens entered the fray. Brands would appear out of nowhere, and disappear just as fast. And woe is you for buying into the hype of something new because now, parts for nearly all of these are nowhere to be found. Basically, you hold an orphan. Moreover, the way savvy modelers see thing, the model can be made of gold but without parts . . . it's not worth a pound of salt!
Anyway, beyond Align, brands like Tarot, SYMA, Lynx, Kasama, Vison, Ely-Q, Vision, Airhog, Chaos, Quick, RJX, Frenzy, TZ, HK, Compass, Evolution, and many more made a run at the market. Along the way, existing brands died ot faded, veneral names like JR died off stateside, Hirobo faded, Mikado went away, MSH dies, also. As for the rest? Mostly they folded their tent and stole away in the night.
These days the SAb Goblin dominates in the 3D world. Others like Tron, Goosky, and XLPower have sprung up trying to unseat them. Us? We're still standing.
And importantly, we continue offering spare parts for our model going all the way back to the original Tiger 50. Is this important? Only if you're trying to find parts for an orphan like, for example, a Venture 50, or any of the many brands/models mentioned above . Basically, without repair parts you're pretty much dead in the water.
What's more, remember the plan developed with Ron Lund? We've didn't sit, we addressed all three points. First, we've continued to iterate and our latest, the P6 is a darned solid offering. Second, we followed his advice and brought sales in-house. And third, perhaps most importantly, we diversified the business by vertical integration. Thus, in addition to the P6 model, the servos, blades, muffler, gyro, electric motor, and ESC through our ProModeler brand.
And then two interesting things happened along the way. First, the model airplane guys discovered the servos and loved them so much that business took off like a rocket. And second, we developed a new customer for the P6, a mutual Uncle, so to speak.So let's move forward in time to the P6.
Pantera P6
On iterating in the quest for perfection
Ever noticed how a classic Porsche 911 looks very much like a brand new Porsche 911 model? It's because Porsche constantly iterate their product instead of tossing everything out and beginning all over again.
Similarly, and ripping a page out of their design language, we do the very same thing. We iterate on what works and it's why if you eyeball our first model, the Tiger 50 introduced in 2004, the Mk II in 2006, the Pantera 50, which we brought forth in 2009, all the way through our current production P6, the heritage is obvious.
- The model which started it all, this Tiger 50 shows off the layout and configuration, which preceded the P6
Maturity
Basically, as technology matures, it leaves nothing to improve. It's that, or throw everything away and begin with a blank sheet of paper.
But if you focus on improving anything until it's as perfect as you can make it, then at some point you're done. Moreover, helis aren't alone in this; think safety pin, bobby pin, and Bic pens . . . unchanged for decades as they have achieve their perfect form.
Anyway, it's our opinion the P6 has pretty much arrived at this stage; perfection. It took us 2 years to go from the Tiger 50 to the 50 Mk II in 2006. Another three years saw us iterate upon the Tiger's basic layout and design to create the Pantera 50. Then another six years to get to Pantera P6 in 2015.
Since then? Nothing really is very much changed. Sure, we're on the Mk II of the P6 but the changes are minor like making provisions for installing a molded fuel shut off. The surface finish is different because we put the side frames on a diet. But otherwise, we've created batch after batch after batch ever since.
If we have an advantage, it because a) the model flies superbly, plus b) the facts are we've long ago amortized our molds. This affords us a tremendous price advantage. But in truth, if I knew what else to do to make it better, I'd spend more money on the design in a heartbeat - if - only I could make it genuinely better.
So in truth, I feel we're at peak design. We don't really know what else we can do - other than continue fiddling around the edges - like new canopy and stickers. This, because fundamentally, the model's design is very, very mature.
That said, we haven't been standing still.
Diversifying our market
To begin, around 2020 saw new interest in our P6 gather steam. What was different? Defense contractors began buying our P6. We think it was for two reasons.
First, and most important, because single-rotor helicopters are a lot quieter than quad-copter drones. This is a big deal when you're trying to be stealthy and perform surveillance missions. Toward that aim we developed Big Bird, a 700-stretch conversion to permit low rotor speed flight (~1000RPM). The P6 is very, very silent at this kind of rotor speed.
The second advantage, once which carbon models can't overcome is just because we use injection molded plastic construction. Basically, because the P6 snaps together and self-aligns as it goes together, it means assembly is more rapid and doesn't require a as skilled a labor force.
And while easy assembly is important to virgin helicopter modelers, it's a really big deal to contractors when they have to assemble 100 models lickity-split. Reason being, self-aligning construction means less time and the old saw about time is money is actually true. Yup, money rules!
So at Audacity Models our business focus shifted from modelers, who remain interested in 3D (an area where we weren't ever contenders), to focusing on a customer for whom rapid fire assembly and low price are top of mind. Beginners, sportsmen, and our mutual Uncle. And no, while quick and easy is not sexy, it's a living and we've been quite content to pump out batch after batch of our well developed model in order to satisfy their demand. Pays the bills, capisce?
Meanwhile, and proving the world is round (what goes around, comes around) in recent years we've seen a modeler's resurgence in interest in nitro-powered models. Yup, the pendulum swings and tacoing $150 lithium packs gets old. So while electric is not dead by any stretch of the imagination, nitro is definitely experiencing a renewed surge in interest, once again. Proof being all our competitors have 600 and 700-class nitro models in their lineup!
And interestingly, the bloom seems to have fallen off the rose as regards 3D as well because instead of folks asking about the prowess of the P6 at performing 3D maneuvers, prudent buyers are asking about the supply of spare parts, how easy it is to repair, and practical matters like these. Basicaly, folks seem more interested in how well it flies for sport and training and what it's like to live with day in, day out.
And in this regard, a P6 remains absolutely world class!
Where to from here?
Meanwhile, fully grokking the P6 is mature; we've also toyed around with the idea of a carbon fiber side frame design. The basic blueprint is to make the P6 lighter and thus, more agile. This is easy enough as the fundamental of model helicopter designs are largely unchanged since the mid-80s - two flat sheets of material (once upon a time alloy aluminum, these days, carbon fiber), using bearing blocks and engine mount to space them apart. Nothing new about it.
Problems? Very real ones. Truth is we can't possibly compete with China on a cost basis, so even if we produced a great carbon-based model, they'd still eat our lunch. Anyway, this is one of many, many carbon fiber prototypes we've noodled.
- With thoughts of a lightweight contender, one of many prototypes for a possible carbon fiber P6 replacement
Show me the money
That said - right now - simply because we've amortized our mold costs - we have a tremendous advantage cost-wise over everybody. It's why you can buy our 600-class model for just $400 instead of having to pony up $800-1000 like you would for a competing carbon fiber nitro powered model.
Note; competing models don't inherently fly any better or worse than ours. Carbon fiber does allow their models to be lighter, but they're also lighter because they're significantly smaller physically, almost 550-models with stretched booms.
And yes, lighter definitely conveys greater agility but when flown at the exact same weight, then no matter what, if you fit the same blades, turn them at the same RPMs, and use the same gyro . . . they fly same-same. This isn't an opinion, it's physics!
Yes, I'm saying you should try hard to ignore the words of online keyboard warriors expressing their opinions (and the same holds for magazine advertisements featuring sponsored pilots). Remember, companies spend big money putting their marketing message in the mouths of paid pilots. This, in hopes of influencing people like you. Ths is why we showcase the words of real people, the ones reaching into their own pockets . . . those sponsored by MasterCard!
Anyway, advertising and promotion costs are part of why competitive products cost more. We basically don't advertise and the payoff for you is a less costly model. Yes, I'm saying you should rely on your brains to realize the physics of model helicopters apply to everybody the exact same way.
What else?
Electric Pantera
We've also given thought to a native electric version of the Pantera. This next photo shows a positive for what the molded side frames would look like. A positive is literally us hogging out the finished part from a solid billet of 6061-T6 aircraft aluminum to stand in for a molded part, which doesn't yet exist. This, so we can test for fitment of various component parts.
In short, it's a prototype and while we admit it looks neat, an alloy frame like this won't 'ever' be in the cards not least because it alone costs about $500 to make. That, and it would be much too heavy compared to polymer.
- CNC machined from a solid billet of 6061-T6 alloy, this positive stands in for a potential molded frame set design
Wrap up
In summary, one of the biggest things we did beside stay on top of developing the model was making the effort to vertically integrate on the advice of my friend Ron Lund. This led us to develop a stand along lineup of accesories.
For various reason, instead of blindly following Align and using the Audacity Models brand, we chose instead to branded after a brand we alredy had called ProModeler. And amongst all these, what really took off were the servos, which today are world class.
As for the P6, it's doing rather well. This, principally not due to modelers who largely went gaga for 3D air frames but because of Uncle Sam. Basically, we were discovered to offer a solution to a noise problem. One, which we've exploited. It's a niche market not filled by quad-rotor drones . . . silence. No, not truly silent, but single-rotor helicopters have a far more discrete sound signature than that loud droning-sound quadcopters make. Added to which, the advent of autonomous systems like ArduPilot make helis as easy as drones!
And another thing, which worked out strongly in our favor is this; the snap-together self-aligning nature of our polymer warrior is viewed favorably in an environment where the desire to assemble airframes quickly and more easily than fussy carbon fiber models, reigns. This is viewed as a tremendous benefit as technicans who aren't hobbyists can throw them together quickly and easily with no muss, no fuss.
This, simply due to having fewer parts. So as it turns out, our have two large side frames, which incorporate servo mounts, cooling shroud, fuel and engine mounts, attach points for landing gear and supports without needing extra bits and bobs is an important competitive advantage.
As for us? We're making the best of it because for any of our competitors to make a run at our bit of the market, they'll first have to pony up for very expensive molds. So we sit here, kind of the mountain because we amortized our molds years ago! Give us a serious price advanatge and instead of hiking proces, we sit tight and play the role of low cost supplier to the hilt.
What's this mean for you? Simple, you get a great deal on a wonderfully flying model. And for us? It's nice to be back again turning higher volumes and moving many containers of models again . . . win-win!
Closing thoughts
So here we are; the P6 is a model that flies great, has good size and presence, and most importantly for many, gets you in the game on the cheap. And interestingly for many of you, you have more choices propulsion-wise than with any other model on the planet.
Build your P6 for a 55-class nitro engine, select from 61-105 big block engines, 91-125 four strokes, or a 115 gasser. Plus, you have the choice of an easy peasy flybar head so you get away with a <$100 gyro, or build it flybarless . . . all depending on what you prefer.
Heck, I almost forgot, you may even opt for our fantastic four-blade Quattro rotor head assembly. Or co-opting the Burger King slogan, have it your way!
figure
