Fantastic video Bryan! I was sitting on the fence with this one (I still have one of the OG 1.3m Cherokees), and your review just might push me over the top. I really like the whole idea behind the slightly smaller prop, and although I'm not keen on the paint scheme, I'm enough of a GA fan (and Cherokee fan in particular) to look past that given the model's various upgrades, which you clearly show are actually very well thought out. Blue skies and happy landings my friend!
Thank you!! I too was a bit on the fence about replacing one of my existing Cherokees with the new one since my original has been doing so good. With hundreds of flights on the airframe, I knew that the accumulated stress on the nose gear meant it was only a matter of time before I was going to need to replace the plastic tube for the nose strut. When the new one was being developed and the nose gear was a major item to be redesigned for easier maintenance, my mind was made up then. Picking the trim scheme wasn't easy. A lot of us gathered hundreds of pictures of Cherokees to review. I walked around EAA Oshkosh and photographed dozens for review. In the end, we picked one that we all thought was pretty good. Perhaps not exactly what we all wanted, but also one that we all didn't want. I was torn on the prop being smaller as I loved the original one, but now that I have one of each on the table, I don't mind the smaller prop and the performance improvements are enough to get me excited to try it out and compare to the original. The better material spec for the prop adapter is welcome news as I have broken too many of the originals. There was a fine line between just tight enough to keep the collet on the prop shaft and just enough to break the threaded part. I have found both limits too many times. In all, the total number of little updates and improvements really make the Cherokee more of a winner than it was before. I am also happy it is sticking around in the portfolio. Thankfully the guy in charge of the portfolio just happens to love the Cherokee and could put up enough of a compelling case to save the plane. I might give that guy a beer tonight after work. ;)
@@BRGT350 Thank you so much Bryan for taking the immense amount of time for the the very in-depth and revealing reply! I am grateful for that and can't wait to get my hands on this new and very much improved Cherokee. Thank goodness there are folks like you, true aviation enthusiasts, working hard behind the scenes! Blue skies and all the best to you my friend!!
It has been good to restructure the portfolio group with a team that is far more familiar with the hobby than previously. While the vocal minority is all upset about the refreshes, I am in favor of them as it keeps product fresh and in the portfolio vs a short run of a product and then off to something totally different. I am working on keeping products available longer, assuming they make good business sense. Sometimes the situation is out of my control or the market just didn't accept a product and it has to go away. With the Cherokee, the case could be made to refresh and keep it.
It's a great plane and I'd like to see many more flights! I'm not seeing anything new except what I do and I'm only doing video occasionally. It would be great to have more out there. I hope you do more on the plane!
You can get pretty close using the fuel filler caps. I would suggest just forward of the caps and then flying the plane to make your adjustments from there. I think just in front of the caps is about where the rear most of the manual's suggested CG range is. A slightly rear biased CG with a reduced stabilator rate is my preference on the Cherokee. That makes it easier to flare on landing, which prevents nose gear damage. I have to double check, but I think my assigned elevator rate is around 60-65% with 30-40% expo. That really softens up the stab to keep it from being too sensitive, which works well when having a slightly rear biased CG as that can make the plane more sensitive in pitch.
The spring loaded strut is the same as it was on the V1 and V1.5 Cherokee. What changed was the tiller arm on the top of the strut assembly. Before, you could only access the retention screw from the top, which is blocked by the fuselage. Now the screw can be reached from the horizontal position and you don't have to cut into the fuselage to service the nose gear. I find it easy to transport fully assembled in my Ford Fiesta. Since there are very few cars smaller or with less room, transportation shouldn't be an issue. Unless you have a Miata. I don't remove the wings for transport as the plane fits just fine fully assembled. I do need to watch to make sure I don't bump the stabilator or the extra antennas I added.
One of my favorites as well! I have 2 of the originals with one repainted blue/white and the other is the stock scheme as shown in the video. I will get all 3 of them together later this spring. I "might" be doing some scale updates to the new Cherokee while I wait for flying season to start.
I am not sure, but can check into it. I know you need a specific switch assigned to it on the transmitter. I thought the instructions on setting it up where in the manual, but never looked much at what is written since I don't use reverse on my planes. I should set it up as I have found it works awesome for brakes when landing on a fabric or paved runway and the plane is going to roll off the end into the thick grass. That is a nose gear killer.
great video again and my question is . i see you can change the prop on the new one to the old one. does the same go for the stabilator and front gear assembly. can they be put in the old one? the reason is that i kinda like the red one but i would love to upgrade it.
Thanks! The nose gear could probably be changed over, but of course you would have a tough time removing the original gear. If the original nose gear broke to where the plastic tube and steering horn separated, then it would be easier to upgrade to the new design. As for the stabilator, that one may be tougher as I think the hinge part on the fuselage is contained within the fuselage halves, making it tough to replace. Plus the hinge mechanism isn't sold outside of the replacement fuselage, so it would be an expensive upgrade. For me personally, I wouldn't bother with the hinge upgrade on the stabilator. I would do the nose gear if the original one broke or needed replacement. I am not sure if I would do the prop or not. Once flying season starts, I will compare the new prop to the old one and see if I like one better. I like the scale look and proportions of the original prop, but also wouldn't mind the extra ground clearance when flying from the grass. I would surely get the new prop adapter for my original Cherokees as I have broke 2 already when tightening the nut. The new prop adapter tightened up much better without having any concern over the material. That is on my upgrade list for my two original Cherokees. Looking forward to getting all 3 of my Cherokees together this spring. I am not sure in the long run if I will keep my red/white one or not, but surely will do in the short term.
I would upgrade the prop or nose gear if you have a problem with the original and need to replace one of them. That is what I plan to do with my original Cherokees. If a part needs to be replaced, then I will look at the new versions.
I have both the V1 and the V2 Cherokee and they are both very good flyers . I also fly mine on a 3300 4s and a 4000 4s with zero problems. My only complaint is with the V1 and its rotten nose gear . Like he said if you tweak it ,it is very hard to fix without cutting it open and it bends easy when you get a hard landing .
yeah, it isn't very forgiving to hard landings. Although because of that, it really forces you to make every landing a good one and use good technique to keep from damaging the nose. I have 4 total Cherokees now and never had an issue with the gear.
This is a great video, I have been loving my blue Cherokee since I got it and have been craving the red one. I was afraid of the possibility of having to deal with a nose gear issue. Is it possible to replace the nose gear in the red one with the new and improved nose gear in the blue one? What about the rear stabilator? Could the one from the new replace the one on the old?
Thank you! I am just wrapping some scale details on my blue Cherokee and will hopefully film the video this weekend. Just glued the last parts together this morning. As for the nose gear, yes, you can swap over the parts from the blue one to the red one. I wouldn't do that until you needed to replace it as it isn't easy to get the gear apart on the red one. I have a lot of flights on my original red Cherokee and the nose gear is still in good shape, although I have some cracking around the bearing on the bottom of the fuselage. For the stabilator hinge, it isn't swappable between versions. Unless you are flying full power on 4S and coming out of high speed dives, the stabilator on the red one is fine. The only pilots complaining about flutter were ones flying very aggressive on 4S. The Cherokee isn't that kind of plane, so they were basically exceeding the flight envelope and getting flutter. One part that I will be changing over on my old Cherokees from the new one is the cockpit. The new pilot and plastic covering over the instrument panel are so much nicer.
Thank you! I will have a follow-up video later this week on getting the plane setup for the maiden flight. I am hoping the weather continues to improve in Michigan so I can get out and fly it sooner than normal. Typically, flying season doesn't start until late April or May.
It is actually pretty easy. The plug-in type of wing connectors are actually standard servo plugs that are held in place with a plastic retainer. There is a screw that holds the plug to the retainer and screws hold the retainer to the foam wing. To replace the servo, you remove the retainer from the wing with 2 screws, remove the screw retaining the servo plug, pull the plastic cover off the servo, remove the servo retainer screws, and then remove the servo. I would tie a string to the old servo plug before you remove it from the wing so you can then tie that string to the new servo wire and pull it through the wing. I replaced the servos on my original Cherokee with metal gear ones and the process was pretty easy.
@@BRGT350 Thank you for that info, a great help. So when you order the servo are there different length leads for the aileron and flap servos as they seem to have the same part numbers?
The factory installed servos have different length wires, but replacements don't. So you will need an extension for the aileron servos, but the flap servos are close enough to the wing root where you don't need an extension.
Have you flown the older Cherokee with the new smaller prop on a 3S-2200mah battery? If so how was the performance? Do you think a 4S-2200mah is necessary? Didn't want to get it off the ground and find I'm severely lacking in power with the smaller prop and 3S-2200mah. Thks
Yeah, I have hundreds of flights on a pair of original E-flite Cherokees with mostly a 2200 3S 30C and a few with a 3300 3S 30C. Performance was outstanding with no trouble getting into the air on grass or a fabric runway. Almost all the flights were from grass as the fabric runway was only recently installed. I see no need for 4S as the performance is ideal on a 3S pack. I would classify the performance on 3S to be much beyond scale. I would check the health of your batteries if you are having trouble getting the plane into the air. Are you at high altitude? That can play a role as well. I have flown on some really old 2200 3S packs and don't notice too much performance drop on a single engine, but really see it on a twin. My Twin Otter has a few packs that are a no-go due to the batteries being too old to give the power needed. I haven't ever had that with my Cherokee, but know it can happen. I haven't tried putting the new prop on the original Cherokee, but the performance should be equal to the new Cherokee as the motor is the same. The ESC is updated to give more head room with 4S and to get telemetry, but it isn't a performance increase. The new Cherokee prop should give a significant boost in performance over the original due to the higher pitch.
I recently ordered a new Cherokee. Just 30 minutes ago, I was thinking "what is different between this one and the previous one"; did an internet search red vs blue efltie cherokee, and this came up!!! Very useful. Unrelated question for author, does BRGT350 refer to a british racing green GT350? Because I don't think Mustang was ever available in BRG; Ivy, moss, dark Ivy, Highland, Grabber, Anti Establishment, but no BRG
I am glad I could help out! BRGT350 is for my initials and then my car, although my Mustang isn't a real GT350. I picked that name as my email address back in the old AOL days in 1994 and been using it ever since. You are correct that British Racing Green wasn't used on the Mustang. Lots of greens over the years, but not British Racing Green. Congrats on ordering your Cherokee! It is a wonderful airplane and you will enjoy it.
Thanks, I try. I am by no means and expert, but grew up around Cherokees, Archers, and Arrows plus I have 2 other E-flite Cherokees with a lot flights on them. Hoping my experiences will help others.
Hi, i saw a Brian philips video, where he flew 25 minutes with the cirrus on a 3200 4s battery. do you think, that the cherokee can do the same flight time on a 3200 4s? which of the planes is more stable? cirrus or cherokee? also to me it seems the cirrus is much quieter especially on full throttle. is it because of the 3 blade propeller vs. the 2 bladed propeller of the cherokee? thanks!
I am not totally sure I buy into Phillips claims, but I also don't have 4 hours to watch one of his videos. That seems very long for a flight time. I fly the Cirrus on a 2700 4S and can get a good 8 minutes or so out of the pack and that is flying a bit sporty. I land with a good amount of battery left. Where I fly, we only get about 10 minutes max of flight time due the dual use of the field with full scale aircraft and a skydiving operation, so I haven't ever found the limit of the Cirrus flight time. For the Cherokee, I fly my original on a 2200 3S and get 8-10 minutes out of those, but I fly my Cherokee very scale and powered back. I haven't flown the new one, but it is more efficient due to the prop and power system compared to my original ones. The 2-blade will be louder than a 3, but I doubt it will be very noticeable. As far as stability, they are both about the same. I find the Cirrus easier to land than the Cherokee due to the high aspect ratio wing of the Cirrus makes the flare easier where the Hershey bar wing on the Cherokee tends to stay in ground effect longer, which is exactly what the full scale ones do.
$299.99 for the BNF Basic that includes the power system, receiver that connects to DSMX protocol, and servos installed. Assembly time takes about 10-15 minutes and then it is ready to go. www.horizonhobby.com/product/cherokee-1.3m-bnf-basic-with-as3x-and-safe-select/EFL05450.html
First shipment should be arriving very soon, but I don't have an exact date. Original ship date was estimated to be this week. I have not heard if they shipment has arrived yet or not. I can check on Monday and find out.
I have a red Cherokee on my wall i have not been brave enough to fly, i have crashed one timber turbo umx and almost crashed a second as soon as i turned safe off i dont want to make squirrel bedding out of this beautiful plane
Probably best to wait on the Cherokee. I would suggest the 1.1m T-28 for the first low-wing tricycle gear plane as it is far more forgiving. You will need to master the art of flaring on landing before trying out the Cherokee. Landing on the nose gear will most likely cause damage to the nose gear on the Cherokee and fixing it isn't easy. The Cherokee isn't tough to fly, but needs really good landing technique to avoid damage.
Thanks and yeah, that pilot in the original looks a bit sketchy! I might buy another spare cockpit for the new Cherokee and use it on my original ones. That way I get the better looking pilot and the cover over the foam instrument panel.
I think it is a requirement to have them in pairs and it has your registration numbers on the fuselage. I really don't need 3 Cherokees, but I am going to really think about keeping the original red one. I do like that scheme. One idea was to keep the same mask but replace the red with dark blue. Another was to use my grandfather's scheme, but it had too much bare foam and was hard to get the mask around the canopy and fuselage. Since I am not going to repaint the new Cherokee, I am looking at possibly creating some 3D printed scale details for the plane, including an instrument panel and yokes. Haven't decided which yoke design to go with. The 1960's vintage that looks like a pretzel or the U shaped ones. Flying my grandfather's 1966 Cherokee last summer was the first time with the pretzel yokes and the push/pull throttle. That was unique.
Awesome! That will be a huge help as I am working on trying to understand the model year changes better. I have basically been going on Trade-A-Plane and looking at each year Cherokee and seeing what is different. That isn't always the best as planes get updated over time. From what I can tell, the 1962/63 Cherokee 160 and 180 used the same cowl and single tip exhaust vs 1964 when the 180 had a different cowl and dual exhaust with a fairing around the leading edge and sides. If that is indeed correct, and what a I am working on verifying, then I should be able to make my E-flite Cherokee into a 180 with some changes to the graphics. I want to replace the red Cherokee 160 script with something in silver to make it look more like an early Cherokee, which gives me a chance to change it from a 160 to 180. I am working on the cockpit detailing as well, but not sure if I will design the original "rams horn" yokes or the more modern U shaped ones. May just come down to which I can design in CAD easier. Thanks again for passing along that video!
@@BRGT350 I just knew you,d be the guy to appreciate all the small but signifigant changes of the Piper Cherokee Models thru the year changes. I always wish eflite would have released a larger version of the Parkzone Archer 2 that was a great flying little plane and on 3s was a rocket ship just needed to be bigger
You guessed right! That video is a huge help. There were a lot of changes to the PA-28 airframe since it was introduced. I still have 2 of the old Parkzone Archers, both with the gear removed and painted to match my grandfather's Arrows. They don't fly as much as they should, but I will change that this year. They are awesome flying models. I would love to have a 1.5m Piper Arrow with the tapered wing and retractable landing gear. Scale wise, it would probably be similar to the 1.3m Cherokee due to the longer tapered wing vs Hershey bar wing. Just not sure the market wants another PA-28, but maybe there are some opportunities elsewhere in the portfolio. Smaller or wood perhaps.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic video Bryan! I was sitting on the fence with this one (I still have one of the OG 1.3m Cherokees), and your review just might push me over the top. I really like the whole idea behind the slightly smaller prop, and although I'm not keen on the paint scheme, I'm enough of a GA fan (and Cherokee fan in particular) to look past that given the model's various upgrades, which you clearly show are actually very well thought out. Blue skies and happy landings my friend!
Thank you!! I too was a bit on the fence about replacing one of my existing Cherokees with the new one since my original has been doing so good. With hundreds of flights on the airframe, I knew that the accumulated stress on the nose gear meant it was only a matter of time before I was going to need to replace the plastic tube for the nose strut. When the new one was being developed and the nose gear was a major item to be redesigned for easier maintenance, my mind was made up then. Picking the trim scheme wasn't easy. A lot of us gathered hundreds of pictures of Cherokees to review. I walked around EAA Oshkosh and photographed dozens for review. In the end, we picked one that we all thought was pretty good. Perhaps not exactly what we all wanted, but also one that we all didn't want. I was torn on the prop being smaller as I loved the original one, but now that I have one of each on the table, I don't mind the smaller prop and the performance improvements are enough to get me excited to try it out and compare to the original. The better material spec for the prop adapter is welcome news as I have broken too many of the originals. There was a fine line between just tight enough to keep the collet on the prop shaft and just enough to break the threaded part. I have found both limits too many times. In all, the total number of little updates and improvements really make the Cherokee more of a winner than it was before. I am also happy it is sticking around in the portfolio. Thankfully the guy in charge of the portfolio just happens to love the Cherokee and could put up enough of a compelling case to save the plane. I might give that guy a beer tonight after work. ;)
@@BRGT350 Thank you so much Bryan for taking the immense amount of time for the the very in-depth and revealing reply! I am grateful for that and can't wait to get my hands on this new and very much improved Cherokee. Thank goodness there are folks like you, true aviation enthusiasts, working hard behind the scenes! Blue skies and all the best to you my friend!!
It has been good to restructure the portfolio group with a team that is far more familiar with the hobby than previously. While the vocal minority is all upset about the refreshes, I am in favor of them as it keeps product fresh and in the portfolio vs a short run of a product and then off to something totally different. I am working on keeping products available longer, assuming they make good business sense. Sometimes the situation is out of my control or the market just didn't accept a product and it has to go away. With the Cherokee, the case could be made to refresh and keep it.
It's a great plane and I'd like to see many more flights! I'm not seeing anything new except what I do and I'm only doing video occasionally. It would be great to have more out there. I hope you do more on the plane!
Nice video! Hoping to see this one at the field this summer!
Thanks Matt, I too am looking forward to getting it out to the field and flying it.
Cant wait to get my hands on one
Can you still use the fuel filler caps on the on the top of the wings to turn over and get the CG?
You can get pretty close using the fuel filler caps. I would suggest just forward of the caps and then flying the plane to make your adjustments from there. I think just in front of the caps is about where the rear most of the manual's suggested CG range is. A slightly rear biased CG with a reduced stabilator rate is my preference on the Cherokee. That makes it easier to flare on landing, which prevents nose gear damage. I have to double check, but I think my assigned elevator rate is around 60-65% with 30-40% expo. That really softens up the stab to keep it from being too sensitive, which works well when having a slightly rear biased CG as that can make the plane more sensitive in pitch.
Well done... appreciate the humor...is the spring loaded nose gear an upgrade? Also, how easy is it to transport?
The spring loaded strut is the same as it was on the V1 and V1.5 Cherokee. What changed was the tiller arm on the top of the strut assembly. Before, you could only access the retention screw from the top, which is blocked by the fuselage. Now the screw can be reached from the horizontal position and you don't have to cut into the fuselage to service the nose gear. I find it easy to transport fully assembled in my Ford Fiesta. Since there are very few cars smaller or with less room, transportation shouldn't be an issue. Unless you have a Miata. I don't remove the wings for transport as the plane fits just fine fully assembled. I do need to watch to make sure I don't bump the stabilator or the extra antennas I added.
I have the original Red Cherokee and love it one of my favorite planes!
One of my favorites as well! I have 2 of the originals with one repainted blue/white and the other is the stock scheme as shown in the video. I will get all 3 of them together later this spring. I "might" be doing some scale updates to the new Cherokee while I wait for flying season to start.
How is a motor reverse set up on a PNP with an AR620? Does it need a separate channel, or assignment to a specific switch on the transmitter?
I am not sure, but can check into it. I know you need a specific switch assigned to it on the transmitter. I thought the instructions on setting it up where in the manual, but never looked much at what is written since I don't use reverse on my planes. I should set it up as I have found it works awesome for brakes when landing on a fabric or paved runway and the plane is going to roll off the end into the thick grass. That is a nose gear killer.
great video again and my question is . i see you can change the prop on the new one to the old one. does the same go for the stabilator and front gear assembly. can they be put in the old one? the reason is that i kinda like the red one but i would love to upgrade it.
Thanks! The nose gear could probably be changed over, but of course you would have a tough time removing the original gear. If the original nose gear broke to where the plastic tube and steering horn separated, then it would be easier to upgrade to the new design. As for the stabilator, that one may be tougher as I think the hinge part on the fuselage is contained within the fuselage halves, making it tough to replace. Plus the hinge mechanism isn't sold outside of the replacement fuselage, so it would be an expensive upgrade. For me personally, I wouldn't bother with the hinge upgrade on the stabilator. I would do the nose gear if the original one broke or needed replacement. I am not sure if I would do the prop or not. Once flying season starts, I will compare the new prop to the old one and see if I like one better. I like the scale look and proportions of the original prop, but also wouldn't mind the extra ground clearance when flying from the grass. I would surely get the new prop adapter for my original Cherokees as I have broke 2 already when tightening the nut. The new prop adapter tightened up much better without having any concern over the material. That is on my upgrade list for my two original Cherokees. Looking forward to getting all 3 of my Cherokees together this spring. I am not sure in the long run if I will keep my red/white one or not, but surely will do in the short term.
Yes I figured. I was like a normal Rc flyer lookin for upgrades and the like but I like mine the way it is lol
I would upgrade the prop or nose gear if you have a problem with the original and need to replace one of them. That is what I plan to do with my original Cherokees. If a part needs to be replaced, then I will look at the new versions.
I have both the V1 and the V2 Cherokee and they are both very good flyers . I also fly mine on a 3300 4s and a 4000 4s with zero problems. My only complaint is with the V1 and its rotten nose gear . Like he said if you tweak it ,it is very hard to fix without cutting it open and it bends easy when you get a hard landing .
yeah, it isn't very forgiving to hard landings. Although because of that, it really forces you to make every landing a good one and use good technique to keep from damaging the nose. I have 4 total Cherokees now and never had an issue with the gear.
This is a great video, I have been loving my blue Cherokee since I got it and have been craving the red one. I was afraid of the possibility of having to deal with a nose gear issue. Is it possible to replace the nose gear in the red one with the new and improved nose gear in the blue one? What about the rear stabilator? Could the one from the new replace the one on the old?
Thank you! I am just wrapping some scale details on my blue Cherokee and will hopefully film the video this weekend. Just glued the last parts together this morning. As for the nose gear, yes, you can swap over the parts from the blue one to the red one. I wouldn't do that until you needed to replace it as it isn't easy to get the gear apart on the red one. I have a lot of flights on my original red Cherokee and the nose gear is still in good shape, although I have some cracking around the bearing on the bottom of the fuselage. For the stabilator hinge, it isn't swappable between versions. Unless you are flying full power on 4S and coming out of high speed dives, the stabilator on the red one is fine. The only pilots complaining about flutter were ones flying very aggressive on 4S. The Cherokee isn't that kind of plane, so they were basically exceeding the flight envelope and getting flutter. One part that I will be changing over on my old Cherokees from the new one is the cockpit. The new pilot and plastic covering over the instrument panel are so much nicer.
Informative video, well done!
Thank you! I will have a follow-up video later this week on getting the plane setup for the maiden flight. I am hoping the weather continues to improve in Michigan so I can get out and fly it sooner than normal. Typically, flying season doesn't start until late April or May.
Just curious, how do you replace a wing servo when the wing is a plug in type like on the new Cherokee?
It is actually pretty easy. The plug-in type of wing connectors are actually standard servo plugs that are held in place with a plastic retainer. There is a screw that holds the plug to the retainer and screws hold the retainer to the foam wing. To replace the servo, you remove the retainer from the wing with 2 screws, remove the screw retaining the servo plug, pull the plastic cover off the servo, remove the servo retainer screws, and then remove the servo. I would tie a string to the old servo plug before you remove it from the wing so you can then tie that string to the new servo wire and pull it through the wing. I replaced the servos on my original Cherokee with metal gear ones and the process was pretty easy.
@@BRGT350 Thank you for that info, a great help. So when you order the servo are there different length leads for the aileron and flap servos as they seem to have the same part numbers?
The factory installed servos have different length wires, but replacements don't. So you will need an extension for the aileron servos, but the flap servos are close enough to the wing root where you don't need an extension.
That's great, thank you for your reply and help, appreciate it .
no problem, happy to help out.
Have you flown the older Cherokee with the new smaller prop on a 3S-2200mah battery? If so how was the performance? Do you think a 4S-2200mah is necessary? Didn't want to get it off the ground and find I'm severely lacking in power with the smaller prop and 3S-2200mah. Thks
Yeah, I have hundreds of flights on a pair of original E-flite Cherokees with mostly a 2200 3S 30C and a few with a 3300 3S 30C. Performance was outstanding with no trouble getting into the air on grass or a fabric runway. Almost all the flights were from grass as the fabric runway was only recently installed. I see no need for 4S as the performance is ideal on a 3S pack. I would classify the performance on 3S to be much beyond scale. I would check the health of your batteries if you are having trouble getting the plane into the air. Are you at high altitude? That can play a role as well. I have flown on some really old 2200 3S packs and don't notice too much performance drop on a single engine, but really see it on a twin. My Twin Otter has a few packs that are a no-go due to the batteries being too old to give the power needed. I haven't ever had that with my Cherokee, but know it can happen. I haven't tried putting the new prop on the original Cherokee, but the performance should be equal to the new Cherokee as the motor is the same. The ESC is updated to give more head room with 4S and to get telemetry, but it isn't a performance increase. The new Cherokee prop should give a significant boost in performance over the original due to the higher pitch.
I recently ordered a new Cherokee. Just 30 minutes ago, I was thinking "what is different between this one and the previous one"; did an internet search red vs blue efltie cherokee, and this came up!!! Very useful.
Unrelated question for author, does BRGT350 refer to a british racing green GT350? Because I don't think Mustang was ever available in BRG; Ivy, moss, dark Ivy, Highland, Grabber, Anti Establishment, but no BRG
I am glad I could help out! BRGT350 is for my initials and then my car, although my Mustang isn't a real GT350. I picked that name as my email address back in the old AOL days in 1994 and been using it ever since. You are correct that British Racing Green wasn't used on the Mustang. Lots of greens over the years, but not British Racing Green. Congrats on ordering your Cherokee! It is a wonderful airplane and you will enjoy it.
Very nice video. You know your Cherokee's!
Thanks, I try. I am by no means and expert, but grew up around Cherokees, Archers, and Arrows plus I have 2 other E-flite Cherokees with a lot flights on them. Hoping my experiences will help others.
Hi, i saw a Brian philips video, where he flew 25 minutes with the cirrus on a 3200 4s battery. do you think, that the cherokee can do the same flight time on a 3200 4s? which of the planes is more stable? cirrus or cherokee? also to me it seems the cirrus is much quieter especially on full throttle. is it because of the 3 blade propeller vs. the 2 bladed propeller of the cherokee? thanks!
I am not totally sure I buy into Phillips claims, but I also don't have 4 hours to watch one of his videos. That seems very long for a flight time. I fly the Cirrus on a 2700 4S and can get a good 8 minutes or so out of the pack and that is flying a bit sporty. I land with a good amount of battery left. Where I fly, we only get about 10 minutes max of flight time due the dual use of the field with full scale aircraft and a skydiving operation, so I haven't ever found the limit of the Cirrus flight time. For the Cherokee, I fly my original on a 2200 3S and get 8-10 minutes out of those, but I fly my Cherokee very scale and powered back. I haven't flown the new one, but it is more efficient due to the prop and power system compared to my original ones. The 2-blade will be louder than a 3, but I doubt it will be very noticeable. As far as stability, they are both about the same. I find the Cirrus easier to land than the Cherokee due to the high aspect ratio wing of the Cirrus makes the flare easier where the Hershey bar wing on the Cherokee tends to stay in ground effect longer, which is exactly what the full scale ones do.
@@BRGT350 thank you very much for that information!
Will the new cockpit retrofit to the old Cherokee?
yep, no problem using the new cockpit on the original Cherokee. Take advantage of the updated pilot figure and plastic instrument panel cover as well.
Great looking airplane and a great video.
Thanks! I have been busy working on some additional scale details and will get a follow-up video done when the plane is ready.
How much does it cost. Will it bond with a dsx transmitter? Are all the servos in place?
$299.99 for the BNF Basic that includes the power system, receiver that connects to DSMX protocol, and servos installed. Assembly time takes about 10-15 minutes and then it is ready to go. www.horizonhobby.com/product/cherokee-1.3m-bnf-basic-with-as3x-and-safe-select/EFL05450.html
When are they releasing it?
First shipment should be arriving very soon, but I don't have an exact date. Original ship date was estimated to be this week. I have not heard if they shipment has arrived yet or not. I can check on Monday and find out.
@@BRGT350 That would be great then Thank You
should hopefully start shipping at the end of the week.
I have a red Cherokee on my wall i have not been brave enough to fly, i have crashed one timber turbo umx and almost crashed a second as soon as i turned safe off i dont want to make squirrel bedding out of this beautiful plane
Probably best to wait on the Cherokee. I would suggest the 1.1m T-28 for the first low-wing tricycle gear plane as it is far more forgiving. You will need to master the art of flaring on landing before trying out the Cherokee. Landing on the nose gear will most likely cause damage to the nose gear on the Cherokee and fixing it isn't easy. The Cherokee isn't tough to fly, but needs really good landing technique to avoid damage.
I think the prop is shorter than the old one.
correct, as mentioned in the video.
Great video. Nice comparison between the Old Red and the New Blue. The pilots tho lol. The Old Red pilot...the Toxic Avengers brother lol
Thanks and yeah, that pilot in the original looks a bit sketchy! I might buy another spare cockpit for the new Cherokee and use it on my original ones. That way I get the better looking pilot and the cover over the foam instrument panel.
So Beautiful think ill buy 2
I think it is a requirement to have them in pairs and it has your registration numbers on the fuselage. I really don't need 3 Cherokees, but I am going to really think about keeping the original red one. I do like that scheme. One idea was to keep the same mask but replace the red with dark blue. Another was to use my grandfather's scheme, but it had too much bare foam and was hard to get the mask around the canopy and fuselage. Since I am not going to repaint the new Cherokee, I am looking at possibly creating some 3D printed scale details for the plane, including an instrument panel and yokes. Haven't decided which yoke design to go with. The 1960's vintage that looks like a pretzel or the U shaped ones. Flying my grandfather's 1966 Cherokee last summer was the first time with the pretzel yokes and the push/pull throttle. That was unique.
Thought maybe you,dbe interested in this informational clip of the Piper Cherokee Series
ua-cam.com/video/-W-A4L4tE70/v-deo.html
Awesome! That will be a huge help as I am working on trying to understand the model year changes better. I have basically been going on Trade-A-Plane and looking at each year Cherokee and seeing what is different. That isn't always the best as planes get updated over time. From what I can tell, the 1962/63 Cherokee 160 and 180 used the same cowl and single tip exhaust vs 1964 when the 180 had a different cowl and dual exhaust with a fairing around the leading edge and sides. If that is indeed correct, and what a I am working on verifying, then I should be able to make my E-flite Cherokee into a 180 with some changes to the graphics. I want to replace the red Cherokee 160 script with something in silver to make it look more like an early Cherokee, which gives me a chance to change it from a 160 to 180. I am working on the cockpit detailing as well, but not sure if I will design the original "rams horn" yokes or the more modern U shaped ones. May just come down to which I can design in CAD easier. Thanks again for passing along that video!
@@BRGT350 I just knew you,d be the guy to appreciate all the small but signifigant changes of the Piper Cherokee Models thru the year changes. I always wish eflite would have released a larger version of the Parkzone Archer 2 that was a great flying little plane and on 3s was a rocket ship just needed to be bigger
You guessed right! That video is a huge help. There were a lot of changes to the PA-28 airframe since it was introduced. I still have 2 of the old Parkzone Archers, both with the gear removed and painted to match my grandfather's Arrows. They don't fly as much as they should, but I will change that this year. They are awesome flying models. I would love to have a 1.5m Piper Arrow with the tapered wing and retractable landing gear. Scale wise, it would probably be similar to the 1.3m Cherokee due to the longer tapered wing vs Hershey bar wing. Just not sure the market wants another PA-28, but maybe there are some opportunities elsewhere in the portfolio. Smaller or wood perhaps.