Hangar 9 Funtana S40

Brand: Hangar 9

Overall:
2
Ease of assembly:
4
Build quality:
2
Flight performance:
3
Value for money:
2

READER REVIEWS
James Marr  |  Apr 12, 2009

Strengths:
Great Handling, looks nice. . . .
Weaknesses:
build quality is astonishingly terrible - the fuzz split in half when it fell off my 10 inch high work stand!. . . .
Overall:
nice to fly but be gentle with it!. . . .

Overall:
3
Ease of assembly:
5
Build quality:
1
Flight performance:
5
Value for money:
2
Craig Whitfield  |  Jun 10, 2008

Strengths:
Really easy to assemble. . . .
Weaknesses:
Had to straighten the aileron leading edges out of the box. . . .
Overall:
Really enjoying it as I'm starting to get into 3D flying. The O. S. 46 with a tune pipe really had no power, made it fly like a normal Sunday flyer.

Overall:
3
Ease of assembly:
4
Build quality:
3
Flight performance:
4
Value for money:
3
HeavyLander  |  Mar 24, 2008

Strengths:
Really nice-looking model and very lightly-built. . . .
Weaknesses:
Poor build quality. Poor aerodynamics (out of the box). . .
Overall:
My Funtana was so good at tip-stalling that I had to modify the wing's leading edge in order to get it to fly acceptably - which is not what I expected from a Hangar 9 model. It started-out with an ASP . 61 4-stroke up-front, but that wasn't powerful enough for all the stuff this model should do. Next came a Saito .

Overall:
2
Ease of assembly:
3
Build quality:
2
Flight performance:
2
Value for money:
2
Kevin  |  Feb 17, 2007

Strengths:
A nice looking model, and easy to fly for the novice. . . .
Weaknesses:
Way to much mixing required to fly try knife-edge, and slow rolls. . . .
Overall:
Needs minimum 72 four stroke to fly 3D, the 91 fs seems the norm. The Funtana is to expensive at £169. 99. .

Overall:
3
Ease of assembly:
4
Build quality:
4
Flight performance:
3
Value for money:
2
YakMad  |  Feb 16, 2007

Strengths:
Build quality and easy to build. . . .
Weaknesses:
Poor aerodynamics, not easy to 3d and feels draggy to fly, undercarrige mounting weak. . . .
Overall:
Will not perform on the recommended engine range, really needs a . 91 four-stroke which requires widening the engine mount, it's also difficult to fit a 14 oz tank for the bigger engine. . .

Overall:
2
Ease of assembly:
4
Build quality:
3
Flight performance:
2
Value for money:
2
X
Login using Modelflying Login