precedent hi boy

[Adrian Day]

Posted by David Davis on 23/11/2013 11:11:01:

Hi-Boys are a bit like Marmite!

There's no denying they are tough. One of them slammed into our Treasurer's Volvo punching a hole onto the rear wing!

There's also no denying that they are heavy and as a result fly rather quickly. Older beginners find them a bit of a handful in my experience and would be better off with a vintage model or something like a Boomerang which are capable of slower flight.

Just my two pennorth!

Hi David

I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of this model .. its got a good design that will take some punishment . I agree with the marmite terminology . I wasn't sure on this model at first but not I really like it. and think I would buy another just for the parts list. (At the right price)

i was thinking about getting something a little different to learn with but as a freebie I couldn't turn it down .. and more so from a model shop owner. dont get that every day ..

thank you
Regards
Adrian

[Adrian Day]

hi all well as asked for by Allan here are just a few pictures sorry no wing shots as still in build.

[Allan Bowker]

Looks fantastic Adrian, thanks for taking the time to post pictures.

What engine have you installed?

Keep us updated with your progress

[Stephen Grigg]

I recently acquired a Precedent T180,its brilliant

[David Davis]

The T180 is a different animal altogether. Having a six-foot (180cms) built up wing it has a much lower wing loading and will therefore fly more slowly.

The Hi-Boy flies quite quickly. Too quickly, in my view, for many novices and those who learned to fly on one learned to fly despite and not because of its flying characteristics.

If you're an experienced pilot Adrian you'll have no problems but if you're not, I'd get the club expert to fly it for you first.

You're making a fine job of the build anyway.

[Michael Caswell]

Hi I need some help have got the hi boy turbo with no instruction and have not got a clue on where I can get them , any one got any ideas many thank mick

[Mike Smith]

This was my first model back in the 80's... I recall it being quite heavy, but equally very robust. The second picture shows it after approaching the ground at the wrong angle but it was easily repaired and soon back in the air. If I remember correctly, I flew it on an OS 35FP initially then upgraded to an OS 40FP.

[Mike Smith]

I knew I had another picture of it somewhere... this was after the first re-build (hence the number 2 on the side)

[andyh]

I had one as my first RC model in '87-ish, although they'd been around for a good few years by then. I seem to recall some of the kit ply being pretty badly warped, making for a none-too-square fuselage

I remember it being a bit of a tank, sturdy but came in at a fair lick for a novice to manage

after several nosewheel-crunching landings, mine ended up as a tail-dragger, with double-sized ailerons to sharpen up the roll response, & flew reasonably on an Irvine 40 ABC

it never did recover from that flap spin though - either in the air or on the ground ...

[Rob Jones 2]

I had two of these, before I realized they were flying bricks, really. I mean to say, thick , cheap ply everywhere. Pilot kits showed us how to cut ply. I also bought a Waterhouse and Ely Superfly, which also was a flying brick, more so.Those kits sold by the hundreds just before the ARTFs arrived en-masse to wipe out the UK kit industry.

I also remember buying a cardboard 40 size trainer, anyone remember what they were called?

Edited By Rob Jones 2 on 20/08/2014 01:29:47

[David Davis]

Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 20/08/2014 01:27:55:

I had two of these, before I realized they were flying bricks, really. I mean to say, thick , cheap ply everywhere. Pilot kits showed us how to cut ply. I also bought a Waterhouse and Ely Superfly, which also was a flying brick, more so.Those kits sold by the hundreds just before the ARTFs arrived en-masse to wipe out the UK kit industry.

I had a Yamamoto Deluxe, the one with a fibreglass fuselage which looked like a Cessna. Powered by a Merco 61 this was a high-speed flying brick! I soon sold that one. Apparently the ordinary wings-on-a-box Yamamoto was a better flier but I've never flown one so couldn't possibly comment.

Of all of the plywood trainers the Flair Piper Cub was perhaps the best. I built built two, both had the foam wing and both were obtained as incomplete projects. Damp had got under the veneer of the first one and as a result the wings collapsed one day. I crashed the other flying it in a wind which was too strong for my piloting skills.

The Super 60's and Telemasters were far better trainers in my view.

[Adrian Day]

well its been some time since I have been able to post ... when i was last here i was going through a rough time and this year has taken its toll . getting back on feet now and mobile again... well im back and back to building.. tonight is just a flying visit but thanks to all those who have been posting while I have been away. been so long but im glad to be back.

Its great seeing all the ways you have dressed your hi boys.. .. dont like seeing the crashed ones though .lol. bit worrying that could happen so easy to these.. still only takes a second to make them look like sticks again.

will be sorting out the wings now I can get to them. and able to start working them back to new .. forgetting that the wings are pretty much as tall as my at 70ish inches i think.. dont hold me to that .. as its been sitting for nearly a year its going to need some sheeting replacing as its started to crack and lift ... not sure whats best for laying that back down.. PVA ??

Well i look forward to catching up with you all and chatting about the plans for engine and more

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Hiya Nigel

Yes if it's not too bad pva will sort it, good trainer the Hi boy, happy memories

John

[Adrian Day]

thank you John its a few 6 inch cracks that are just starting to sit up on top of the with nothing major.. just where its been sitting in a bedroom ..
still looks pretty good but if im going to get it flying may as well get it looking its best...

do like this plane want to see her fly soon

Adrian

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Rob Jones 2 on 20/08/2014 01:27:55:

I also remember buying a cardboard 40 size trainer, anyone remember what they were called?

Edited By Rob Jones 2 on 20/08/2014 01:29:47

Stanley Apprentice, I had one (not as a trainer though, I learnt on a Cambria Instructor and HiBoy), the Apprentice was a good flier and quite robust, I flew mine with an OS40FS and did some aerial photos with an instamatic camera and servo operated shutter. I had to land between shots to wind the camera on

[John Emms 1]

It was in the very late 80s that I was teaching people to fly on this, and on the Super 60. I was never overly impressed with the Hi-Boy, but I built one anyway because I wanted a very quick build all weather trainer for my sons to "have a go". The semi symmetrical section means that the model flys pretty much rock solid in gusty winds, and I was trying to figure why mine felt quite crisp to fly, and the others had not been so good. The only conclusions I could come to were that mine had the CG in the right place, and more than anything my control surfaces had no (or very tiny) gaps, and I know that at least one of the student built models had quite large control surface gaps. The S60 is an excellent trainer (either as 3 or 4 function), and I would be happy to use the Hi-Boy as an all weather trainer again. Power? They were all appropriately powered by the OS FP40 with 11x6 (later, the 40LA).

Hope that helps,

John

[ted hughes]

My memory of these old trainers is that they were super heavy, with marine-ply fuselages, or thick fibre-glass, veneered wings. and not a scrap on the superlight electric foamies available today.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Hi Boy/Ripmax trainers were good models, bit heavier than todays models yes, but they flew well n took a bit of punishment.
John

[IanR]

John, could you please explain best way to achieve no (or very tiny) control surface gaps. Many thanks.

Ian

[Low pass Pete]

My very first RC model was a Hi-Boy. I used an OS35FP for the power-plant. My recollections were that it was a tad on the heavy side and mine had a tendency to ground loop very easily during take-off. Once in the air it flew fine if a little on the quick side.

As most trainers mine suffered several near fatal crashes and finally (cannot remember the circumstances) was written-off. My next model was a Masterline Vandal, which was a shoulder wing aerobat trainer-ish and I fitted an Irvine 40 up front. This was a revelation compared to the Hi-Boy and got me properly solo.

Regards

Peter

Edited By Low pass Pete on 26/01/2017 07:10:47

[David Davis]

My own view of the Hi-Boy is that they were an awful trainer, too heavy and too fast. That having been said, if you can fly a Hi-Boy you can fly anything. .

Those that learned on a Hi-Boy learned despite the Hi-Boy not because of it! .

Edited By David Davis on 26/01/2017 07:51:46

[Robin Etherton]

I too learnt to fly with a Precident hi boy.

Brings back the memories.

Found it an absolute pig to get a straight enough run to take off followed by the inevitable ground loop or dive into the earth.

Lost count if the rebuilds until I eventually managed to get it in the air and keep it there.

Looking back I believe it to be an ideal model to Learn on. As you say if you can fly this you can fly anything.

Robin

[Denis Watkins]

Basically Adrian, the Hi Boy was presented as a trainer, and although it did look smart, I believe that it was, at that time, just as many pleasing shapes cobbled together to sell a smart plane. I don't think any consideration was given to flight. I had one, at that cruiciaal learning stage, and being heavy, it was ding proof, and solid but like has already been said, it flew too fast and landed too fast for a novice. A flyer can fly this model and will enjoy it. You will enjoy it, but you are prearmed now knowing it is not a floater, like the Wot Trainer, or the Precedent T180.

Edited By Denis Watkins on 26/01/2017 09:32:59

[Don Fry]

Funny you how the memories are recalled. I don't remember ground loops. I don't remember to being that fast. Don't remember poor handling (for a trainer)

I remember predictable, tough, forgiving, and without vice. All I would say was that on a calm day, it's higher landing speed showed up inability to put a plane down where planned.

[Mannyroad]

I got back into modelling, after a 20 year lay up, when I saw a Hi-Boy and transmitter in a skip. The wing was broken in two places and the fus had suffered some damage too, but I fished it out and rebuilt the thing, more out of fond memories for flying in my early years. Anyway, once patched up, I joined my local club and used it to learn to fly again (not that I ever succeeded!!). So, for me, I have a soft spot for this trainer because had it not been for a Hi-Boy I would not be modelling today.

As I recall, it was a nippy trainer, if a tad heavy, but it did what it was supposed to do. I'm sure the current trainers are significantly better, and lighter, than the Hi-Boy, but surely that also applies to many fixed wing types of today, compared to designs of yester-year. It gets 3 yesses