Stephen Korte
03-22-2009, 12:48 PM
I have been flying RC planes and helicopters for over 30 years. I own and have been flying both of these similar sized coaxial helicopters (so that I can fly indoors during the winter), and thought you would be interested in a comparison.
The Blade has more aluminum parts, the Walkera virtually none.
The body of the Blade is of a much lighter plastic, the Walkera body uses a plastic that is familiar to anyone who has assembled plastic model car kits. The result is that the Blade is lighter, but the Walkera body is much more easily repaired.
For visual appeal the Walkera body is light years better than the Blade CX2.
Flight time is about 3 minutes longer with the Blade for continuous flight, probably because of the Walkera's heavier body. Both seem to use virtually the same motors. I have noticed though that if you make a few landings that the Walkera approaches the Blade for duration. This suggests to me that the Walkera motors may need more cooling. However I’ve taken the Walkera body off and see that it would be difficult to put any cooling fins on the forward motor, while there is room on the rear motor. The Blade CX2 is easy to put cooling fins on and Eflite sells these as add-on parts.
The Blade uses a Spektrum receiver so you can use any Spektrum or JR 2.4 GHz transmitter. Even though the Walkera uses 2.4 GHz, it seems to be a proprietary one and you can not use any other transmitter with it, however the transmitter they provide, does the job nicely and seems to be cosmetically of better quality than the Eflite by a small margin.
The Walkera flew perfectly out of the box with absolutely no adjustment needed. The Blade required considerable tweaking of its Gyro etc. to get relatively stable flight, a process that took me 2 days to get to where I felt it should be.
The Walkera is much more stable in-flight, almost as stable as the micro Blade Mcx, whereas the Blade CX2 is just barely manageable indoors in the confines of a house, it simply needs more room due to its twitchiness. The Walkera is a pleasure to fly inside a house, needing a lot less space and can be flown much like the Blade Mcx in smaller confines.
The Blade CX2 requires increasing rudder input like most coaxials do as the battery starts to discharge in order not to pirouette. The Walkera requires virtually no change in rudder input as the battery discharges.
I curse when I have to remove the battery from the Blade CX2 for charging, it is a constant struggle to change the battery given the way it is held in the fuselage. The Walkera has a custom designed cage that has an easy open door to hold the battery hence battery changes are a breeze.
Parts availability is better for the Blade CX2, whereas the Walkera has fewer suppliers. However because the Walkera is so stable (yet does have a reasonably responsive flight envelope) you will probably need to replace fewer parts due to accidents.
The Blade manual is excellent whereas the Walkera manual is extremely sparse and poorly translated.
The price including delivery is virtually identical.
If I were to give a number rating to these 2 helicopter, I’d give the Walkera 85% and the Blade CX2 75%.
The Blade has more aluminum parts, the Walkera virtually none.
The body of the Blade is of a much lighter plastic, the Walkera body uses a plastic that is familiar to anyone who has assembled plastic model car kits. The result is that the Blade is lighter, but the Walkera body is much more easily repaired.
For visual appeal the Walkera body is light years better than the Blade CX2.
Flight time is about 3 minutes longer with the Blade for continuous flight, probably because of the Walkera's heavier body. Both seem to use virtually the same motors. I have noticed though that if you make a few landings that the Walkera approaches the Blade for duration. This suggests to me that the Walkera motors may need more cooling. However I’ve taken the Walkera body off and see that it would be difficult to put any cooling fins on the forward motor, while there is room on the rear motor. The Blade CX2 is easy to put cooling fins on and Eflite sells these as add-on parts.
The Blade uses a Spektrum receiver so you can use any Spektrum or JR 2.4 GHz transmitter. Even though the Walkera uses 2.4 GHz, it seems to be a proprietary one and you can not use any other transmitter with it, however the transmitter they provide, does the job nicely and seems to be cosmetically of better quality than the Eflite by a small margin.
The Walkera flew perfectly out of the box with absolutely no adjustment needed. The Blade required considerable tweaking of its Gyro etc. to get relatively stable flight, a process that took me 2 days to get to where I felt it should be.
The Walkera is much more stable in-flight, almost as stable as the micro Blade Mcx, whereas the Blade CX2 is just barely manageable indoors in the confines of a house, it simply needs more room due to its twitchiness. The Walkera is a pleasure to fly inside a house, needing a lot less space and can be flown much like the Blade Mcx in smaller confines.
The Blade CX2 requires increasing rudder input like most coaxials do as the battery starts to discharge in order not to pirouette. The Walkera requires virtually no change in rudder input as the battery discharges.
I curse when I have to remove the battery from the Blade CX2 for charging, it is a constant struggle to change the battery given the way it is held in the fuselage. The Walkera has a custom designed cage that has an easy open door to hold the battery hence battery changes are a breeze.
Parts availability is better for the Blade CX2, whereas the Walkera has fewer suppliers. However because the Walkera is so stable (yet does have a reasonably responsive flight envelope) you will probably need to replace fewer parts due to accidents.
The Blade manual is excellent whereas the Walkera manual is extremely sparse and poorly translated.
The price including delivery is virtually identical.
If I were to give a number rating to these 2 helicopter, I’d give the Walkera 85% and the Blade CX2 75%.