BillS

A good .46 will fly OK up to about 6 1/2 pounds on a single and will fly 8 pounds but not very lively. A .40 with engine out on a 10 1/2 pound twin is very marginal. A pair if .46’s might be OK on a 16 pound twin but are very questionable on a 20-pound airplane.

At 20 pounds and 50oz per sq ft there is the additional problem of narrow flight envelope. A good .46 will likely turn 13,200 with 7� pitch props, which represents about 70 mph at 20% slip. A 4 stroke at 10,000 RPM and 8� pitch and 20% slip brings the top speed down to 60 mph.

At 50oz per sq ft the estimated relative minimum flying speed is 38 mph with a stall speed of 45 mph. The flight envelope will be tiny. The flight envelope and top speed should be at least 2X stall speed and 3X is preferred and more realistic.

In my very humble opinion the Cessna is not a candidate for 4 stroke engines, is definitely not a candidate for 3 blade props and will probably fly poorly on .46 engines. The airplane is simply too heavy for the small wing area.

Bill

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

nevermind

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

Quote:
At 50oz per sq ft the estimated relative minimum flying speed is 38 mph with a stall speed of 45 mph


Not to be disrespectful,but that math will never translate to the real world.
I have seen many overweight high wingloading planes come in hot on approach but touch down at a reasonable speed.This is where it will be very critical that people have a few hours of experience on a similar model.This plane wil be way to expensive and difficult for someone that is not absolutely confident and can keep their thoughts and cool during flight.This is a scale model and mishandling it in the air will result with about the same consequences as impropererly flying the real 310.
I am sure you have seen many jet videos where the landing contact speed was incredibly low,of course the pilot is feeding in precise smooth inputs as the aircraft is in a state of of delicate balance.
I think it will fly fine in the hands of pilots that want to make it fly.

windsheer

I agree that the OS 46 or OS 50 would be the easiest and cheepest way to go. However, the sound of two 4 strokes flying on a scale airplane would be the cats meow. The Saito 82's are lighter than the Saito 72's or the OS 70 and could swing a three bladed prop. I'm sure part of the engine and/or muffler would stick out, but the added performance and sound should make up for it.

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

You don't want to be trying to fly a twin around on a single engine. The second engine is only there to extend your glide to landing. Just like in real world aviation, a single engine approach is do or die. Going around can result in an accident.

IMHO selecting reliable engines within the manufacturers size range is the most important thing with this airplane.

Yak

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Forget the math and formulas, Like I said earlier Here at 5000ft , a 9.5 lb P-82 twin Mustang with a pair of 46fx.s can pass up a 6lb 40 size P-51 with a 61fx. If it were me, I'd probably install a couple .60's

I don't remember what kit it was but there is a very large 310 in kit form. I saw this thing and it was huge. When I asked hime what engines he had in it, it was a pair of G90's. I didn't this that would do to well but it flew great and at this altitude.

Sure the wing loading is a consideration but who cares! Why is it a guy with his new 35%extra says his drops like a brick on approach and lands fast and another guy with the same setup floats it right on in? It comes down to skill. I have no problem landing my prop jets but many others do.

Less expericence pilots will be having a hard time with ths 310 and others will not be able to understand what all the whinning is about.

Any plane is capable of landing way way outside the norm depending who is flying the darn thing. A trainer with the wingloading of 5 can drop as easy as a turbine with a 45.

Math does not mean much. I have seen guys at the field trying to calculate the meaning of exhaust when they should be flying the plane (really)

What happens when a plane flys longer than the calculated time and better onthe engine and prop combo? You should feel grateful but nohhhhhhh, I see guys get upset over this stuff because the silly math is not right.

BillS

Hell I am installing a 57cc gas engine on a 20-pound pattern airplane. The current reasoning indicates that a .90 would have been adequate. What do I know?

Bill

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Good point!

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

How about two .45's

jzinckgra

My Feedback: (11)

I see Top Flite has more pics on their website: http://www.top-flite.com/airplanes/topa0910.html
Too bad there is no video.[]

F2G-1

My Feedback: (13)

Bill,
Two .45's will produce more thrust than a single .90. Ask the enginerds in the aerodynamics forum if you want a formula! LOL!
All kidding aside, I dont think it will fly as bad as you think.

BillS

Fat gals don’t make many flights especially twins.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I hate to disagree, but this simply isn't true. Some of the best planes I have ever flown were what would be considered "Too Heavy"

Sure, you're not going to 3-D them, but for just flying around, I'll take a heavy bird any day.

This goes back to the GP Seawind. Everyone said it's wing loading was too much, but it is the best seaplane I have ever flown.

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

Those pictures on the TF site make this one hard to resist...

There will be lots of crow eating when this thing proves to be a great flyer on those "tiny" engines. Also, that fat wing will negate the negative effects of heavy wing loading. We shall see.

Yak

BillS

Not enough power to go around on one with .46’s.

50 oz per sq ft wing loading results in 35 mph plus stall speed.

Less than 2X flight envelope.

Some men do like fat girls.

bob27s

My Feedback: (19)

Cyclic - I keep envisioning this beauty with a pair of 60L engines in it Maybe the FIRE version, and a header muffler tucked away cleanly inside the nacell... [&:]

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

Those are some healthy engine compartments onthat thing eh?

jaof

Hi

Personally I am looking forward to getting this plane.
If all goes well I hope to make it electric with 2 AXI 4130/16 or 2 Eflite Power 60 motors.
We'll see what happens.

Years ago we flew a Marataka Cessna 310Q which was built for me from the kit. It was a relatively easy plane to fly and it sure looked pretty in the air with the gear up and those big tip tanks.
We had 2 OS 45 FSRs in it with Rom-Air retracts and it flew just great but was way overpowered so we ended flying it half throttle.
I think if I remember correctly it weighed about 11-12 pounds-the wing itself was where most of the weight was and it too had a wing loading.
On certain planes I really don't care what the wing loading is.
Anyway looking forward to getting one when it comes out and of course it depends on the finances at the time.

Take care and have fun because after all this is a hobby and a great one at that as I have been in the hobby for over 40 years ever since I was a kid.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

My 10lb twin barely flew on one engine. It had two 40s. Who ever said that you don't fly them on one engine doesn't know what they are talking about. You sure better, because twins don't glide, they are too heavy.

wiz310

Dunno why you think that. they are a very gentle lady to fly and extremely robust.
It looks like a "J" model to me. I'll definitely be getting one. I own a "K" model real one and love it. I'll be doing it to a scale of mine.
Dunno why anyone would want to put three blade props on it though. they fly better on two blades and the real one has two blades and it would look a lot more scale.

drdoom

My Feedback: (9)

The Right hand gear door is missing on the Top Flite website picture of it landing.
I wonder if they took it off of just vibed loose?.
I also believe that the nose gear sissor is on backword. It is suppose to stick forward, with
a Mud flap behind the tire.

BillS

Agreed.

My 10 1/2 pound twin with flat bottom wing would barely fly on two.25’s and I changed to .40’s. P38’s in the 18 to 19 pound range will normally have .90’s and a wing loading closer to 40.

Twenty-pound twins will need at least .90’s with 2 blade props to have even a small margin of error. A go around on one .90 on a 20-pound airplane is likely to be very problematic.

Pretty pictures do not negate the laws of physics.

Bill

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

Gosh, I wish they'd post the video to prove that it flys.

Yak

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

You'd think that for $350 those landing gear would be closer to scale...shouldn't they be white too. Robart must have barrels of that gray primer. Robart should go the extra mile for that kind of money. Why the Chinese haven't copied them yet is beyond me.

Yak

COL J

My God, and another beautiful TF ARF. I haven't my Staggerwing yet. This does look likr s beauty. I was wondering when they were going to do this. Also wondering if they are thinking about the GS Corsair.