beausol

My Feedback: (18)

Does anyone have an electronic copy (.pdf or .doc) of the instruction manual for the Hangar 9 1/4 scale CAP-232 120-size. This is the one with the 73" wingspan (NOT the 1/3 scale or the 27% scale 80-inch model)?

If so, can you e-mail it to me at: [email protected]?

Thanks,

Rich

RobertC

My Feedback: (157)

It's actually still available online... just not advertised:

http://www.horizonhobby.com/ProdInfo...020-manual.pdf

Enjoy!

beausol

My Feedback: (18)

Thanks!

Their support guy said that it was no longer available online. You have proven him wrong.

Again, much appreciated!

I'm picking this plane up from a friend with a ZDZ 40 and all servos for $400. Heck, even the engine is worth more than that.

Thanks again!

--Rich

RustyTumbles

cool! Can you post some pics of it and a flight report. I am looking at getting one and putting a 3W 28i or a G26 in it. I just love caps they tumble so well.

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

This is a H-9 232 put built out of the remains of three CAPS.

I decided to use the Breitling scheme rather than go back with the Matt Chapman colors.

Power is an OS FT 160 twin cyl four stroke. All up weight is 11#.

RustyTumbles

Nice. How does it fly at 11Lbs? That sure seems light!!!

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

It is lighter than the original because the front half of the fuselage is now mostly balsa rather than lite ply. plus one wing panel had 4 ozs of weight sculptured out of it to match the other side. The early generation did not match any balsa weights as far as I can tell. The original lite ply structure that remained from aft of the cockpit to the tail was drilled ans sculptured to the edge of being fragile in an attempt to reduce tailweight to the minimum.
The one color covering with the black graphics is also slightly lighter but I don't know by how much.
This thing was purely an exercise to see what could be done with the pieces at hand nothing more.
The airframe does seem slightly more secure in high alpha situations but other than that it feels just like the others.

RustyTumbles

Any idea on an AUW with a g26 on it? I plan on using a slimline muffler and replacing the metal back plate with a ply one! That's if I go for the g26, still thinking about a 3w 28i. What do you guys think?

Gremlin Castle

My Feedback: (14)

I would think 12.5# would be in the ballpark, maybe even less. The OS FT160 is heavy at 34 ozs but the exhaust system only weighs about 4 ozs total.
It will be a good sport aerobatic plane regardless. When they first came out they were hyped about their performance. The production planes never quite came up the demo planes performance.

RustyTumbles

I think it would fly well at that weight too. Any idea one the wing area on this plane? I think I will probably go for the G26 as it is a cheap and simple setup.... Maybe I should start a new therad for this. I would like to find out more about this plane and ones similar and their capabilities with gas power!

Skyking-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

The manual says 1031 Square inches of wing

Terry

mydartswinger

I know I'm digging up dinosaurs by posting in this thread, but I just picked up one of these as a "restoration" project. It's got a bit of wood working and covering to be done, none of which seems to difficult. The last time it was flown, it was running a 26cc gas engine, which has since been pulled leaving me with an airframe, wings, and hardware. My biggest concern is with power. To get it in the air on the "cheap", I was looking at the OS 1.60FX. That was until I came across the OS FT-160 (Gemeni 160) twin. I was wondering if the FT-160 is worth the extra $500 over the 1.60FX? I know it's kind of like comparing apples to oranges, since the FT is a 4S twin and the 1.60FX is a 2S single, but performance wise is what I'm looking at. Power/weight ratios? Balancing? Or should I just go with the 1.60FX and save the extra $500 for use on a newer airframe?

Here's a link to some pictures of it's last flight:
[link=http://www.davisbridgeaeromodelers.com/CAP_232.html]http://www.davisbridgeaeromodelers.com/CAP_232.html[/link]

And one of the landing not shown on the page above:
[link=http://www.davisbridgeaeromodelers.com/images/P_s_CAP_232_ouch.JPG]http://www.davisbridgeaeromodelers.com/images/P_s_CAP_232_ouch.JPG[/link]

The plane was not damaged from that rough landing in the last picture.

Thanks in advance for any info.

Happy flying.

Texastbird

I would go with the OS 1.60 2 stroke or maybe one of the "Mark" 1.80 engines from Hobby People. You need to keep it light. I think the four stroke twin would be too heavy for this one. I have seen one flying with a Saito 1.80 single and it did real well, just don't expect a lot of 3D type stuff. A 1.35 Webra powered one that a flying buddy of mine had and it wasn't really quite enough power for anything except sport flying type maneuvers.

mydartswinger

Thanks Texas. That's what I thought, but the idea of having a 2 cylinder engine under the cowl was interesting. The OS 1.60 it is. I guess it's time to open a new thread as a "restoration" thread. Thanks again.

Happy flying.