airborneSGT

My Feedback: (15)

The price point does kinda make you do a double take sometimes. I got my 41% wildhare cheaper than my 2.6m Yak.
I would really like to get a Votec from 3W or maybe the 2.6-3 meter Extra 260 from either Composite ARF or Extreme Composites.
Not dealing with covering is a very big plus.

Myself I just did not enjoy the 2.6 Yak so much. I am too used to Extras I think. The yak can fly much slower but for my style I like the faster response an Extra or Cap has.

Scoubidou

My Feedback: (17)

Whre do you go when you want to paint your own color scheme? Does spray paint can work good ?

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

You purchase one in the stock white color (which BTW is generally the lightest and least expensive version of a C. Arf) and go to town in any manner you deem appropriate. If you follow the usual paint preparations I don't see why a spray can wouldn't work. As in anything else the better finish would be acheived using better materials and equipment.

airborneSGT

My Feedback: (15)

I would like to see a few more composites:
Christen Eagle
Ultimate - 33%

I think the new composite arf 300 and 260 are a little more pre-fab than the Yak. Anyone on here ever fly the 44% 3W Cap?

johnnyspeed

RTK
Would you know the wing and stab incidence on comp arf 2.6 extra, one of my tail feathers looks a little off.
I think the wing is neg 0.5 to - 0.7 deg. Any info is greatly apppreciated.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

johnnyspeed-- To tell you the truth I don't remember what they were, but I do know there were no twists or mis-alignments.
I could measure them again, but I seemed to have lost my robart meter. I went to check my Sukhoi and it must have sprouted legs and walked away. If I track it down I will let you know.

johnnyspeed

RTK
Thanks for reply
I'm trying to measure my firewall vertical thrust "to position my motor" and checking against wing which I was told has 0.0 deg this gave me 0.6 deg
up thrust then a comp arf rep told me -.5 to -.7 on wings which takes care of the up thrust.
Do you remember if the wings and hor. stabs were the same?

I don't know why they don't list any secifications in manuals or CA site.
Most of the planes are bang on 'but not all'

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I don't really remember Johnny, but I did have to add (1) washers worth of down thrust at my CG to have it fly the way I like. Don't ask me where my CG is currently because I don't remember that either I think it is in the rearward area of their recommended range.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

RTK,

As I recall, weren't you and I discussing someone else that has CRS? Had I known you had it too.....[8D]

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I've got a memory as long as an ant's you know what[]

Phantom Phixer

My Feedback: (3)

rcpilet:

I think the best argument for the composite airframes is that they are straight.....

The weight issue for a 2.3 can be overcome.......I assembled one, made a few mistakes and the next one would be 12% lighter.

My present 2.3 is an honest 20.12 pounds on a certified Ohaus scale. I made the mistake of using nicads for one and not being carefull about adding weight for another.

I also have a 80 cc ZDZ twin under the hood, but regardless of the weight, two of the top IMAC flyers here in the northeast are very surprised as to how light it flies.

The final argument is repairing. Well not too many giant scale planes really survive a crash....hard landings aside......a crash is a crash.......and with stick planes or composite......its not all too often they return to the sky.

I'd prefer the cost difference and have an almost 100% guarentee of a straight plane than to assemble one that is warped.....

cap10b

I go with the first response "They Whistle" You Aint Jack unless your plane screeches when you roll.


LOL

JDS

sensei

Hello Guys,

I have made a living in the advanced composites field for nearly 38 years now, and have been building and flying models even longer than that.

I have also owned and flown several 3.3 C/A Yak’s, 3.0 C/A Extra’s; along with several 40% Carden’s, Aeroworks and countless other airplanes over the years.
So here is my take on it.

Pros. Composite Airframes:

Instant gratification, generally very strait and true flying, fit and finish is generally top notch, never have to mess with covering, holds a good resale value, and cool sound when rolling.

Cons. Composite Airframes:

Expensive to purchase, Parts replacement is very expensive, should damage occurs; it requires a great deal more expertise to repair and refinish in order to keep the weight down to a minimum, and retain the overall original airframe look, higher overall weight than built up wood airframes.

Pros. Wood Airframes:

Relatively inexpensive to purchase when compared to composite airframes, replacement parts are also relatively inexpensive when compared, can be constructed to be much lighter than composite airframes dollar for dollar, If built strait they will fly every bit as good as any composite airframe, much easier to make repairs, holds good resale value.

Cons: Wood Airframes:

Having to maintain the covering, and if your building; no instant gratification.

Are composite airframes more durable then wood? That is debatable: take two airframes sitting side by side, one wood, and the other composite, now take screw driver, and hold it above the wing on both aircraft about 36” blade down, let go and see what happens.
Both airframes will sustain just about the same damage simulating the type of things that happen to our airplanes, however you can repair one with a little balsa wood, glue and covering; the other is going to need glass, resin, primer, base coat, clear coat, and cut & buff.

Bob