AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

I just got my Hangar 9 Cessna 182 Skylane. It is truly beautiful.

I'm pretty sure but not quite, but I think I'm going to use the RCS 180 Gas Engine on it. It looks like it will fit.

I will post pictures in a little while.

If anybody else got their's, chime in.

Andy

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

I just unpacked everything and I must say that this airplane is in much better shape that my GP Patty Wagstaff Extra 300. There is virtually no damage to this aircraft. The only minor damage that I found was in the vertical piece of balsa on the fin that was snapped, but a little CA it will be fine.

This truly is a fine kit. Hangar 9 has done an outstanding job of paying attention to details. There are a lot of scale features. This thing even has velour covered seats! and a fully painted interior.

It is magnificent!

Attached are the pictures of its unboxing.

Andy

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Opening the box

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Looking at the parts

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Looking at the accessories

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Fuse side view

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Fuse top view

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Fuse front view

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Cowl and seats

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Cowl side view with seats

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Me and my Fuse

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

That is all the pictures I have for now. As I start working on it I will post more pictures. I will tell you that I am very particular about my airplanes and this one truly meets my high standards.

Based on what I have seen so far, I would recommend this to anyone who has a love for the 182.

Andy

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

Hi Andy,

I also have very high standards with my models. I could'nt agree
more that this is one beautiful model. I am about half way done
with mine. It goes together very fast and everything fits precise.
What are you going to power yours with. I'm trying to decide if
a 120 4-stroke will be enough.

Scott

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Scott,

I am having that same debate with myself right now.

This is what I have considered so far. The main problem being the discrepancy in the weight of the plane. The Instruction Book says 16.5 to 18.5 LBS the website says 13 to 16 lbs.

A Saito 180 develops 1.85 HP
I have an OS 160 Gemini twin that says it will develop 1.9 HP

An RCS 140 gas engine develops 2.95 HP and develops 15.62 lbs of static thrust. Its displacement is 22 cc which is one less than recommended

An RCS 180 gas engine develops 4 HP, its displacement is 30 cc which is below recommend max.

RCS makes the 180 in both rear induction and front carb models, I have not checked the distance from the fire wall to the front of the cowl, but the rear induction motor is 7.3 inches long and the front carb version is 5.75".

I am lean toward gas be cause I know that I will have the extra power that might get me out of a problem and I can always throttle back to achieve scale like flight, but I am still undecided as to which to go with.

The 120 will have even less power and I guess if you keep it light it should fly well. My major concern about the 182 is that it is so wide it is like flying a bus so it may need more HP to haul it around the sky.

Have you looked at anything else at this point? I'm leaning toward the RCS 180 and once I measure the distance from the firewall to the front of the cowl I will make my decision.

Post some pictures if you have them. I'm sure there must be a bunch of guys building this airplane that would love to see them.

Andy

maverick

My Feedback: (12)

Check you HP figure for the Saito 180. The Horizon website has it listed at 2.8 HP. I don't know under what conditions this is measured at though.

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks, it did seem a little low, if I'm not mistaken I thought I got it from the Saito website.

Well if it is that high, then that pretty much makes my decision to go to gas. The 160 Gemini twin would never handle it.

Thanks,

Andy

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

Hi Andy,

I have no doubt that the 120 would haul it around, but I'm like
you , I want to have a little xtra power if I need it. Now I'm trying
to decide if I want a 150 or a 180. I weighed my air frame and it
came in at 8 lbs 8 ounces. This was minus any radio gear,
engine or landing gear and pants. I'm thinking it will come out
alot less than 16 to 18 lbs. Don't see how a saito 180 and full
radio gear will be an additional 8 lbs. It might come in at 16 to 18
lbs with a G26 or G38.

Regards,

Scott

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Scott,

I'm thinking that this airplane will need nose weight. The motor mounts that come with it are pretty heavy and with mounting the servos in the tail, that will have to compensated with extra weight in the nose. I'm thinking that the gas engine might help it to balance.

The engine that I am considering weighs 3.5 lbs ready to fly. Add to that 8 servos, stout battery back, I'll opt for the 2700 MAH NiMH plus switches, extensions and misc hardware, I'd estimate another 2lbs. That would total out some where around 14lbs (my guess with my chosen engine. That shouldn't be to bad.

The 180 is a fuel hog. I have a 150 and it has a lot of pulling power, but I have seen it fly a lighter Cloud Dancer with 98" wingspan and it is slow and it has a much narrower profile than the Skylane. I guess if I was going glow I'd either look at the 180 or consider the something like the Moki 2.1.

Just some food for thought.

Andy

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

I have selected my engine for this aircraft. I went with my second choice. I ordered a RCS 180 rear carb model from Chief Aircraft. Saved $35 dollars over RC Showcase's advertised price of $380. I also ordered the muffler at the same time. Although I wanted the front carb version, I was told that it was not available and there was no availablity information and that there was even a question about if it would ever become available.

Now the only issue that I have is that the motor is too long for the cowl. I'm thinking that I might be able to get Roger Forgues to create three shorter "L shaped" mounts out of aluminum bar stock. I believe that the I can stick the carb through the firewall and use a smaller gas tank. According to the guy at Chief that I talked to this engine only burns about a 1/2 oz per minute at full throttle. so a 10 tank would get me 20 minutes of flat out flying.

I will post pictures once the engine arrives. It should be here by Friday.

Andy

sj3cub

My Feedback: (9)

Hey Andy, Made my decision also. The 120 worried me so I plopped down the $400 for a new Saito 180 today. Now I
know power will not be an issue.

Scott

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Scott,

Thats great! Do you have any pictures? If you do please post some.

I'm planning on starting this weekend. I hope by then my engine will be in. I have digital servos that I'm planning to use for all of the control surfaces along with a dual conversion JR 10 channel receiver.

What did you do with the hinges? Did you use the CA hinges?

Andy

rc-sport

My Feedback: (12)

Andy, the OS 160 twin would have handled that plane just fine. I have the TF Stinson that weighs in at 20.75 lbs and it flies great and sounds awesome.

SteveD-RCU

My Feedback: (2)

Im going with an OS 160 in mine.Im still waiting for mine to come in.Should be here soon I hope..SteveD

dmyers0403

My Feedback: (48)

We are putting two Cessnas together. Do You have any good jumbo fly-ins in the Norman area coming up. We are from Eastern Oklahoma. Mabey we can get all the Cessnas together. We can't make the Guthrie fly-in due to conflict with Wilburton fun fly.
Just curious!!

AndyF

My Feedback: (2)

Really? I wish I had known that. I really wanted to use a twin. I have one sitting on the shelf "brand new in the box" just waiting for an airplane.

I would hate to go through the trouble installation only to find out that it wouldn't have enough power. But it is good to know that it worked on the Stinson.

What kind of fuel consumption do you have with your 160?

Thanks,

Andy