|
Top Flite Cessna 310 with Saito 60t?
I searched in this forum and all over RCU RCG and the net but did not see anything. Most people are using OS 46 or OS 55 2 cycle engines for the Top Flite Cessna 310. I was wanting to do two 90ts but they will not fit. The 60t will. Does anyone have documentation(video) of a Top Flite running with some Saito 60t's in it? Thanks
|
For the life of me I'll never understand the need some people have for adding Excessive WEIGHT and Power to a model already pushing the wing loading envelope.
Happy tip stalls! |
Originally Posted by Appowner
(Post 12500829)
For the life of me I'll never understand the need some people have for adding Excessive WEIGHT and Power to a model already pushing the wing loading envelope.
Happy tip stalls! |
Originally Posted by rowdog_14
(Post 12500867)
What is your current setup for you 310?
You're talking a 60 four stroke right now and that should be fine. Though I'd still look and the weight differences. But you were considering a 1.20 twin cylinder? That's just asking for trouble. But hey, it's your money! |
Originally Posted by Appowner
(Post 12501154)
Never said I had one. But if I did, I'd set it up as light as possible. The wing design is for a high speed wing to begin with. I don't recall the wing loading but I know it's high to start with. Bigger engines will increase the overall weight (especially using twin cylinders vice single) which raises the wing loading. More powerful engines will simply dig a deeper hole.
You're talking a 60 four stroke right now and that should be fine. Though I'd still look and the weight differences. But you were considering a 1.20 twin cylinder? That's just asking for trouble. But hey, it's your money! This plane has been flown with DLE 20’s which are the same weight as the 90ts and the 60t...so weight is not my concern. Also you speak on assumptions and not knowledge. You are guessing the loading and you incorrectly reference an engine size that is posted only two post up. Do you know that TF actually added a crazy amount of nose weight to the plane :)...I think they knew it needed more weight than those small .46 and .55 can provide which is typical for scale models. Please move on... |
Fact, at 20 pounds, max weight per TF, the wing loading is 50.4 ounces per sq inch. That's getting a bit high for that wing/airfoil.
An no, I did not wish you a crash. I was warning you. But if it makes you feel better to claim I wished it on you....well you have someone to blame other than yourself should it happen. You know, there's a case of a turbo prop being installed in a J-3 Cub. But that doesn't mean everyone should do it. |
Originally Posted by Appowner
(Post 12501201)
Fact, at 20 pounds, max weight per TF, the wing loading is 50.4 ounces per sq inch. That's getting a bit high for that wing/airfoil.
An no, I did not wish you a crash. I was warning you. But if it makes you feel better to claim I wished it on you....well you have someone to blame other than yourself should it happen. You know, there's a case of a turbo prop being installed in a J-3 Cub. But that doesn't mean everyone should do it. Thanks for your input...but your are now just reaching for content to prove yourself and I am also happy you looked at the manual. I will agree with just because someone does it does not mean everyone should. You still missed my point that TF added a crazy amount of nose weight which would have been better as an option for those wanting to be the norm instead of requirement. In that case putting in a true twin twins would be perfect. If you want to take this in PM I would gladly entertain any sensible questions but seriously I would rather not mud up my thread with this. If I do not get any actual feedback that is fine I will just keep calculating and move on to what I feel confident in. Thanks |
I would have to think that if installing the larger engines allows you to remove an equal amount of factory installed ballast then it is a no brainier. Most of my powered models would classify a grossly over powered and IMO that just adds to the fun. Not for everyone of course but when I spend my money on an airplane I will set it up as I damn well please. In fact I just ordered a Seagull Bucker Jungmeister ( first ARF ) the planned engine at this point will be a ZDZ 40cc. I may need to fabricate a new cowl to make this happen but that also is part of the fun. Good luck with your 310, please keep us informed during your build. |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12501401)
I would have to think that if installing the larger engines allows you to remove an equal amount of factory installed ballast then it is a no brainier. Most of my powered models would classify a grossly over powered and IMO that just adds to the fun. Not for everyone of course but when I spend my money on an airplane I will set it up as I damn well please. In fact I just ordered a Seagull Bucker Jungmeister ( first ARF ) the planned engine at this point will be a ZDZ 40cc. I may need to fabricate a new cowl to make this happen but that also is part of the fun. Good luck with your 310, please keep us informed during your build. The only probably I have is removing the weight without damaging the fuselage nose cone. It is glue/epoxied in to the fiberglass cone and very deep inside. I would have to drill/chisel it out or maybe cut the nose cone off and remove. Really do not want to cut off the nose cone :(. I wish TF would of made some type of removable weight setup. I was really hoping someone flew it with the nose weight with the saito 60t’s but I do not think so. Especially after reading through the whole c310 thread. I would throw in two 90ts with the nose weight without even thinking about it if they had fit. I will definitely keep this updated on my decision to go the abnormal route or just stick with the simple OS 46-55 and call it a day. Need to finish my TF GS Corsair, a TF 182 with a saito 90ts and fiberglass my H9 P-47 150 that has a DLE 55. |
Would you be able to drill a hole in the lead chunk and rig up some sort of slide hammer? Depending on the adhesive used a little heat may help as well. The fuselage and paint shouldn’t have any issues up to about 120 degrees but if epoxy was used to secure the weight 120 will soften it some. |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12501412)
Would you be able to drill a hole in the lead chunk and rig up some sort of slide hammer? Depending on the adhesive used a little heat may help as well. The fuselage and paint shouldn’t have any issues up to about 120 degrees but if epoxy was used to secure the weight 120 will soften it some. |
Hi Rowgod_14 - I am in a similar boat as you. I have two OS 56 four strokes for my TF Cessna 310. Do you know if this will be sufficient?
|
Originally Posted by atvs28
(Post 12513215)
Hi Rowgod_14 - I am in a similar boat as you. I have two OS 56 four strokes for my TF Cessna 310. Do you know if this will be sufficient?
|
Found this
|
You bring up a good point. If one quits, a single 56 may not be powerful enough. I wrote to top flite/Horizon last night asking their opinion. I believe a 70 sizes 4 stroke is equivalent to a 46 sized two stroke. In that youtube video, the guy is using two 70s.... I'll let you know what TF/Horizon say
|
Sure...In the past I have replaced a .46 size 2 stroke with a low .60 size 4 stroke, but they were light/ low wing loading planes. One I could have put a .52 -.56 4 stroke on it and it still would have been OK. Just would have flown very scale. I just think with this plane and not taking out that lead the .52 will be on the very low end of the power scale.
|
Horizon came back and said you must use a 70-80 sized four stroke.
|
Originally Posted by atvs28
(Post 12514180)
Horizon came back and said you must use a 70-80 sized four stroke.
Thanks. Man I wish a 90ts would work without cutting. Looks like I might be flying this anytime soon if the 60t will not be enough :(. |
Here is a video of them installed and running
|
Nice
|
I wonder if running 30% Heli fuel will give me enough of an umph to run this and feel good about flying it :)...I am currently running 15%. If not I think It will be a static plane for now.
|
Rowdog, just out of curiosity what props are you running? My reasoning is that it they are producing the same thrust as the twin .46 setup would you should be good to go. It also looks like the props are black? Master Airscrew?
|
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12620118)
Rowdog, just out of curiosity what props are you running? My reasoning is that it they are producing the same thrust as the twin .46 setup would you should be good to go. It also looks like the props are black? Master Airscrew?
Those are 10x6 I think. I just pulled them off the wall to run. I am going to run probably 12x6 props MAS. I do not have a thrust meter so will not be able to compare :(. |
Bear with here for a minute, I think you have a good plan going here with the 12x6 but I am wondering why you are sticking with MA props? There have been many comparisons made and found in most cases that APC props are more efficient. If I were in your shoes I think I would try running 20% nitro with a pair of APC 13x6 sport props. I am glad to see you still working on this project.
|
Thanks as far as nitro I run 30% in my 200ti saito and to makes things easy I will stick with 30% if I do. So I only have to worry about 15% and 30%. As far as APC, yes I have a few plane with a APC prop including a giant scale P-47 on a DLE 55. They are good props...I know you can not see a prop while it is flying but I like MAS scale look. Never really had a problem with MAS or APC. Might end up trying both...
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:45 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.