hitcttd

My Feedback: (8)

Schools out, want to start a project for the winter break... I thought i didn't want to build at all this winter but i changed my mind... How can you not build for more than a few months? anyway, i'm looking for a good extra300 kit... Looking either to put a .46FX in there if at all possible or if i have to pull the saito91 out of my funtana... GP makes a both 46 and 60 but the plans are so old, the surfaces are really tiny. Any suggestions guys? Pictures? I love Extra's, not the 260's though. A nice cap might do too...

Oh yeah looking to do pattern/aerobatic flying... No 3d, my funtana will take care of that for me...



Thanks

Thanh

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I've always been partial to the Goldberg Extra 300. It's a 60 size, but there's plenty of room to put in a bigger motor if you want. But it will fly just fine on a 60 also.

[link]http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXDJB8&P=0[/link]

Hope this helps

Ken

Blue_Moon_

how does it perform with a saito 100 in the nose?

waagbuck

My Feedback: (1)

I built my .60-size Great Planes Extra 300S the year before last. It's a nice kit. There's a thread on RCU about modifications intended to make it lighter and more 3D-friendly, but that showed up after I was almost done with mine. Turns out they were not necessary. Mine is almost totally stock. I fly it with an os 61 fx and a 13x6 prop. Flies beautifully. For pattern-style flight, you don't need more control surface.

By the way, the graphics were done by Bill Fulmer/CustomCutGraphics.

I have a friend who flies a Goldberg Extra 300 -- note that this is a mid-wing, versus the low-wing on the great planes. It looks and flies nicely as well.

hitcttd

My Feedback: (8)

does the .60 use standoffs in the cowling? I hate GP's abs stuff... Was gonna buy one from stans but they cost an arm, a leg, and a down payment You know i totally forgot about that thread about modifying the .60 . I built the .46 recently and liked it except for the fact the ailerons were basically really long rulers . I'm definitely gonna consider it though...


What else do you kit building maniacs have for me?

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

I would also hightly recommend the GP 60.

I can't even imagine trying to lighten it though. I had a YS 91AC on mine and it was almost OVER powered.

If you don't want to do 3D, it's perfect as it is.

Edge 540

I second the CG extra.

Newc

I really liked the GP 40 size powered by an OS 61FX.

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

Either of the GP kits are fantastic. I built a .40 size a few years ago w/ a .46FX on it, standard servos all the way around, it was a blast to fly. I planted it hard (oops!)[:'(] If I had room for another project, I would not hesitate to build another, as it was my favorite, eisiest to build, one of my best flying planes yet. I built the .40 size GP Cap 232 as well, and did not like the flight characteristics nearly as well as the Extra.

I have read about mods to the .60 size, and the landing gear mounting mods look interesting, maybe worth doing.

If you want 3-D, you can modify the surfaces to make them larger (see extensive thread- use search). If flying standard aerobatics, build as plans say. Make sure to get as much rudder throw as possible, as this is the one area to watch.

The Goldberg looks quite different than the GP as it is mid wing, and the cowl is very rounded compared to the GP. I just don't care for the looks of it.

Any kit you get will have ABS cowl and pants, so either deal with it, or pop for the glass stuff. If on a budget, I just use the plastic and put the time into filling/sanding with Bondo.

gumhead

Here's some pics of my buddys CG extra, he loves the plane...

Oly

For What It's Worth, I built the GP extra 300s .40 and put an OS 61 FX on it. Flies great and is very aerobatic. The wing loading is high, though, due to the extra engine weight, my reinforcing due to the bigger engine and my habit of building "stout". If you can keep the weight down, I'm sure it would fly much better. (Keep the airspeed up on final, or it will snap pretty hard, if it is heavy!)

I would like to get another, only I would try the 60 version instead and put a 90 two stroke in it.

hitcttd

My Feedback: (8)

Yeah i was actually thinking of picking up a 60 too... I had the .40 before and it snapped real hard on landing... That's why i dont have it anymore... It was pretty nice to build, I think i might do it again, at least this time i'll know what to expect...

Dauntae

I'll vote for the GoldBurg too

Dauntae

JMOR06

A House of Balsa Extra 300L was my choice for an Extra. I built mine with a OS 46fx.
Not a bad build and It flies Great!!


Jeff

Rate1

Myself was compering the CG and the GP before settling for the GP. I guess it all came down to if you like mid-wing or low-wing. Generally a mid-wing plane should be a better aerobat since it is more neutral in its caracteristics (I think low wing looks better though). However, the GP is the slightly smaller one, both weight and size wise, but still rated for the same engine size as the CG. This should give you more oumps, while the CG should give you more of a floater and slow landings. Take your pic as Im sure both are great.
If you go with the GP you will get a straight forward build with great instructions as well as an awesome flyer. Further, there is tons of good info here on RCU including various building threads containing different modification if you would like. Mine with OS 120 pumped and is a blast to fly.

Navy18

My Feedback: (4)

I have built the Goldberg Extra, the House of Balsa Extra and the Great Planes Extra...... The Goldberg is the best flyer but not the best build.... the GP and HOB is a match for the .40 size; both great flyers, GP alittle better in build because of the great book, HOB slightly better material. They are all great flyers if built light.... slightly over power all three and you have a nice flyer. I had an OS1.08 on the Goldberg and it could have been even higher powered. For the best bang for the buck, the GP is a nice product.

Edge 540

Yeah, the goldberg was my second kit ever. It was not the easiest in the world and probably came out a little heavy, but it is straight. I actually glassed too much of the center wing and added non essential weight but it is rock solid! There is no way that wing is EVER going to fail in the center. [8D] The LG and related assemblies is also very heavy and should be replaced. Oh well.
I traced patterns of every piece in the kit, and will be re-building a second plane that a fellow club member crashed and abandoned. I want to make this one lighter yet still stronger.

hitcttd

My Feedback: (8)

Yep, ordered the GP .60 today... Saito 100 probably, dont know about electronics yet... thanks for all the tips...










can't wait





thanh

Rate1

If you are about to get a new engine for this plane, do yourself a favor and strap on a Saito 125, YS 110 or OS 120 pumped. Im sure the Saito 100 will be good but I have heard from some users that after a while they wished they had a bit more power.
I belive my OS120 pumped is great but it is a bit heavy eventhough my plane does handle it good (=no tip stall, slow flying and floats good). The 125 or 110 would both be lighter and put out a bit more power then the OS.
When I choised engine I selected my engine from Saito/OS 120 and the YS. I came to realize that the Saito does not alow cg placed fueltank without perry pump (=more weight), the YS requires high nitro and could be complex in tuning, so I picked the OS and do not regrett my choise.
However, Im avare that engine selection is about personal taste. Regardless, the Saito 125 is a modyfied 120 (same weight more power) and you do not want to end up with an aerobat that could use a bit more power. This especĂ*ally if you are about to get a new engine for this plane. Some people have problem finding the 110 on the market since they are sold out at many places, the 125 i belive is not relized on the market yet since its a brand new design. No matter, you still have some building time coming up and could put yourself on the waiting list if one of the two is what you want.
Hope this helps in your selection.

hitcttd

My Feedback: (8)

Thanks for the tip... YS engines i've always notice carry a backpack. What is it? I'll consider the YS, i'm coming from .46 sized planes so engines this big are new to me...

Rate1

Are you refering "backpack" as the little box back of the YS cylinder, or the YS owner having tons of tools with him to the field? The little box back of the cylinder is, I belive, where the supercharger is housed. If you don't have any experience with 4-stroke engines and cant get help from an experienced modeler, I would advice you to think twice before getting a YS-engine. This as they do require more tuning and could be complex in operating. After all, is it not real frustrating coming down to the field with perect weather just to realize you have engine problem and need to understand whats wrong and spend much time fixing it! Further, YS are very expensive to run since you will not really get their benefits unless you run em with 30% nitro. Saito is a straight shooter. However, they do require longer run-in time (then OS) and does not have a built in fuel pump as the YS and the OS has. As most things there are people devided into good side or bad side, myself good side since Im a OS-engine kind of a guy. (Read all 3 engine meantioned here are great engines)
Myself think it is nice to take advantage of center of gravity located fueltank, especially on an aerobatic plane where you might end up with a real far back cg after some experimenting and fine tuning your plane to get the most out of your plane. The extra weight an external fuelpump with added batteries to supply the fuelpump current is just a too big of a weight penelty in my opinion. All this to make your selection tougher... [:@]

Rate1

Oh, I forgot to meantion. Regardless of wich engine you end up with, as long as you build straight and true, you will be fine and ending up with an awesome plane. Have fun! [8D][>:]

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

I think a Saito 1.00 is a fine choice for this plane, and unless you are looking for a lot of hovering & 3-D stuff, you will be very happy. If you DO want to 3-D, you probably won't be happy unless you do lots of mods to the airframe and power it with a 1.10 or 1.25. Use the 1.00 and don't look back. It is more reasonably priced, and you will be happy with the ease of operation and light weight. Besides that, they look great!

Navy18

My Feedback: (4)

What do you think would be the largest 4stroke that the .40 size could take? I am assuming you would go with a Saito due to the weight advantages... I was thinking a Saito82. I want to build another that would be easy to transfer but be a kick in the pants vertically.... the 2strokes are good for speed but I want a 4stroker.

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

If I were building the .40 size, I would use the Saito .72, because my flying style does not require twice as much thrust as the plane weighs. If you have an .82, use it. It should be more than enough. It costs more than the .72, and may use a little more fuel and vibrate a little more, but not enough to be noticed much.

To answer your question, the largest 4-stroke I would recommend would be the Saito .91. It weighs no more than the OS .70, which is commonly used successfully in this plane, and it would give insane power. Keep in mind the .91 is quite a bit longer than the .72/.82, and you may have to modify the firewall placement (shorten the fuse) when building.

Also, the .91 is a little taller, and would protrude from the cowl more, if that matters to you.