Ultrasport 1000?  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Sport Flying >> Ultrasport 1000? Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 4:27:29 AM   
Tommygun



Posts: 836
Joined: 2/13/2002
From: Burlington, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		I just picked one up today at a swap meet. Got a pretty good deal on it, but it has the Super Tigre S 3000 installed, which now I'm reading on these boards is a piece of junk motor. What replacement motor would be best, the OS 1.60? There's also the BGX, I'm not sure what the difference is since I have no experience with these large planes. What kind of servos does it need?

_____________________________

My other hobby: www.speedwake.com
       Post #: 1

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 4:44:00 PM   
dhal22


 

Posts: 1467
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Roswell, GA, USA
Status: offline 		the Moki's sound better than any other 2 cycle engine that i know of. i use a 2.10 on a 15 lb extra 300. great performance. i wonder if the 1.80 would be a good match for the US 1000? how much does it weigh?

david

(in reply to Tommygun)
       Post #: 2

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 5:18:51 PM   
jrf


 

Posts: 2420
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The US1000 was designed as a 120 size airplane and most of them come in at 11-12 pounds. The OS 1.60 is perfect, the Moki 1.80 is a little heavier and after you have unlimited vertical with the 160, why would you need more power? The ST 3000 is very heavy and swings a big prop at low rpm. To use the proper propeller on the 3000 you had to extend the main gear, which made the gear weak, torque was a problem, as was the extra pound of weight, and overall performance was poor. The 3000 isn't a bad engine for a giant Cub, but it is a terrible choice for the US1000. In fact, I believe the original instructions had a recommendation for the ST 2300 and it said specifically not to use the 3000.

The BGX is a 3500. Even bigger and heavier than the ST3000. Not a good choice for a 120 size model.

Jim

< Message edited by jrf -- 3/9/2008 5:23:28 PM >

(in reply to dhal22)
       Post #: 3

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 6:17:05 PM   
Tommygun



Posts: 836
Joined: 2/13/2002
From: Burlington, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		With everything minus the radio gear, (plane, st 3000, prop spinner, muffler and heavy duty robart retracts) I'm coming out at 13.5 lbs. No servos. Do you think the OS 1.60 FX will be lighter? That seems to be the engine most recommend.

_____________________________

My other hobby: www.speedwake.com

(in reply to jrf)
       Post #: 4

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 6:32:24 PM   
jrf


 

Posts: 2420
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline 		The 160 is 10 ounces lighter than the 3000. The muffler for the 160 is at least 2 ounces lighter. (Maybe a lot lighter if the 3000 has a heavy muffler on it.) The prop for the 160 is 4-6 ounces lighter than the 3000. And when you take out the 3000 you can also remove 8 or 10 ounces of tail weight.

Will the 160 be lighter than the 3000? Yeah, about a pound and a half lighter.

Jim

(in reply to Tommygun)
       Post #: 5

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 7:38:53 PM   
Tommygun



Posts: 836
Joined: 2/13/2002
From: Burlington, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Wow, that is a lot. Now you have me concerned about balance, because I don't see any tail weight. I'm thinking that I won't even try the ST; it sounds like a boat anchor. The other thing that is annoying about the ST is the special fuel it requires; low oil no nitro. How bad is the fuel consumption for the 1.60?

_____________________________

My other hobby: www.speedwake.com

(in reply to jrf)
       Post #: 6

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/9/2008 8:01:00 PM   
jrf


 

Posts: 2420
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I usually burn about 12 ounces of 10% Omega per 10 minute flight. That is not constantly at full throttle. The ST 3000 burns a LOT more. Oh yeah, I forgot about the weight of all the extra fuel the plane would have to carry for the 3000.

Check inside the tail of the fuselage. Maybe the builder put the tail weight inside. I find it hard to believe that he could have balanced it by just moving the battery back.

Jim

(in reply to Tommygun)
       Post #: 7

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/10/2008 1:03:26 PM   
Tommygun



Posts: 836
Joined: 2/13/2002
From: Burlington, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		I tried looking down the fuse with a flashlight, and don't see any lead. There is an aft bulkhead though. I'd hate to tear open the painted fuse trying to find lead that isn't there, any suggestions on how to figure out if it has ballast? Would they possible build it into the rudder on this plane to get it that far aft? Sounds like from what you're saying a lot of weight will come off the nose when I pull and chunk the ST.

_____________________________

My other hobby: www.speedwake.com

(in reply to jrf)
       Post #: 8

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/10/2008 4:52:33 PM   
jrf


 

Posts: 2420
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Check the bottom of the fuselage carefully for evidence of hatches that may have been cut and then replaced. I wouldn't tear up the fuselage looking. If it is a painted fuselage, the weight of the paint will have added a lot of weight toward the tail. Especially if he painted the tail feathers also. Did he put the servos in the tail? If so, you could move them forward. You may just be stuck putting a big battery as far forward as possible and even adding nose weight. (ugh!)

The difference in performance and user-friendliness of the 160 is still worth it.

Jim

< Message edited by jrf -- 3/10/2008 4:54:41 PM >

(in reply to Tommygun)
       Post #: 9

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/11/2008 4:30:15 AM   
Tommygun



Posts: 836
Joined: 2/13/2002
From: Burlington, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		No servos in the tail, and the tail surfaces are covered. It would really be nice to get that lead out of there if there is any. This is probably a dumb question, but can a metal detector detect lead?

_____________________________

My other hobby: www.speedwake.com

(in reply to jrf)
       Post #: 10

RE: Ultrasport 1000? - 3/11/2008 5:33:09 AM   
jrf


 

Posts: 2420
Joined: 12/30/2001
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

This is probably a dumb question, but can a metal detector detect lead?


I sure don't know about that, but you could simple push a large pin through the bottom of the fuselage and see if you hit any thing. The fuselage should be empty to about an inch in front of the rudder hinge line. The pin holes won't even need to be recovered. Just rub a little epoxy or silicon sealer into them.

Jim

(in reply to Tommygun)
       Post #: 11

Page:   [1]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Sport Flying >> Ultrasport 1000?
Page: [1]





Jump to:


Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Member Video Posts | RCU Video Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America

Kaango.com Classifieds

0.723RCU3