Kat 40 looks good, but?
#2
My Feedback: (24)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kat 40 looks good, but?
The OS 61 is going to be a tad too heavy for a Kat 40. OS lists the weight at 23 oz with muffler, you would end up hanging lead on the tail to balance it. I have a Saito 82 on mine, I had to put a 5 cell 1500 mah NiMh pack as far back in the wing as I could to balance mine for good 3D (5.5" back from the leading edge).
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Indianapolis,
IN
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kat 40 looks good, but?
Mojo 60 would be my choice. Your 61 will be a bit marginal on pullout from hover but it will still be fine. The Mojo is a much more stable plane than the Kat 40 in all attitudes. The Kat tends to be rather twitchy in hover but the Mojo is very steady and moves a bit slower giving the beginning 3Der more time to think and react. It also has the carbon tube that makes the fuse unbelievably strong. The biggest problem with most profiles is that the first time they are turfed, they break the fuse at the trailing edge of the wing. The carbon tube virtually eliminates this problem. The only downside to the Mojo is it's a kit you have to build. It is a very easy and fast building kit though. I have built both Mojo 40 and 60 and put together both the Kat 40 and Kat 70. The Kat 70 is an excellent flying plane but I'm not impressed with the build quality. The Kat 40 is similar quality but it has the wing permanently attached. The detachable wing on the 70 needs better structuring IMO.
Forget about putting the 61 on the Kat 40! You'll end up with a pig that doesn't fly anything like it was intended. My Kat 40 flys very well on a Saito 56 but it is somewhat anemic on pullout from hover and emergency power you sometimes need. But I still like it,more for the tumbling stuff than down low hovering and harriering.
Later,,,Matt
Forget about putting the 61 on the Kat 40! You'll end up with a pig that doesn't fly anything like it was intended. My Kat 40 flys very well on a Saito 56 but it is somewhat anemic on pullout from hover and emergency power you sometimes need. But I still like it,more for the tumbling stuff than down low hovering and harriering.
Later,,,Matt
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (40)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Merrimack,
NH
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kat 40 looks good, but?
I will pile on in favor of the Mojo, assuming you are willing to build. Not a hard build, but it did take some care to get my wing to come out straight. Other than that, it is hands down awesome for sure.
http://www.swanyshouse.com/mojo60/mojo60.html
http://www.swanyshouse.com/mojo60/mojo60.html
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Bragg, CA
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kat 40 looks good, but?
Not going to build a kit. 3 business, 3 kids, 3rd wife and WAY over due for a vacation. Even the arf's take way too long to get in the air. Plus I have 2 combat planes to re-build after last weeks combat. The Kat 40 is looking good. Arf, that is.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA
Posts: 1,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Kat 40 looks good, but?
You can try the Katana. I know there has been some people who has in the past put .60 size two strokes on the .40 sized profiles and they flew well. But please remember that you are putting alot of unwanted weight on the nose and the wingloading will go up. For some folks it might not be a big deal but you will be messing with the planes performance so keep that in mind.