pettit

My Feedback: (23)

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXNXB7&P=0

But take a close look at some of the specifications:

81" span (not bad, IMAA legal)

948 square inches (small but scale)

17-20 pounds (Pudgy little feller, eh?)

43 - 50 oz/sq ft (Holy #@$^&*)

Look for it in "late December", maybe March....July...

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I would have expected 11 to 13 pounds for .46's. They never cease to disappoint me.

Flyfalcons

11 to 13 pounds for a 80" plane? Are you kidding me? Even the super-light aerobatic planes have a tough time reaching that goal, let alone a scaled out plane with retracts, etc.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Gee, I must be doing something wrong.

Flyfalcons

You can make a scale plane like a 310 at 80" weigh 11 pounds? I know pattern planes can do it. Not so sure about when you add in scale detail, retracts, etc. I have a Cub around that size that doesn't weigh anything, but a Cub is not a 310.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Sure .

I have two Rockwell Commanders, 79 inches, not built but in the box. The recommended wieght is 10 to 11lbs. They have fiberglass fuselages and nacelles and retracts.

I did one twin, a King Air, only 68" wing with two 40 fp bushing engines, one hp each. It weighed under 10 lbs. I'm not sure exactly what it weighed, but I believe it was under 10 #. It flew pretty good. But there wasn't much reserve power. The bushing engines are only 1hp. The 46 ball bearing engines are 1 1/2 hp. So, I think that two 46's can haul around about 15 lbs and probably no more.

I actually built an 80 inch C130 Hurk at 7 1/2 lbs. But it was for electric and wasn't built for any vibration.

I routinely build scale 60 size planes at 7 1/2 pounds. They are fat and with some detail.

I will concede that a mass produced plane may not be as light as ones built at home. I can see the C310 wieghing 13 or 14 lbs. I'll give you that much. But it just won't be very forgiving above that wieght. If I built a C310 myself and it wieghed 17 to 20 lbs, I would consider that a failure.

Now a ball bearing 60 can offers nearly 2 hp. But the C310 stats don't recommend a 60, they say a 50. The 50 is actually made in a 46 case and offers pretty good numbers. I'm actually using one on a Sig Bonanza, (7.5 lbs) Two 50's might be capable of flying a 17lb model. But again, I don't think there will be much reserve. The wieght of this model really suggest two 60's or even larger engines. I personally favor twin 46's because they idle so well and hold their tune almost permenantly. That is why I am so disappointed.

I feel it is very realistic to expect an 80 C310 to weigh 13 lbs and even less without the retracts. Especially if it is to have a good reputation and be forgiving and easily handled by the typical modeler.

I suppose time well tell if these numbers posted on the tower site are correct. And time will tell if this 310 flys well or not. I will hang back and watch before I run out and buy one. Or even worse, I might drag out one of the Commanders and get to work.

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Did anyone notice this

"Lighting System: Wired and preinstalled"

That sounds pretty sweet!!!

Flyfalcons

I did, awesome feature. Is that a first for an ARF?

The real 310 has fairly high wing loading, so if this model does as well it shouldn't be a big deal. Fast approaches and takeoffs are a 310 trademark. [sm=thumbup.gif] I just wanna see a picture of this one so I can decide whether to get one or not. Weight won't be a consideration.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Great Planes seems to be moving toward great looking, unusual scale planes that are a real treat to look at, but "difficult" to fly. Personally, I wouldn't walk from the pits to the flight line for stick time on a twin with a 43-50 oz wing loading.

Jim

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Thats all relative I'm sure its no more difficult to fly than a scale warbird or a jet. There are plenty of other "sport" arf twins out there with low wing loadings, if you can live with a non-scale looking plane (nitro planes 310)

Darren40

My Feedback: (2)

Jim's right. That's pretty high wing loading!

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

An 80" model with a 40oz wing loading will fly vert similar to a 70" model with 25-30oz wing loading. As the size increases, the wing loading becomes less of a factor. Most any warbird with 80-85" wingspan will have over 40oz loading.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Wing span has nothing to do with it. Wing area is the important factor. As wing area goes up, the airplane can support a higher wing loading. The 310 supposedly has a wing area of 948 sq. in. which would be about right for a 60 size trainer or a 90-120 size aerobat. Either of which would probably have a wing span of about 70 inches, putting them, and the Top Flight 310, squarely into your 25-30 oz category.

Jim

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Wing loading aside, I doubt that 3 hp will fly 17-20 lbs, briskly anyway.

OldScaleGuy

My Feedback: (2)

High wing loading is strictly dependent on the aircraft and its flyablility. Many scale planes are flying well over 50 ounces. Don't knock it unless you have tried it. It is not that big of a deal.

scalebirdman

My Feedback: (6)

Greg Hahn had the pilot model at the Scalemasters Championships. Beautiful plane. He didn't fly it, but says is scoots with the .46's. Very clean airframe. Comes with flaps, and lights.

LaCerne

My Feedback: (16)

There's an ad in the latest Model Aviation!

Larsen

LaCerne

My Feedback: (16)

Here is a scan of the ad, for those who don't want to go searching. The ad does say 17-20lbs!! She's a heffer.





Larsen

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

In the words of Paris Hilton, " that's hot".

Its been a few years since I had a twin and I definitely feel the need coming back.

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

That really looks nice! [sm=omg_smile.gif]

Flyfalcons

Bummer, so much for my R model pipe dream.

bruff

My Feedback: (18)

Electric conversion here I come!!
Bob

Jimmy Bananas

My Feedback: (13)

any price on it yet???..haven't seen one posted...

Flyfalcons

Tower has it listed at 499.

adrenalnjunky

My Feedback: (18)

The only thing that bugs me - All the scale detail they put into the plane, and the lighting kit, it appears that the plane will have fixed gear out of the box, with a retract "option" - meaning sink another $300 or so into the retracts, and add that much more weight to the plane.