Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
11-25-2006, 01:12 PM
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Monroe,
LA
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Not exactly what I meant. But, yes, I think there should at least be a "passable" set of mechanicals in there for a $500 plane, instead of fixed gear.
11-25-2006, 10:38 PM
#30
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Old,
FL
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter
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.
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.
My though is that this airplane will fly great on 2 .46's. I suspect it will fly scale-like at 1/2 to 3/4 throttle. Swap the .46's for 2 OS 55AX's and I bet she'll really open up.
Anyway, just my .02
Anthony
11-26-2006, 01:56 AM
#31
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
As far as the weight to size goes remember that the 120 inch wingspan Nosen 310 was designed to fly with two 60's ! and thats a plane that could easily be in the upper 20 some pounds..My buddy has a nosen 310 that is near 40 pounds and it floats in like a trainer on landings....
11-26-2006, 11:28 AM
#32
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Woonsocket,
RI
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
What about the new OS .55 AX? They are 1.75 HP but are the same size as the .46 and .50 OS produces. I'm thinking of going with two of them.
11-26-2006, 12:03 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a Grass Strip,
NC
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
The only thing about 2 strokes that worries me is mufflers. The last thing I want to see is two HUGE torpedos stuck out of the cowls.
I have 2 NIB OS .46 and bisson pitts style mufflers that I will more than likely use but, I am still worried about hacking up the cowls.
From what I can tell from the photos there is not alot of room in the cowls. I hope T-F has some in cowl headers/mufflers designed for this beautiful Cessna.
Scott
I have 2 NIB OS .46 and bisson pitts style mufflers that I will more than likely use but, I am still worried about hacking up the cowls.
From what I can tell from the photos there is not alot of room in the cowls. I hope T-F has some in cowl headers/mufflers designed for this beautiful Cessna.
Scott
11-26-2006, 06:44 PM
#34
Senior Member
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: adrenalnjunky
Not exactly what I meant. But, yes, I think there should at least be a "passable" set of mechanicals in there for a $500 plane, instead of fixed gear.
Not exactly what I meant. But, yes, I think there should at least be a "passable" set of mechanicals in there for a $500 plane, instead of fixed gear.
11-26-2006, 07:53 PM
#35
My Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Elephant Butte, N.M.
Posts: 6,715
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: adrenalnjunky
Not exactly what I meant. But, yes, I think there should at least be a "passable" set of mechanicals in there for a $500 plane, instead of fixed gear.
Not exactly what I meant. But, yes, I think there should at least be a "passable" set of mechanicals in there for a $500 plane, instead of fixed gear.
11-27-2006, 09:03 AM
#36
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: southamwarwickshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Gotta` have one of these.I doubt that this will be released in the uk though.None of the other TF ARTF`S are here.
The retracts are a must for this,so looking at approx $800.Good exchange rate at the minute,aaagghhh another plane I really don`t need,but must have!!!!!!!
The retracts are a must for this,so looking at approx $800.Good exchange rate at the minute,aaagghhh another plane I really don`t need,but must have!!!!!!!
11-27-2006, 10:51 AM
#37
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: southamwarwickshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Had tobe done.Pre-ordered a kit from O`Briens Hobbies,$469.00!
Make a great project for next year.
Make a great project for next year.
11-28-2006, 03:33 AM
#38
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
I would like to put two 4 strokes in mine. What do you guys think - two OS 70 surpass's is enough - or would it need two 91's?
Bob
Bob
11-28-2006, 03:40 AM
#39
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: southamwarwickshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Hi Bob,
I don`t think 90 four strokes would fit in those cowls,even 70`s probably a squeeze.Besides I think 90`s would be way toooooooo much power.I think the saito 65`s may be a better bet,nice and light also but again maybe too tight a squeeze.
Won`t know for sure until we have a kit in our hands what will fit engine wise.
Steve
I don`t think 90 four strokes would fit in those cowls,even 70`s probably a squeeze.Besides I think 90`s would be way toooooooo much power.I think the saito 65`s may be a better bet,nice and light also but again maybe too tight a squeeze.
Won`t know for sure until we have a kit in our hands what will fit engine wise.
Steve
11-28-2006, 10:02 AM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: West Monroe,
LA
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Yes, I have thought about it a little more, and am "retracting" my previous statement about including mechanicals. If most people would be installing air systems anyway, why not just include the fixed gear with the kit. I guess I would rather have a solid set of fixed gear under the plane than a "iffy" set of cheapo mechanicals. Especially for those of us that fly off of grass.
11-28-2006, 12:27 PM
#41
11-28-2006, 12:54 PM
#42
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Hi Steve - I've always been an OS man, but I hear good things about Saito. If the 65's are lighter, maybe that's the way to go. Like you said - we'll have to wait
and see when the ARF comes out. I only fly 4 strokes - haven't had a 2 stroke since the 1980's. Thanks for your advice.
Bob
and see when the ARF comes out. I only fly 4 strokes - haven't had a 2 stroke since the 1980's. Thanks for your advice.
Bob
11-28-2006, 09:24 PM
#44
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
I thought about going the electric route also, but there is something about the sound of nitro engines that's hard for me to give up.
Bob
Bob
11-28-2006, 10:25 PM
#45
Senior Member
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
The problem with the twin Cessnas is their cowls are too small to comfortably fit engines that are properly sized for the model. I'm currently trying to figure out what engines will work on the 120" Hostetler without cutting the cowls too much. Twin outrunners on this plane would be awesome, though certainly not cheap with dual ESCs and batteries.
11-29-2006, 12:30 AM
#46
My Feedback: (27)
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Flying a ship like this with fixed gear would be like riding a Harley with training wheels.
ORIGINAL: TLH101
I bet it will have a set of fixed gear legs and mounts included, as they list the retracts as "optional", not "required". Their other arfs do.
I bet it will have a set of fixed gear legs and mounts included, as they list the retracts as "optional", not "required". Their other arfs do.
11-29-2006, 12:11 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Reading,
PA
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
I'm thinkin this is gonna be like the TF Staggerwing that D Petit reviewed after flying it last week, it probably won't be able to flown successfully off grass runways. Given speed/wing loading and gear door issues.
I'd like to preoder it but, after buying the TF Staggerwing and seeing the issues with quality it makes me wanna wait till they sell a few.
I'd like to preoder it but, after buying the TF Staggerwing and seeing the issues with quality it makes me wanna wait till they sell a few.
11-29-2006, 12:20 PM
#48
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Castle,
IN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Flyfalcons,
Just to let you know, OS .46AX's and bisson pitts style muffler will fit completely in the cowl. the needle valve will stick through the top 3/8". I flew that combination on the prototype and worked super.
thx
GH
Just to let you know, OS .46AX's and bisson pitts style muffler will fit completely in the cowl. the needle valve will stick through the top 3/8". I flew that combination on the prototype and worked super.
thx
GH
11-29-2006, 12:36 PM
#49
Senior Member
My Feedback: (37)
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
THE COLOR.....THE COLOR.......Why that light baby blue trim......WHY...... I fly with a tough crowd and would be a bit nervous showing up with one of these.....lol. Other than that trim color.....Looks very cool............
Steve
Steve
11-29-2006, 01:32 PM
#50
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
Hey "walk in the park",
I realize that you must have friends/contacts that might be offended by a disapproving comment, but................How was the power ? Would a lone 46 pull this plane around the patch ? Did you fly from grass ? What were the take off runs like ? What did your prototype weigh ? Got any pics of it ?
I realize that you must have friends/contacts that might be offended by a disapproving comment, but................How was the power ? Would a lone 46 pull this plane around the patch ? Did you fly from grass ? What were the take off runs like ? What did your prototype weigh ? Got any pics of it ?