Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (23)
Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
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 #@$^&*)
Look for it in "late December", maybe March....July...
But take a close look at some of the specifications:
81" span (not bad, IMAA legal)
948 square inches (small but scale)
17-20 pounds (Pudgy little feller, eh?)
43 - 50 oz/sq ft (Holy #@$^&*)
Look for it in "late December", maybe March....July...
#3
Senior Member
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter
I would have expected 11 to 13 pounds for .46's. They never cease to disappoint me.
I would have expected 11 to 13 pounds for .46's. They never cease to disappoint me.
#4
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
ORIGINAL: 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.
ORIGINAL: PilotFighter
I would have expected 11 to 13 pounds for .46's. They never cease to disappoint me.
I would have expected 11 to 13 pounds for .46's. They never cease to disappoint me.
Gee, I must be doing something wrong.
#5
Senior Member
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
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.
#6
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
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.
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.
#8
Senior Member
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: mugenkidd
Did anyone notice this
"Lighting System: Wired and preinstalled"
That sounds pretty sweet!!!
Did anyone notice this
"Lighting System: Wired and preinstalled"
That sounds pretty sweet!!!
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.
#9
My Feedback: (551)
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
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
Jim
#10
My Feedback: (94)
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
"difficult" to fly.
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)
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
ORIGINAL: jrf
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
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
Jim's right. That's pretty high wing loading!
#12
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
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.
#13
My Feedback: (551)
RE: Top Flite Cessna 310 posted
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
Jim
#25
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
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.