pirodeck

I have built the Top Flite piper arrow, and was looking for my next project. I love the look for a twin, and thinking of two modes. The new cessna 310 caught my eye, but I seeing if there was a kit twin i wanted. Top flite DC-3 maybe? Any suggestions, is this a good build for soneone who has only one build under thier belt? Thanks guys!

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

Are you looking to build a kit, you know glue, cover, etc. or to assemble an ARF, which many people call "building."

Do you want sport or scale?

pirodeck

Well I am torn between the cessna 310 ARF and the DC-3 kit. I like having to build kits. I just wanted to know from people who have built the DC-3 if my skill level is capable, I assume its the same as the arrow I built recently. I am looking for more for sport for this next build.

jaka

Hi!
Well if you have been into the hobby for, lets say 5-10 years or more and can fly an aerobatic airplane doing rolling circles, hammerheads, and inverted flight on the deck and so on and are capable of flying a Q-500 racer in a thight pylonracing heat, neck to neck with 4-5 other airplanes....And have build 5-10 kits... Then only then I would recommend building and flying a twin.

pirodeck

Is flying a twin really that much different than a single engine airplane? I am so new to all this, please excuse my ignorance. I have built only one other kit, so I guess building a twin kit is out of the question from the above post, but am I really not going to be able to fly a twin? The twin engine airplane has so much beauty to it, darn my inexperience haha.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

PiroD:

A twin can be just as easy to fly as a sport single, or it can be an airplane that Jimmy Doolittle wouldn't want to get near.

A very nice twin kit, easily built and very nice flyiing, is the Twin-Air 45 rom Northeast Aerodynamics. It also flies very well on a single engine. A nice smaller twin, an ARF this time, is the TwinStar. Avoid the temptation to overpower this one, 'specially if it's your first twin. Nothing bigger than a pari of .32 engines, .25s would be better. The TwinAir will serve as a trainer, it's actually a nice sport plane. The TwinStar is little more than a twin trainer. Sportier? Cedar Hobbies has their TwinStick, a little sportier in its flight, and a little higher in the needed skill than the TwinAir, but still not hard.

Just some ideas for you.

Bill.

Flak

My Feedback: (1)

Pirodeck,
I'm curious obout your handle. Did you have a BBQ on the deck that got out of hand? I suggest you take a look at my Top Flite Gold Edition C-47 in the Warbird Forum. This is a great kit and looks fantastic when finished. Good luck.

n9331v

I always just put together ARF's then decided to build and fly my first twin this past year. I built a DC3 Top Flight. I had no problem building the DC3 but I did have a problem covering it, so I fiber glassed everything sanded the heck out of it and painted it, it looks great better than covering and it flys very nice. I use two OS 46AX engines with a twin onboard glow system. My only quality flight experience prior to the DC3 was flying a hangar 9 P47 150 with a Brisson 52CC gas engine and it was a hand full with this engine setup. Most everyone I talked to said stay away from twins for one reason or another but I did it anyway. If you choose to build the DC3, while building get the Great Planes G3 flight sim and also get the add on for the DC3, this way you can practice routine flying and for the most part hit the K button on the keyboard and kill one engine and do most all of your flying on one engine. I fell for twin's after I built and flew the DC3 I am now building a KMP B25, everyone says not to go over 70 four strokes but I am installing gas G20's I posted some pictures on the KMP B25 forum on the last pages. One bit of advice when building the DC3 if you mount the tanks in the fuse so you can install retracts ballance the DC3 with FULL tanks do not ballance with dry tanks as the manual states. A few builders of the DC3 lost the airplane soon after rotation due to a major ballance error. Always remember DC3 CG Full tanks. Oh forgot to mention it took 6weeks to buid and one week to fiberglass and paint the DC3, if you do build dont worry about engine outs it flys great if you stay calm.

bob1393

My Feedback: (10)

I think the DC-3 is a difficult plane to build - the wing is complicated. The Cessna however is an ARF, so shouldn't be near as difficult. I've been building kits for 30 years - so IMO, I think the DC-3 should be left to more experienced builders.

Bob

Mike Emilio

If you want something that no one else at your field has, how about a 70" or 100" span XP-67 Moonbat? A one-of-a kind eye catcher!

Flak

My Feedback: (1)

Mike,
I have to wonder if you have a "Bat Cave" and muscle bound costume too. Your Moonbat is indeed different. However, I'll stick to my C-47 and B-25. A P-38 will be soon to start. I don't understand what is so difficult about building a DC3/C47 wing. I also agree to balance the DC3/C47 with the fuel tanks full when sitting in the rear center sectin of the wing. This is the same principle as balancing a warbird with 90 dgree rotating retracts. When the wheels go to the rear of the wing, so does the weight. Heavy Nose=GOOD, Heavy Tail=Fatal Flight. On the flight sim, the DC3/C47 is a *****cat, even with one engine out. Practice makes a better pilot.

Mike Emilio

Bat Girl made me give up the costume after the 54th case of beer! Darn. . . .
Now she just wants me to wear an outfit with a big "V" on the front, and be Viagraman

I would agree that I don't see a big deal with a DC3 though. Sure couldn't be any more difficult than my B17.

Build-n-flyer-RCU

My Feedback: (4)

When I got interested in trying a twin just a few years ago there were NO sport twin ARFs, and the only sport twin kit available that would accept a pair of 46FX engines was the Twin-Air. Things have certainly chainged since then!

My Twin-Air has been flying for almost three years now. Its a very nice build and an extremely forgiving flyer. When it got just "too easy" to fly for me I added a pair of Ultrathrust mufflers and then upgraded to AX engines. Now it is one of the fastest planes flying at my field and still fun to bring out every now and then.

My secret to twin success has been attention to detail and engine reliability. As long as both engines are running then twins are as easy to fly as anything else. Others rely more on deft fingers and skill to bring them in when an engine invariably flames out. This works OK as long as you HAVE the necessary deft fingers and skill. I've experienced a couple of engine-outs and landed with no problems, but I don't want to press my luck.

My recommendation- if you have plenty of R/C experience and successfully build and set up very reliable airplanes then go with whatever strikes you. But otherwise something like the Twin-Air or the sport ARFs makes more sense.

Walt

schwatd

Just a thought, you might want to look at the CMP ARFs. The C-160 Transall or the E-2 Hawkeye might help get you started in the twin arena for a modest outlay of money. Those kits seem to behave well and are predictable. Best of luck in what ever you decide.

Troy

IWC

http://www.coxmodels.com/prodinfo.asp?number=006105

jollyroger

My Feedback: (6)

I have read several atricle concerning twins and the related problems. One writer on another website actually discourages twins and then proceeds with the write up on building and flying twins.
Now the only real problem I see is engine reliability and CG. Instead of glow engines, my plan is to use electrics as this eliminates flameouts and tuning, synchronizing, servos, etc, etc, etc.
I have an LT-40 that I would like to convert to a twin, and with the appropriate motors ahould fly well. As far as CG, I don't see any problems as I can move battery packs back and forth.
Finally I would change the plane back to tricycle from tail dragger. Since I have an extra wing using only a center mounted single aileron servo would make connections easier. All I have to do is strip off the ratty old monocrap and build some nacelles.
I plan to use either E-Flight Power 25s or 32s for this project. Maybe some cosmetic changes to the fuse as well. I dunno, I'll have to pull everything togwther and see what I come up with.
It would be nice to start from scratch, but since the planes is already built, I may not beable to do too much with it. we'll see hmmmmm?
cheers and Happy New Year! jollyroger

bhdutch

I had a Super Sportster 40 converted to a twin with OS 32's on it a few (too many) years back. That was a real nice sport twin. Very relaxed to fly but also very aerobatic.

RCM (I think their plan service is still running) had an article and conversion plans. Was an easy conversion.

Dutch

bhdutch

Here's a picture of the SS 40 twin. That's not me in the picture by the way. Much too young.

[img][/img]

stz28

Suggest you consider an OV-10. I built one with twin 25's from Uravich plans (he sold me the cowls and cockpit), but they are now available in kit form:

http://www.hobbyhangar.com/test/kits.htm

When building, you have the option of adding an extra bay in each wing to give it more forgiving performance. I built mine to scale and it flies nicely. Balanced up perfectly. Very stable, but with kind of a fast sink rate. Supposedly it will fly on one engine, but I can't verify this from personal experience.

Good luck with whatever you choose.