first twin suggestion?
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (35)
first twin suggestion?
I have been flying R/C models for years but I have never had a twin. I was looking and kieth sparks A-10 since it had a trainer airfoil and the engines are somewhat close together. I have also been looking at the beldone models CL-415. Could some of you more experienced guys give me a little input on which one you would pick for a first twin?
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Carl:
Neither one.
IMHO the absolutely best twin trainer, which is still capable of very good sport aerobatics, is the Twin-Air 45 from Northeast Aerodynamics. www.ne-aero.com
It's a kit, pretty easy to build, and it flies very well on a single engine.
Bill.
Neither one.
IMHO the absolutely best twin trainer, which is still capable of very good sport aerobatics, is the Twin-Air 45 from Northeast Aerodynamics. www.ne-aero.com
It's a kit, pretty easy to build, and it flies very well on a single engine.
Bill.
#3
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Des Moines, WA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
I absolutely agree with Bill. I can't compare the Twin-Air with any others, but having built and flown it, I can tell you it's a can't miss. Had an engine out the first flight and the only way we knew it was from the sound. In addition to a good plane, you get to deal with a good guy in John Marien at NE-Aero. Threw in a couple of old 40s I picked up on ebay, and had plenty of power for a trainer.
I pretty much copied John's color scheme and it turned out pretty good.
John
I pretty much copied John's color scheme and it turned out pretty good.
John
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ames, IA,
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First twin
I agree 100% about the TwinAirs. I've since moved on to much riskier behaviors (P-38), but I still fly both my old TwinAirs and have a great time with 'em. A TwinAir 20 with two good OS .25's is fully capable of aerobatics and racing.
mt
mt
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
I am considering a twin-air 45 also. (First twin) I have a pair of OS 52 four strokes doing nothing at the moment. I wonder if that would be a good motor combo for that plane? If not, which plane?
AJT
AJT
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
AJT:
Plain old OS 40 FP engines do very well for me, the 52 four strokes should be really nice. Plenty of power and excellent sound.
Bill.
Plain old OS 40 FP engines do very well for me, the 52 four strokes should be really nice. Plenty of power and excellent sound.
Bill.
#8
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
AJT:
The Twin-Air .45 is a great first twin (and second). The (2) 52 four-strokes would be more than enough power and would sound great.
The plane comes in between 6.5-7.5 lbs depending on the engines used. The wing loading for 7lbs is 19.8 lbs/sq ft while at 8lbs its 22.7 lbs/sq ft.
But then again, I'm biased!
John
The Twin-Air .45 is a great first twin (and second). The (2) 52 four-strokes would be more than enough power and would sound great.
The plane comes in between 6.5-7.5 lbs depending on the engines used. The wing loading for 7lbs is 19.8 lbs/sq ft while at 8lbs its 22.7 lbs/sq ft.
But then again, I'm biased!
John
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Homebrewer:
I have never built, nor even flown a SPAD. I have handled them and seen them fly, to me there is just something "Not right" about them. Listen carefully, I said "To ME" and did not say to you, or anyone else.
When I go to the bother of putting a twin together I want it to look like an airplane that, if it were larger, could be a man-carrying machine, and one that someone might build.
Granted, someone is probably going to build a SPAD ultralight before long, and then all the RV-4s will have coroplast wings, and then...
Yes, there are semi-scale SPADs, but with that much bother I'll stick to wood, fiberglass, and foam, paint and/or Monokote.
Just me.
Someday I might try a spad, but my enjoyment is as much the building as the flying. If the building is trivial, then I'm afraid the flying will be trivial also, and I don't want that to happen.
Bill.
I have never built, nor even flown a SPAD. I have handled them and seen them fly, to me there is just something "Not right" about them. Listen carefully, I said "To ME" and did not say to you, or anyone else.
When I go to the bother of putting a twin together I want it to look like an airplane that, if it were larger, could be a man-carrying machine, and one that someone might build.
Granted, someone is probably going to build a SPAD ultralight before long, and then all the RV-4s will have coroplast wings, and then...
Yes, there are semi-scale SPADs, but with that much bother I'll stick to wood, fiberglass, and foam, paint and/or Monokote.
Just me.
Someday I might try a spad, but my enjoyment is as much the building as the flying. If the building is trivial, then I'm afraid the flying will be trivial also, and I don't want that to happen.
Bill.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
BILL. and JOHN
Thanks for the info. I tried to order a kit today but no one was home. I'll keep trying until I get through. What in your opinions would be the biggest four strokes I could use on this plane? The reason I ask is other than the OS52's I have access to a couple of YS-63's But I'am thinking they would pull the wings off the plane! And my buddy offered me the use of a pair of SATO 56's. Just Too many decisions! (lol)
AJT
Thanks for the info. I tried to order a kit today but no one was home. I'll keep trying until I get through. What in your opinions would be the biggest four strokes I could use on this plane? The reason I ask is other than the OS52's I have access to a couple of YS-63's But I'am thinking they would pull the wings off the plane! And my buddy offered me the use of a pair of SATO 56's. Just Too many decisions! (lol)
AJT
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
AJT:
My preference is the Saito engines, but if you already have the OS, use them. They will do very well for you.
The YS 63 engines would not pull the wings off, it's a strong plane, but they're just a lot more power than you will need.
Bill.
PS: There is also a good reason not to go too high on the power - when one engine is dead the higher available power increases the difficulty of control. wr.
My preference is the Saito engines, but if you already have the OS, use them. They will do very well for you.
The YS 63 engines would not pull the wings off, it's a strong plane, but they're just a lot more power than you will need.
Bill.
PS: There is also a good reason not to go too high on the power - when one engine is dead the higher available power increases the difficulty of control. wr.
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
first twin suggestion?
Originally posted by William Robison
Homebrewer:
I have never built, nor even flown a SPAD. I have handled them and seen them fly, to me there is just something "Not right" about them. Listen carefully, I said "To ME" and did not say to you, or anyone else.
When I go to the bother of putting a twin together I want it to look like an airplane that, if it were larger, could be a man-carrying machine, and one that someone might build.
snip
Bill.
Homebrewer:
I have never built, nor even flown a SPAD. I have handled them and seen them fly, to me there is just something "Not right" about them. Listen carefully, I said "To ME" and did not say to you, or anyone else.
When I go to the bother of putting a twin together I want it to look like an airplane that, if it were larger, could be a man-carrying machine, and one that someone might build.
snip
Bill.
With all respect intended, as I throughly enjoy your posting, and hold in highest regard the wealth of information that you share with us .
For someone who wants to test the waters and get the feel of a twin, why not a SPAD?. It would reduce the knee knock and fear factor immensely for the person who is wanting to step up to a twin. If he should happen to have a flame out and he dirt nap it, it's chance of survival is considerably greater, and even if it is a total loss, your out maybe $20 and a few evenings work instead of hundreds of dollars and months (or years) of work. I have personally seen a 72" wingspan SPAD cartwheel 6 times on a botched landing and the damage amounted to a broken motor mount, a stripped throttle servo, and 4 nylon wing bolts sheared. It was flying the next day. Seems to me like the SPAD is the best possible "learning tool" for a TWIN beginner. Then later, after a fellow has honed his twin skills, and is comfortable with the engines, the tuning and himself, he can transfer all the gear to a conventional balsa plane if he desires. Right down to the retracts, scale rivets, and everything else. It just seems a shame that more people do not fly twins, mostly due to the fear of crashing something that they have poured countless hours and dollars into.
I know of a couple of beautiful twins in my area that were flown once, and put up on the shelf . To me that is a shame, planes are meant to fly. I look at it this way, a beginner driver should start with a inexpensive car, not a new Caddy or Lexus. To me the same goes for a flyer.
Thank you, and whether it is a Balsa or a SPAD, there is nothing like the sound of a twin on a fly by
I hope to step up to twins myself sometime in the future.
Dwight Hayden
#15
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
To Spad or not to Spad, that is the question.
Dwight:
Spads I've seen all had high wing loading, which means they have to fly fast. A spad is coming down at 40 mph, 50-60 they struggle to stay up. At 70 they start to get happy. At least that's what I've seen.
For contrast, the Twin-Air will tool along happily at 40, and fly very nicely, easy to control. And yet with a pair of 40 FPs on it it will get up to 80 or so when you want it to. And still be easy to fly. Lose an engine you might not even know it, unless you're at a high power setting. A very mild and easy plane to fly. To my mind, a much better trainer than the spad.
Granted, the spad is much more damage resistant, and if you screw up it needs to be. The Twin-Air, now, if you screw up you have time to correct the mistake. Repeating myself, a much better trainer.
Yes, you can drop a bundle in a sport twin, but you can drop a bundle in a sport single too.My UltraStick 120 represents just a little under $1200, but my Twin-Air 45 was right at $500. These prices are all new, of course. A total crash will knock out about $200 of that $500, the lost $200 is ten times the price you mentioned for the spad. No argument. But remember the old maxim, if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it.
Going high on a sport twin, picture attached is close to $2K. It has all ball bearing servos, controls are ball linked, pumped engines, and even a micro controller to manage the engine speed and keep them in sync. It will go 145 mph. And it will also fly nicely at 50 mph. Stalling speed (calculated) is 38 mph. Spads just don't do that. So far as I have seen, anyway.
So, to beat a dead horse, I still think the Twin-Air is far the better trainer.
Bill.
Here's my C 3/10.
Spads I've seen all had high wing loading, which means they have to fly fast. A spad is coming down at 40 mph, 50-60 they struggle to stay up. At 70 they start to get happy. At least that's what I've seen.
For contrast, the Twin-Air will tool along happily at 40, and fly very nicely, easy to control. And yet with a pair of 40 FPs on it it will get up to 80 or so when you want it to. And still be easy to fly. Lose an engine you might not even know it, unless you're at a high power setting. A very mild and easy plane to fly. To my mind, a much better trainer than the spad.
Granted, the spad is much more damage resistant, and if you screw up it needs to be. The Twin-Air, now, if you screw up you have time to correct the mistake. Repeating myself, a much better trainer.
Yes, you can drop a bundle in a sport twin, but you can drop a bundle in a sport single too.My UltraStick 120 represents just a little under $1200, but my Twin-Air 45 was right at $500. These prices are all new, of course. A total crash will knock out about $200 of that $500, the lost $200 is ten times the price you mentioned for the spad. No argument. But remember the old maxim, if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it.
Going high on a sport twin, picture attached is close to $2K. It has all ball bearing servos, controls are ball linked, pumped engines, and even a micro controller to manage the engine speed and keep them in sync. It will go 145 mph. And it will also fly nicely at 50 mph. Stalling speed (calculated) is 38 mph. Spads just don't do that. So far as I have seen, anyway.
So, to beat a dead horse, I still think the Twin-Air is far the better trainer.
Bill.
Here's my C 3/10.
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
Re: To Spad or not to Spad, that is the question.
Originally posted by William Robison
Dwight:
<Spads I've seen all had high wing loading, which means they <have to fly fast. A spad is coming down at 40 mph, 50-60 they <struggle to stay up. At 70 they start to get happy. At least <that's what I've seen.
<Stalling speed (calculated) is 38 mph. Spads just don't do that. <So far as I have seen, anyway.
<Bill.
Here's my C 3/10.
Dwight:
<Spads I've seen all had high wing loading, which means they <have to fly fast. A spad is coming down at 40 mph, 50-60 they <struggle to stay up. At 70 they start to get happy. At least <that's what I've seen.
<Stalling speed (calculated) is 38 mph. Spads just don't do that. <So far as I have seen, anyway.
<Bill.
Here's my C 3/10.
These are not commercially built planes like the airmadillo, (which flys exactly like you say) These are planes that guys experimented with till they found a cheap alternative and a good flying all around plane. They will float like any good high wing trainer should. I have a 72" wingspan BUHOR style wing on a gutterpipe fuselage with a Mag .91 4 stroke, and because I purposely made it a bit bigger to handle the additional weight, it flys "exactly" like my Sig 4 star 60. (This is not just my opinion, but also that of a number of other 4 star 60 guys who I have let fly my plane. Yes, it is heavier on the ground, but the wingloading is the same as the 4 star 60 and I can bring it in with a slight headwind and actually harrier land it.
On a breezy day I get a good response from the guys at the field when I point it into the wind, throttle back, and play the controls to hold it in one spot like a hawk, or sometimes even float backwards a bit if the windspeed is great enough. Airplane design has a lot more to do with the way a plane flys than the material it is made from.
You have more knowlege in your left finger than I will ever amass regarding RC planes, and Twins in general, and I hate to disagree with you on anything, but I really believe that you are baseing your opinion of SPAD planes on a few poorly designed ones.
<But remember the old maxim, if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it.>
Precisely, that's why there are so many "one flight" twins setting collecting dust, or hanging from folks ceilings. And a perfect example of why a 20 to 30 dollar (in materials) SPAD would be an excellent choice for the beginning Twin pilot.
Thank you sir, and I hope that you agree that it's ok for us to "disagree" on this subject. I will continue to learn from you and hope that eventually I will be flying my first twin. Sorry , but it will be a SPAD
Dwight Hayden
#17
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Dwight:
I know, first of all, that there is much that I don't know. That's why I have made no definite statements, always saying "In my experience," and "So far is I have seen," etcetera.
Now a proposition. Spads I kow from nothing, except the lead sleds I've seen. Do you have a matched pair of 40-50 engines? Make another spad, same size as your BUHOR, and hang the pair on it. Flies well with a 91, it will fly as well with a pair of 40s. Work it out and you will accomplish two things. 1) You will be flying a twin and enjoying it, and 2) I'll have a spad twin because you'll send me the design and I'll build one too.
Being honest with you, I'm afraid you'll do it. Why does that scare me? Because I'm afraid I'll like the damned thing! That's enough to scare anybody. (Haw!)
Even if I do like it, though, I'll still stay mainly with the balsa etc. just because I like the looks so much better.
Finally, thanks for the kind words re my available fund of information, it's more memory than smarts. And I am always ready to learn more. Send me your twin design and teach me. we will no longer disagree.
But for now I'm still going to fight for the Twin-Air as the trainer.
Haw again.
Bill.
I know, first of all, that there is much that I don't know. That's why I have made no definite statements, always saying "In my experience," and "So far is I have seen," etcetera.
Now a proposition. Spads I kow from nothing, except the lead sleds I've seen. Do you have a matched pair of 40-50 engines? Make another spad, same size as your BUHOR, and hang the pair on it. Flies well with a 91, it will fly as well with a pair of 40s. Work it out and you will accomplish two things. 1) You will be flying a twin and enjoying it, and 2) I'll have a spad twin because you'll send me the design and I'll build one too.
Being honest with you, I'm afraid you'll do it. Why does that scare me? Because I'm afraid I'll like the damned thing! That's enough to scare anybody. (Haw!)
Even if I do like it, though, I'll still stay mainly with the balsa etc. just because I like the looks so much better.
Finally, thanks for the kind words re my available fund of information, it's more memory than smarts. And I am always ready to learn more. Send me your twin design and teach me. we will no longer disagree.
But for now I'm still going to fight for the Twin-Air as the trainer.
Haw again.
Bill.
#18
Senior Member
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pampa, TX
Posts: 5,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: To Spad or not to Spad, that is the question.
Originally posted by William Robison
Going high on a sport twin, picture attached is close to $2K. It has all ball bearing servos, controls are ball linked, pumped engines, and even a micro controller to manage the engine speed and keep them in sync. It will go 145 mph.
Here's my C 3/10.
Going high on a sport twin, picture attached is close to $2K. It has all ball bearing servos, controls are ball linked, pumped engines, and even a micro controller to manage the engine speed and keep them in sync. It will go 145 mph.
Here's my C 3/10.
What power plants/props are in that beastie?? They must be some bad lads.
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Jeff:
I have to admit that speed is after a long downhill run.
Flat out level flight is around 100.
The engines are Magnum 46 XLs, with 10x8 MAS props, three bladed.
Since the picture was taken, the Du-Bro spinners have been replaced with Tru-Turn, to allow mounting the magnets for the EMS synchro device.
Good to hear from you again.
Bill.
I have to admit that speed is after a long downhill run.
Flat out level flight is around 100.
The engines are Magnum 46 XLs, with 10x8 MAS props, three bladed.
Since the picture was taken, the Du-Bro spinners have been replaced with Tru-Turn, to allow mounting the magnets for the EMS synchro device.
Good to hear from you again.
Bill.
#20
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
first twin suggestion?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by William Robison
[B]Dwight:
<Now a proposition. Spads I kow from nothing, except the lead <sleds I've seen. Do you have a matched pair of 40-50 engines? <Make another spad, same size as your BUHOR, and hang the <pair on it. Flies well with a 91, it will fly as well with a pair of <40s. Work it out and you will accomplish two things. 1) You will <be flying a twin and enjoying it, and 2) I'll have a spad twin <because you'll send me the design and I'll build one too.
I plan on building a SPAD twin fuse "Flying Boxcar" (I forget the Air Force Designation # but it was used a lot in the late 40s and early 50s. ) I will be using the basic principals I used in my present plane including the BUHOR style wing. I figure that the twin fuse and twin rudders will give more propwash over the rudders than a conventional single fuse/ single tail twin. I'm hopeing that this will make the bird more controllable at slower speeds. I also plan on having a LOT of wing area in order to compensate for any additional weight that I must carry due to the type of materials used. I will keep the engines as close as possible to the centerline of the plane to minimize the "leverage effect" of an engine out. Being as this will be my experimental "TWIN Trainer" I will build it more for function than looks considering that it's "expiration date" may come up unexpectedly due to my limited flying skills I'm not inventing anything here, as a number of twin Spads have already been built and flown very sucessfully. A friend had a "C38" C standing for Coroplast, knock off of a P38 at the Spadfest in Memphis a couple of weeks ago. It was not scale of a P 38 by any means, but it flew great and won top honors both in pilots choice and best plane of the event. On a high speed fly by, it looked and sounded so wonderful that it would give you that "warm and fuzzy feeling"
I am hopeing that my attempt at the Flying boxcar can work out as well. And because I will be building it as a suedo cargo plane,
I hope to be able to fly it slower than the typical twin.
Right now I just need to round up a matching pair of Magnum 4 strokes, and find a few evenings of spare time. (And improve my flying skills while I am at it
<Being honest with you, I'm afraid you'll do it. Why does that <scare me? Because I'm afraid I'll like the damned thing! That's <enough to scare anybody. (Haw!)
<Even if I do like it, though, I'll still stay mainly with the balsa etc. <just because I like the looks so much better.
I will do it sometime this summer, and I will do the basic plans as I go , along with construction pics.
I will then give my flight report and tell it "like it is" whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. I also have a couple of "Top Gun" pilots in the club I belong to that will fly it and give their honest opinion.
If it turns out ok, I'll send you the photos, plans, and hope you will try one too. I know it will never compete with your beautiful scale planes, but for a general fun, cheap and easy to build plane,
I think that the "return of fun for $ and time invested" will be well worth it.
Thanks,
Dwight Hayden
By the way, I do have Balsa planes also. I'm not a "CORO/SPAD only" person. I figure anything that flys good, and gives you pleasure is OK no matter what it is made from :^)
[B]Dwight:
<Now a proposition. Spads I kow from nothing, except the lead <sleds I've seen. Do you have a matched pair of 40-50 engines? <Make another spad, same size as your BUHOR, and hang the <pair on it. Flies well with a 91, it will fly as well with a pair of <40s. Work it out and you will accomplish two things. 1) You will <be flying a twin and enjoying it, and 2) I'll have a spad twin <because you'll send me the design and I'll build one too.
I plan on building a SPAD twin fuse "Flying Boxcar" (I forget the Air Force Designation # but it was used a lot in the late 40s and early 50s. ) I will be using the basic principals I used in my present plane including the BUHOR style wing. I figure that the twin fuse and twin rudders will give more propwash over the rudders than a conventional single fuse/ single tail twin. I'm hopeing that this will make the bird more controllable at slower speeds. I also plan on having a LOT of wing area in order to compensate for any additional weight that I must carry due to the type of materials used. I will keep the engines as close as possible to the centerline of the plane to minimize the "leverage effect" of an engine out. Being as this will be my experimental "TWIN Trainer" I will build it more for function than looks considering that it's "expiration date" may come up unexpectedly due to my limited flying skills I'm not inventing anything here, as a number of twin Spads have already been built and flown very sucessfully. A friend had a "C38" C standing for Coroplast, knock off of a P38 at the Spadfest in Memphis a couple of weeks ago. It was not scale of a P 38 by any means, but it flew great and won top honors both in pilots choice and best plane of the event. On a high speed fly by, it looked and sounded so wonderful that it would give you that "warm and fuzzy feeling"
I am hopeing that my attempt at the Flying boxcar can work out as well. And because I will be building it as a suedo cargo plane,
I hope to be able to fly it slower than the typical twin.
Right now I just need to round up a matching pair of Magnum 4 strokes, and find a few evenings of spare time. (And improve my flying skills while I am at it
<Being honest with you, I'm afraid you'll do it. Why does that <scare me? Because I'm afraid I'll like the damned thing! That's <enough to scare anybody. (Haw!)
<Even if I do like it, though, I'll still stay mainly with the balsa etc. <just because I like the looks so much better.
I will do it sometime this summer, and I will do the basic plans as I go , along with construction pics.
I will then give my flight report and tell it "like it is" whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. I also have a couple of "Top Gun" pilots in the club I belong to that will fly it and give their honest opinion.
If it turns out ok, I'll send you the photos, plans, and hope you will try one too. I know it will never compete with your beautiful scale planes, but for a general fun, cheap and easy to build plane,
I think that the "return of fun for $ and time invested" will be well worth it.
Thanks,
Dwight Hayden
By the way, I do have Balsa planes also. I'm not a "CORO/SPAD only" person. I figure anything that flys good, and gives you pleasure is OK no matter what it is made from :^)
#21
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prior Lake,
MN
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
I've read in previous posts, that the TwinAir45 was about the best entry level kit.
What differences are there compared to the Duellist, that make the TwinAir a better first twin project?
Greg
What differences are there compared to the Duellist, that make the TwinAir a better first twin project?
Greg
#22
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Greg:
Twin-Air and the Duellist.
Starting with construction.
The Twin-Air wing is built flat on the board, the Duelist requires a jig stick, and gluing the trailing edge in "Mid Air," with the upper sheeting attached while it has this minimum support. And then invert the structure and attach the bottom skin. Warps can be built in at any point unless care is taken.
The TA wing is built by laying the bottom sheeting on the board, gluing the ribs and frame work to it, then attaching the top skin, and finally lifting it from the board. Almost impossible to get a warp.
The Duellist fuselage is built on a semi-crutch, the formers are fastened to the building board, the side longerons glued in, then the top sheets. While the formers are still glued to the board, the longerons, formers, and top sheets are edge sanded for the upper half of the fuselage sheeting, the sheeting applied, and then the half finished fuselage is cut free from the board the the lower half sanded and sheeted. I've left many steps out, but that's the general idea.
The TA fuselage is a simple box, it almost builds itself.
So, just on the construction, we see the Twin-Air is by far the easier to build, therefore the preferred kit for the less skilled builder. If it weren't a twin I would also recommend it as a first kit.
As a side note, most Northeast Aerodynamics' single engine kits are built the same way, any one of these would be a good beginner's kit.
In flying, there is much less difference. The Duellist is faster, so the TA gives you more time to correct the mistakes you are going to make. With slight modifications the Duellist is an excellent aerobatic ship, or you could build the Duellist Mk II which already has the changes. The Mk II is available as plans only, no kits.
When flying with an engine out, the Twin-Air has the edge, with a slightly longer after fuselage, but the Duellist is still very good mannered on one engine.
So in summary:
Easy build and easy fly, the Twin-Air 45.
Difficult build and higher performance, the Duellist 2/40.
Difficult build and pattern performance, the modified Duellist 2/40 or the Duellist 2/40 Mk II from plans.
But on looks it's the Duellist hands down.
Bill.
Twin-Air and the Duellist.
Starting with construction.
The Twin-Air wing is built flat on the board, the Duelist requires a jig stick, and gluing the trailing edge in "Mid Air," with the upper sheeting attached while it has this minimum support. And then invert the structure and attach the bottom skin. Warps can be built in at any point unless care is taken.
The TA wing is built by laying the bottom sheeting on the board, gluing the ribs and frame work to it, then attaching the top skin, and finally lifting it from the board. Almost impossible to get a warp.
The Duellist fuselage is built on a semi-crutch, the formers are fastened to the building board, the side longerons glued in, then the top sheets. While the formers are still glued to the board, the longerons, formers, and top sheets are edge sanded for the upper half of the fuselage sheeting, the sheeting applied, and then the half finished fuselage is cut free from the board the the lower half sanded and sheeted. I've left many steps out, but that's the general idea.
The TA fuselage is a simple box, it almost builds itself.
So, just on the construction, we see the Twin-Air is by far the easier to build, therefore the preferred kit for the less skilled builder. If it weren't a twin I would also recommend it as a first kit.
As a side note, most Northeast Aerodynamics' single engine kits are built the same way, any one of these would be a good beginner's kit.
In flying, there is much less difference. The Duellist is faster, so the TA gives you more time to correct the mistakes you are going to make. With slight modifications the Duellist is an excellent aerobatic ship, or you could build the Duellist Mk II which already has the changes. The Mk II is available as plans only, no kits.
When flying with an engine out, the Twin-Air has the edge, with a slightly longer after fuselage, but the Duellist is still very good mannered on one engine.
So in summary:
Easy build and easy fly, the Twin-Air 45.
Difficult build and higher performance, the Duellist 2/40.
Difficult build and pattern performance, the modified Duellist 2/40 or the Duellist 2/40 Mk II from plans.
But on looks it's the Duellist hands down.
Bill.
#23
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Greg,
Bill gives a fairly impartial comparrison of the two planes (though I think the Twin-Air .45 deserves more in the looks category )
A few additional points would be that the nacelles for the Duellist are under the wing and are above the wing for the Twin-Air .45. This helps significantly with ground clearance issues.
Retracts vs Fixed Gear: The Duellist is designed for retracts. The Twin-Air .45 is designed for (and ships with) fixed gear, but is capable of having retracts if you want to.
The Duellist has a symetrical wing airfoil for better aerobatics and the Twin-Air has a semi-symetrical airfoil for ease of building and better low speed handling.
The Twin-Air .45 is lighter than the Duellist, has more wing area, and a slightly longer tail. Other than that, both planes are pretty close in size.
In closing, both planes have similarities, but are targeted for different builders/fliers.
John
Bill gives a fairly impartial comparrison of the two planes (though I think the Twin-Air .45 deserves more in the looks category )
A few additional points would be that the nacelles for the Duellist are under the wing and are above the wing for the Twin-Air .45. This helps significantly with ground clearance issues.
Retracts vs Fixed Gear: The Duellist is designed for retracts. The Twin-Air .45 is designed for (and ships with) fixed gear, but is capable of having retracts if you want to.
The Duellist has a symetrical wing airfoil for better aerobatics and the Twin-Air has a semi-symetrical airfoil for ease of building and better low speed handling.
The Twin-Air .45 is lighter than the Duellist, has more wing area, and a slightly longer tail. Other than that, both planes are pretty close in size.
In closing, both planes have similarities, but are targeted for different builders/fliers.
John
#24
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
first twin suggestion?
Greg:
John did point out one nasty on the Duellist - using two blade props with retracts.
The available room for retraction severely limits prop clearance.
If you use the supplied fixed gear (yes, the Duellist also comes with the parts for fixed gear, and some people do use it) and find too little tip clearance you just install larger wheels.
With retracts you have to use three blade props to get more room.
And I forgot the weight completely
OK John, a little slack, please. I did not say the Twin-Air wasn't good looking. It's like a Twin Comanche/Twin-Air and a Cessna 310/Duellist. Different, both good looking, but one is more sleek in its appearance.
And I still say the Twin-Air is the better trainer and general flying airplane.
Bill.
John did point out one nasty on the Duellist - using two blade props with retracts.
The available room for retraction severely limits prop clearance.
If you use the supplied fixed gear (yes, the Duellist also comes with the parts for fixed gear, and some people do use it) and find too little tip clearance you just install larger wheels.
With retracts you have to use three blade props to get more room.
And I forgot the weight completely
OK John, a little slack, please. I did not say the Twin-Air wasn't good looking. It's like a Twin Comanche/Twin-Air and a Cessna 310/Duellist. Different, both good looking, but one is more sleek in its appearance.
And I still say the Twin-Air is the better trainer and general flying airplane.
Bill.
#25
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prior Lake,
MN
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first twin suggestion?
I guess I'm not afraid of the more complex building project of the Duellist. I've also purchased the SD60, and am looking foreword to building it. I have a fair amount of building experience.
I was more concerned with a plane to learn twin engine flying on. I have a Duellist 2/40 kit now, but was wondering if the Twin-Air would be a better plane to learn on. I didn't want a plane that was totally stable with an engine out, as this wouldn't be teaching you much about flying twins. I need something to get me prepared for flying the SD60.
Greg
I was more concerned with a plane to learn twin engine flying on. I have a Duellist 2/40 kit now, but was wondering if the Twin-Air would be a better plane to learn on. I didn't want a plane that was totally stable with an engine out, as this wouldn't be teaching you much about flying twins. I need something to get me prepared for flying the SD60.
Greg