RCU Forums

RCU Forums (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/twin-multi-engine-rc-aircraft-192/)
-   -   Twinstar Monster (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/twin-multi-engine-rc-aircraft-192/3834255-twinstar-monster.html)

Carlos Murphy 02-01-2006 12:41 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Suo

Ive been thinkin of building a twinstar with a set of O.S. 40 LA motors vs the O.S. 25 Fx motors and get the bonus .4hp together. I figure Id mate it to a 9x7 prop to keep the rpms down.

If I sound like a nub its because I am. Ive never owned an RC plane but I have realflight G3. Dont blast me yet, Im also a Commercial/Multi/IFR Pilot, I know it doesnt mean squat.

Anyway if I crash because its to fast o well n my skill are noobish im fine with that. I took the twinstar in realflight and added the 0.S. .40 Fx with a 9x7props and if u keep the rpm with in 17,000rpm (factory Redline) it will easly hit over 100 mph. That motor makes 1.36hp vs the .40 LA's 1 hp so with 9x7 running WOT shouldnt overspeed the motor. As for the airframe I have no idea what the never exceed speed would be.
Been there, done that.
When the first Twin Star's came out (5 years ago?) I did mine with OS 40 FP engines but with stock tanks.
Flew great but for only 7 or 8 minuets per flight. Planes handles "engine outs" very well, more than enough rudder for one engine flights, lands like a trainer but of course thats what this plane is, a twin trainer.
My second generation Twin Star is a "VOLTER".

Edwin 02-01-2006 09:01 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Same here. I installed TT .36pro's. Was the fastest plane at the field for a season. That winter I did maintenance on it and found a bunch stress cracks in the firewalls, wing skins top and bottom and loose hinges on one aileron. The hinge caused flutter which is why I did the maintenance. That plane was one flight away from an in flight failure. I stripped the wing and glassed between the nacells top and bottom and installed dual aileron servos and wider ailerons. Increased wingspan a couple of inches, just cause thats how big the wood blocks were that replaced the plastic wing tips. Yes, it is a twin trainer. And its a good one. But would be a disaster as a first time trainer. I have trained full scale pilots before at our club. They took a little longer to teach than normal. Had to learn perspective flying which seemed to be a problem for them. Dont know why but 2 out of 2 were that way.
Edwin

2slow2matter 02-01-2006 02:01 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Suo

the fact is its very very expensive to buildup experence and knowlege.
Thanks.
It's even more expensive to NOT buildup experience and knowledge. You have NO IDEA what you're getting into. You don't even know how to sync the engines. Heck, you don't even know how to start them. The plane will fly 89 mph (according to my brothers radar gun with me flying mine) with the 40 LA's turnign 10 X 6 props. It flies like it's on rails. Very crisp, point and fly machine. It has the glide slope of a set of keys. I predict you won't even get it in the air before you tear it up, or, worse, tear yourself up.

Carlos Murphy 02-01-2006 03:55 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwin

Same here. I installed TT .36pro's. Was the fastest plane at the field for a season. That winter I did maintenance on it and found a bunch stress cracks in the firewalls, wing skins top and bottom and loose hinges on one aileron. The hinge caused flutter which is why I did the maintenance. That plane was one flight away from an in flight failure. I stripped the wing and glassed between the nacells top and bottom and installed dual aileron servos and wider ailerons. Increased wingspan a couple of inches, just cause thats how big the wood blocks were that replaced the plastic wing tips. Yes, it is a twin trainer. And its a good one. But would be a disaster as a first time trainer. I have trained full scale pilots before at our club. They took a little longer to teach than normal. Had to learn perspective flying which seemed to be a problem for them. Dont know why but 2 out of 2 were that way.
Edwin
I have and have had many T.T.36 Pro's and they are "vibrators".
I have a pair on a Sea Master and Gemini now and have to keep my eye on everything to make sure nothing comes loose or brakes.
My T-Star lasted for over two years (in California) with me and the second owner all the while with the OS 40 FP engines on it with no structual failures other than a landing gear block.

Suo 02-01-2006 08:05 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Ok, what should I get then Avistar or Superstar?

Will the semi-semetrical wing on the Avistar better prepare me for the twinstar then the flat bottomed Superstar?

William Robison 02-01-2006 08:12 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Suo:

The Twinstasr has a flat bottomed wing. Or near enough as to be no difference.

Bill.

desmobob 02-01-2006 08:42 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Suo

Ok, what should I get then Avistar or Superstar?

Will the semi-semetrical wing on the Avistar better prepare me for the twinstar then the flat bottomed Superstar?
The Avistar is an airplane you can enjoy for a long time to come. I would highly recommend it. I just rebuilt a crashed one for a friend of mine. It's sitting in my shop, ready to fly and I would just LOVE to take it for a couple of test flights! :eek:

I will always have a high-wing trainer type model in my stable. Sometimes, they are just what I want to fly.

Good luck,
desmobob

desmobob 02-01-2006 08:57 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Suo,

Did you see this thread?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_38...tm.htm#3846649

Interesting.... ;)

Good flying,
desmobob

270win 02-01-2006 11:57 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Desmobob's right-
The Avistar is the way to go! I have over 1,000 full scale hours.. commercial instrument... blah blah blah... R/C is a whole different game. As a designated trainer at our field I have seen many of us full scale pilot types show up, insist that they're "real" pilots and then go home with there plane in a trash bag.... usually never to be seen again. The Avistar is an excellent trainer, master it and you'll be fine with the Twinstar. The Avistar with an OS 46AX is a VERY good performing model.

Find a good club and someone who can both inspect the airplane before you fly it and help you the first few flights... You'll be amazed how addictive this hobby is if you do it right.... and how frustrating it can be if you do it wrong.

Best of luck to you.

270win

kdickkay4hp0 02-04-2006 03:52 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
I am actually building a twin, I can not tell you what it is because i started with a 74 inch wing I picked up at a swap meet in Grand Rapids. It came off a crop duster. I have it close to being done and I am useing 2 FX 46's. The fuselage is the easy part. I don't know why you would want more then (2) 25's on a little Twinstar. But to the point, you can do a lot with a trainer. First you can make an easy transition from simulator to real flight. Then if you want to go fast just take the wing and take all the dihedrill out and make the motor mount with "0" incidence, and belive me it will go fast. I have one and it has a FX 46 in it and you need to put extra hinges in the thing hold all the slates on. (A light one is the best like an Easy Forty, the Nexstare is a lead slead for this purpose). When your done with that you can strip the covering off the wing and beef up the main spar and hang a couple of engines on the wing. All it takes is a little imagination! Good luck let us know how you make out.

Suo 02-04-2006 04:08 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Well after flyin the nextstar today in Real flight G3 I realized that it was a boring slow plane and the avistar is probley not very different. Its going to be slow, long and expensive before I can get into a twinstar. I dont feel like dealing with flight training bullsh#t and instructor BS again. Thanks for the information, sorry to waste your time.

jrf 02-04-2006 05:01 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Well, in spite of early indications, this has clearly turned out well for all concerned.

Jim

270win 02-05-2006 11:04 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
I agree, people need to know the truth about the process of learning to fly these models and what it costs in time and money to do it successfully. Same thing for training in full scale, there are still flight schools out there that advertise a private licensed for about $4,000 which is very optimistic.... Heck it was $4,000 when the planes could be rented for $59.00/hr and instructors were $25/hr..... That doesn't do anyone any good and I've seen many people drop out of the process when the reality of the process is revealed.

Good flying!!

270

Edwin 02-06-2006 07:32 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Have we ever heard back from anyone that has tried a stunt like this, and claimed success?
Edwin

Suo 02-06-2006 07:24 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Stunt?

Anyways I wanted to pickup on RC avation because I thought it would be a less stressful way to fly then the real deal. Just to be up in the air isnt enough for me, it needs some fun factor. Like a Cessna 172 is very boring because its the chevy cavalier of aircraft. It does nothing fast, like climb, cruise or turn just like a cavalier nor are they both attractive. Only reason people like them is because there cheap, simple and are something to call there own. But in General avation you can buy or rent a little more advanced aircraft to train in then a cessna and go for something like a Piper arrow which is a little faster, a low wing, a complex aircraft and in the end will better prepair you for more advanced aircraft like a twin then would a Cessna. So why do people buy and rent cessna 172s? Money Money Money.

Here in RC avation you need a simple slow aircraft to prevent a crash which seems unpreventable unless u have an instructor. But an instructor and a trainer are expensive and after a few flights u dont need an instructor. Then u adapted so fast u need a better plane.

So what I need something like the Pt-40 then a more advanced single then I move on to the twinstar. The fact that money is low makes a problem, I could afford a twinstar with some .25s or I could afford a trainer with a bit of training. But If I wanted to follow the correct trainin path Id probley spend four times as much. :(

William Robison 02-06-2006 07:48 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Suo:

Granted, you may well spend one fourth as much money before you get so frustrated you'll give it up.

In the full scale world, ask your CFI if starting in a Twin Bonanza would be better, or starting in a C-150.

Bill.

Edwin 02-06-2006 09:08 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Sao:
I think most of us here really would like to see you succeed. Its just that we see posts like yours several times a year. After all the advice they say they're gonna do it the way they want to no matter what we say. Then we never hear back from them. Once in a while you hear about a noobi that is just a natural pilot and amazes everybody. I myself have never seen it nor do I know anybody personally that has seen it. I've only seen the average pilots that get good after years of practice and disceplin. Boredom is something my younger students deal with all the time. It takes patience, to go thru the process. Once my students solo I tell them that they are the most dangerous they'll ever be. You have about a one month honeymoon cause you're careful. Then you start experimenting and it seems like all you do is crash and you wonder if maybe this isnt the sport for you. It happens to almost all of us. Then one day you notice your planes arent hitting the ground so much, and your landings seem effortless. Now you start thinking about which direction your gonna go. To some, a Cessna 172 is a work of art. Others like warbirds and still others prefer an Extra 300. It doesnt matter to any of us which way you go. What we would like to see is that you get as much pleasure out of RC flying as we do.
As for flying full scale. Tried it. Just too expensive. RC keeps my foot in the door and I enjoy it just as much.
Edwin

Suo 02-06-2006 10:39 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
So what plane do I get then?

What route do I take?

And my final comment on the twinstar. Isnt the twinstar with .25 motors a "trainer" or a trainer as in a "twin trainer". I mean the Nexstar with an .46-Fxi vs a twinstar with .25 LAs not a much of a power difference and the twinstar is heavyer. My guess would be handleing caracteristics, Highwing trainer tends to be very stable but have less control and the low wing with no dihedral(unlike most real low wings) will be less stable but have very good control. And as everyone knows you can't improve on one without losing the other.

Anyways sorry to beat a dead horse but Im just wonding if the twinstar can be made into a trainer?

William Robison 02-06-2006 11:03 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Suo:

It is entirely possible that you could start with the Twinstar, and become a very good r/c flier. If you have a skilled twin flier in your area who is willing to mentor you, the probability is much greater.

But there aren't many twin fliers around at all. and really skilled ones are like hen's teeth.

And yes, the Twinstar is a trainer, but as you also said, a TWIN trainer - for people who are already flying single engined planes.

While most single engined trainers are high winged, they do not have to be. If you are interested in a trainer that will become more responsive as you learn, check Hangar 9's new P-51 "PTS" plane. Granted, it's $400, but it includes everything except fuel and the glow battery. Hard to beat. It's an ARF, and it includes also a simulator to run on your PC for after dark and rainy days.

Bill.

Flight Risk 02-07-2006 12:04 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
>>Bill wrote!QUOT! check Hangar 9's new P-51 !QUOT!PTS!QUOT! plane. !QUOT!<<

I was thinking the same thing. Suo, you seem to be interested in speed, and the PTS progressive trainer system will allow you to start with a fairly docile low wing plane and as you learn you remove air brakes and wingtips and other stuff to convert it into a regular speedy warbird.
BTW. You should be able to find an instructor to train you at no cost. Most clubs will even allow a newbie to fly a club plane just to get feeling for it. You need to find a club and hang around and ask questions. The best thing about flying, is being in a club and developing friendships and camaraderie.

FR

2slow2matter 02-08-2006 09:48 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Its avIation, not avation.

Anyway, instruction is free, or it should be. You do not have to pay an instructor to help you. Just buy the plane. And, why not get a smaller, .25 sized trainer to train on. Then, the engine and all gear will trade right into the twinstar. You just have to buy another engine, which you would do anyway. Total extra cost would be about 60 bucks or less for the .25 sized trainer arf.

Deadeye 02-08-2006 11:40 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Here's my two cents on twins. I wasn't really interested in them until my wife fell in love with Big Bossman at the Reno air races in '04. She wanted me to build a model like that. Not wanting to dissapoint my lovely wife, I managed to get a Bridi Tigercat kit. I built two Cor-Star twins (scratch built, coroplast Four-Star bash) last year, one for me, one for the guy who gave me the Bridi kit. Both powered by 40's. I have 40 or so flights on my Cor-Star twin, and am comfortable with it. Still, I felt no where near ready for the Tigercat (by the way, I've flown for 3 1/2 years, and have burned 30-40 gallons of glow fuel).

Fast forward a few months. I decided the Twin-Air would be a good, fast twin to break me in for the Tigercat. It's being built right now. I decided the Twinstar would be a faster twin than my Cor-Star, so I got one, with LA 40's, to train me for the Twin-Air. As soon as the wind quits blowing up here, it's ready for a maiden.

Now, lets review my twin experience, keeping in mind this is all leading up to the Tigercat.

1) Cor-Star twin X2
2) TwinStar
3) Twin-air
4) Tigercat

3 additional planes to train an experienced pilot to prepare myself for the Tigercat. Overboard? I don't think so. Before I fly a plane like the Cat, I want twinsanity to be second nature to me.

Twins are a different animal, not so much in the way they fly (as long as both engines are running), but keeping two engines going is trickier than one might think. My Tigercat won't be ready until some time in 07, but it's worth the wait. Good luck n your endevour.

Randy

Suo 02-12-2006 10:34 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Just playing around in realflight I was able to add Flaps to the alerons. It doesnt fully act like flaps but allows the aircraft to approch about about 10 mph slower. You lose alot of control but gain stability. The main thing is the plane floats now as before it didnt. I dont know much about this or how it works but I assume it has to do with the controler and its program-ability. Will this work?

William Robison 02-12-2006 10:37 PM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
Suo:

Yes, "Flaperons" work on the real world Twinstar just as they do in Realflight. But you have to use a separate servo for each aileron, and have the mix available in your transmitter.

Bill.

BillS 02-13-2006 10:42 AM

RE: Twinstar Monster
 
So,

There comes a time to simply get off your nickel.

Shouldn’t take long to simply bash a junker airplane into a twin and attempt to fly it. Lots of slightly damaged trainers are for sale. After which you will have the savvy to discuss twins.

Bill


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:10 AM.