BuzzardsFly

Hi,

Has anyone here buit a super cub from www.aerocraftrc.com ??? It is listed for geared speed 400 or texaco 049. The specs look good at 210z and 46 inch wingspan.

Looks like freight is the same for two kits as one, so one built 2 channel, and one with throttle flaps and ailerons. Finally an excuse to brush the dust of my 7 channel futaba gold box. Any pointers??

Chris

Dan Vincent

Chris,

I like models that size. Wonder if it would be up to a mild R/C .09 and floats.

BuzzardsFly

I live on the coast dan, not much smooth water around here i can fly off.
But, i say the price is right, so, why not?

Chris

BMatthews

Yeah, you'll be wanting a new flight pack of all micro gear to keep the weight under control with all the extra functions. But otherwise it sounds like fun.

Dan, for this size on floats I would suggest a stonger engine. A Norvel 061 or 074 comes to mind. The floats will add to the overall weight and the suction of the water usually requires extra power or some serious finessing to break loose.

If you can trim a little of the weight on the 2 channel version it'll thermal very nicely. For this try to keep it down closer to 17 oz by replacing some wood with lighter stock and or cutting down on some of the sizes. But at 21 oz it'll be a very nice sport flyer.

Dan Vincent

I like a lightweight .09 diesel turning a little slower than a smaller engine screamin' its' guts out.
You can always throttle a larger engine back a little and still have a reserve of power if you need it.

This Super Cub model is about the same size as my Sterling Piper Tri-Pacer with a '44" span.

I started to build the Tri-Pacer a couple of years ago and got as far as the fuselage. As I remember Sterling kits come out pretty heavy so I may do a redesign to save some weight.

Anyone have any experience with the Sterling Tri-Pacer? I will use an .09 in that one for sure.

DustOffUH1

My Feedback: (2)

Man thats cheap! under $30,, and its $100, with the motor & speed controller [X(], next time I get paid, I just might visit that web site again.

Tom @ Buzzard Bluff

That, the Eastbourne and the Farman on the site are Pat Tritle designs for Spd. 400s. While I haven't built it I am familiar with Pats' designs. They are designed to hold the maximum amount of air together with the least amount of structure. They build very light but you must fit the joints well since there is little extra strength designed in to take up the slack of poor workmanship as there is with most kits designed for glow RC. The only design change I would entertain is using Spruce or Bass for the main longerons in place of balsa. And that for handling concerns rather than needing strength for flying.
Pats' designs have one thing in common, if built well they fly superbly. Just don't try to 'improve' on them. Build them to plan with good wood, tight joints and TLC and you will love them. They are exactly as strong as they need to be to fly well, but no stronger.
Dan:
Pat flew my buddy, Steve Staples, 54" Comet T-Craft at the Small Steps just recently. It was built from the rubber kit design with few modifications. It wears an M. P. Jet .061 up front and Pat flew it a few clicks off idle once in the air so I think an .09 diesel would be overkill on one of the designs on the site Chris referenced. BTW, I think Pat fell in love with the way the T-craft flew. It was very scale-like with the Jet putting away in the nose. Tom

BuzzardsFly

Hey, it lighter than my old three channel Kraft wheel chock- er i mean Brick.

Chris

Dan Vincent

Tom,

I had one of those Comet "54" kits, can't remember if it was an Airknocker or T-craft. It was very light construction as you mentioned.

A kit collector friend wanted it so I sent it to him. Should have copied the plan as I could have beefed-up the construction for RC.

Talking about using an .06 instead of an .09 is a subject you could debate. If I used an older lightweigh .09, say a Cub .09, it would probably weigh less than my MP-Jets .061 diesel and the .061 is a more modern design which has more power than the Cub .09. Many of the newer engines are pretty heavy. I need to get a postal scale and start comparing weights. An Arden .099 only weighs 2.6 ounces.

I like .09's as they are less balky than the smaller engines. Another plus is that an .09 typically swings a 7 X4 or even an 8 X 3 which matches up well with a nose that is 4-1/2" wide on a 44" Sterling Tri-pacer. If I was using a smaller engine with a 6" prop there would only be 3/4" of blade on each side in the windstream.

When I go flying, starting and tuning the engine should only take seconds. I've seen guys with .049's that spend the whole session playing with their engine instead of flying. I'll take a reliable old Enya .09 or early OS .10 running on stock fuel anyday over a Cox TD .049 running on hi-nitro.

BMatthews

Those had nothing on my original Sterling Command Master block. 9 oz for rudder only.....

If your flight pack comes in at about 5 oz for the whole 4 or 5 channels then fine otherwise I'd be looking at some micro servos and a small battery pack to go with the full sized reciever. Every oz on these little ones acts like a 1/2 lb on the mid to larger models.

Tom @ Buzzard Bluff

[quote]ORIGINAL: Dan Vincent

Tom,

<I had one of those Comet "54" kits, can't remember if it was an Airknocker or T-craft. It was very light construction as you mentioned.

A kit collector friend wanted it so I sent it to him. Should have copied the plan as I could have beefed-up the construction for RC.>

And I'm still sitting on one of the Aeronca Chief kits.

<I like .09's as they are less balky than the smaller engines. Another plus is that an .09 typically swings a 7 X4 or even an 8 X 3 which matches up well with a nose that is 4-1/2" wide on a 44" Sterling Tri-pacer. If I was using a smaller engine with a 6" prop there would only be 3/4" of blade on each side in the windstream.>

Steve was running an 8x4 on the Jet. It's an engine he got from me so it's well broken-in. It's a single flip starter and purrs happily away on big wood. (or MAS in this case)

<When I go flying, starting and tuning the engine should only take seconds. I've seen guys with .049's that spend the whole session playing with their engine instead of flying. I'll take a reliable old Enya .09 or early OS .10 running on stock fuel anyday over a Cox TD .049 running on hi-nitro.>

You'll get no argument from me. My favorite glows are the older baffle-piston, cast iron & steel Enya and O. S. Max .09 & .10. They are utterly dependable and must be the engines for which the term 'friendly' was coined. Plus, if broken-in properly and fed a diet of low nitro & high castor they'll still be flailing merrily away long after most modern Schnuerle ported ABC,PIA engines have been recycled for scrap. They will satisfy no urge for speed but they WILL reduce flying-line stress from engines that are far less co-operative. Good enough for an OF like myself. FWIW, if you've never tried it, try bolting a well-balanced MAS 8x3 on the old O. S. Max .10. They seem made for each other.

BuzzardsFly

Might be on the other side of the world Bruce, but hearing you loud and clear on the weight.

I have some Hobbico CS12 servo's here at 18 grams, a Futaba s-128 is 52 grams. So it is nearly three for one. Does anyone know of a sit that list weight for r/c electronics, would be handy for comparison.

Chris