I am looking at getting into 3D. I am looking for a 3D test plane. I have narrowed it down to these 3. Does any body have any input on build time and flying capabilities of these planes. All my other planes are 1/4 scale aerobatic. Been flying for around 25 years just never tried 3D.


Thanks,

Lenny.

Top Cap. Saito .72

No brainer!

I was kind of leaning toward the Top Cap. I have an OS 46FX and a couple of G45 ST's. Do you think these would work. I do not want to be under powered.

Thanks

Lenny

Sure those motor will work on the TC. I prefer a light 4 cycle on them though for really easy 3D.

The FX will have plenty of power...but of course the Saito 72 makes the plane so much better.

I have a pizazz with an Irvine .53. You can't go wrong with it. I run a 12.25 X 3.75 prop, also, I took the baffel out of the muffler, It has plenty of getaway power in a hover. Good luck

The major difference in a 2 cycle Vs. a 4 Cycle on these planes is low end power.
A 2 cycle will do fine for hovering and flying around but their power comes from RPM's. Meaning that you need to be running them in the mid to upper part of their power band to develop the power needed.
A 4 cycle on the other hand puts out a lot more power through out its whole power band. Also, you can run a much larger prop on a 4 cycle wich also meand more air over the tail. That is what you want for 3D.

Dont get me wrong, you can 3D them with a 2 cycle. Its just easier and more efficient with a 4 cycle.

Well... from the other end of the camp... I like the 2 cycles better for 3D... They throttle up faster and with a nice wide prop with a very low pitch they provide plenty of power in the lower rpm range.... I like both the Pizazz and the Top Cap or SuDoKhoi with an Irvine .53..... Both hover awesome... and very 3d capable... I had a Wasp with a ox 46... should be enough power... might wanna do a mousse can muffler.

See, with the 2 cycle you have to throttle up!

Bottom line, do what you like. Everyone has an opinion and mine is no more right than anyone elses.

Its personal preference.

LOL! I agree with paul, I prefer a 2 stroke on a profile/funfly

Thats fine. You guys are just wrong......

You guys don't know what you're missing!

man you guys are just like the carden guys who say " Unless its a Carden with JR radio and a DA engine- it sux." thats why Quique flys an AW with a 3W engine!

No it's not a "status" thing...just try it for yourself. It's like a whole new airplane. Much more stable.

Didnt read my posts above?

Personal preference.....

Back to the original question:
Magic - OS .32sx, no brainer.

Magic vs. Top Cap - Magic is an ARF, not much invested when your getting really crazy.

Magic vs. Pizzaz - Magic is $50 cheaper, not much invested when your getting really crazy. + a lot lighter!

You can get a Top Cap ARF also.

Oh yeah....

2c vs 4c - 2c no brainer.

1/2 the wieght, 1/2 the price and 1/2 as likely to be damaged. Not much invested when your getting really crazy.

I know you said that, my personal preference is a 2 stroke on a funfly plane

I have a magic w/tt36 (11/3 or 11/4 APC) heli motor on the nose, have flown a full blown pizazz with an os70 surpass (13/4 or 14/4 APC) on the nose (two elevator servos split into tailerons, ailevators, whatever you want to call them). Its like comparing apples to oranges. The magic has a very hard time doing knifeedge, the coupling is very severe. This also limits your range on TRs, really narrows the window of error. It will fall out to the side very easily. It's still an absolute blast. Loops in a fuselength, waterfalls, spins, blenders, etc. It's also as close to a disposable plane as you can get. The pizazz is capable of more than just funfly maneuvers. It will do a respectable rolling circle, harrier rolls, 4pt rolls, etc, and knifeedge loops. There is just more fuse area to pull it around on edge. With the big thick wing and its midfuse placement, the pizazz is just as happy inverted as it is upright. We've only had one top cap at our field, and the only reason it didnt fly well was the builder/pilot. All three are great airframes, depending on what youre wanting to do. The magic is most likely going to get you up in the air the cheapest, but the pizazz or topcap is going to be more versitile.

stevezero

Very informative thanks for taking the time to post.

I have many projects already on the go. Which one of these ARF's do you guys think builds the fastest.

Lenny.

You're kidding right?

Saito .72 with stock muffler weighs LESS than 46FX with stock muffler!

Cheers!

How many guys have you seen, emphasize light weight engines, then add weight to the nose for balance? I'll take my Y.S. 63 and a Knife. I use to be a Saito hugger until I discovered Y.S.

I have a Magic 3D thats modified now and its a real blast. It will do things that the other planes mentioned can't even approach. As well as I like it I think that there is an even better choice available on the market today called the Weston Cougar 2000. It has a fully semetrical airfoil that the Magic doesnt and it has a more effective rudder. It also come with an easier to buid 1 piece wing and its nicer looking. The plane sells in the USA at this site for $149. More expensive than the Magic but worth it.
http://www.ultimatercwarehouse.com/

While I don't have a "Fun Fly" type of plane in my fleet I have seen the light when it comes to 4 strokes. My first aerobatic plane was a GP Cap 232. Origionally I had a .46 FX up front. In the search for more power I added a .70 Surpass II. What a different plane. No longer did I have to wait for the plane to pick up speed after a violent maneuver. I simply add power and the plane almost instantly regained all of its speed. I went from an 11X5 prop on the .46 to a 13X6 on the 70 and it greatly improves the low speed handling of the plane. There is so much more thrust that it really brought the plane to life. Additionally, with the lower speed to the prop there is more effeciency created. As props start reaching the 11-12000 RPM mark there performance starts to degrade. I used to be able to rip the prop when I did hovering type manuevers. When you hear the prop ripping it is actually much like cavitation on a boat prop. At this point the propeller is exceeding its ability to effeciently provide thrust. I have yet to come across this with a 4-stoke.

To each his own, but don't knock a 4 stoke until you tried one.

Sure they are a little more expencive but have found them as much if not more reliable than my OS .46 (Flawless running engine). Oh yea, and one more thing, they are way more fuel effecient and less messy!

Good Luck, Phil (Mesa, AZ)