Dear All,

I am currently flying the Phoenix Topstar60 which is essentially a clone of the U-Can-Do 60. I got bored with this plane mainly due to its fragility and high maintainence. Also, the inverted 2-stroke OS 75AX never tuned properly on it. I never really mastered the Topstar. While considering my next plane, I have already gone through the Showtime 50 but it works to be very expensive to be shipped into India. Instead, I am considering one of the following:

Great Planes Extra 300S 60 Kit (for the 75AX)
Great Planes Extra 300SP 40 ARF (I am going to put in the 55AX or 75AX)
Sig Hog Bipe 60 Kit (I know this is not strictly 3D but will put in the 75AX anyway)


I am restricted to these planes due to availability issues. Will add any worthy models that may become available later.

Ok, I know, I am comparing planes in dfferent classes: The 300S in not 3D but I will modify the tail feathers as required to make it 3D. The 300SP is definately 3D, but I couldnt find any reviews of it. And the Hog is not 3d but then it will be my first bipe and I already have a EDGE 540 46 that I can 3d with the 75AX.

Note that even these planes are a tad more expensive than the locally available models, so please suggest the most value-for-money plane with low maintainence. So, Can you suggest me which one of these should I buy?

Ameyam

Great Planes Extra 300SP 40 ARF

Only one of your choices that is even close to 3D. Use the 55AX. 75AX is too much weight. Too high wing loading = no fun [&o]

There isint much regarding the 300SP on RCU (or I may have not found it as yet). Can you lead me ato a few links?

Also, doesnt a kit offer better quality control? This will be my first kit but I will put it together with my instructor's help.

Also, how about the Reactor 3D. I really dont want a fragile high maintainence plane

Ameyam

Which reactor are you talking about? The Reactor .46 EP/GP is one of the greatest flying planes in that size range. I truly believe someone that has mastered a trainer can easily fly the Reactor. The Reactor has gotten some bad press due to landing gear and covering issues though. The landing gear issue was corrected by GP not to long ago so I believe that is not a concern anymore. The covering has a tendancy to peel in some spots that cannot be ironed down again. That is an easy fix with some clear ultracote paint over the finish before assembly. As for durability I have not had a single structual problem from mine and it has well over a 100 flights on it. I have had somehard landings and broke carbon fiber gear in the process. Not the plane though. This plane is very much worth considering. I forget the little problems with it when it gets in the air!

That's what I wanted to know. I was not trying to imply that the Reactor is fragile only that I have heard it is fragile. Main concerns were the gear and the covering. Also, the wing span. Since it is 54", it will have to be flown closer and due to the thinner wings, it is faster, both of which I am not too comfortable with (usually I hover at a good height and far from the crowd so that it doesnt cause problems). My Topstar has a 61" span and is relatively easy to see. Havent gained the confidence to hover closer since the inverted 75AX on the Topstar never tuned properly and kept cutting out. There are no Reactors flying on my field

If I take the Reactor, will the 55AX cut it. I dont want to go the 4S way

Ameya

Hi guys,

how about the Seagull Harrier 90. It is available quite cheap and has a good reputation. It has a two-piece wing making transport easy. Only issue, it too has the engine inverted. However, I will install my OS 75AX 2C either vertical or at 90 Deg with the muffler below the fuse (if it fits). What Say?

Ameya

Hello, anybody?

You wanted advice selecting a 2nd 3D plane, but the choices you listed aren't really 3D planes at all. So if restricted to those choices, then you might as well choose one by flipping a coin.

The Harrier 90 that I flew had a Saito 100 in the nose. Even with that engine it was marginally powered for 3D. I would suspect the 75AX would barely be able to 3D a Harrier. Plus IMHO the Harrier 90 is too fragile to make a good 3D trainer.

If you truly want a second 3D plane, you should be looking at a profile......and in particular a Mojo 60. That 75AX in a Mojo 60 would make a great second 3D plane. Later on as your skills improved you could simply replace the 75AX with a stronger engine.

I have the great planes extra 300 arf. And I fly 3d with it. If set up correctly it will fly excellent 3d. It is a good choice. But If you set it up with great planes hardware it wil be a bit heavy. And 3d will suffer. Also the 75 is way too heavy for this plane. My suggestion would be 55ax saito.82 jett .76 y.s. 63. I did a lot of some modifications to mine and it is a strong 3d performer. the only downside to this plane is that it is small and gets pushed by the wind on those breezy days.

There are a few to add to that list:

Phoenix Yak 54 60
Phoenix Extra 330S 60
Seagull Yak 54 90

I am attaching a photo of my current 3D trainer: Phoenix Topstar 60
Problem is it too is damn fragile and the inverted engine never tuned properly.

Having checked out the Yaks and the Extras available, I am not at all impressed: In order to reduce weight, the wing construction is very compromised.

I dont have any chance of getting the Saito 100 engine most people are using with this plane. An OS 120AX is available but right now it is too expensive.

Profiles...Er... I am not very comfortable with that idea. I like the look an feel of a proper fuselage. Further, I want a plane that can do pattern as well. I didnt dare to use Topstar for pattern lest it flutter.

What is your idea of a good plane in view of the above, Dave? I am planning to get the Harrier and then build and fly it later. By then, I may get the 120AX. In the mean time, if the kit is really as good as most people make of it, I dont want to lose the chance of getting it as it may not be available later.

Ameya

Kwboost, What are the mods you have done?

Ameya

I agree with Dave if you are looking for 3D ability. A profile is the only way to go. You mentioned wanting to fly pattern as well. The Reactor is probably one of the best all around flyers in its class. It will hover, harrier, waterfall, blender, etc. Kick up the speed and it will fly slow rolls and pattern maneuvers all day long. The thin wing will not hinder its slow flight ability at all. The wing loading is very low due to a large surface area of the wing. As for the wing span issue you mentioned, the color scheme of the reactor makes it very visible. The 55AX is a good match for this plane if you are not wanting to use a 4-stroke.

here is a link to some photos
I did carbon gear pull pull on rudder kevlar cable saito 82 for power and used light servos

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_84..._9/key_/tm.htm

Again, none of the planes you listed will make a good 3D trainer, and will even be marginal 3D performers in the hands of an experienced 3D pilot. They are simply too heavy for their wing size, underpowered for their weight, and too fragile to survive the learning process.

The planes you keep choosing are all sport pattern type planes. If you want to fly sport pattern, then pick any one of them. But if you really want to learn how to fly 3D, you need to seriously consider getting a good profile, such as a Mojo 60. If you're not willing to consider a profile, then you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your next plane will be a 3D plane.

Ok, I have ordered the GP Reactor 3D (40-70). Which engine is most suitable for this plane? Should I put in the OS 46AX or 55AX or 70Alpha or put in a OS FS91 SII? Note that I will be mounting it at 90 deg

Ameya