I want to move up in size a bit and am considering 60 size sport planes. Obviously I want an ARF of good quality. I was at a LHS this weekend and saw a 60 size ACE 300 - the guy behind the counter didn't have anything bad to say and heard only good things. I like the looks of the Kysoho G202. How does a 300 compare to a G202 - are they both 3D capable?

I heard great things about Yellow Aircraft, but I believe they are pricey - just under $300. Let me know your thoughts on any 60 size sport planes - good or bad. My birthday is in 2 weeks so I need to make a decision.

www.kangkeusa.com will satisfy all your needs. If you run a search on Kangke you'll find everybody who has one likes it.

I agree with Outkast, look at the Kangke kits if you truly want a good 60 size ship.
I have a few of them, and my pick is the Kangke GS300(staudacher) with a 4 stroke 91, flies great. Daz...

DO NOT BUY A GILES UNTIL U FLY 35% AND UP THE OTHER SMALLER ONES FLY LIKE $#!T

Why would a small Giles fly like $#!T. It appears to have excellent proportions. In fact, all planes of this type have similar proportions. Doesn't the 10% difference in length, aspect ratio, tail area, or whatever simply allow the plane to specialize in different types of flying?

I have flown a Yellow giles 300 and thought the plane flew very well. I did not like the set-up of the plane, but that's up to the owner not the plane. I have also heard constant complaints about Cap's snapping, my Kangke has no such problem with a conservative CG. A bad set-up has more to do with how planes perform than most people will admit. I have talked to people who complain only to find they have moved the CG one inch back, doubled the control throws, then complain it's "twitchy". Gee ya think? I like the Kangke products because they are in my opinion, by far "the best bang for the buck", they all fly great and have some of the best customer and tech support in the business.

OUTCAST is right. A guy in my club flys a Sig Senior (big slow trainer for those of you who don't know) and can do all the standard maneuvers and make it look good. Four point roll, rolling circle, whatever. His plane is powered by a 90-4C and is set-up perfectly. BTW, it's much more difficult to set-up a trainer to do aerobatics than an aerobatic plane. Why does he do it? He enjoys flying close-in at low altitude. He calls is slow aerobatics.

Point is this, most r/c planes will fly very well if set-up properly. I'm going through the process right now on my little GP Extra. What a huge difference it makes.

http://www.kangkeusa.com/

My Staudacher GS 300 is a High Quality, well built arf (don't particularly care for the wheel pants) ... and have high expectations from it with a OS surpass 4 pumper under the cowl for power!

I have had a Kangke 300s, crashed in a midair recently.
It flies very well, has a good covering job and is constructed very well as witnessed by the inspecting the wreckage.

A saito 100 is a good choice of engine.

Take a look at the 60/90 sized World Model Super Chipmonk. This plane is an absolute joy. Built great, flies great, lands great, very, very aerobatic - plus it looks awesome on the flightline. Put a Saito 100 in it and have a blast.

I would recommend the fixed gear version rather than the retractable gear version as World Models retracts are weak.

Do some searching on the Chipmonk (sometimes spelled Chipmunk) and take a hard look at this plane - it's hard to beat.

I'll take my GOLDBERG "SUPER CHIPMUNK" over the world model chipmunk any day! but your right about the choice of engine and the way the chipy flies!

I have a 60 size 202 from GiantScalePlanes.com. It's not a good example of a well built ARF, but it sure flies nice.

RSchrock,D_Wang:

I love how Super Chipmunk looks but, is it good for 3D?

I Have an O.S. 91FX waiting for a 7 Lbs. plane and I don't know where to go Edge, Extra, Giles, or maybe Chipmunk!!!

I will appreciate your comments.

I don't think you would go wrong with any of those choices ...

As for the chipmunk and 3d ... I don't know ... I can't do 3d stuff yet!

But the plane could probably do it with enough motor .... a 91 maybe enough but I doubt it ... is a power to weight issue