Hello fellas. I've a few questions:
What are some World Models online dealers with good prices?

I've an OS 70 Surpass. Those of you with the WM Chipmunk...is this too weak of an engine? I'm interested in non 3D aerobatics. Also, given that I enjoy building, is the Goldberg Chipmunk a better option? Seems like they would price out about the same if you don't charge yourself for building time.

If you had mastered a Telemaster 40, almost finished an EAA bipe as a 2nd plane but wanted to get some low wing experience first in the form of a fun, semi scale...which would you choose?? And remember...70 Surpass will power it.

Seagull Spacewalker
H9 T-34
WM or Goldberg Chippy

Thanks!

I think the 70 will not be enough. Remember that the WM is retracts Chipmunk whereas most are fixed gear. That will add some weight and because it is already a 60 class plane, you will not be seeing the same kind of performance as most people would want from their planes. Although I will swear by WM kits, I think that if you're sold on a chipmunk, you should look for a 40 class plane for your 70 fourstroke.

If you are looking for a fun low-wing, semi scale, you can look for the WM T-34, which will match your 70 well. If you are looking for a taildragger, you can look at the WM P-51s or the Dagored. The Dagored is sweet. Any plane in Kyosho's lineup of 40 class planes would be good as well.

An OS70 Surpass on the T34? Hehehehe ... you wanna orbit the earth? The T34 flies nice ... the first time I tried it it felt like silk ... the rolls are like warm knife through butter, not saying that its super fast but just silky smooth.

One of my pals had the Chipmunk and he told me that the plane flies very nicely ... not sure of he had a 70 seized or 90 sized 4C in it, will ask him about it. Another guy flies the DagoRed and he says it flies fast and nice. I think he has a Rossi 53 with a tune muffler in that one.

The OS would be nice with one of the WM 40 sized Mustangs too ... saw one fly (the Rockwell one) and its fast, the plane handles well too. Looked pretty steady in flight. I got the Rambler 45 and its a nice slow flying plane, not worth it for the OS70, the plane flies well enough on a 46 2C.

Friend flew it with a 90 sized 4C ... he doubts that the 70 sized 4C will be any good on the Chipmunk.

The 70 4C just isn't enough engine. It needs a 90 size 4C to fly well. The Saito 100 is really the way to go though on the WM Chipmunk.

Ditto what was said above. I have a Saito 72 on a WM Mustang and it flys well with the 72 size 4C. The Chipmunk is bigger and heavier and the 70 just wont cut it.

The .72 would just fly the WM Chipmunk. I have both, a WM Chipmunk and a older Goldberg Chipmunk. Identical in dimensions, the Goldberg OS .90 four stroke and the WM has an OS .90 two stroke. I do not retract the gear on the WM, I like the more scale looks of wheel pants (besides, Art Scholl's retractable Chipmunk used Bellanca Viking gear which retracted aft). They both fly great, certainly not 3D, but will snap and tumble well. Good luck, you will like the way it flies.

3D Flight

I've got a saito 100 going on my eaa bipe...guess I should'a bought two. Oooch, wallet crunch. Those of you with the WM monk, where did you buy? Which (WM or Goldberg) is the better flyer?

Do I hear the recommendation to get the version without retracts? I've been kinda turned off to retracts ever since I saw a friends spitfire go down in shreads due to a malfunction of the air system.

Would a YS 110 be too much on the WM monk? I can't seem to find a source (other than ebay) for a YS 91. Seems like the perfect match.

Thanks for the advice!

I have the CMP/KMP Chipmunk (same as the WM one AFAIK) and plan to use a Magnum 90 4-stroke. I had the original Goldberg Chipmunk and I know the CMP/KMP one is the same size and weight. My Goldberg Chipmunk flew great with an ASP 60 and later updated to an ASP 75 2-stroke. The original Goldberg plans specified a 60 2-stroke or 90 4-stroke sized engine. I thought about the OS 70 4-stroke as well (since I have one laying around) but even though it's a powerful engine I think it would be too small to get all the aerobatic potential out of this plane with it.

FWIW don't bother with the retracts. The added drag of them won't affect the aerobatic perfomance a bit. My Goldberg Chippe had fixed gear and flew great (sorry I sold it now). Dress up the struts with Robart gear covers and it'll look great. I subscribe to the KISS theory on landing gear. In the case of the Chippie it's not essential to have retracts to get a great semi-scale aerobat. Besides why mess with the extra complexity when you don't have too. My feeling is the gear on WM planes is not robust enough anyway.

hth

Jeff

Any .90 4 cycles will pull the Chipmunk well.
I have one from WM and flew it first with Thunder Tiger .61 and now MDS .68.
Better now. Very good simple aerobatic model ( no 3D). MDS after 2 gls of fuel running smooth and powereful. Prop 13x6 or 12x6.

I have a WM chippy and it has a O.S. 90fs and it flies real well!!! I took out the retracts. The flaps are still there but I don't use them..

But on the other hand I have also a CG chipmunk with an O.S. 70fs and it flies real good!! This one has convential gear... Robart wheels. no wheel pants yet!! So I guess it just a matter of choice and what kind of flying you plan to do!!

Good luck!!!

Fly Safe!!

The Wm chippie is basicaly the Goldberg in an ARF version...both have the same span, same features...I would say go for the Goldberg, add the flaps, and go on read other posting about it....a FS 91, Magnum or OS will do just fine...

Seems like a mixed bag. Maybe I'll save the 70 for a cub.

What about MVVS? Would you go with a 77 or the 61? The 77 is the same mass as the 61, in the same size case as the 61 with the power of a 90...at least according to the folks at Morris Hobbies. Is this too much?

Would the Chipmunk fly with a TT61 2C?

Most definitely!