I could use some advice on which engine to use on the Hobby Lobby Senior Telemaster ARF I just ordered. I have two engines presently not being used: an Evolution 1.00 2 stroke, and a Zenoah G-26 gasoline motor. Our field here in Colorado is at about 5,000 feet of altitude and usually has windy conditions. I would like to install a large tank for long, slow flights. Any opinions out there on which of these two engines might be better? Thanks!!

I think the G-26 would be two much, the glow should work well and I think a 90-1.20 four stroke would even be better-this airplane flies like a elevator

A .46 FX will fly it, but you will have to add a bunch of nose weight. A G23 will fly it but you will need to add over a pound to the tail or cut the nose back. With the .46 it will be a putt arouind plane and with the G23 you will spend most of the time at idle or just above.

I put a OS .91 FX on mine and its about perfect. Go with the 1.00

BTW, I have gone over 25 minutes on the stock tank when I just want to putt around or shoot a 100 touch and goes.

Ed M.

The 100 should make a nice engine for your Telemaster at that altitude.

Enjoy,

Jim

I JUST GOT MINE IN THE MAIL LAST WEEK A FRIEND OF MINE HAS A KIT HE HAS A SAITO 82 ON IT .THATS WHAT I'M GOING TO PUT ON MINE.

It might be interesting to compare, once we all have put the Telemaster '84 ARFs in the air, with the various engines mentioned, how they flew. This is a very tried and true airframe/platform, but these are all "new" engines, with new technologies. I will report soon on how it flies at 5,000 feet with an Evolution 100 2-cycle. Thanks for the responses!

Well. the HL Senior Telemaster ARF arrived today via FedEx Truck, and I have a few observations: 1) The wingspan is 94 inches, not 84 (as in my last post), 2) The covering looks quite good, no wrinkles, very tight and smooth, very BRIGHT YELLOW 3) I will put larger, non-foam wheels on it for grass, 4) The engine mount and firewall will need beefing up 5) It is a very good value considering it won't take long to get into the air.

Did they do away with the hard wood rails that were used as the engine mount? Not sure what mine were made of but it was tough and the way it was installed, tied everything together.

Ed M.

ED: Mine came with the hardwood rails/engine mounts. Did you say you took these out and replaced them? This would be a lot of basking, and it appears that the hardwood will work OK. Please let me know what else you did. Thanks.

WHAT SIZE RUBBER BANDS WILL WORK TO HOLD THE WINGS.

Ok Guys...
I've built and flown the Sr. Telemaster with a K & B .61, and more then enough power for this model. It's a floater, and fly's just like any trainer...just bigger in size. Mine was kit built...and I flew it for years. I still have the Telemaster 66, kit built , that is 18 years old, and it fly's great with a very old OS .35.
Soft and gentle landings always,
Bobby of Maui

BOB: Sounds good with the .61, but I am guessing you are near or at sea level. We fly at over 5,000 feet altitude, and even over 6,000 feet in the county to our west, in the mountains. The Evolution 1.00 I have is not currently in a plane. I do have a Saito 100 (4 stroke), but it is mounted in a UCANDO and I am reluctant to take it out. I am hoping that the adage :a little more power is usually better than not enough.... Another consideration is that I would like to try taking some digital video with my camcorder.

airborn41, # 67 rubber bands seem to be the best. Hard to find anywhere around here except from Sig.

Roger, since I use mine a lot for still camera work I have tried several different soft mounts so I had to cut the rails back a little bit. Still have not found the mount that satisfies me, slight distortion unless I go all the way back to idle. Mount a video camera on it and it does fine. Nature of the beast I guess.

Ed M.

Here is my Senior Tele. A Super Tigre 61 ABC pulls it around nicely. I vote for the Evo 100. I'm curious to know how you like the engine. I looped two regular rubberbands together to make a long one.

The Manual for this ARF is not very good, especially when compared to the ones that accompany Great Plane or Hangar-9 ARF's. Nothing is mentioned about the best way (or ANY way) to attach the wing struts Any suggestions? I still think this ARF is a tremendous value for what Hobby Lobby sells it for, but probably will give a NEWBIE some problems. I will probably put a pull-pull rudder system in, as well as few other mods. I fly off grass most of the time so I will install some large (5 inch) wheels.

I'm sure I have over $200 dollars in my airframe alone. My goodness, monocoat was about $50. I had to buy a bunch of hardware too. I would never build the kit again. I would go with the ARF or I would rather get the plans for a Sig Kadet and enlarge them. There was a web-site at one time where a guy widened the Tele fuse so that he could fit a large camera in. I think the Tele was designed to carry a 20lb payload.

Some years ago I had an opportunity to fly the Bridi version of the Senior Telemaster. We were at sea level and the Tele was powered by an HB.61 two-stroke glow engine. It was over powered with that engine, which meant that I really enjoyed flying it.

The G26 would be way too much without shortening the nose, installing a new firewall and adding braces to the vertical/horizontal stabilizers. I don't know if the wing would be capable of sustaining that much weight while performing loops or hard banks.

I would think that the 1.00 would be a good choice. After all, that throttle control is there for a reason and I don't think that the 1.00 will be too outrageous at your altitude. I'll bet it takes off in two or three feet at less than half throttle. Keep that wing assembly in mind when using that throttle. I would not provide it with an opportunity to fail. <G>

I just received my Senior Telemaster ARF from Hobby Lobby too. I decided to go with the electric package. Why? Well, I want to use this model as an aerial photography/video platform. Being able to turn off the motor while shooting and then restarting it when finished provides a wonderful advantage of shake-free pictures.

ED: I wish I had gone the electric route also, but it's too late now. It sure seems like the evolution (pardon the PUN!) of this hobby is headed away from glow and gas engines to electric power. With the development of light weight, efficient batteries and brushless motors, the extinction of the internal combustion engines in this sport is inevitable. I am going to probably go this route in a few years.
I am having second thoughts about using either the G-26 or the Evoultion 100. I am leaning to pulling the Saito 100 GK 4-stroke out of it's present plane and putting it in the nose of this big floater. That black and gold body woud look pretty nice in there, too! As I get older and older I find it enjoyable to just putt around the sky here at our ranch, buzzing the wife's horses and donkeys. The occasional interaction with a pesty tree is just part of the fun. The best incident was when I put my BTE Flyin' King into a large Russian Olive tree, in full bloom filled with olives, was worth the laugh it produced from my wife and friends. The right wing had about 50 olives embedded in it which took quite a while to remove. That was the ony damage.
I hope to have something to report on in a week or so, as soon as the wings die down enough to get this plane in the air.

I received my Senior today, been watching this trying to decided the engine. I am leaning toward OS-70 4 stroke,also thinking of 91 4stroke,which could be considered overkill. Long winter coming up in Wisconsin,lots of time to decide.

------------

I doubt if you could find a better match for this model running glow power, Redflier. I would go with the .70. It would be easy to change it out later if you decided that you had a need for more power.

Believe me, it was a tough decision to make, as I have several candidate glow engines that would be perfect for this model.

Like you, most of the time I enjoy flying floaters these days, at least when it comes to larger models.

When I feel like having a little aerobatic fun, I will break out the little foamie electric models. Most of them are good at surviving my dumb thumb mistakes with little damage.

I like to fly my Sig LT-40 with a 70 4 stroke. Lots of reserve power for mistakes! Flys real nice at about 1/3 throttle. This is converted to a tail wheel. Just for lazy flying. This Telemaster should float even more. When I want to fly on the edge I fly the Twist. From one extreme to the other! No relaxing with it. I cannot wait to get this Telemaster going. Right now it is less than 20 degrees and snowing hard. Going to be awhile with any flying. Ski's might be in order now!

I have a kit built telemaster. I fly it currently with an ASP .91 four stroke. It flies great, even with 46" floats on it.

I would vote for a 91-100 four stroke, or a .75-90 two stroke.

the G26 would tak e too much work (and I love gassers).

I can trim it out, and just do ovals with the rudder. It won't come down!

Bill

What is that airplane in the background? It almost looks like a tri-motor,hard to make out. Regarding the Telemaster,I have awhile to think about which engine, spring a long ways away!

Mine flys nicely on an OS .61 four stroke. Leaps off the ground in just a few feet. Floats around for 45 minutes at 10% throttle. Lands sloooowly. It's a great departure from 3d. I tried a still camera setup on it once. I really felt the extra weight. I would need a larger engine to try payload again. I'm thinking one day about trying the skydivers. Probably something in the 90-100 size four stroke is what I'd go with if I do. Oh, I'm at sea level.