FHD

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO ANYONE WHO HAS BUILT AN - AK MODELS- TRANSALL C 160.
I HAVE TWO CONCERNS.
IT APPEARS FROM THE PHOTOS,THAT JUST OUTSIDE OF THE NAUCELLS THAT THE WING,IS OR COULD BE SEPERATED,FOR EASE OF TRANSPORTATION.
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT SIZE THE FUEL TANKS ARE,OR COULD BE.
THANKS

da Rock

Could you give us a link to the model? where it's available?

I've seen the C160 that's from (I think) NitroModels and can't imagine there being two different models of the 160. A link would clear that up and if they're the same.........

da Rock

OK, I found the AK site and their Transall is a ChinaModels.

I think I've seen two of them fly. Their wing isn't a takedown. Those seams are glued solid.

I don't know the tank size, but the .25s that were on the two aircraft ran about as long as you'd care to fly the plane. I'm guessing they'd go over 10 minutes.

Both models were very flakey. In more ways than one. They seemed very sensitive to the elevator trim and seemed to lose the pitch stability (like the horizontal tail was stalled) at odd times. Both were total write offs. The last one made one flight (where it showed a strange pitch "stability") on one day that was moderately successful. The next time out, it pitched straight up on takeoff right after it lifted off, and did a wingover up and over. Both models had very "fragile" fiberglass fuselages. They broke up very badly. The 2nd one had good cause to however.

I'm convinced that there was a design flaw of some kind associated with the pitch stability. But really got little more than observation to go on since they weren't my airplanes. They surely looked good while they lasted. And I think I've read a post or two from guys who had great experiences with theirs. Hope they wade in with their observations.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

darock,

Could it of been a CG problem? Just wondering...

sbaugz

My Feedback: (37)

you might want to go over to the "twins" forum. Over there you will find tons of threads and info on the c160 if you do a search. There are lots of people in the forum that would be able to help you with these "twin" specific questions. By the way, I have two c160's and they are great planes.

da Rock

Neither of the kits came with a build manual, so the suggested CG didn't exist. Both were balanced ahead of the thickest part of the airfoil.

The way they both responded to elevator trim could only be called, "suddenly". The first one had a strong nose down trim after take off. As trim was dialed in, it acted like nothing was happening until suddenly it was nose up. Backing off got it to fly somewhat more reliably as concerns pitch. It didn't actually seem to fly "elevator quick" like you'd think it'd do if the CG was too far back. And it certainly wasn't "elevator sluggish" like you'd think it'd be with the CG too far forward. Checked the connections for slop etc etc.

I'm not surprised there are good flying ones around.

BTW, did y'all's come with a build manual?

da Rock

BTW, they weren't mine. I just tried to help the guy who'd gotten them. And really only was reporting what I observed them do. I helped check balance and the rigging and then got to help guess why the 2nd one suddenly went 90degrees nose up after lift off.

sbaugz

My Feedback: (37)

mine came with a manual. The Y-pushrod dowel setup to the elevators may be the culprit of your friends elevator problems. I found that there was alot of slop and play in the elevator halves using the Y-setup. For mine, I used light ply pieces glued across the inside of the fuse with 1/4" holes in them as guides for the pushrod dowel so it didn't bounce around, causing the elevator havles to move unevenly. This minimized the slop in the elevator halves for me.

jmupilot

I have one of the C-160 Transalls. It could not be a more forgiving model to fly. It really flys like a trainer. I dont know why Darock saw so much wrong with the ones he talked about, must have been that whoever assebled the models didnt know what they were doing, or that they should have been flying something more on the Kadet trainer type model.

There are 2 of these models flying in our club and we fly from grass with OS 25 LA's in them. I fly mine at about 1/2 throttle as its way to fast at full throttle to look real. The LA's provide more than enough power to get airborne off the grass runway. THey have 4 oz tanks in the nacelles behind the engines, We have mini servos mounted in the nacelles also. THe wing is one piece and is the heavy weight of the model. It is a nice flying plane. I have done loops and roll but they are not prototypical of the full size so I dont make a habit of it.

Its a great kit go for it, they make a great intro twin.

Pete

FHD

Pete
thanks for the information re the C160,im bidding on one on ebay if i get it good,if not ill buy one.
the infor on the tanks and the wing just made up my mind.
thanks again
tc

forestroke

i have seen many of these fly and all with great reviews. the only concerns i've heard (and this is almost unanimous from around here) is that you can't expect this bird to fly like an aerobat. 100% of the planes in taiwan have experienced some kind of failure on the right wing panel. some found cracking early enough to repair it but some found out in the sky, ultimately leading to a death spiral. they attribute the weakness to a thin airfoil, thus small adhesion/leverage area, and a short spar. like jmupilot said, it's better flown just above scale.

but flown scale, i truly believe that this is the best twin trainer.