Best 3D plane for a .70 Surpass
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: South Florida, city of Davie, fly at Marckham park
OK Ok, I started a post asking for the best scale plane that is capable of unlimited stunt flying for a 46 FX. Everybody told me to buy a fun fly. I really want a scale plane, so I am going to take the .70 surpass four stroke out of my spitfire and buy a .91 surpass for it. So what is the best scale or at least semi-scale, or at the at least looks like it could be a real plane, for 3D that will do everything with a O.S. .70 Surpass Four-stroke.
How about the kyosho flip 3D
or, for a lot cheaper
the Global freestyle 3D
Please help, cheaper the better since I have to buy a $250 engine to replace the .70.
Thanks in advance
How about the kyosho flip 3D
or, for a lot cheaper
the Global freestyle 3D
Please help, cheaper the better since I have to buy a $250 engine to replace the .70.
Thanks in advance
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Canton,
MI
The OS 70 Surpass is 3 oz. heavier, and quite a bit larger than the 46 FX you were previous considering. However, it also has more torque for larger prop. Of course, you knew all these already. For the 70 Surpass, I would still stick with a plane under 5 lb for 3D-capable power. If you want value, I'd still point you to the $125 3D Giles if you want scale looks. For fun fly, the Goldberg Extreme profile is your best bet. Profiles are a lot more efficient because they are lighter for a given size, and the thin fuselage yields the least thrust loss due to fuselage width.
#3
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: South Florida, city of Davie, fly at Marckham park
Seanychen, I know the .70 is heavier, but I think it makes more thrust than a .46 FX. Do you disagree? Does a .40 sized 3D plane need a .91 four stroke? That seems kinda silly. If that was the case, would they not call them .90 sized planes? I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just making the comment that if they need a .90, they should say so.
#4
My comment on the 2 planes you chose:
They are different animals. I have the Freestyle and seen the Flip fly several times. The Flip is made for 3D, the Freestyle is kinda like a 3D/Pattern flyer (read not for extreme 3D, but not far behind). Both are easier to fly than a scale plane would be. The flip is a booger to land on a windy day.
Its hard to put into words, but to me, neither plane flies 3D like a scale plane. The Flip literally "flips and bounces" around the sky, while the Freestyle flies a little smoother (in between a flip and a scale flyer), then there's the scale plane, even smoother flying.
As for the engine, if its similar to the ys 63 or saito 72 in size, power, and weight, then it will be fine on either plane.
Also, there are some 40 sized scale planes around. You may want to post in the 3D forum (or search). I have read about a 40 sized cap232, extra 300, and I believe there is a new Giles 202.
They are different animals. I have the Freestyle and seen the Flip fly several times. The Flip is made for 3D, the Freestyle is kinda like a 3D/Pattern flyer (read not for extreme 3D, but not far behind). Both are easier to fly than a scale plane would be. The flip is a booger to land on a windy day.
Its hard to put into words, but to me, neither plane flies 3D like a scale plane. The Flip literally "flips and bounces" around the sky, while the Freestyle flies a little smoother (in between a flip and a scale flyer), then there's the scale plane, even smoother flying.
As for the engine, if its similar to the ys 63 or saito 72 in size, power, and weight, then it will be fine on either plane.
Also, there are some 40 sized scale planes around. You may want to post in the 3D forum (or search). I have read about a 40 sized cap232, extra 300, and I believe there is a new Giles 202.




