sbstew

thanks to a fellow rc'er my repair from the first went well, plane seemed more sturdy at the break than before. went out yesterday and was having some engine problems. wind was at 12-14 mph . I moved the cg back to 4" . plane flew great. landing into the wind was a piece of cake. I could have landed on eggshells and not made a sound. fourth and final flight the engine quit and I had to put it down just short of the runway. thanks to the wind it was more of a very light harrier landing. The plywood behind the tank split and the nose broke off behind the gear. Even the people watching could not believe it. I set it down so easy that I was sure it was a good save. I am going to fix it because I am broke right now. this is a great 3d plane , it is easy to fly. BUT it will not withstand any stressful situations to the fuselage. If you own one I would not recomend trying harrier landings or when landing if it doesn't look like a smooth one I would go around again.

L.R.Rip

sbstew. Hey when you repaired did you glue the crack and double with light ply? yea it was kinda windy Sunday when I flew probably 15-20mph wind with stronger gusts and was able to go back wards in the air during the gusts I like to try and do that when it is windy. I was able to pack up and leave just before the down poor was locking gate in the sprinkle. What timing! I had a student that got two flights in his first time in the wind needless to say we did not practice final approach and landing but he had a blast in the wind.
I also have my cg at 4!QUOT! and like it their too my magnum 52 is running flawless I have it running rich and it still puts out more than enough thrust for awesome vertical we were laughing at the five foot take off in to the wind Sunday. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif][sm=spinnyeyes.gif][sm=spinnyeyes.gif][sm=spinnyeyes.gif][sm=spinnyeyes.gif][sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

tIANci

I am from Malaysia and I have not touched a plane for like 20 years, when I wanted to get back I saw pictures of planes hovering in vertical, I was like what the heck is that?! Anyways, I went to the local airfield to see people fly the day befoer I did and lo and behold I saw this nice red plane that was like crawling and then climbed into a prop hang! I was totally excited. I talked to the owner and found out it was teh Magic Extra.

Now, I started up again now and I got a 'nice' little 40 sized trainer a week back, I flew 2 tanks on Tuesday and sold it immediately at the airfield! No way am I going to fly something that does not respond to what you tell it to do, hehehee ... not that I am that great a pilot.

After reading all the postings here I will be buying the Magic Extra once the LHS opens after Chinese New Year holidays. I am amazed at the number of postings in here about the Magic, must be that good I guess. Even read one that said the Magic was a great trainer! Will look into all the postings in here and take note of all the advice. Guess mine will go with the TT46 and standard servos first and then perhaps the FS52.

Shall post pics here when its done!

electron

My Feedback: (1)

If I where you I would buy a Phonix Funstar much better construction and a better flier then the Magic Extra.... I have both and the Funstar is a better flier....

glowplug

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with electron....if I put my Magic Extra into the ground, I would buy a FunStar to replace it. Although I haven't seen a FunStar fly, I've heard a lot more good about them and they seem to be more 3D capable.

tIANci

I got the Magic and it flies very nice, I had fun but then on an outing on Sunday I crashed her, was my fault. Anyways, I just got the Magic Extra and will see how it flies. I did check out the Funstar ... it looks nice. Why do you guys say the Funstar is a better flier? In what ways? Thanks!

electron

My Feedback: (1)

Just better for 3D..... Has more tail surface...... And I think the construction is also better on the FunStar.... It is also a more Complete kit with better hardware, Better looking and it includes a pilot already mounted and the canopy installed....

tIANci

Just got the Magic Extra fixed up ... I have to say you get what you pay for, quality is so so, just okay only. I did see the 60 sized 'brother' of te Funstar ... not bad quality and the plane is so light! I will be off to see teh Funstar tomorrow. Will see how well the Magic Extra flies on this Saturady!

deadstickdude

My Feedback: (1)

The book shows you having to drill holes for the blind nut's in fuse and throuh the wing . The nut were already installed on mine and the holes were drilled in the wing but they are under the covering .
The nut's were also already installed for the engine mounts . This is a great time saver and it all seems to be done well . Im still putting mine together and so far it has been a pleasure .

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

Yeah one thing I did was make little balsa block guides for the screws. It was almost impossible to get the screws into the blind nuts without the guides (there's an air gap there when the wing is tightened down). Make two little quare blocks of balsa with a cone cut out of them. Start it with a big drill bit and then use a hobby knife and sand paper. Then I dripped a little CA to harden them and glued them in. Now those screws slide right in, no fumbling at the air field. I also cut off 1/4" lengths of fuel hose and put them on the screws at the base against the wing to keep them from falling out of the wing during transport and handling.

One thing though, if the holes in your wings line up perfectly with the blind nuts, maybe you don't need the custom guides. Mine didn't line up that great even though the wing was perfectly straight when it was all tightened down. I mean it was dead on. I just couldn't get those darn screws started.

I used this same idea on my Funtana the other day. The screw goes right in.

Joe

tIANci

Mine must have been one of the later batches, all holes and blind nuts were fixed in, only thing was that all the blind nits had traces of epoxy or whatever they use on them, was really frustrating (not that is was that difficult) getting the screws in and to have to strip the heads a little. Overall, the plane flies well. I had some down thrust added to mine and she flies nice.

Pepe J

My Feedback: (2)

I'm in the midst of of putting one of these extras together with the Magnum 52. I've read the other post's and the comments have been helpful. My question is regarding the fuel tank location. The OEM placement puts the top of the tank approx. level with the fuel inlet / needle valve Assembly. Has any one of you had a problem with fuel draw with the low tank placement?

Any comments would be appreciated. Thank's.

Happy Fly'n...

gsmarino2000

My Feedback: (2)

No problem with fuel draw, except when my tank started to split at the neck. Then of course stumble or dead stick any time I pulled g's - which you will do a lot with this plane.

The plane flys great and is very easy to land. My complaint (as for many in the long thread above) is quality, especially the covering. Every time I fly something a new piece of covering comes loose. Last week I lost the entire top covering off of the right horiz. stab. Landed after I noticed blue on the top of the stab ... was lower covering showing through. Flew exactly the same.

Greg

Pepe J

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks for the comment Greg. I though it would be best to rectify a possible problem at this stage. Better low than High IMO. Judging by all the previous posts, I have one of the latest edition's. The instructions state to be careful and not to over tighten the fuel tank stopper. Sounds like it was a problem in the past? The covering job on mine appears to be satisfactory. I'll find out once she gets airborne a few times?

Happy fly'n...

JoeAirPort

My Feedback: (41)

My covering is coming loose too. So far just my pin stripes on the side where the engine exhaust hits the wing and rudder. I just yank on them and break them off. Hopefully the rest will hold. The plane is fun to fly.

MHedrick

how do these planes fly with a .40 on them...I also have a .46 but I am having fun with that on my spadstick.....Thanks Mark

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Mark:

If the 40 is a Magnum XLS 40 you can't tell much difference from the same plane with a Magnum XLS 46 or an OS 46 FX.

With the Magnum XLS 52 it will really go, you'll have to be careful not to overspeed the plane or the engine.

Bill.

suburban95

My Feedback: (9)

My magic extra 300L flies great but had a flame out and took the gear off the other day. But as far as the covering goes...I was reading the threads here about that when I got mine so I took a small brush and brushed monokote trim seal on all the covering seams. Seems to have worked I don't have any problems with the covering coming loose yet! Hope to get the gear back on and re-enforce that area in the next week or 2. No rush now the weather here in Chicago area is not what you would call flying weather!

suburban95

My Feedback: (9)

Does Anyone Know if Modeltech has changed the covering material they use? I have a Modeltech Extra 300L that I really like but it has seen some damage over the years and the covering is terrible and I am considering buying another if they changed the covering material that is.

Thanks for any info anyone can provide,

[email protected]

Zippi

My Feedback: (10)

I'm not sure about ModelTechs other planes but the new "Magic Formula 3D" that I'm flying is covered in Monokote. I think their stepping up to the plate and raising their quality. Nice kits.

suburban95

My Feedback: (9)

Thanks for the quick reply! Its great to hear that Modeltech is making the change. I Love my Extra 300L it flies great at least at my skill level. Good Luck with your Magic 3D!

motorhead540

Goodevening, guys I have just finished reading thru all of the posts in this thread and have a couple questions before I assemble my modeltech magic extra 300 I see that most of them come out tail heavy so I plan on a big engine have a os 60 or maybe its a 61 that I plan on using I see that someone says that is not a good choice wondering why also I see people saying the fuse is weak over the wing area what should be done to make it hold up better don't want to have any weakness that can be rectified while assembling. pretty new to building but eager to start getting a few new arfs I have together over the winter this year so I can fly them next season

suburban95

My Feedback: (9)

Motorhead540, I have two of the Magic Extra 300's and love them! The area at the front of the wing saddle is where I wound up re-enforcing my planes. I just added some long narrow pieces of plywood on both sides to strengthen the fuse sides at the start of the wing saddle where it is pretty narrow. I also re-enforced the landing gear floor with some extra plywood and some triangle stock. As far as the tail heavy goes I am running an OS 46 in one and an OS 50 in the other and all I did was to carve out the fuel tank cover and locate the battery pack (5 cell) on top of the tank and recessed part way into the cover. A 60 size engine would be a very tight fit if it fits at all and with these planes coming in at around 4.5 lbs. it would be serious overkill. These planes are more aerobatic and with the large control surfaces flying to fast can and will cause flutter. My recommendation would be to stick with a 46-50 size engine and a flatter prop for more pull and less speed. ENJOY your Magic Extra 300 I know I love mine..........

motorhead540

I do have a OS46LA but i am concerned that it may not have enough power what do you think ???

suburban95

My Feedback: (9)

While some people really like the LA series engines I am not a fan. A good Ball Bearing 46 engine would be better in my opinion. The Control Line guys like the LA series engines and run them really rich so maybe you can sell that to a CL guy.