Can you purchase the twinstar plane that real flight has on it? I've looked all over, and can't find it (other than an electric model, three channel, with no landing gear). I really like that plane. Is it for sale anywhere?
thanks

Unfortunately, this plane has been discontinued by Hobbico for some time now. I`ve never flown it, but people who have seem to think it was a fine one.

There is one for sale in the RC Universe market palce.

Here is the link: http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemId=39605

Thanks guys. I just love that plane. I fly it all the time on the sim. It's easier to land than a trainer, and flies great. I wonder why they discontinued it. Thanks for the link. I checked it out, but I hate to give 350 + shipping for a used plane. Maybe they'll bring it back out sometime. Is there another twin engine plane that is similar to this one?

I have a TwinStar that I bought used (and no! I don't want to part with it) and really enjoy. It was an ARF, and has the shelf-paper covering, and some plastic pieces, but despite those it flies very nicely. I have Tower .40's on mine.

If you want to build a kit, there are a couple other options. One from NE-Aero, http://www.ne-aero.com/ called the Twin-Air. By all reports a nice flying plane, for a builder with a bit of experience.

However, if you want a plane with very similar characteristics, like the sticky landings and the smooth aerobatics, I can recommend the Contender. It's a great kit, and flies a lot like the TwinStar, in my opinion. Only one engine, though.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

Scar, does it really fly and land like it does on the sim? I mean, you can't help but stick landings with this thing. Everything else I've seen pretty much flies real to life on the sim, so I'm assuming this one does to. Sure you don't need some extra cash???
This seems like such a classic. Why in the world would they discontinue it? Do you remember how much the ARF is. I'm thinking this one in the ads isn't such a bad deal. 350 for all of it. Everything but the battery and receiver. That's at least 200 dollars worth of engine and servos (os LA 40's, and I don't know what kind of servo). What do you think? Is it worth it?

If you just have to have a TwinStar, that $350 is in the current selling range. The ARF originally was $120- $130, I don't remember the exact price. I never liked it for many reasons, the plastic parts and shelf paper covering were just two of them.

Get the Twin-Air as mentioned earlier, it looks a lot like the TwinStar, but unlike the TwinStar, the Twin-Air is currently available. If anything, the Twin-Air flies better than the TwinStar too.

Bill.

PS: Here are two versions ofthe Twin-Air, and then two of the Duellist 2/40. wr.

The introductory price of the Twinstar when it first was promoted by Tower was $109. yes it was a good airplane but very cheaply done with horrible quality plastic parts namely the nose. A far better airplane is the Twin Air mentioned by several above. Since this is posted in the beginers forum it must be noted that multi's are a decidedly bad idea for a first, second or even third airplane. Give it time.

John

2slow2matter,

JohnBuckner makes a good point, a twin is decidedly not the plane to start with. You haven't described your field experience, and that would be a good place to start, in these posts. If you have low wing experience, please let us know.

And yes, the TwinStar lands great. So does the Contender. However, with the Contender, one only has to deal with one engine. You're missing out on the one-dead-engine experience, on the simulator. Can you kill one, or have the sim kill one at random? I don't know as that would duplicate the adrenaline rush, with sphincter reaction, which occurs at the field. And it will, sooner or later, on the real hardware.

One more thing. My TwinStar will do all the ordinary aerobatics, stall turns & combinations of loop & roll maneuvers - for about 7 minutes. The tanks on the Twin Star are tiny, and I have Tower .40's on it. If I try to fly longer than about 7 minutes, an engine will lose fuel, and I have to look for runway in a hurry - and must reduce power on the remaining engine. I'm thinking your sim doesn't provide that kind of thrill. Nor do I think you'd actually enjoy that part.

There are plenty of nice flying and landing trike gear planes out there. No reason you can't enjoy one - and the simulator TwinStar, too.

Good luck,
Dave Olson

2slow and DaveO:

RF G2 allows killing one engine, just press the letter "K" while in flight. You aren't able to select which engine is killed so you will get experience with both one and (possibly) the orther flaming out on the next flight. Remember that pressing the space bar will got you out of trouble flying G2. This ability on G2 is not realistic, but the flight is until you chicken out with the space bar.

Bill.

I'll pipe in here about the sim. I have flown the Twinstar many a time with one engine after using the 'F' key. It flies fine with one engine. The only time it doesn't, is in a vertical upline close to stall speed, then it will twist and flop all over till it has enough air speed to pull out of it. I haven't flown a twin...yet...that will change in a month or so when I finish my Cor-Star twin. However, from what I have heard and read, what the Twinstar does in G2, is nothing like the real world with a flameout.

Randy:

I have my Tiggerkitty, my C-3/10, and the Twin-Air modeled in G2.

The Twin-Air is a sweety with one dead, the C-3/10 requires more care, the Tiggerkitty will not fly with one out. All very much like they do in the real world.

I've never flown a "Real" TwinStar, but it is very similar to the Twin-Air, almost can't tell the difference in the sim. So I would assume the simulated TwinStar engine out to be like the real world also.

The point is that some twins fly nicely with one dead, others can not be flown without two turning.

Bill.

My experience is limited. I currently have two planes, and have been flying for around 5 months now. Not long, I know. The plane I fly alot now is a high wing, semi-symmetrical design. I've converted it to a tail-dragger, and that's been interesting. Takeoffs are a little tougher, although I've gotten pretty good at those now. Landings are no problem, and I've wondered about the flame-out issue. I figured that would cause a little havoc. I'll give it a try on the sim. I really want a twin for some reason, I can't really describe it. However, I think I'll wait and get some low wing experience first. Is the contender a good first low winger? I'll take the advice given, and wait on the twin. As much as I like it, I'd hate to re-kit it. Does the contender come as an arf? One problem I have is I really don't have any good place to build a kit. I'd have to do it on the kitchen table, and my wife baby-sits during the day, so the stuff would have to be moved. I could see me getting a wing half finished, having to quit for the night, only to find the wing warped, or broken the next time I got to work on it--because I don't have a good place to store the stuff while I'm building it. Does that make sense? So, kits may be hard. I would like to try one this winter, just not an expensive one, or a hard one--for the reasons above. I think I'll try the sig seniorita this winter. It's only 69 as a kit, and shouldn't be all that hard as a first kit. (just looking at it--pretty straight forward design)
So, where can I get the contender?

Slow:

I'd recommend the Kaos if you have to have an ARF, or if you're able to build then check the single engined planes from Northeast Aerodynamics. Other good ones include the 4 Star 40, or slightly larger the Venture 60. The 4 Star 60 is not recommended.

Bill.

Thanks bill. Why not the 4*60, out of curiosity? Also, I looked up the contender kit. It says 10-16 hours (minus covering) to complete. That sounds kind of optimistic for a kit. It also says for a second kit, but all pieces are precut, interlocking pieces. If I wanted to try this kit, could I do it? I'm pretty mechanical, but I'll admit my biggest downfall is patience. I think I could be patient if I had to, especially in the winter months.

2Slow, There is absolutely nothing wrong with being attracted to multi's. They can be a great sense of satisfaction. Understand there is this great aura about multi's and an attitude that it takes a super pilot. Nothing could be further from the truth and in fact they are quite simple to fly in normal conditions 'but' in an engine out situation they require an immediate corrective response if the airplane is to continue flight on one. It is this little understood response that gets so many into trouble with multi's. That response simply is to: Identify the dead engine and to apply rudder (lots) into the good engine side. With more powerfully engined multi's also some power reduction of the good one will help. This of course is assumes that you don,t wish to cut all power and make like a glider.

Most any reasonable twin is quite capable of maintaining flight on one if it is properly set up and the pilot has versed himself in what I described above. Many RC multi's are also capable of single engine takeoffs. a challenge sure but none the less can and has been done by many.

It sounds as your plan of action and progression in skills is sound and I applaude you for that. It also excites me that you want to acutually build something, a rather depressingly rare occurance these days. You would be shocked at the 'shops' folks have used out of desparation, My best story is building three meter gliders on a G.I. footlocker in the barracks many years ago. Persevere you can and will find a way.


Your choice of the Sig Seniorita is also fortunate. It simply is a superb small trainer aircraft that flys better than all the modern types and is very, very light. Its a simple build but takes takes some effort. Now after you get a little more time under your belt this same airplane will 'bash' into a fantastic little twin that will fly very well indeed as a twin. Very little cost also, you could use inexpensive little fifteens such as the TT 15, AP 15 and others. The bash is a modestly easy buy using simple underwing nacelle tubs, fair the nose in and some additional wing sheeting.

The photos below show the tubs that I have used now on two twins, two quads and working on a twin cub (single fuselage). The tubs are indentical on all these airplanes. Also is a photo of one simple trainer twin bash that uses a pair of .20's that flies wonderfully it was a forty size airframe.

Enjoy, John

Slow:

If you take some short cuts the contender is a good plane, one of the must eliminate items is the original wingtip, ugly as home made sin and a bear to make well.

The 4* 40 is an excellent design also, but the 60 version wasn't designed by the same man, and is just not as good an airplane. The Venture 60 IS done by the man who did the 4* 40, and is an even better plane (IMO) than the 4* 40.

But for ease of construction, and just plain delightful sport flying, John Marien's planes (from Northeast Aerodynamics) are hard to beat. If you were to get the [link=http://www.ne-aero.com/sportair60.html]Sport-Air 60[/link] you would then have the single engine version of the [link=http://www.ne-aero.com/twinair45.html]Twin-Air 45[/link]. Good experience leading to your first twin. Click on the underlined plane names to see more details.

Bill.

Wow, Bill. I wasn't aware that Bruce didn't design the 60 size. Not to argue with an expert, but I think the 4* 60 is an excellent plane. But, I admit I have never flown a 40 size 4*. So I really have nothing to compare. If I understand Bill, he is saying the 40 size flys even better than the 60? The 60 is such a graceful, easy to fly plane, but will also rip up the sky when you are ready for it.

Randy:

I wont come right out and say the 4* 40 flies better than the 4* 60, but it seems so to me. But comparing the 60 planes, the Venture 60 is far better than the 4* 60, Again, that's my opinion.

The 4* 60 is nothing more than an enlargement of the 40, while the Venture 60 is designed as a 60 size plane.

We had the same thing when we made the Duellist 2/60 Mk II. We didn't just enlarge the Duellist 2/40 Mk II, we changed part of the structure, changed materials and material sizes, all with the intention of optimizing the design for the larger size plane. Bruce did an excellent job when he did the similar redesign for the Venture 60.

Bill.

Welp, I guess a guy learns something new everyday. Interesting info, Bill. Um, isn't it past your bedtime? It's midnight in Florida right now. Ya better get those old bones to bed.

Haw.

Randy:

A day without learning something is a day wasted. Here's another small bit for you: I'm in the panhandle of Florida, we're on central time here. Not yet midnight. Anyway, my bed time is 4:00 AM.

Haw back at you.

Bill.

You guys are all a wealth of knowledge. Thanks for all of the tips, and keep em' coming. I'm thinking I'll probably order the seniorita pretty quick, and work on it over christmas.