CMP Katana 50
#26
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth, TX
Thank you Missileman for you opinion.
One question opjose, the Tower Hobby .75 fit well in the cowl? I mean, there is no need to cut it much? do you have a picture? Do you add weigth? if yes how much?
Best regards
One question opjose, the Tower Hobby .75 fit well in the cowl? I mean, there is no need to cut it much? do you have a picture? Do you add weigth? if yes how much?
Best regards
#27
The engine practically fits within the cowl on a side mount...
Inverted the head sticks out the bottom.
The biggest problem is the muffler.
You would be safe going with a .61 through .75 for extra power. ( or even an AX .55 as Missleman suggested ).
All would work.
However you may want to base your engine decision upon the muffler arrangement and availability...
I'd be looking to putting in a pitts muffler for looks and to prevent fuel spray on the fuse...
So when things are somewhat close this may influence my choice.
IMHO this would be the easiest to mount.
Stock 2C mufflers are going to be a bit of a bear on the cowl cuts, because there IS room.... this forces the muffler to be at the same distance as the cowl.
A 4C engine and muffler ( as pictured ) are somewhat easy too.
It looks like they have an O.S. FS .60-.70 engine in the plane on the web site.
You would have to remove the muffler on this to remove the cowl.
Inverted the head sticks out the bottom.
The biggest problem is the muffler.
You would be safe going with a .61 through .75 for extra power. ( or even an AX .55 as Missleman suggested ).
All would work.
However you may want to base your engine decision upon the muffler arrangement and availability...
I'd be looking to putting in a pitts muffler for looks and to prevent fuel spray on the fuse...
So when things are somewhat close this may influence my choice.
IMHO this would be the easiest to mount.
Stock 2C mufflers are going to be a bit of a bear on the cowl cuts, because there IS room.... this forces the muffler to be at the same distance as the cowl.
A 4C engine and muffler ( as pictured ) are somewhat easy too.
It looks like they have an O.S. FS .60-.70 engine in the plane on the web site.
You would have to remove the muffler on this to remove the cowl.
#28
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth, TX
I was thinking put a Pitts Muffler, My goal is put an engine that fit in the cowl (I not like when the engine is exposed), with power to make some vertical, and that power does not destroy the plane.
Di you added weigth to the plane that you have before with the TH .75?
Thank you
Di you added weigth to the plane that you have before with the TH .75?
Thank you
#29
Re: add weight.
No, the engine is fairly light so all I did was move the battery pack a bit.
I used an 1800mAh 6v pack which weights an ounce or two more, but I mounted it as rearward as possible.
No, the engine is fairly light so all I did was move the battery pack a bit.
I used an 1800mAh 6v pack which weights an ounce or two more, but I mounted it as rearward as possible.
#30
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth,
TX
All great words of advice here… Let me add some things that I have learned as well as far as my CMP arf experience is concerned. I have the 120 size extra 300. It must be boldly stated that the manual for my plan flat out sux!! Mine is so poorly written that it shows mounting the control horns for the elevator to the stab itself, not even the elevator. The only documentation that I am even considering going with is the recommended CG location. I am going to put all the measurements in on one of the online CG calculators and go with that and see where the results take me between the two.
The Extra Kit itself is nicely done. I showed it to my Grandfather (decades of kit building experience) who went over it with a fine tooth comb and really had no complaints with the aircraft itself. The hardware that came with it on the other hand is a joke. I would strongly recommend doing away with everything that it comes with and purchase good quality hardware. The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
The Covering on the plane had absolutely NO wrinkles of any kind, the trim job though peels easily and I am sure at some point after a few flights will in fact peel off.
In a nut shell great looking plane, awesome price, nice build, crappy hardware.
The Extra Kit itself is nicely done. I showed it to my Grandfather (decades of kit building experience) who went over it with a fine tooth comb and really had no complaints with the aircraft itself. The hardware that came with it on the other hand is a joke. I would strongly recommend doing away with everything that it comes with and purchase good quality hardware. The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
The Covering on the plane had absolutely NO wrinkles of any kind, the trim job though peels easily and I am sure at some point after a few flights will in fact peel off.
In a nut shell great looking plane, awesome price, nice build, crappy hardware.
#31
ORIGINAL: 2daysoff
The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
This just goes to show, "different strokes"...
The majority of people here complain about the gear on ARF's being too weak, tending to bend too easily.
I find that it is almost "just right", letting the gear absorb the impact of hard landings at the cost of bent struts.
You find it "too stiff", because the fuse will be damaged.
Not that you are wrong, I just find that what is good for one person is awful for another.
You ARE advised to beef up the gear mounting area on ANY Arf as I've yet to see enough re-inforcement done on any plane.
#32
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Fort Worth,
TX
ORIGINAL: opjose
ROFL!
This just goes to show, "different strokes"...
The majority of people here complain about the gear on ARF's being too weak, tending to bend too easily.
I find that it is almost "just right", letting the gear absorb the impact of hard landings at the cost of bent struts.
You find it "too stiff", because the fuse will be damaged.
Not that you are wrong, I just find that what is good for one person is awful for another.
You ARE advised to beef up the gear mounting area on ANY Arf as I've yet to see enough re-inforcement done on any plane.
ORIGINAL: 2daysoff
The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
The main struts are way to thick and way to stiff. One hard landing and the Fuz is going to be toast.
This just goes to show, "different strokes"...
The majority of people here complain about the gear on ARF's being too weak, tending to bend too easily.
I find that it is almost "just right", letting the gear absorb the impact of hard landings at the cost of bent struts.
You find it "too stiff", because the fuse will be damaged.
Not that you are wrong, I just find that what is good for one person is awful for another.
You ARE advised to beef up the gear mounting area on ANY Arf as I've yet to see enough re-inforcement done on any plane.
I have no intention on landing hard... just like I have no intention on crashing........... but, we all know the truth behind this... I would rather have a nice blend of decent gear... but you get what you pay for




