hello
08-16-2010 | 01:12 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Winnfield,louisana
hello
<span style="color: #ff0000">I'm new two the plane world and love it!
I live in Hillsboro ,Ohio and got friends that fly around here.
I will building a pt-60 and will have Questions so bear with me
thanks to all helps!
Heck what you'll think about the Pt-60 with a OX .46 Ax is that a good start?</span>
I live in Hillsboro ,Ohio and got friends that fly around here.
I will building a pt-60 and will have Questions so bear with me
thanks to all helps!
Heck what you'll think about the Pt-60 with a OX .46 Ax is that a good start?</span>
08-16-2010 | 01:43 AM
#2
My Feedback: (162)
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Colorado Springs, CO
RE: hello
Hi
Should fly, but the 60, in PT 60, stands for the size of engine. For a better experience you should get a .60 sixty size engine. Should be able to find one fairly cheap on RC Universe. Great flying plane if built straight.
Vince
Should fly, but the 60, in PT 60, stands for the size of engine. For a better experience you should get a .60 sixty size engine. Should be able to find one fairly cheap on RC Universe. Great flying plane if built straight.
Vince
08-16-2010 | 08:38 AM
#3
Senior Member
RE: hello
I'm goingto agree with Elvis on this one, a OS46AX is going to be a little asthmatic in a PT-60. Those a rather large airplanes.
It will get it off the ground, it will flyit around in a basic circuit and allow some manuevering but thats about it.
If thats what you want from the traner then no problem.
I like Ohio btw, was up there last October in Painsville. Lovely part of the country.
It will get it off the ground, it will flyit around in a basic circuit and allow some manuevering but thats about it.
If thats what you want from the traner then no problem.
I like Ohio btw, was up there last October in Painsville. Lovely part of the country.
08-16-2010 | 12:50 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Winnfield,louisana
RE: hello
ORIGINAL: goirish
You would like Michigan better
Sorry buckeye
ORIGINAL: TimBle
I like Ohio btw, was up there last October in Painsville. Lovely part of the country.
I like Ohio btw, was up there last October in Painsville. Lovely part of the country.
Sorry buckeye
It's just that I had to Come up here to find a Lady that is up to my standards!
A 998 Mile trip to find one! GO SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
08-16-2010 | 12:52 PM
#9
My Feedback: (4)
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Atlanta, GA
RE: hello
If you want the .40 size engine, then go with the PT-40. I have this trainer and it is very forgiving, not very fast and I think perfect for a trainer. Whichever you decide to go with, build the sport wing version and NOT the trainer wing version. The trainer wing version has too much dihedral and you will not be able to do much with it other than fly straight.
Good luck and welcome to this wonderful hobby
Good luck and welcome to this wonderful hobby
08-16-2010 | 02:12 PM
#10
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Garland, TX
RE: hello
The blue PT-60 was my first kit. It was pretty easy to build, and it is a tough bird. I used a Thunder Tiger .61 for power. My plane was pretty heavy (I never weighed it) and I do not think a .46 would have been powerful enough for it. My plane needed some nose weight with the .61 so using a lighter engine probably would not be an advantage.
In most cases of a person building a first kit, following the recommendations in the manual is a good thing. But, I disagree with the GP recommendation for building the wing. With instructors and buddy boxes, my opinion is that the "trainer" wing configuration is not needed. The recommended dihedral of the "trainer wing is 6.5 inches and the "sport" wing is 4. When I joined my wings, everything fit great with 3.5 inches, so I stopped sanding and glued it together.
The white PT-60 was built by my brother after I killed the blue one. It had zero dihedral. We both think it would have looked better with an inch or two. There was not a lot of difference in flying the flat wing versus the dihedral wing. The dihedral wing did help the plane to "self level" the wings more than the flat wing but not as much as we would have guessed.
In most cases of a person building a first kit, following the recommendations in the manual is a good thing. But, I disagree with the GP recommendation for building the wing. With instructors and buddy boxes, my opinion is that the "trainer" wing configuration is not needed. The recommended dihedral of the "trainer wing is 6.5 inches and the "sport" wing is 4. When I joined my wings, everything fit great with 3.5 inches, so I stopped sanding and glued it together.
The white PT-60 was built by my brother after I killed the blue one. It had zero dihedral. We both think it would have looked better with an inch or two. There was not a lot of difference in flying the flat wing versus the dihedral wing. The dihedral wing did help the plane to "self level" the wings more than the flat wing but not as much as we would have guessed.
08-16-2010 | 03:22 PM
#11
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Winnfield,louisana
RE: hello
ORIGINAL: carrellh
The blue PT-60 was my first kit. It was pretty easy to build, and it is a tough bird. I used a Thunder Tiger .61 for power. My plane was pretty heavy (I never weighed it) and I do not think a .46 would have been powerful enough for it. My plane needed some nose weight with the .61 so using a lighter engine probably would not be an advantage.
In most cases of a person building a first kit, following the recommendations in the manual is a good thing. But, I disagree with the GP recommendation for building the wing. With instructors and buddy boxes, my opinion is that the "trainer" wing configuration is not needed. The recommended dihedral of the "trainer wing is 6.5 inches and the "sport" wing is 4. When I joined my wings, everything fit great with 3.5 inches, so I stopped sanding and glued it together.
The white PT-60 was built by my brother after I killed the blue one. It had zero dihedral. We both think it would have looked better with an inch or two. There was not a lot of difference in flying the flat wing versus the dihedral wing. The dihedral wing did help the plane to "self level" the wings more than the flat wing but not as much as we would have guessed.
The blue PT-60 was my first kit. It was pretty easy to build, and it is a tough bird. I used a Thunder Tiger .61 for power. My plane was pretty heavy (I never weighed it) and I do not think a .46 would have been powerful enough for it. My plane needed some nose weight with the .61 so using a lighter engine probably would not be an advantage.
In most cases of a person building a first kit, following the recommendations in the manual is a good thing. But, I disagree with the GP recommendation for building the wing. With instructors and buddy boxes, my opinion is that the "trainer" wing configuration is not needed. The recommended dihedral of the "trainer wing is 6.5 inches and the "sport" wing is 4. When I joined my wings, everything fit great with 3.5 inches, so I stopped sanding and glued it together.
The white PT-60 was built by my brother after I killed the blue one. It had zero dihedral. We both think it would have looked better with an inch or two. There was not a lot of difference in flying the flat wing versus the dihedral wing. The dihedral wing did help the plane to "self level" the wings more than the flat wing but not as much as we would have guessed.
