2BFlying

There are quite a few ARF's on the market now. Which would be the best in overall quality, Top Flite's Tutor II or the Brodak Cardinal? I want to try one of them and the price is about the same on both. I just haven't had time this winter to do any building and want to get something else ready for the flying season.

kdheath

Hey, RW, long time! How have you been?

I'm on my second Tutor after the first fell victim to a broken up line. In the middle of the best contest flight I've managed, to date, of course. With the OS 46 LA, it's a killer package. The Cardinal is less popular out our way, for some reason. But the differences between the two are pretty small. Both are straight and light. The hardware and covering leave a little to be desired on both. In either one, I would replace the pushrods (with CF), wire LG (with aluminum), and put aluminum motor mount pads on it. Over all, I think (and this is the opinion of a pretty rank amateur) that the Tutor flies a little better. But it comes down to your preferences, I think.

BTW, we've had several each of the Nobler and Oriental and they are both excellent, too.
Kelvin

2BFlying

Hello kd,
good to hear from you. I'm still around, but just don't have a lot of time for much other than working, eating and sleeping. I got back from Japan at the end of June and it's been 12 plus hour days 6 days a week for most of the last 7 months. I did get my flying circle done at the house and have just about wore my TWISTER out. It looks rough but flies great. I played with venturi sizes and found a good size for my TT 42 GP. I want to put another plane in the air, CL, and compare it with my other, I have a K&B engine to try on it. I'm working on a 200 foot strip for my RC planes, but that's another story.
I want to try some longer lines, maybe 64 or 65 feet, I'm flying on a 60 foot set and lap times are 5.0 to 5.2 with a good pull even on overheads. When I was playing with venturi sizes I even got down to under 5 sec lap times, but this was too fast and tremendous line tension.
I will beef up the bellcrank area in any ARF i get, I like the "sandwich" method, a plate on the top and the bottom of the bellcrank pivot bolt. Never has one come loose with this style. Talk at you later.

grandpajake3

My Feedback: (8)

HI Kd. I like the cardinal the better , I have both . The cardinal will fly corner the like I never should befor , but dont us the hinges that come with it, there to stift. I try the arf hings on one cardinal , dont do it or you will be changing them. I fly my cardinal with an st g21 46 . Hope this helps , this is just what works for me. Good luck. J. J.

2BFlying

hello grandpajake3
I'm a grandpa,too, i just don't tell everybody. I haven't heard much about the Cardinal, but i like the profile planes. I'm not flying for points or how good it looks, just something to have fun with. I fly RC, (4 of them), and when I built my Twister I used DuBro hinges and threaded rod with RC clevises on everything and thru several crashes they held while other stuff broke.
I have heard that the Brodak ARF's come with better linkages than the Top Flite models, but they still need to be beefed up some. I have my own system for the bellcrank mount and it has never failed on me. The wing will come apart before the bellcrank mounting breaks. I would like to try one of the ARF's that are out just to see how they fly. I built my Twister from the kit and covered it with Ultrakote, since I had plenty of it laying around. Thanks for the comments.

grandpajake3

My Feedback: (8)

Hello Kd. I do not like threaded rods because they bend and flex to much for me , I use music on profile. Have had threaded rod bend in fly and stay bent , very hard to fly that way . The only changes made from stock were hinges and 1/4 once of wieght to tail to get cg right.


Jimmy Jacobs

2BFlying

Hello kd
well, my Tutor II ARF arrived the other day and i was rather disappointed in the quality. I guess that much like yours, the covering wasn't very good. I think I can deal with that, it's definitely worse than any of my RC ARF's but I'll work on it. My main problem was that the fuselage was warped in such a way that it wouldn't need any rudder offset. Here's a picture to look at. But I didn't want to have to pay shipping to send it back and more shipping to get another so I am working on straightening it with gentle heat and gentle pressure. Its looking pretty good right now, and if it will retain its form then all will be okay.
I've only got a few minutes each day right now and I reset my press every night and let it form for 24 hours under gentle heat. But everything is getting there and maybe I'll get to start assembly sometime this month.
I will probably go back to a kit for my next plane, even if it takes me 6 months to build it. But no flying around here for a couple more months, weather is too crazy to plan anything. I wanted to fly off the lake at the house but it hasn't froze this year. See ya later.

kdheath

Dang, RW, that is nasty! We haven't seen one near that bad up here. My two have been arrow straight. Before you spend too much time on it, though, call Tower and tell 'em about it. The call is free and they are very good about taking care of stuff like that. They ought to send you a new part gratis. Always makes me feel bad to talk something up and have someone have problems.

Agreed on the covering material. I bought the thing to have a bigger plane to fly, quick, while my Pathfinder was down. Given the time and enthusiasm, I'd strip and Monokote the thing. It still has been a very good thing to have around to work on the pattern, though. I wanted it to use as a tool for improving my flying, no concern about who built it or what it looks like. I just slapped an AMA number on it and went to fly.

sepierce

Yesterday I had a chance to test Fly my new Tutor II. (70' lines, ST .51, cg 3" from leading edge of wing, 1.5 oz of tail weight). Most of the earlier comments fall right in line with my experiences:
1. The fuse was warped (at least it was warped in the correct direction)
2. The covering material was about the worst I've ever encountered
I also have two more observations to add:
3. I knew better, but I used the kit's CA hinges. They are WAY TOO STIFF!!! Gonna cut those out and replace with pinned hinges.
4. Experienced odd engine performance and inconsistent flight times, I attribute to the square tank. Will replace with wedge and expect to see improvement.

Did these little irritants stop me from enjoying? NO WAY !! I had a great time and an excellent break from the some old RC rut I seem to find myself in. I would very highly recommend this ship for the born again control line flyer. It is stable (both upright and inverted), maintains good line tension (even overhead) and its landings rate a solid "10". Once I get the hinges replaced, the plane will be more responsive to control input. But come to think of it... for its intended role as a C/L trainer, maybe the stiff hinges are not so bad.

The Tutor II helped me remember how much fun I had as a kid with the "Original Park Flyers". But now, the engines are so much easier to start!!! The ST51 was an excellent choice for the plane as well. Now I need to finish the ARF Nobler I also bought.

kdheath

That's too bad about the fuselages. The things are built up, so they really don't have much excuse for that. Tower needs to hear about it.

A couple of us felt that the stab was a little flimsy and sheeted it with 1/16th. Clearly not totally needed, but made me feel better. I added CF pushrods to the first one and replaced the whole control system in the second one because the leadouts looked like the devil.

I bought the combo of the kit and ST51 since it was so cheap. But when I compared the weight and rated power of the two, the OS LA 46 got the nod, since it is a good bit lighter and still plenty of grunt. No tail weight, so saved maybe 6 ounces. Saving the ST for an SV-11 or something like that.

PipeMajor

My Feedback: (1)

And the C/L ARFs just keep on comin'.

I just picked up Sig's new Primary Force ARF from my LHS and it's a dandy. At $135 it is more expensive than the TF or Brodak ARFs but so far... I am very impressed with it.

For those of you not familiar with the Primary Force design, it is the product of Mike Pratt, formerly of Sig Manufacturing. It is a modern flapless stunter with a 50" span, 500 sq. in. and takes anything from an LA/FP 25, Fox 35 to any of the 40 sized engines. The Primary Force was designed as a contest ship for the P-40 event (profile model with maximum of a 40 engine and bonus for no flaps).

From what I've heard, it is an exceptional flying example.

The absence of flaps simplifies the setup and trimming hassels but it is rumored to turn as well as a conventional flapped ship. It comes very complete and covered with a pretty orange and white (Sig's own AeroKote) film covering.

2BFlying

Hey Pipemajor
I looked at that ARF also but didn't want to put that much into it at the time. All my planes I flew in the 60's were flapless until I got my Nobler. But I thought they flew great the way they were, I guess I was too young to know any better. I have had an absolute blast with my Twister and hope the Tutor will give me as much fun as it. I am putting the Twister back together AGAIN but it keeps right on going. It looks a little worse for the wear but still flies great. Thanks for the comments on the Primary Force. How was the covering?

PipeMajor

My Feedback: (1)

Sorry, been away from the forum for a bit but the covering on the Sig Primary Force ARF is Sig's own AeroKote - a much better quality covering than the generic Asian knockoffs. Out of the box it was remarkably wrinkle free but the booklet warned it will tend to develop a few wrinkles (it did) when taken out of the box and the wood shrinks as it dries from the humid country of manufacture.

I've still not completely finished mine but should in the next week or so. I've heard it is a terrific flier.

For the most bang for the buck, you can't beat the TF Flite Streak ARF. Put an OS LA 25 or FP 20 on it, balance where it's supposed to be (not where the instructions tell you) and it will easily outfly anything costing twice it's $50 retail price.

2BFlying

I looked at the Flite Streak but if I go any smaller than 48 inch span I will have to buy smaller engines. I have quite a few R/C planes and a lot of 40 size engines. I remove the carburetor and machine venturis in different sizes until I get the tuning I want. I'm hoping to get a runway finished at the house for the R/C stuff, but currently I have my own flying circle and can fly right outside the garage door.