Radiofly

I'm looking for an electric ARF to fly with various camera/instruments payloads of up to 8 ounces. Started to look at the Superstar EP modified with the endoplasma & 2s2p liPo. Then started to read about the very succesful Skyraider (World Models) conversions. And it seems that the Tower Hobbies Tower Trainer 40 MKII (currently also $70) would work well also. I'm going to go for the larger wingspan models over the Superstar EP because the larger fuselages will make things easier for my payloads. For simplicity of 1 stop shopping, I'm bending toward the Tower Trainer.

If I wanted to emphasize flight stability and varying wind conditions, which would be the better model? With a given endoplasma powerplant, would one model be more efficient than the other? Is one just better structurally than the other?

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

The Superstar EP is overloaded in its stock form. I can't imagine what would happen with an additional 8oz of weight.

You are on the right track with a .40-size trainer. I have a Tower Trainer .40 that I converted with a geared Endoplasma myself, and while it doesn't set the world on fire, power is adequate, and I am confident that it could haul around an additional 8oz of weight on the available power.

The only issue I'd have is flight duration. Flying at minimum throttle with no payload, I get 8 minutes from takeoff to low voltage cutoff and an emergency landing on CP2400 NiCds. You'd definitely need to run at higher throttle settings with another 8oz on board. LiPoly might be the answer, and when you're talking about 3-cell packs, it's not that expensive an answer either. A 3S2P pack of Kokam 1500 cells would signifigantly lighten the plane to the point an 8oz payload would be a wash.

Radiofly

Very good to hear direct confirmation that the Tower Trainer 40 is a plausible flyer with the endoplasma and extra 8 oz payload. From the mfr'r specs it seems to be .5 pound lighter than the SkyRaider and that is a big plus. The issue of flight time is very important also. My goal is to get at least 15 minutes of powered flight and the LiPo solution should help.

So now the question is, can the plane be lightened up significantly with judicious use of fuselage holes? Any obvious plywood that can be removed? I think coverting to tail dragger will also help, do you think?

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

Mine's a taildragger, and the only plywood I removed was in the firewall, to make clearance for the motor and air holes for the battery. The sidewalls of the fuselage are pretty well swiss-cheesed already, and the top and bottom are just balsa. Weight savings from additional material removal would be minimal. Besides, who wants to patch holes in shelf paper covering?

Radiofly

Well then it looks like the LiPos will be the major weight reduction. I'll see what I can do with little things like lighter maingear system, lightening the motor mount area, etc. I'll remember to post some pics as I progress with this.