Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
06-24-2004, 08:31 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cameron park, CA
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
I am currently building one of these kits and so far I really like it. I was wondering about enlarging the tail surfaces and putting the rudder and elevator servos in the rear. Good idea? Bad idea? I will be using Futaba S3010 servos which weigh 41 grams each. The motor I am using is the new OS 70 Ultimate. It weighs in at 17.4 oz with muffler. I know this isn't really a 3D type plane, but its all I have right now and I would kinda like to optimize toward that end. Suggestions? Opinions? Any responses at all?
_____________________________
_____________________________
06-24-2004, 09:35 PM
#2
RE: Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
The Contender is not reallly designed to do 3D. It is really along the lines of a pattern type aircraft. My son has one that he built and it flies exactually where you point it. He has an OS 61 on the nose and it will go straight up, however any type of hover and it will just fall out. It is a great plane and will do just about any manuver in the pattern catagory. It does some of the prettist slow rolls you have ever seen. As for making the tail surfaces bigger, I would not do that at all. Hope this helps and Giid Luck, Dave
06-25-2004, 06:49 AM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (13)
RE: Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
Agreed; build it as intended.
In the first place, there isn't a whole lot of room in the empennage. In the second, you'd really screw up the balance by putting servos back there. Mine had a 70 Surpass, and it balanced perfectly with the battery under the flap.
You should be more concerned with the wingtips. Built flat, they give the model pitch/roll coupling when rudder is input. The "reverse Horner" (upswept) tip mod shown in the manual eliminates this, and makes a better flying model.
Mine died an early death, through no fault of the model. It was one of the most fun planes to fly I've ever owned; that ventral flap provides another entire dimension to low-speed flight, and I would already have another one if it wasn't such a PITA to build and cover.
I plan to build another after I retire and have more time. I just hope the wood is a bit better in that kit... the last three GP kits I've done had crap wood.
.
In the first place, there isn't a whole lot of room in the empennage. In the second, you'd really screw up the balance by putting servos back there. Mine had a 70 Surpass, and it balanced perfectly with the battery under the flap.
You should be more concerned with the wingtips. Built flat, they give the model pitch/roll coupling when rudder is input. The "reverse Horner" (upswept) tip mod shown in the manual eliminates this, and makes a better flying model.
Mine died an early death, through no fault of the model. It was one of the most fun planes to fly I've ever owned; that ventral flap provides another entire dimension to low-speed flight, and I would already have another one if it wasn't such a PITA to build and cover.
I plan to build another after I retire and have more time. I just hope the wood is a bit better in that kit... the last three GP kits I've done had crap wood.
.
06-25-2004, 01:20 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
Has anyone tried a true Horner type tip (downturned) on the Contender, or end plates. Would the end plates still impart the roll coupling exhibited in the standard wing tip?
06-25-2004, 01:27 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: el centro, CA
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Minor kit bashing on a TF Contender.
i got my condenter for only $40 built and covered.
it was the original kit from the 70s.
sucks... i disintrigrated it when i pulled while inverted 5' off the deck.
i got over 200 flights out of it thou. it was the perfect plane
for my flying skills at the time.
i couldn't get it to snap no matter what i did.
the airleons didn't run the full lenght and the wing tips where rounded.
the most i could do was 4 consecutives rolls with much effects
the rudder was a bit small, but it did hammer heads.lol
it did unlimited outside loops with only a .46 magmun
and flew like it was rails and landed like kitten.
great for practicing patterns.
it was the original kit from the 70s.
sucks... i disintrigrated it when i pulled while inverted 5' off the deck.
i got over 200 flights out of it thou. it was the perfect plane
for my flying skills at the time.
i couldn't get it to snap no matter what i did.
the airleons didn't run the full lenght and the wing tips where rounded.
the most i could do was 4 consecutives rolls with much effects
the rudder was a bit small, but it did hammer heads.lol
it did unlimited outside loops with only a .46 magmun
and flew like it was rails and landed like kitten.
great for practicing patterns.
