blueapplepaste

My Feedback: (5)

That's like asking someone what is so great about chocolate. I could go on and on about how great chocolate is, but until you try it, you'll never fully understand.

Do yourself a favor and just order one. You won't be disappointed.

(and the ultra sport plus was just a different plane. no relation to this one, and not nearly as nice from what I understand)

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Minn,
Thanks for sharing that great story why you like the Ultra Sport so much. It's 7 PM and we just got home from picking up the younger one and eating out. Looks like I'll have to better schedule my time if I plan to start buildiing.
John

FallDownGoBoom

My Feedback: (1)

Ken,

Just a cautionary thought... I used mechanical retracts on my single fuselage US60. Between our field being rough, some less than perfect landings, and the US weighing 8+ pounds, I broke the retract housings a couple of times. This was not a manufacturing defect or design problem, it was just a result of the field conditions and my inability to land softly. If you're building a twin fuselage US60, you're probably looking at a flying weight of 10 to 11 pounds with the extra engine, tanks, servo's etc. I'm wondering if a set of mechanicals will hold up to landing forces? If you're flying off pavement and able to come down nice and slow you're probably OK. But if you're flying off grass/rough stuff, you may run into some of the same problems I experienced.

vmsguy

If I was building a twin engine, or twin fuselage variant of the US 60, I'd opt for something totally different for retracts.

Either retracts that fold back (ala P-38).. or some thing that folds straight up.. (ala DC-3)

Anything that folds in, our out.. just wouldn't look right. Just my opinion.

box car

I was thinking about that too. I do fly off grass some times and some times I fly off the road out front or just take off down the drive way but our club field is grass. So I did mount the retracts to fold back into the wing, each retract has its own servo, it took a lot of playing around to get it set up. I will post some pictures later. Thanks tothe both of you for your opinions.
Ken

RoyR

I just thought I would pass on something. No advice or questions, just an observation.
I have mentioned on this and other message boards this I am building a US 60. It's my first kit in 5 or so years. I have just finished the basic covering, and let me tell you, you do get rusty. I used to pride myself on my covering jobs. This one may end up looking good at a distance, but I'm not taking too many close up pictures. Little wrinkles around the edges (and other places) , a bubble here and there, a few scratch marks.
I guess I'll have to do a bang up job of adding trim so no one notices.

It should be good practice though. I have an old SuperSportster 120 kit, and a newer Maxair Velox 120 ARF that I need to recover. They will be my next projects. I'v never tried to cover an ARF. Hope I don't squeeze it too tight and break it. Lol

box car

I know the feeling Roy, I could never get good at it so I went to painting. Its an art with some of these guys they are real good at it.
Ken

MILDBILL-RCU

My Feedback: (6)

Well, I loved the way my little Ultra-sport 25 flew when we visited family in Ohio over the Christmas holiday. All I needed was to build a .40 size & I would have all of them, the 1000, the .60, the .40, & my scratch built .25 sized. I had a day off work on January 9th & figured it was a good time to open up my forty sized kit & cut out all the parts & make a scratch kit from all my bulk wood. So cutting & chopping for a few hours produced all the things I needed to build a forty size without having to use my only 40 size kit I had left. That way I still have one of each kit in the raffters for a later date. A canopy from Tower finished off the list of things to get & here she is. The newest member to my Ultra-sport family. My daughter got me some Gremlins for Christmas & I just had to put one in the next plane for the pilot. Here are some photos of the new arrival & some family togetherness.

dash008

My Feedback: (1)

You are the US master! So which one flys best? How about a flight report on the .25?

FentonFlyer

My Feedback: (11)

MildBill, You are a one man airplane factory!

MILDBILL-RCU

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks for the kind words. I now have a couple of O.S. fp .40's that are needing a new home. I was thinking about doing a twin .60 size. The thing I cannot decide on is how to make it. I could do the fuselage as normal with a dummy nose in the front & then do twin engine naceles like I have seen before, or do more like a p-38 with twin fuselage booms & twin tails with a wing & stab section between the booms. I also will have to decide if I will do retracts on it as Boxcar is with his twin. I will need more time to think about it for now. As far as which flys better? I have to pick either the 1000, or the .60 size right now. The .40 has just been finished & has not been flown yet & the small .25 is just like a small plane flys, slighty jittery & not quite as smooth through some manuvers. The only flights I had with it were with the ski's on it, so they may have been part of the non-smoothness of the flights.

Quikturn

My Feedback: (12)

I vote for twin naceles.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Ditto

blueapplepaste

My Feedback: (5)

Sweet collection of US's!

dash008

My Feedback: (1)

How about twin ducted fan jets slung under the wing ME-262 style?

Quikturn

My Feedback: (12)

That would be interesting with some 25 or 46 DF's but you'd need paved runways.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

The P-38 comment got my juices flowing. This is just a rought draft of course, but you get the idea

Quikturn

My Feedback: (12)

That looks cool!

crash bandicoute

don't get me wrong, i do like the plane. i just wasn't sure what type of flying it was, i guess, "for"(???) and i'm not really sure what way i want to go with my flying style. i have my .32 size ME-109 that is my speed demon (insanely fast), RV-4 i guess for figuring out a little aerobatic "lite" flying, cub for just plain lazy flying and my newest SMP to figure out if i like bipes as much as i like the looks of them. i like the idea i saw somewhere in here about a twin cessna 310 "look". do you guys think twin .25FX engines would pull it nicely? or go bigger? not looking for another "screamer". just cool looking and flies great.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

two 25FX's would be ideal for a 40-size twin

vmsguy

What would you call that...? An UltraSport 2-45?

The geometry would be a challenge. getting the nacelles parallel to one another (and the center pod) And as group perpendicular to the wing.

Best way to handle it would be to have the outer wing sections detachable, the spars and center pod all one piece.

Overall wingspan would probably be about 6 inches (two wing bays) wider than single. This would maintain about the same about of wing area. I'd probably build the center section of the wing with constant chord. Probably no dihedral. Just to make it easier to build. Then have the outer sections tilted up.

Trike landing gear, nose gear retracing back, nacale retracts regracting forward. They could retract rearward like a P-38 too. It'd give you more room for a fuel tank. But it wouldn't look nearly as cool.

It'd be tough finding long skinny fuel tanks.. if you put them in the nacelles. But do-able. You could probably get away with smaller individual tanks. Compared to one bigger one.

Hmm.. Dual servos for the rudders. In-wing (2) servos for the ailerons. 3 servos for the landing gear. 2 servos for throttle. One servo for flaps. One servo for elevator. (total 11)

It'd probably end up heavier than the US-60. Essentially, one nacelle's weight extra. So maybe two extra bay's (per side) worth of wing to keep the wing loading about the same.

Hmmmm....

box car

The geometry is not that bad. In building my twin fuselage you have to work off a center line, if you don't you can run into a lot of problems. When I started working on the retracts I thought the rearward retract would not be cool like you said but the more I played with it the more I liked it. The only thing that might not be cool is half of the wheel sticks below the wing, something like the A-10 does. I am getting my parts together for my next project a stretch 60 15% over stock. I will be using a OS 120AX the wing span is 69", wing root is 13 1/2 " the tip is 9" fuselage 55". I have the wing and am waiting for the fuselage. This plane will be sheeted foam.
Ken

RoyR

Hey Bill, why be shy? I think you should do something on the line of this with an Ultra wing and Fuse:

JNorton

My Feedback: (2)

Now that's funny/
John

box car

I am looking for some mylar, all I can find is 10 foot rolls on line I just want something in the 12" sq range. I want the type they use for blue prints.
Ken