I've had the kit in a box for more years than I care to admit. I want to build a Zero about this size as my next big warbird.

Any old pro's out there with experience or advice? Is this too antiquated a kit to make construction worthwhile? Any better equivalent models (88" span)? Any advice as to engine? It came with a Saccs 4.2, but I'm accustomed to 3W's and BME's.

I hear another company (Iron Models?) is taking over parts manufacture and sales.

mt

The kit is designed very well and builds fairly easly, but is not a beginners kit. We glassed the foam wings. Kit has very good wing & stab plug in features for easy transport. Built one for my friend 12 years ago. Only change we made was to mount aliron servos into the wings, did not use torque tubes, except at stabs and flaps.
Very-Very good flying plane. Tracks striaght, takes off easy (get airspeed up) Does not like three point landings, must bring it in on wheels. Likes firm ground. Do not land on rough fields or wet-soft fields, plane tends to nose over easy on this type of field. Very durable aircraft. A 50cc engine is plenty, any thing else is overkill. We have a tried and faithful quadra 52 on this one. Only weakness in kit is the retracts. Gear covers are a week design, mess up easy. Make sure you have the brass retract cylinders for air up and air down. Can get these from iron bay. Dont waste time with old style plastic air up only cylinders.
We detailed this one out, full cockpit, pilot etc. (not Byron's cockpit, it looks cheap). My friend has won several area trophies with it.
Hope this helps

Hey, thanks! I had planned to glass the wings, since the concept of ironing Econocote over foam gives me gas.

Ouch on the retract thing ! Retracts in general seem to be my Achilles heel in warbirds. I'd think about re-vamping for a heavier set, but if I remember correctly, that would require changing the cutouts in the wings in a major way.

Appreciate the input from somebody with real experience.

mt

FOR WHAT ITS WORTH !!!!
We considered Robart's #145 to replace the byron units. They are not a direct bolt-in and Robart makes no claim that they are for this plane. They have the same basic configuration and could possible be adapted to fit, dont know, never pursued it. Robart was very helpful. they sent a full size blueprint for us to use as a reference.
The byrons work fine with the new cylinders. Plastic is much tuffer than we thought and takes a lot of abuse. The problem is that the strut angle does not set the wheel forward of the leading edge to help the tip over on a rough field.
The Robart configuration does not appear to allow for forward struct angle adjustment. Since the mount is preset in the wing it would be tuff to modify. If you built the Ziroli wood kit you could probaly adjust the mount within the wing. I consider the Ziroli a better overall plane - but the wood kit will require much more building effort. I did set the struts forward on my Ziroli Corsair and have absolutly no problem landing on the same field conditions.
Good Luck