mnrcaerobat

My Feedback: (197)

I have ran the norvel 074 and it is a great engine. I flew it on a sig hummer. It lacked some vertical, but was pretty fast. When you get over this way, bring some scaled down plans, and I can work on it.

coreman

From what I remember they had a pretty good response to the US1000 run they did a couple years ago. I got my first US1000 that way. It would be nice not to have to resort to overpaying on eBay to get the scarce kits I've picked up since.

coreman

Since this seems to be the currently active Ultra Sport topic, does anyone have an US1000 with a smoke system? I remember seeing a reference to a BGX-1 powered US1000 with smoke and I'd love to hear more about it. That's the power plant I have chosen for mine which is next ont he build queue

coreman

I found a few more pictures of my US60 on the day of it's maiden flight. One on the ground of the engine run up, a low pass which might have been an early landing attempt and finally landing deadstick after giving up trying to slow it down enough. Note I've done the fuselage/fin trim which was missing in the previous pictures

Moon Unit

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Ken. The flames was something I had to try. Of course I got alot of ideas from RCU and then added my twist on it.

Dave

firebrad

My Feedback: (1)

Has anyone heard of a US 1000 with a supertiger g-4500 in it? 22 oz heavuer than a 3250 but...

Brad

Waldopepperaxel

Howdy Folks,

just found this thread, I'm currently building the Us 1000 going with retracts but undecided on the horse for her yet, this is a pic of my US 40 powered with an OS .70 4 stroke surpass II, this was a jet of a plane, handled great, had the retracts on her and Homer piloted the bird, but something happened in a death spin with 2 other birds in the sky and 2 of us were shot down at the same time but we never hit each other luckily Homer ejected just in time.

Any suggestions on the retracts length for good prop clearence?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I'm sure there are purists who would say your Ultra Sport Plus was not a real Ultra Sport, but what the heck, you've joined the club with that Ultra Sport 1000. Good luck with it and let us know how you like it compared with the "Plus".

Jim

OBTW, use an OS 1.60 for power and a 16x8 three blade prop and the stock retract legs with work fine. And build the 72" wing, not the 80". The US 1000 was designed as a 72" airplane and GP added a rib bay on each side at the last minute to make it IMAA legal. The 72" is more aerobatic and lands a lot easier.

J

Waldopepperaxel

Why , is there that much of a difference in the flight control from the 40 to the 1000 I would think the 1000 is easier to control, and I actually have the 72" wing, I was given this kit by my nephew who bought too many toys and didn't have time to build it, he started on a Pt 20 and jumped right to the US 1000. nice plane though I can't wait to get her done.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

The Ultra Sport Plus was a recent complete redesign of the Ultra Sport. It is not related to any of the previous Ultra Sports. The Ultra Sport 40, 60 and 1000 kits and the Ultra Sport 40 ARF were all discontinued in the 1990's. That's why the original kits bring so much money on Ebay.

The Ultra Sport Plus is a nice flyer, but it doesn't fly like an Ultra Sport.

Jim

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

NOTHING flies like an UltraSport!

britbrat

----and that's the truth [sm=thumbup.gif]

Waldopepperaxel

I'm pretty excited to fly mine thats for sure, I have flown a lot of planes over the last 35 years and I'm always game for a new toy, especially if its a good one, I put the retracts on it knowing I won't get much out of them as our field is pretty bumpy, but I can always rebuild, I often have, not to change the subject, but if you want a real power house of a bird that does anything you can think of, try the Twist from Hanger 9 you won't believe the performance you get out of it, now I'm sorry to bring another plane into the picture, but fun is fun and people need to know, I just finished the wings on the US 1000, tail feathers are all done, and the fuse should be done in the next week. I can't wait!!!!

Happy flyin all

Roary m

My Feedback: (67)

I was curious about the Ultra Sport following in light of accessability of the Dirty Birdy from Blue Jay Models. I have had a few Sports and they are great fliers but the Birdy grooves very well and it is cheap. Just asking.

burkyboy

hello there!!! i have just purchased a plane that looks identical to an ultra sport, and from what i am told, it was a gm precision kit called the sunbird or something close to that... i have not flown it yet, as i am sure that it is very fast. any advice as to flight???? it is powered by an os fx 46, and has about a five-foot wingspan. the chord of the wing at the fuse is about 10-12 inches, and reduces the length of the wing to the tip about 6-8 inches. im sure it has a very high wingload, as it is about 8 or so pounds. this model has full mech. retracts, and i am supposed to have someone else who has flown these many times before take her on her maiden with me. the kit this plane was built from was about 20 years old, and it was built about 4 years ago. everything seems to be good. and seems to be a very solid build. i reenforced some areas with thin ca, and i have now re-tuned and attached anything that may come loose, and everything else before a first flight of any new airplane, even though this plane has probably flown many times. i just wanted to make sure it was done correctly. i may fly her tommorow, or the day after and i will return with the results!!!! wixh me luck!!!!

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

burkyboy:

That would be a Rainbow Runner. The Sunbird looks more like a Super Sportster. The Rainbow runner did fly very much like the Ultra Sport, but they usually weighed about 6 pounds. If yours is really around 8 pounds it will fly like a missile and land like a brick.

How about a photo?

Jim

Waldopepperaxel

Would there be much difference in running a Supertigre G-2300 instead of an OS 1.60 ?? besides the $150.00 difference, I have always owned OS max's, but someone recommended trying a Supertigre, I have not seen to many other engines that compares to the OS, Very reliable and I have never had a bad one, I've owned over 9 different OS motors so I'm kind of afraid to try anything else, watching other peoples problems over the last 35 years, but I always wonder If i'm missing something better then OS, Is that even remotely possible????? I was just wondering if the Supertigre would pull this plane into 3D and have plenty of zip to spare. I like to have plenty of power in my planes and if the US 1000 flies as nice as you guys say it does, I don't want to underpower her at all, I want the FULL EXPERIENCE.

The BHP Is 3.7 @ 12,600 rpm's on the 2300,, and its 3.7 BHP @ 9000 Rpm's on the 1.60 So that right there tells me whats better, Should I use a weed whacker motor?? what about a Briggs and straton 12.5 Hp ?? that might get it to the speed I'm looking for. I may have to build up the firewall a little on that though.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I have both engines, and both are worth what they cost. I had to spend $50 for a Perry carb to make the ST run well, and still it has it's off days. The OS 1.60 is one of OS best engines, and that is saying something. My OS ran well on it's first tank and four airplanes later it still runs perfectly every time.

The ST 2300 (with a Perry carb) is a poor man's OS 1.60.

Jim

Waldopepperaxel

Thanks JRF,,

That was the kind of answer I was looking for, A poor man I am, but not when it comes to buying the right things for my planes, it costs you more in the long run if you buy crap to begin with. its looking like an OS 1.60 to me, anything else need to go with that, Muffler extension or anything??

I appreciate it, talk to you soon.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I haven't tried to put the 1.60 on a US1000, but the stock muffler should clear OK. You can always carve out a little of the chin block if the rear of the muffler hits it.

By the way, try a 16X8 3-blade prop. You will have plenty of excess power, so the slight power losses of a 3-blade won't hurt you and the 3-blade will slow the airplane down much better for landings. And they look and sound AWESOME!

Jim

Waldopepperaxel

I will try that,

I was looking at the motors on the plan sheet and it says the 1.60 twin was shown but that doesn't have the power the 1.60 2 cycle has, were talking 2.0 BHP as apposed to 3.7 BHP for around 10,000 Rpms plus the 1.60 4 stroke has a $6??.00 price tag on her. I like the 3 blade prop Idea, I've used one before, but it seemed to keep the plane at the same speed with High or low rpm's, and you couldn't keep it idle on the paved ground ever, it just wanted to go, but now we fly off grass, so that part shouldn't be a problem.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

When the US 1000 was made, the OS 1.60 2-stroke didn't exist. If it had existed, it would have been the recommended engine.

Jim

Waldopepperaxel

Yes the more I look at it the more I know the 1.60 2 stroke is going to have a new home.
Thanks for all your help, I'll send some pics of the finished project, it might not be for a couple of weeks, I must save, and then flatten the wallet at my favorite hobby store.

Joe

broke_n_bummin

[img][/img]This is the only pic I have of mine ... for now. It's pretty old... I don't know exactly how old it is, but the manual is carved in stone

broke_n_bummin

oops ... lemme do this again