rryman

My Feedback: (2)

............one says that .25 are more than enough. If that is the case can you go to 3 or 4 bladed props with a .25 or .30?

=======I tried 3 blades with mine before I flew it and it wouldn't even taxi on grass with them. I think on pavement it would be fine, or REAL short grass. I think if you could get it rolling you would be OK.
Randy

flynfishok

My Feedback: (10)

Just purchased a C-160 to join the twin world. My tanks also did not fit. I've ordered two 6 oz. round sullivan tanks that should fit according to the dimensions. What amount of throw are you guys using on the ailerons, rudder and elevator? Thanks for the help!

rryman

My Feedback: (2)

I put as much throw in the rudder as I could get, just in case of an engine out. Aileron and elevator, I'm not sure how much I have, but it doesn't require much, maybe 3/8 on aileroons and 1/2-5/8 on elevator.
Randy

FHD

howdy
ive got a AK models c160 the one with the balsa wing,im in the proccess of mounting the engines,my concern is the naccelles.im putting in the 25la,s,mounting them side ways and it looks like im going to have to cut a fair bit of the naccells away so they will cover the motors and fit properly.im wondering if you fellows out there could offer an opinion or even pictures on this concern of mine.
thanks
frank

sbaugz

My Feedback: (37)

I have owned two of these, so I would be happy to give you my opinion. My first one has OS 30 four strokers mounted inverted. I had to cut very minimal cowl away and it looked really nice. The engines ran pretty good.

My second one uses 25 two strokes. Initially I mounted them inverted too, but I had lots and lots of problems running the engines. The tank sets alot higher than the carb when you mount the two strokes inverted in this plane and I could barely keep the engines running. After lots of screwing around, I ended up ordering new nacelles from AK models and have now been installing them sideways. You are correct, you have to cut away alot of the cowl and it doesn't look very scale. But, I think that is the best way to do it for better reliability in my opinion based on experience trying to run it the other way.

FHD

one of the things i wish i had done first was to try the nacceels on the wing,i installed one fuel tank then tried to install the naccells,i have to cut part of the support away so the nacceel will fit.
This is a problem after you have "gooped" the tank in place,hope i dont cut into the tank.will let you know.
thanks.
tc
frank

FHD

i sort of solved the nacelle problem as to fit etc,but now i have another one.
When i fit the necells the throttle rod from the servo to the arm on the engine gets in the way.
how did you install your throttle rod / im not using the rod that was supplied but using the sullivan red golden rod,the flexible one.i installed it like it shows on the instruction.
What size servo did you use for the throttle,the regular size or one of the smaller ones ?
Any ideas ?
Take care
Frank

rryman

My Feedback: (2)

Personally, I use throttle "cable" instead of the golden rod. I just have more luck with it, and seems to fit into places easier.
I believe I used a regular servo for the throttle on mine. You'll find that the .25LA engines are more than adequate. This is a real fun plane to fly. Only problem I've had is that it is so light that flying it in windy conditions isn't much fun.
Randy

schwatd

Hey Folks, I got my C-160 on e-bay for $129.00, there are some set up problems from the packager. I have motor mounts that are too short (5-7mm) and 190cc tanks which others have noted, don't fit. Both problems are easily and cheaply fix though. I'm flying O.S. Max .25FX in mine due to the upped HP from the FX series. .84hp each. I've got an 8 channel programmable radio set for Flaperons and airbrakes The other part of the construction that I thought was interesting was mounting the engine servos. I had to cut slots for the push rod travel as there was no room once the naccell was inplace. I am spinning 10x6x4 props with alum. spinners. The strength of the FXs lets me get away with it. I added the original fuel tanks just under the wings inside the fuselage. I know kind of nutty but I like having 367cc of fuel per engine verses 177cc. On a ten minute flight I was landing on fumes. Exhuast pressure was enough to drive both tanks per engine in series. This is actually an RC-160 as it has 2 cameras mounted in the aircraft. One is color and sound while the other is low light color only. The aircraft is also lite for scale and night flights. I would have liked to have created some retracts for this as I think they would be rather simple.

FHD

howdy
if im understanding the fuel system that you have used,re the two seperate tanks inside the fuse,how did you connect these tanks in series?
i know that a fuel line from each tank goes to the engine,that a vent line goes to the muffler of each engine,but this is where i get confused.
does each vent muffler line connect together some how.
thanks
frank

FHD

howdy
if im understanding the fuel system that you have used,re the two seperate tanks inside the fuse,how did you connect these tanks in series?
i know that a fuel line from each tank goes to the engine,that a vent line goes to the muffler of each engine,but this is where i get confused.
does each vent muffler line connect together some how.
thanks
frank

schwatd

I work in hydralics so maybe I over simplified it a bit, I ran an exhaust line into the wing back to the fuselage to pressurize the fuselage tank, which dumps it's fuel into the nacell tank which feed the engine. The whole thing looks more complicated than it is, once the fuselage tanks are empty they each are simply bypassing exhaust pressure to the wing tank. Does that make sense or should I post some pics(that might take a few days, camera is not here)

FHD

in other words you are still using the wing tanks,which in turn are supplied from the fuse tank,or is it two seperate fuse tanks ?
tc
frank

schwatd

You got it, two seperate systems, one for each engine, two tanks set in series. One fuse tank and one wing tank for each engine. 367cc each system. About 22 minutes run time, good warm up, 10 minute flight, plenty of room for a few missed approaches, then taxi home with reserve to spare. I like that, I would rather not do dead sticks if I don't have to. If yea know what I mean.
Troy

FHD

it would be great if i could eliminate the wing tanks,would solve the push rod thing for the throttle,could move the throttle servo to where the fuel tank was.
whats your opinion on this
tc
frank

schwatd

I agree, I would have liked to have had a single main wing tank. The engine nacelles are too packed for all the gizmos, plus if you are having a mixture problem on one side and finally lose the engine inflight you might have a wing weight disparity that could cause handling issues. Anyway, I would have really rather done this with real TurboProps but alais no TPs that small.

Troy

Overlander

Well I am selling my Transall. Please have a look: [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=578231] C-160 Transall For Sale[/link]

Maybe you know someone who might be interested.

Thanks,
-Todd

Ryman

I have one of these that after I built it noticed the incidence of the rear stab is about around 3/16th of an inch high in the front. Is this how all of them are or did I get a funky mold and need to rework the tail? Would appricate some of those who have succefully flown there c-160's to check that and let me know what the deal is with the incedense angle.

pilot727

I have a c-160 and flown it all summer, it can be difficult in a cross wind but i put two os-32sx on mine and it flies so nice and runs great with good power, could not tell you about how it would fly on one engine i have never had one, also i have a twinstar with two os-25fx and they to run really good, on the c-160 the os-32sx i could not have put a nicer engine on it, everything went together just fine the tanks fit in without problems and so did the pins.

pilot727

I bought the c-160 from giant scale and i put two os-32sx engines on it and it fly's great, i mounted the engines side ways and it is a fine flying twin easy to take off and to land, i was landing kind of hot at first but i slowed it down and doing much better now. With the os-32sx it does the most beautiful loops and rolls it is just a great flying plane.

FHD

how much does your 160 weigh?
mine will come in at 8 3/4 lbs after i add the 7oz of nose weight.
ive got 2 la 25,s and was wondering if this will be enough power,sure hope so i bought them new just for this model.
tc
Frank

pilot727

Frank
I did not weigh mine but as you well know they are a light plane, with the two os-32sx for engines i have great power, on my twinstar i have two os-25fx and it to has great power, the only thing i did not like about the c-160 is the wing and the fuse are close to the same color i can see it far away by the fuse but making the turn to land i cannot see the wings at all, even the plane is hard to see so i painted the leading edge of the wing red and it helped, my last flight on take off i lost an engine and it went right into a spin, did not have the time to get out so i lowered the throttle and watched it spin out of sight, when i went to pick up the pieces i found it in a creek, of course in the center, i waded out with mud up to my knees and brought it back with very little damage, i took the wing off and there was no water in the engine as i closed them off, the very first thing i did was to take the plug out just to make sure there was no water and dumped the fuel and refueled and started both engines and they run nice, i add no weight to mine i put a jr-2700 battery in the front, that was it, i now have both engines off i had a broken engine mount and the wing was off set where it must of hit the water and it just layed down, i am going to paint the nacelles also i am really cleaning everything up nice, it had two small holes in the fuse which is now taken care of but it is a great running twin and so easy to fly.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

"enough power" depends on what you want. If you have a paved runway, the 25LAs will probably get it off the ground, but it will be marginal in the air and definately won't maintain altitude on one engine. I fly an 8 1/2 pound converted 60 size trainer on two 40LAs and it has a much lower wing loading than your Transall, but it still doesn't have "enough power" to make me feel really comfortable with it.

Jim

Regarding the various comments that the Transall flies fine on 25s, bear in mind that there is a world of difference in the power available from a 25LA vs a 25FX or similar ball-bearing engine. My 40LAs make about the same power as a 25FX.

Jim

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

Vmeek,
How do you know that Ak-Models and NitroPlanes is the same company...? I know Raidentech and NitroPlanes/Models are the same company...and I also know that they also go by seveal different names on e-bay...like Egrandbuy, but I thought AK-Models was a different compay. I would like to know.

NitroPlanes and Raidentech are both close to each other in California, but AK-Models is in Iowa.

I wont buy anything more from Nitroplanes or any of their companies.

Soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui

BillS

For what it is worth I fly a bashed 8 pound Cherokee twin with OS .25 FP engines. I have not had any difficulty on grass. I have also flown a 10 1/2 pound Kadet with the same two engines. The Kadet was marginal but would fly on one engine. Neither airplane was expected to taxi or take off on one engine. The Cherokee has several successful dead engine landings. I am running 9 x 6 props but believe it would fly faster with 9 x 5 props

Bill