mrbassman

Hello everyone. Currently I fly IMAC (35%), and while I enjoy it, I want to build a twin. I am an experienced builder and flier, but I have no muti-engine experience. So, here's what I was thinking......

I really like the Top Flite Cessna 310, but I know I am not ready for that yet. What I was thinking was to build the Nitro-planes Cessna 310 and get some experience with that. Also, OS discontinued the 50's, but I heard the 55's will fit in the TF 310. What I want to do is build the Nitro 310 with the OS 55's, I can get experience and break the engines in at the same time. I know the Nitro 310 calls for 60's, but I think it would fly well with the 55's.

The other option would be to build a Dual Ace 46 and do the same thing only breaking in the 46's. The DA seems a bit small for me, that's why I was thinking about the Nitro 310.

All you guys with lots of twin experience, does this sound resonable? Is there a better way to go about it? Also is there anyone in the San Diego, Ca. area that flies multi-engines? Thanks.

Ken

boingram

Ken,

You are probably correct in staying away from the TF 310 at this point. Flying IMAC, you are certainly not afraid of the cost factor.

I am not familiar with the Nitro 310, but here are my thoughts and I have all of these airframes:

Seagull Dual Ace: Wonderful plane. Twin OS 46AX's, larger wheels and longer gear legs to help prop clearance. Balance at 100-105. I have dozens of flights on mine.

Cedar Hobbies Twin Stik: Cheap, and great plane to learn twins...stable like all stiks. Rear empenage needs strenghtening. Props pretty close together due to lack of fuse, so be careful.

Cox Dualists: 46AX's, retracts, beautiful..what else is there? Not for the faint of heart.

TF 310: Georgeous, but a large comittment of funds and time for a first twin.

Good luck..

Bo

fancman

My Feedback: (16)

This might give you some insight.

http://www.rcwarbirds.com/Techniques...uespage.htm#t2

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Dick Pettit did a review of the NitroPlanes 310 in RC Report Magazine a few months ago. There is also a thread on it here. (Do a search).

Your plan to use the NitroPlanes version as a trainer/equipment tester sounds just right to me, based on the review and comments here, but I haven't flown one, so can't say for sure.

Jim

mrbassman

I just watched Pettit's video of him flying the Nitro 310. Without flaps that thing looks like a real bear to land. Seems to have a very high stall speed. I'm thinking something would flaps would be better. He was flying off a grass field and had a very long roll-out. The field I fly at is paved, might roll off the end if it has too land that fast. Any suggestions?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

The wing loading on the Nitro 310 is about half of the loading on the GP 310. I suspect the video is deceiving. Or maybe Pettit had the idle up, or for some other reason didn't want to slow it down. You can email him at [email protected] and see what he thinks. He has reviewed both the Nitro and the GP.

Jim

fancman

My Feedback: (16)

I've got the OV 10 Bronco by Hobby Hangar and it lands like a feather with flaps and flies like a big trainer.

Fastsky

I am not sure why you think the Dual Ace is small?? The specs are: Wing Span: 70", Overall Length: 59", and the Wing Area: 862 sq.in. There is one at our field and its very easy to see and its a sweet flyer. The pilot doesn't use more than half throttle for the take off with two 46AX engines. At full throttle it has every one mesmerized by the speed and sound. Its easy to land because it will slow down and handle well like a standard low wing single engine sport plane to land. The roll out is short on our grass field because the plane isn't heavy for its size. The price is very reasonable as well.

mrbassman

The Dual Ace is a nice plane and I'm leaning towards going with one of them. I've yet to hear a bad thing about it and it seems to be a good first twin. As far as being small, I guess it's just a relative thing, flying planes with a 105" wing span everything seems small after a while, I wasn't insulting the plane in any way. I haven't flown a nitro powered engine in a long time and there are a lot out there nowadays. I used to fly OS and had no complaints with them. As far as reliability and durability, are the OS engines still one of the best? There's a lot to choose from today. Thanks

Ken

Fastsky

On engines, my opinion, in the 40/46 size the OS are still the best. In the 60/75 size the Tower Hobbies 75 is my favorite. OS has a ringed 75 out now but haven't any experience with that one. Have some experience helping a new flyer with an OS 55. It was easy to adjust like the other OS models, has really good power output and runs great. The 60 size OS is a yawner as far as power goes. The reliability and ease of use is there but not the power compared to other OS models. For a kick above 46 power I have been using ASP Super 52 engines with happy results. The engines take a few more seconds to tune but the power output is outstanding and they have been very reliable. The 75 size is the largest I use so can't comment on any thing larger. Hope this helps.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

The Notromodels P-38 is another possibility. You'll need to replace the LG wires because theirs are too soft, but It's a beautiful plane and I not only landed mine with an engine out, but I even aborted the first landing (a little too high) and went around for a second try. So it's pretty forgiving if you have a flame-out.

Here's the review:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=765