Pick your kit to build this winter!

[Ashman001]

Hey guys,

Like BJ, this will be my first build.  Any suggestions on the below:

http://www.stevensaero.com/StevensAero-1923-DH.53-Humming-Bird-Indoor-Backyard-Scale.html

http://www.stevensaero.com/StevensAero-1931-Heath-LNB-4-Parasol-Micro-Kit.html

I think they are a good size for indoor domes....thoughts? 

Any other suggestions?

Thanks,

Ash

[sihinch]

Not for indoor, and not for a beginner, but this looks quite cool!


http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__81341__De_Havilland_DH82a_Tiger_Moth_Biplane_1400mm_Laser_Cut_Balsa_Kit.html

[fasteddie]

For my first ever build since I was 10 years old I have finally decided.
This is going to be a challenge.
A Partenavia p 68 Scale
Wingspan 70 inches, about 70 ounces, wing area 720 square inches, tricyle undercarriage.
Twin engine
It was designed for brushed motors so I will need some adjustment.
I am assuming two brushless motors 1100kv around 14 amps each, and two 20 amp esc's.
Even If I can build this, I don't know if I can ever fly it.
Wish me luck
Ed

[Frank v B]

FastEddie,


Could you publish the details of the kit so I can see how it is built and how much it weighs. 
I suspect those motors are marginal and with that KV rating the props may be too small.  Those motors put out 170 watts each for a total of 340 watts.  For good performance it means the plane's take-off weight must be less than 3 pounds.  If this plane were originally designed for brushed motors and Nicads, the conversion to brushless would save 14oz per motor/battery combination for a total of 28 oz.
If you have the kit, do not commit to the power combo yet.


Frank

[fasteddie]

Frank
Thanks for your response, it is exactly what I was hoping for since I have no experience to rely on.
It is not a kit. It is a set of plans and instructions. They are on order but not received.
I don't intend to order anything else until someone (you) gives me solid advice
The seller, Ivan Pettigrew gives is a total weight of weight of 77ounces including 9 Nicads . I think it also includes the motors but I am not sure  (I will ask him to clarify)
I had assumed a weight reduction of 20 ounces going to brushless so 28 would be even better.
Ivan recommended speed 400 or speed 450 type motors with speed 480 for sport aerobatics
I read that 90 watts per pound of total weight was recommended for slow scale models but I think you are telling me that is too little.
I want to avoid under powering and over powering but more is always better than less
I am attaching a document from Ivan
Thanks
Ed

[fasteddie]

Frank
The plans are coming to me on paper. I will scan to pdf and send to you
Ed

[Frank v B]

Ed,


Let me know when you get the plans.  480 brushed sounds awfully tame for a 72" wingspan plane.  Remember the motto: "Always overpower an airplane because you can always throttle back.... if you have to".  Spare power is a great asset when things start to go wrong during a flight.


Do not despair. When building a kit or from plans, the power choice can wait a while until the fuse and wings are built.  Twin engine wings are usually built in their entirety and then the engine nacelles are slipped on.


Frank

[gordonbw]

480 brushed does seem marginal, but Ivan Pettigrew originally designed many of  his planes around these motors and, by reputation, they are great flyers. I have plans for Ivan's Twin Otter in my queue... Same size as the Partenavia and, yes, Speed 480 is the recommended power system.  Ivan's designs are stick built and very light for their size. That said, I completely agree with Frank that more power is better.  If and when I build the Twotter it will get low kv 35mm brushless motors.

[Wingnutz]

For my first ever build since I was 10 years old I have finally decided.
This is going to be a challenge.
A Partenavia p 68 Scale
Wingspan 70 inches, about 70 ounces, wing area 720 square inches, tricyle undercarriage.
Twin engine
It was designed for brushed motors so I will need some adjustment.
I am assuming two brushless motors 1100kv around 14 amps each, and two 20 amp esc's.
Even If I can build this, I don't know if I can ever fly it.
Wish me luck
Ed

Pretty cool choice Eddie!
I googled it and the later versions are pretty nifty!
Stick with Frank's advice and you'll do fine! Have fun!

[fasteddie]

Thanks guys
I am looking forward to this
I totally get the point on power, especially if you may want to add FPV, lighting, etc in the future. There is no downside to a bigger motor and perhaps I should go to 25amp esc's.
Pleased about the vote of confidence In Ivan Pettigrew, in another year I may be interested in his Catalina

[piker]

Not for indoor, and not for a beginner, but this looks quite cool!


http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__81341__De_Havilland_DH82a_Tiger_Moth_Biplane_1400mm_Laser_Cut_Balsa_Kit.html

Hey Simon,

I'm curious about your reasoning for this response.  Both these planes look pretty easy to build and are gentle flying configurations (and cute as heck!).  I agree, they may be fast for indoor, but why do you say not for beginner?  Because of their size?

And you offer of an alternative... a detailed, scale biplane?  Was this a suggestion or just a "check out this cool kit"?

[piker]

Yes, Ivan's approach has always been to build VERY lightly and use modest power.  He started this back before brushless motors and Lipo's were common.  A little more power, now that we can get that even with less weight as well, just makes sense, but avoid over compensating otherwise a nice, scale flying model can turn into a pattern ship.  Yes, you can always throttle back, but not if you're trying to fly too much weight on a small wing area.

[wollins]

Pleased about the vote of confidence In Ivan Pettigrew, in another year I may be interested in his Catalina

Hey Eddie, as someone who has had the latest experience with an Ivan design, I totally agree with what the others have posted about his planes.  Built to be EXTREMELY light and consequently they tend to be great flying planes.  My Solent is based on his "Short Solent 480" plans. You can see some of his "stick" construction style at http://temac.ca/smf/index.php/topic,4888.0.html starting at post 74. 

After that mine starts to deviate (a LOT!) from his plans I'm afraid.   However to give you an example of how light he designs his planes to be ... that plane at the above link (Solent) if built exactly to his plans is designed to be LESS than NINE pounds!!!! (this for 100" wingspan plane!)

Mine on the other hand is currently weighing in at NINETEEN and a half pounds but I'm sure based on past experience it won't fly "heavy". I say this to reassure you that even if you go DOUBLE his proposed weight ... you should be fine.  Of course as Rob has rightly pointed out ... the lighter you can build it the better.

Colin 

P.S. My CL-415 (seen in the image under my name to the left) which even though is not an Ivan plan ... is also based on his design style of stick construction and is typically built to be less than FIVE pounds AUW. (at a span of 74 inches!) Mine came in at 8.75lbs and yet still flies "light". 

[adyg]

Brian and I would like to try building one of these models:

T-Craft
http://www.greatplanes.com/reviews/gpma0155-rcr.html

RV-4
http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma0180.html

Super Decathlon 40
http://www.greatplanes.com/discontinued/gpma0185.html

They all seem to be made for gas engines but i hope they can be electrified. I am leaning towards the T-Craft or RV-4. Any recommendations?
Regards,

Adrian

[Ashman001]

How about this one:

http://www.mountainmodels.com/product_info.php?products_id=591

According to the documentation this is:

Designed for the low experience pilot on up who wants a super easy flying scale plane. If you have not flown ailerons before, this plane could make a great aileron trainer for you. If
you have no tail dragger experience, this plane also makes a great first tail dragger.