Conference vmszoo::rc

    brian,
    
    i have a top-flite corsair 3/4 built and long forgotten.  i started
    building it 2 winters ago, and paused when retracts were backordered
    for months and months...  i've since been side-tracked and dont
    plan on finishing the corsair till this winter.  the wing is sheeted
    and covered with cloth and dope, and all control surfaces are built
    but not covered.  one decision you will definately wrestle with
    is to build flaps or not.  then how to power them when you decide
    to.  the complexity of the corsair wing with flaps is immense!
    
    the top-flight kit is merely ok.  the royal sr kit looks like it
    may be better.  i think the corsair is going to be a handful in
    the air.  why a 4-stroke?  good luck.
    
    kevin

    Brian,
    
    I just test-hopped a Top-Flite Corsair for a fellow a coupla' weekends
    ago and can say that, as WW-II warbirds go, it flies just fine...not
    nearly as treacherous as it may look.  This guy'd opted _not_ to install
    flaps, however, and I must say that flaps are almost mandatory on
    this type ship to keep landing speeds reasonable and safe...I strongly
    recommend against deleting flaps on this or any other Corsair; any
    other WW-II fighter, for that matter.                         
    
    Another weird thing the Top-Flite kit does is around the cowl; it's
    attached in such a way that the rear of the cowl is sealed tight,
    allowing _no_ cooling air exit area...VERRRRY bad idea.  The cowl
    and cowl-attachment must be modified in such a manner as to open
    the scale cowl-flaps to provide exit area for cooling air...otherwise
    you'll cook yer' engine.
    
    The Royal Sr. kit is about the same size as the Top-Flite but is,
    arguably, a little closer to scale.  As with the Top-Flite, flaps
    are strongly recommended.  While I, personally, prefer it, the Royal
    kit uses an older technology; lots and lotsa' balsa sheeting, strip-
    planking and block work to carve/sand down to finished shapes.  It
    also comes with a nice spun aluminum cowling which I prefer to plastic.
    This fact might sway some builders to the somewhat more modern technology
    used in the Top-Flite kit, ABS cowl, etc.  Either kit procduces
    a nice looking model and, sitting side-by-side, you couldn't tell
    one from the other.  Having flown them both, I can't honestly say
    that either one flies any better than the other so it boils down
    to builder's preference.
    
    Either of these kits will have to be built as lightly as possible
    (10-11lb.'s max.) to perform well (and safely) on .60-size engines.
    Any heavier than this and a .75 or even a .90 should be seriously
    considered.  I, personally, wouldn't even consider a 4-cycle engine
    in this  bird (or any other .60-size WW-II fighter).  You'd _have_
    to go to at least a .90, preferrably a 1.20, to approach or equal
    the performance of a 2-cycle and this means a _much_ larger/heavier
    engine to try to cram into a limited cowl space.

      |                
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

>I'm looking to build a new plane......
>
>Currently in the hangar are the Dura-plane and a SIG Kavalier.  Since I
>currently have no plane to work on I'm looking to buy an interesting new
>kit.  Note that I understand I won't be flying this new bird until MUCH
>more experience (when you see what I want....).

Brian - I don't want to rain on your parade and believe me I would love
to be there for the first flight of your Corsair but...

There are two reasons that this hobby has such a large turn over.

1.  Beginners don't get an instructor so they build something, spend
    a lot of money, crash it and quit.

2.  Intermediate flyers take on a more complex plane than their building
    and/or flying skills can cope with.  Usually they never finish building
    but when they do then they crash it.

Corsairs have caused more people to quit the hobby than any other plane.
Why - cause we all love the looks of corsairs.  We all want to build and
fly one - there is a little of Pappy Boyington in all of us.

My advise is to indeed keep thinking about corsairs - in fact start
gathering documentation now - it takes months to get everything you 
want and need for documentation.  But don't buy the kit this fall or winter.
Instead get a challenging and instructive alternative.

This notes file is full of suggestions - let me make two that won't
be controversial:

1.  If you want a good high performance low wing plane - try a super sportster.
2.  If you want to try a Bipe - get a Super Aeromaster.

Both are well made (by great planes), reasonably complex to build, and
will allow you to put a practice finish on it just like you would like
to do with the corsair.

After you can eat up the skies with one of those then you are ready for
a handful like a corsair.

P.S.  Corsairs have 3 or 4 piece flaps over the bent wing - wow!
P.S.S.  Remember - I'm not trying to rain on your parade.  I would love
        to be in your cheering section at some scale contest and see you
	fly that big bent wing bird.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

Actually, I enjoy building (and now flying...the easiest ones) quite a bit.
In the past I've put together some small rubber powered ones, including a 
small (working with the tiny balsa parts was nuts!) corsair.

Before I got interested in powered flight I had built a Olympic 650 and a 
Gentle Lady.  Anyway, a more challenging construction project doesn't 
intimidate me...too much.  I did want to see if my constructions could fly 
before attempting this though!

The Kavalier took, on and off, almost a year to build.  I think it turned 
out to be a beautiful plane!  That's why I'm not flying it yet.

I went and looked at the top-flight kit today.  It seems to be a winter 
project kind o thing....although if I bought it I'm sure I couldn't resist 
starting it ASAP.

Anyway, I'm (as Kay put it), collecting information......so far I'm hearing 
good stuff...keep it coming!

Cheers
Brian

p.s.  Actually, I had thought the 4-stroke option was listed in the Royal 
description I read....It's not...I've just been looking at too many 
different models :^}  I'd probably put an .80 in it.

    
    	Actually, the gentleman that taught me to fly (loose meaning
    of "gentleman" here) had a Corsair as his first RC plane.  Perhaps
    he can speak about it a little in a later reply...
    
    	What do folks have to say about Byron's Corsair?  If money is
    no object, that looks like it would fly well with few suprises.
    Reviewers?

    Re: Byron's Corsair,
    
    It's _awfully_ big and the wing chord, as with all of Byron's
    birds, is much too thick.  Aside from this, cost aside, it's not
    a bad ship.
    
    However, _do_not_ expect much from the purr-powr, 3-or-4 blade prop
    arrangement on the Quadra-50;  it's power and the resulting [lack
    of] performance of the ship is pretty lack-luster.  A Q-50 on a
    conventional mount, pulling a 2-bladed prop, far exceeds the performance
    available from the purr-powr unit.          

      |
      | |      00	 Adios,      Al
    |_|_|      ( >o
      |    Z__(O_\_	(The Desert Rat)

Thanks for the response on the Corsair.  I still may build it this winter.
I think I like the Top-Flite kit.

Kay -

I looked at the kits you mentioned...I LIKE the Super Aeromaster!  I'd like 
to hear more about it (oops...didn't look for it in other notes first).

Also, a friend of my has found a plane in a catalog and wanted me to ask 
about it....its a Coverite Gee Bee Sportster.  Is this a good kit/flyer?
Does Coverite make decent kits?

Hmmmmm...how much time does it take to build a "good" Aeromaster...

Cheers
Brian

>Thanks for the response on the Corsair.  I still may build it this winter.
>I think I like the Top-Flite kit.

Kevin's Top-Flite looks like a well built kit - to me.

>Kay -
>
>I looked at the kits you mentioned...I LIKE the Super Aeromaster!  I'd like 
>to hear more about it (oops...didn't look for it in other notes first).

Yes - notes 217.* and 374.* are devoted to the Aeromasters.

>Also, a friend of my has found a plane in a catalog and wanted me to ask 
>about it....its a Coverite Gee Bee Sportster.  Is this a good kit/flyer?
>Does Coverite make decent kits?

I like Coverite kits in general but I think the Sportster would be a real
hand full.

>Hmmmmm...how much time does it take to build a "good" Aeromaster...

I've got about 3 months on mine so far - Kevin bet me $5.00 that I couldn't
finish by August 1st.  I would have been willing to bet on Jun 1st - good
thing I didn't.  Present schedule is to fly on 20-Jul-1988 probably without
a complete paint job.  If you use plastic covering and no paint you can probably
beat my time by a couple of weeks.  But - I'm not bothering with the wheel pants
so far and that would cost me a few days.

>Cheers
>Brian

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
================================================================================

I just got a (yes, another) flyer from Tower.  There is a Super Aeromaster 
Combo with a O.S. 120 Surpass engine for $389.99 (OUCH!).

I've been wistfully looking at 4-cycle engines....and really do like what I 
have seen of the Super Aeromaster (thanx Kay!).

Just thought I'd see what ya'all thought of this combo.  I've been flying 
like crazy with the Duraplane (should I ramble with the Desert Rat on the 
Dura-plane?), but really have the itch to build.

Cheers,
Brian (who still lacks a logo) Archer