Are US Aircore planes a good choice?
Reed Kennedy
I am looking to learn to fly, and have been searching for a good trainer.
Would the aircore Trainer 40 or Knighthawk work well? Are they as durable
as they claim? Also, are they fun to fly? Any opinions would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks,
Reed
Vince
Nope.
Vince
AMA 266036
Paul McIntosh
Reed,
Stick with a built up trainer. They may not be as durable, but they fly a LOT
better. I was/am a club instructor for 10 years and have flown most of them.
The Aircore planes, while somewhat more durable, are a bit heavier, less
responsive to control input and generally don't fly as well. One problem I
have seen with them is their tendency to take on warps due to storage
conditions. The plastic will slowly warp and take on a set that is nearly
impossible to get out.
Reed Kennedy wrote:
--
Paul McIntosh
Desert Sky Model Aviation
http://www.dancris.com/~warbird/whiz
Overpar729
Simply put, NO!!! Don't ever fly anything made of the same stuff as election
signs.
O'par
Alex Golder
USAircore planes a flying brick with wings. They fly different every time
you go up and constantly need to be trimmed. Stay away from them no matter
how tempting they appear. You are much better or buying an ARF like Tower
Trainer or GP PT40. They build quick and fly great.
Reed Kennedy wrote in message <6fqndm$j...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>...
J. Bingham
Buy a cinder block. They fly better.
Wm. A. Rademacher
Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
These get a lot of mixed press.
A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
bearing engine,
preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
I was flying it. You be the judge.
--
Bill & Nancy, Ben & Nick Rademacher
bn...@bbtel.com
http://www.bbtel.com/~bnrad/index.html
Armor Plated OS/2 and Win '95
Overpar729 wrote in message
<199803312315...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
fred
Vince wrote:
>
> Reed Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > I am looking to learn to fly, and have been searching for a good trainer.
> > Would the aircore Trainer 40 or Knighthawk work well? Are they as durable
> > as they claim? Also, are they fun to fly? Any opinions would be greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Reed
>
>
> Vince
> AMA 266036
I own the corobrick II and it flies lousy - The thing is lop-sided and
impossible to build straight.
DON'T BUY ONE !!!
Rod Robbins
> I own the corobrick II and it flies lousy - The thing is lop-sided and
> impossible to build straight.
> DON'T BUY ONE !!!
>
I own the Colt 40, Barnstormer, and Knighthawk. They all fly great,
although the Knighthawk suffered an unfortunate "incident" last fall, which
was entirely my fault, not the plane's.
Just take your time and build them straight. Also, the specified CG on
the Barnstormer and Knighthawk was too far back, as indicated on the plans.
Move it forward about 3/4-inch to start.
Good luck, whatever you choose.
-- Rod
Vince
Wm. A. Rademacher wrote:
>
> Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
> More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
> These get a lot of mixed press.
> A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
> 1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
> bearing engine,
> preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
> OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
> I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
> I was flying it. You be the judge.
Flew it into a tree, and nothing was left, then 2 days later was flying
again, come on now!!
Vince
AMA 266038
zeus
I had the Aircore 40 Trainer. Its true it can bounce back after a crash
and hard landing. But, it flies awfully. Also, it is extremely heavy, and
requires a large engine just to get it off the ground. I tried a Tower 40
with it, and couldn't fly. Next, I tried a TT46ProBB, and had it flying,
but only barely. Because it flies so poorly, a beginner will not be able to
learn the basic manouevers. Therefore, THIS PLANE SHOULD BE AVOIDED!
Wm. A. Rademacher <bn...@bbtel.com> wrote in article
<6fuu1s$p...@bnllc1.blue.net>...
> Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
> More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
> These get a lot of mixed press.
> A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
> 1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
> bearing engine,
> preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
> OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
> I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
> I was flying it. You be the judge.
Rene
On 3 Apr 1998 04:35:22 GMT, "zeus" <xentec...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
(may be partially quoted)
>I had the Aircore 40 Trainer. Its true it can bounce back after a crash
>and hard landing. But, it flies awfully. Also, it is extremely heavy, and
>requires a large engine just to get it off the ground. I tried a Tower 40
>with it, and couldn't fly. Next, I tried a TT46ProBB, and had it flying,
>but only barely.
same engine..?! Mine does 2.8 Kg - ~65 gr / dm
....Best Regards, Rene
Rod Robbins
I agree. A few weeks ago, we had a trainee at our field with the Aircore
40 Trainer and a Magnum 46BB engine. Once we had a few tanks through the
engine, it mellowed out and was very adequate for moving the plane around
for basic training maneuvers. (It still doesn't compare with a TT or OS
46, though, although it was noticeably quiet for a 46...)
The plane, incidentally, required some trim and CG adjustments, but then
flew fine.
One thing I've noticed about the Aircore high-wing models, including my own
Knighthawk and Barnstormer (OK, partly high-wing) is that they seem to come
out tail heavy when balanced according to Aircore's own instructions. I
think since most people assume that the instructions should be correct,
then plane must need lots of additional down-trim to fly level. This means
that as soon as you come off the throttle, the down-trim makes them pitch
down sharply -- which is probably how so many Aircore planes get the
"...glides like a rock..." reputation.
I've found that if I experimented with moving the CG forward, I was then
able to remove the excess down-trim. Then the plane flies fairly level
under power, but still glides surprisingly well at idle power.
BTW, My Colt 40 flies well with the Aircore-specified CG.
Just a thought...
-- Rod
Rene <cps...@cistron.nl> wrote in article <3529c7db.12383323@hardware>...
Bill Cripe
Vince,
I have flown Aircores with everything from a OS .40FP to a Jett .46 and
.61SF. On the Knighthawk a .40FP flies it fine, on the Corostar you will
want as much power as you can get. I have found that they are good
planes. They are not any heavier than comparable planes and they are
very durable. More durable than anything on the market. I am currently
teaching a guy to fly on a Knighthawk with a .46SF. Full throttle is
never used. He soloed fourth time out.
Bill
wrote:
>
> Wm. A. Rademacher wrote:
> >
> > Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
> > More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
> > These get a lot of mixed press.
> > A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
> > 1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
> > bearing engine,
> > preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
> > OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
> > I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
> > I was flying it. You be the judge.
>
Don Hatten
Rod Robbins wrote:
I
> think since most people assume that the instructions should be correct,
> then plane must need lots of additional down-trim to fly level. This means
> that as soon as you come off the throttle, the down-trim makes them pitch
> down sharply -- which is probably how so many Aircore planes get the
> "...glides like a rock..." reputation.
>
If the down trim pitch change increases when you throttle down, you have
some weird thrustline problems. The down trim should affect pitch more
as speed increases. Check your thrustline and take the up-thrust out or
put some down thrust in. You may be able to take some of that
nose-weight out.
--
*****************************************
Don Hatten hat...@syix.com
1170 Kenny Dr #1 AMA #SOARDOG
Yuba City, Ca 95991 USHGA #17442
KE6TJG
*****************************************
Rene
Some thoughts on that matter:
I forgot to mention it as it seemed so obvious to me - but it
obviously is not...
Add downthrust! - did this in all the Aircore high wingers, my 60
powered "heavy lifter" plane has more than 10 degrees added.
(non-aircore high wingers sometimes are helped as well!)
If this is *not* done, one might want to add lots of down trim to just
fly level on full throttle, and on low throttle settings it will tend
to dive.
With sufficient downthrust (I modify the PC on the engine end
considerably anyway for strength reasons), it floats quite nicely. Add
(real = 3rd servo) flaps and have the mother of all floaters.
On 3 Apr 1998 16:50:47 GMT, "Rod Robbins" <rrob...@easystreet.com>
wrote (may be only partially quoted):
>One thing I've noticed about the Aircore high-wing models, including my own
>Knighthawk and Barnstormer (OK, partly high-wing) is that they seem to come
>out tail heavy when balanced according to Aircore's own instructions. I
>think since most people assume that the instructions should be correct,
>then plane must need lots of additional down-trim to fly level. This means
>that as soon as you come off the throttle, the down-trim makes them pitch
>down sharply -- which is probably how so many Aircore planes get the
>"...glides like a rock..." reputation.
>
>I've found that if I experimented with moving the CG forward, I was then
>able to remove the excess down-trim. Then the plane flies fairly level
>under power, but still glides surprisingly well at idle power.
>
>BTW, My Colt 40 flies well with the Aircore-specified CG.
>
>Just a thought...
>-- Rod
>
>Rene <cps...@cistron.nl> wrote in article <3529c7db.12383323@hardware>...
>> On 3 Apr 1998 04:35:22 GMT, "zeus" <xentec...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
>> (may be partially quoted)
>> >I had the Aircore 40 Trainer. Its true it can bounce back after a crash
>> >and hard landing. But, it flies awfully. Also, it is extremely heavy,
>and
>> >requires a large engine just to get it off the ground. I tried a Tower
>40
>> >with it, and couldn't fly. Next, I tried a TT46ProBB, and had it
>flying,
>> >but only barely.
>> Used concrete for glue? Mine almost does unlimited vertical with the
>> same engine..?! Mine does 2.8 Kg - ~65 gr / dm
That is with flaps, 6 servo's and big wheels. Does a sustained 45
degree climb.
-Rene-
brad...@midwest.net
In article <6fuu1s$p...@bnllc1.blue.net>,
"Wm. A. Rademacher" <bn...@bbtel.com> wrote:
>
> Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
> More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
> These get a lot of mixed press.
> A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
> 1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
> bearing engine,
> preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
> OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
> I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
> I was flying it. You be the judge.
> Bill & Nancy, Ben & Nick Rademacher
> bn...@bbtel.com
> http://www.bbtel.com/~bnrad/index.html
> Armor Plated OS/2 and Win '95
> Overpar729 wrote in message
> <199803312315...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Simply put, NO!!! Don't ever fly anything made of the same stuff as
> election
> >signs.
> >
> >O'par
>
crashes it was unbelieveable. It was finnaly put out for the count on about
the 20th crash, i was in a 60 degree turn about 10 feet off the ground when
the motor died, and it hit the ground wing first, adn snapped the spar. I
could have fixed it, but i didnt, the wing was the only thing damaged.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kerry Grunloh
I reccomend the Aircore trainer. It is essential to use extreme presision with building the wings. I have had good sucess with a OS .40 FP Engine. As far as aerobaticts go it does nice loops, Hammerheads, Tail Slides, and Slow rolls. I recomend using using silicone sealer as much as possible. My Aircore trainer weighs 8 pounds and I am carring a camera pod. Good Construction Increases the durability and performance of the airplane. I Have five Aircore planes and I never have been nervous flying them simply because it is hard to destroy them. My dad drove the trainer full power (not on purpose) into the ground from 500 feet. I had flown it a couple of days later. Balsa planes are light, but if you are looking for a plane that will forgive mistakes the $59 Aircore trainer is the way to go
Kerry Grunloh,
s97...@ttown.k12.il.us
fred
Rod Robbins wrote:
>
> Just take your time and build them straight. Also, the specified CG on
> the Barnstormer and Knighthawk was too far back, as indicated on the plans.
> Move it forward about 3/4-inch to start.
>
> Good luck, whatever you choose.
> -- Rod
It was cut wrong out of the box. JUNK!
fred
Rene
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 08:49:40 -0800, fred <fr...@juno.com> wrote (may be
only partially quoted):
>It was cut wrong out of the box. JUNK!
Well, put in back in the box and swap it for a good one...even OS is
allowed to slip up once in a while :-)
-Rene-
Bill Harris
Subject: "Re: Are US Aircore planes a good choice?"
Kerry Grunloh <s97...@ttown.k12.il.us> writes (in part):
>I have had good sucess with a OS .40 FP Engine.
>My Aircore trainer weighs 8 pounds...
EIGHT pounds? Surprising that it can get airborne with a .40 at that
weight.
--Bill
Wm. A. Rademacher
See reply below...
> > I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
> > I was flying it. You be the judge.
>
> again, come on now!!
>
> Vince
> AMA 266038
Vince,
Into a tree, full throttle. Wing in three pieces. Tower .40 destroyed,
cylinder torn apart from crankcase. Power cartridge in half. Fuse warped,
front left half sheared off. I was bummed. I crashed it because I let it
get too far away and lost orientation.
I took it home, and after a day, I said what the heck, maybe I could fix
it. So I got a can of weldwood contact cement, the scrap from the box, some
tongue depressors to epoxy to the power cartridge around the tank mount
area, and set to it. A day later I borrowed a super tigre 45 and with an
instructor, was airborne again. And believe me, everybody at the field was
"amazed". I just wish I would have taken pictures of before and after.
--
Bill & Nancy, Ben & Nick Rademacher
bn...@bbtel.com
http://www.bbtel.com/~bnrad/index.html
Armor Plated OS/2 and Win '95
Bill Cripe wrote in message <352510...@alaska.net>...
>Vince,
>
>I have flown Aircores with everything from a OS .40FP to a Jett .46 and
>.61SF. On the Knighthawk a .40FP flies it fine, on the Corostar you will
>want as much power as you can get. I have found that they are good
>planes. They are not any heavier than comparable planes and they are
>very durable. More durable than anything on the market. I am currently
>teaching a guy to fly on a Knighthawk with a .46SF. Full throttle is
>never used. He soloed fourth time out.
>
>Bill
>
> wrote:
>>
>> Wm. A. Rademacher wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, they can take a lot more abuse than any other plane I've seen.
>> > More than a duraplane, more than a stick type.
>> > These get a lot of mixed press.
>> > A few simple rules followed make them fine aircraft.
>> > 1. It says right up front in the Cub / Army Aircore manual - buy a ball
>> > bearing engine,
>> > preferably a .46. I can tell you that I managed to fly one with an
>> > OS 40 LA, but it really performed with a Super Tigre .46.
>> > I flew it into a tree at full throttle. Nothing left. 2 days later,
>> > I was flying it. You be the judge.
>>
Tord Huselius
> > I like the Aircore trainer i had. It proformed well and took so manny hard
> crashes it was unbelieveable. It was finnaly put out for the count on about
> the 20th crash, i was in a 60 degree turn about 10 feet off the ground when
> the motor died, and it hit the ground wing first, adn snapped the spar. I
> could have fixed it, but i didnt, the wing was the only thing damaged.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
I agree.
I'm flying a corostar II with a Magnum XL53. In that combination it
really moves and is really fun to fly. It's unbelivable how many crashes
it can take. But it sure have helped me to improve my flying skills so
now I can fly it without crashing it. A couple of weeks ago I flew it
for the first time with floats, on the snow, it was fun. I also like the
Magnum engine a lot, it's quiet and powerful and makes the corostar look
like a warbird.
Tord
Satch
Reed Kennedy wrote:
>
> I am looking to learn to fly, and have been searching for a good trainer.
> Would the aircore Trainer 40 or Knighthawk work well? Are they as durable
> as they claim? Also, are they fun to fly? Any opinions would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Reed
Reed,
My first Aircore (and only) is a Army Aircore. I learned basic flight
on a balsa & ply ARF. I got the Aircore to learn ground handling a
tail dragger. I put a Thunder Tiger Pro .46 on it and it flies great.
It is fairly durable, I'm not estatic about the plane tho, it does fly
good. I really dont think they build very straight either. Also, my
contact glue popped loose in a couple places on the wing. I prefer the
wooden ones.
Good Luck
Satch