a walk in the park

Man you guys are blowing this way out of proportion!!!!!!

First, the 310 has been in the works for the better part of three years. It has endured several design changes to take care of all the things you guys are worried about. I've already read a couple of times that Top Flite wouldn't put out an airplane with questionable flying characteristics and that's very very true. It's our job to make sure the product is "do able" by the majority of R/C pilots. Granted the 310 is not intended to be flown by the extreme novice, but it is going to work well for the average pilot's skills.

To try and put some of this to rest (included in an earlier post) there are several design elements that together make for a very nice flying aircraft.

1. Large aerodynamic wing tip tanks
2. Broad fuse cross section
3. Large tail surfaces
4. Airfoil of the wing is thicker in cross section (more lift creation)

If the tip tanks were added to the wing (area) I'd imagine the loading would be down in the high 20's to about 30.

The airfoil used makes a ton of difference, also wing loading doesn't take that into account.

If all the scale models we flew had exact scale airfoils and area, most would be very difficult if not impossible to fly, especially warbirds.

Don't sit and talk yourselves out of it, this is a really good twin.

Do the math on a GeeBee sometime, now that's smokin hole looking for a place to hit

GH

BillS

Not quite the same animal but good information. At approximately 3.3X the displacement, gas and not a twin and a wing loading of 42 it is believable that a skilled pilot could fly the airplane. The landing speed should have been around 30 mph, which is fast but tolerable.

Bricks are about 4 1/2 pounds apiece if you would like to try it with a wing loading of 50 and 15% to 20% throttle.

One would assume you are going to use a TwinSync on the Cessna. I can drive to Durham with the radar gun when you are ready.

Bill

BillS

GH

OK. What is the landing speed?

And yes the bean counters would attempt to salvage a bad situation at the expense of the customer. Happens all the time.

Bill

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

And the P-40 has 30% more wing area.

Please be good enough to tell us how it lands, how slow it will fly and how it handles on one engine as soon as you get yours in the air.

Jim

rcaston

My Feedback: (65)

Bill,

This is a high performance airplane just like the real one is. The real one flies very nicely but both takeoff and landing speed is quite fast. Engine out performance was marginal and if one quit at the wrong time it would have been a handful. But most light twins fall into that category. Airspeed management was crucial and this model will no doubt refect those qualities. I've flown everything in real life from a Cub to a fighter. The T-38 had a very small wing but the fuselage added to the lift factor. Most fighters today have huge cross sections in the fuselage that provide additional lift. My point is that this airplane has additional square inches that are not figured into the wing loading but are there providing lift nonetheless. The FACT is that neither you nor I have any idea how this plane flies. Greg does however, and he has taken the time to enlighten us. Me, I believe him. And for your information, I have never even thought about wing loading in models nor do I care to. I just go out and fly the airplane. I will do the same with this airplane as well and it will fly and from the looks of the video and Greg's report it will fly very nicely, EVEN if it has a higher approach and landing speed like the real one does.

Rick

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

A lot of this reminds me of the debate when GP came out with the Seawind - It was too heavy - It's wing loading was too high etc.

It was rated for a 70 - 90 4-stroke. With all of the bruhaha over the wing load, I went with a 90.

The thing flew incredibly well! It is still the best flying seaplane I have ever flown. AND... Many people have said that it flies even better with a 70.

Now, is the TF 310 going to float like a trainer? Hell no!

But then, does a Cessna 310 fly like a Piper Cub???

Kmot

My Feedback: (24)

I just love all the armchair quarterbacking!

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

I want it to be hard to fly. I don't want people to say "hey look at that sissy flying that C-310 trainer"...."That thing is so easy to fly, a caveman could fly it".

When I taxi back to the pits I want to feel like I accomplished something.

Yak

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

Very well said rcaston. Probably 50% more lift is created by the tip tanks, fuse, etc. And those pretty long nacelles are giant wings themselves. I noticed that the airfoil is very thick...and very thick means tons of lift! Top Flite has outdone themselves with this release and a new chapter of R/C is being written with the Staggerwing and 310 ARFs. My hat is off to the designers and management of TF for taking a giant leap of faith and creating these masterpieces.

Yak

BillS

The 50% number is a wishful stretch, seriously questionable and needs analytical substantiation.
Bill

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Nothing right now, but the last one was a 1/10 B-24 with 900 squares that weighed 22#. That's 56oz wing loading. It too is a long thin wing with a very thick airfoil. Not all hard to fly, and landings were nice and slow. BTW, it had "nonscale" split flaps, not the scale fowlers.
I am also building a 123" B-17 with 1950 squares, that will be at about 45 oz wing loading, if I can keep it below 38#s.

N215PB

Well,
As a heavy multi engine rc flyer , my thoughts on it. It looks so nice I gotta and did buy it. I have a Ziroli Beech18, 114" ws and weighs 50 pounds. It flew like you would expect, fast, I never had landing issues with speed except I needed a fair amount of grass. I only once tried to slow it more on a base leg turn and I thought I ssaw her SHIVER and SHAKE a bit, I never tried to get much slower ever again. I always worried about an engine failure, only issues was a clunk pick up came off. What a wild flight, a big wide and fast 360' circle but ended fine, she had plenty of power on one engine. I made and have a few home made converted basic Kadet Senior airframes with a 3 engine and 4 engine version. The 3 engine is baout 22 pounds on 3 OS 25's. She flys well, needs about 200' of run to get off, lot's of fun. My biggest concern on the CE 310 is flying off grass because I do certainluy expect higher speeds, I plan to hopefully fly this a few times and then drag it to the filed and then always say my batteries are to low to fly, maybe next time.
Let's face it, If you buy this or any other model you should eventually plan on taking it home in a bag . If I had a nice long grass smooth field or asphalt runway I wouldn't have any second thoughts on it. And my grass concerns may be unfounded in the end, as you get older you tend to worry more because your older and your dumping tons of money in this stuff.
On the one engine, 3 options when you fly it. engine fails....pull power to idle land straight ahead. #2, full power,oposite rudder lower nose and fly her. #3.do a VMC demenstration for everyone...basically you slow and loose rudder control and she rolls over, very common twin accident

pettit

My Feedback: (23)

Update:

Began assembling wing panels last evening. Finished one in about 2.5 hours except for actually installing fiberglass nacelle cover permanently.

With engine (OS 50), muffler (Bissom Pitts), all 3 servos, linkages, tip tanks, nacelle cover, fuel tank and plumbing, but WITHOUT any landing gear, wheels or mounting bolts, one wing panel weighs 4 pounds 7 ounces.

Second panel starts tonight.

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

Let's send it to NASA!

Yak

BillS

Must have been emotional advice without a clue. The resident female gives similar advice and analysis.

Bill

drdoom

My Feedback: (9)

Santa just showed up with my Christmas Present... Now I need the rest of it...
By the way: The Robart Retracts are in, and I have them on the way...

handyman_alw_

My Feedback: (14)

Just talked to tower and they told me that they have 38 310's on back order and great planes has a bunch as well. They also told me the retracts are in and mine went out today. They seem to think anyone that ordered in oct should get theres in this first order. I hope so i can't wait to get stareted.

mugenkidd

My Feedback: (94)

Its probally time for the guys who actually have the plane to start a new thread as this one is pretty junked out with non-sense.

handyman_alw_

My Feedback: (14)

now that makes sense since only the people that are doing reviews have them that means two or three people are the only ones who can speak about it. I think everyone is waiting for there plane to get here and by posting they are getting ideas from everyone else on how do make the plane it's best from the start and I do not see any thing wrong with that.

orvel

My Feedback: (1)

Dick, will one-engine operation be part of your flight review?

rcaston

My Feedback: (65)

When did you guys order? I didn't place my order until Dec 1. right after I saw the ad. Just wondering if I am in for a long wait or if Santa is going to show up again in January! Sure hope it ain't the second shipment. Got some nice looking OS5 AXs in the mail today though. Think I'll stick them on a Cox Dualist for breakin and to get in a little twin time while I'm waiting.

Rick

kingair41

My Feedback: (13)

By the sounds of things, Topflite show have their own "good ship lolly pop" and fill it with 310's and deliver them to the U.S. just to fill the growing order list.[sm=thumbup.gif]

Yak18

My Feedback: (11)

Not without a clue BillS but with a sense of humor.

handyman_alw_

My Feedback: (14)

I ordered mine Oct. 26th was one of towers first back orders. Hope you get yours with the first shipment.

rcaston

My Feedback: (65)

Thanks handyman_alw_. I hope so too. We will find out in a few weeks. In the meantime, I wish everyone here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!