xstew

Has anyone flown this plane? would it make a good 2nd? I was looking at the four star arf but it is unavailable. My local shop suggested this and it looks great. Would a saito 100 or 120 be too much?

xstew

anyone?

FlyingPilgrim

My Feedback: (26)

Yes, it should be a fine 2nd plane. It has an increased wing area, making it less prone to tip stall or snap. Kangke quality is reported to be very good, too. I usually suggest a Goldberg Tiger or 4 Star for 2nd plane, but you should do fine with this ARF to get used to a tail dragger.

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

I had a terrific time flying this plane. It wasn't my second, but it was one of my early models when I was still learning a lot of basic stuff (like how to avoid tipstalls). I flew the KC232S in my first pattern meet. Didn't win, but didn't expect to, and the plane looked good in a lot of maneuvers.

If I were to give one warning, it is that this plane has a fair amount of adverse roll with rudder. If you give right rudder, it rolls left, and vice versa. This can be mixed out with no problem, but be sure you put the mix on a null switch so it's always on. I might have finished in the money if I had not been in the dark on this point. I screwed up one round badly because there was a bit of breeze, rudder correction was needed, and I somehow inadvertently switched off my mix. By the time I saw I'd lost my mix, I had zeroed the maneuver.

I did make a few hard landings with this model, and at one point cracked the fuselage right at the rear of the radio compartment (just behind the wing TE). I stripped back the covering and laminated in some CF and fiberglass. Plane was very light before I did that, still flew light after the repairs.

I flew mine with a Magnum 91 two-stroke and Jett In-Cowl muffler, which was plenty of power, unlimited vertical.

I landed this poor thing in a tree one day, but had a great time with it for most of a season. Liked it so well I got another, but haven't put it together yet.

If I were to give a second tip, it would be (for your second plane anyway) to set it up with very conservative throws on rudder & ailerons--no more than 15Ëš for high rates, and tone it down to 10-12Ëš on low rates. If you don't want to mess with dual rates, set it for 12Ëš ailerons/elevator, 30Ëš on rudder. The plane is quite capable as a 3D animal, but I would not recommend that style of flying for your second model. With low throws it will be very docile, land as easily as a 4*, but do all the lower class pattern maneuvers with smooth grace.

Third tip comes back to me now: on the forked elevator pushrod, I used some spare outer nyrod, pushed in from the exit slots up to the radio compartment; then slide the two parts of the fork, one in each nyrod tube, push the whole thing back through the tail. The nyrod tubes will guide the forks right through the exit slots, save you a ton of grief.

As to Saito 100/120, I'd say a 91 Saito would be more than enough. 120 would probably be too much (and I like 'too much' most of the time).

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Agreed with all of tom's remarks. I have my second one aboit 1/3 completed, but it has been on hold for quite some time.

My first one had a YS 91 FZ. This one will have an OS 91 Surpass. A 120 is WAY too much engine; a .61 two-stroke will fly it fine.

You might want to look into replacing the gear; its made of pot metal and is too short for the model, IMO. Call TNT, I had them make up a taller, slightly wider gear that looks and works MUCH better than the kit gear. The pattern will be under my name and should still be on file; I ordered another one last year for this second model.

Also; the new red/blue/white/yellow kit has an air-foiled tail, where the original solid yellow one has a flat tail. Otherwisew, they are the same. That big fat wing flies very nicely.

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

Oh yeah, that reminds me, I flew mine with tailbraces, made up from airfoiled wood sticks from the LHS. I didn't know there was a new version with airfoiled tail. That would probably eliminate the need for tailbraces.

Also, cutting a cowl can be a challenge if you haven't done it before. There are threads on that topic here on RCU. If you have trouble with this process, just make the holes as big as you need. Don't worry too much about having nice tight holes like the master builders do. Nice if you know how, but not a major problem as far as flight behavior goes.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Roger on the cowl; and you have to cut a BIG chunk out of the bottom rear so it will even fit.

Not sure why you needed tail braces; my first one is still flying without these over three years after I assembled it. The new owner flies it quite a bit, and I put over 50 flights on it before selling it to him.

xstew

thanks for the info. Now I am deciding if I want to stick with the saito 100 inverted or go with one of the 4 strokes with a pump/regulator built in. After some reading I am a little nervous about the saito inverted.

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

If you stick with the Saito, you could side-mount it for simplicity sake, and the cowl is such that it would cool it nicely. You would have to put a bit of lead ballast in the left wingtip to preserve side-to-side CG (help avoid tipstalling). If you're inclined toward pumped, the YS line is the way to go, but for this model you'd have to lay hands on a good used YS91. YS63 would fly it, but lack some for vertical. YS110/120 would be definitely too much. I have no experience with the pumped OS, so I will defer to others' opinions there.

xstew

Why would the ys 110 be too much when it is the same size as the old .91? Sorry if this is a dumb question but i am new to this

bentgear

The YS 110 would make for a great combo, but maybe not for a second plane. Saito 100 would also be a good combo, and there is NO problem runing this engine inverted, just folks who THINK they know how to set the needles. Either will offer plenty of performance.......too much if you don't know what the left stick is for.

Steve, is the new red, blue, white pattern similar to the old original 60 size regular 232 they offered? If so I may have to get another sport.

Ed M.

elenasgrumpy

My Feedback: (4)

The only dumb question is the one you don't ask. While the 110 and the .91 may still share the same physical size, the 110 will have a bigger bore size & produce more power. I would think.

xstew

Is more power ever a bad thing? Could I just set my radio end point to not allow me to open it up until I get accustom to it?

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

The YS110 would not be a problem as far as weight, but it would have more power than would be useful on the model. As a practical matter the YS110 is hard to come by, not in stock anywhere I know of. I've had two YS110's in the last couple years, one of which gave me tuning fits of the sort I've heard many similar complaints on--tunes great in the pits, but conks out at low rpm's in the air. No such problems with the YS91, which you'd also need to get by private sale. For my first YS, buying used, I'd want to see the engine perform before I owned it, unless I could get a 91 new old stock. There are a fair amount of used YS's on the market that have been run into the ground, in need of maintenance, but sold off rather than being re-built. I am totally sold on the YS line in general, but I would not wish an abused engine on anybody for their first experience.

Normally I promote YS every chance I get, but for a first four-stroke on a second model, my good sense tells me an OS or Saito would be the way to go. If you know someone with a YS91/110 who is willing to demo it for you or give you cash back if it doesn't perform, then you should consider it.

xstew

If the ys 110 has issues how about the os fs91 surpass or the os 91 with the electronic control unit(does this model have a pump or need one)

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Needle-tweaking is not the issue with an inverted Saito (or any other non-pumped engine) in this model. The issue is the fuel tank, which sits too high for the lowered carburetor on an inverted mount engine and has NO leeway for being shifted around due to the special cut-outs intended for it in two formers.

You can change it, but doing so will require major surgery.

In regards to the question about model similarities, I have not seen the "normal" CAP 232 offered by Kangke. I did look at this new CAP 232 Sport at Toledo last year, which is how I know it is identical to the original except for the air-foiled horizontal stab and covering scheme. FWIW, the guy at the booth said the air-foiled stab did NOT improve the flying qualities. I can believe it, since the flat stab version I had flew marvelously.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Why don't you just side-mount the engine? It looks fine and will save you a LOT of grief.

OS has discontinued that pumped/EFI 91 Surpass. There is a reason for that. A regular 91 Surpass will work just right side-mounted; that's what I'm doing on my second CAP 232 Sport.

xstew

I thought by inverting I would not have to cut the cowl and it would look better

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

I'm with Steve--sidemount an OS or Saito is the simplest, most reliable way to go. Appearance of the cowl is about 99% in the head of the builder. Once it's in the air, all anyone cares about is how it flies, not how the cowl looks. For more pleasure and less pain to the builder, safe and simple solutions will get you in the air faster and keep you there longer.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

You'll have to cut the cowl regardless of what the engine orientation is.

Aesthetics is a subjective thing. As noted above, this airplane's cowl is "cheeked", which means that a side-mount engine cylinder won't protrude much past the outline; just the rocker arm covers, in fact. Personally, I think that looks "better" than a majority of the jug sticking out of the bottom of the cowl.

But that is all in eye of the beholder. What is NOT is that an inverted non-pumped engine in this airplane, without lowering the tank, will most likely not run correctly. Tom tried to tell you that a YS is probably not the best idea for a relative beginner. All I'll say about that is, lots of very experienced modelers have gotten to the hair-pulling stage trying to get a YS four stroke to run reliably. No doubt several of the better-known YS-o-philes, if they are reading this thread, will leap to the brand's defense with yet another accusation that those who have trouble with YS engines do not know how to tune an engine. Perhaps. But do a quick search and you'll see that practically all YS threads begin with "Help!..." That said, a good-running YS is a joy to behold, and has no peer. But a cranky one will make you lose your religion. Which type will you get? Roll the bones...


Anyway... add-on pumps and regulators have their own baggage. Some have good luck with them; others don't. And like YS four strokes, there are simply too many "bad" experiences to say that ALL of those folks are klutzes who haven't a clue.

Do what you think you must, but a side-mounted, normally-aspirated four stroke will be your smart move on this model. If you simply have to mount a Saito or OS inverted, invest the additional $60 in a Cline regulator.

All of this is not vicarious experience. I've had my hair-pulling sessions with a YS 91FZ, and ditto with a Perry VP30 pump. The YS deal was simply mysterious, coming and going like an intermittent electrical problem on a lemon of a new car. The VP30 was just plain ornery; I still wonder if I had a bad one, but I'll never know now. A Cline regulator replaced that pump, and seemed to do the trick; but I eventually ended up putting a gassser on that airplane.

What I'm trying to tell you, with reasons WHY, is that pumped glow engines are an iffy thing. The KISS Principle was invented for the glow engine; violate it at your peril.

.

xstew

Ok, I think you have talked me into a side mount. But I want to make sure I have it straight. With a side mount 4 stroke will it make any difference where the tank is?

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Tank location ALWAYS makes a difference to a non-pumped engine.

In this particular case, the answer is no; provided you mount the tank as called for.

I think somebody mentioned this a few posts up, but the centerline of the tank needs to be at or real close to on the same the plane with the engine carb inlet.

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

Generally you want the vertical center of the tank level with the opening in the spraybar where the fuel feeds into the incoming airstream. As a practical matter, stick the nose of the tank through the firewall where the hole is. Run a bead of RTV silicone around the nosecap, slide the tank in, let it cure standing on its nose overnight. Then stuff some foam rubber on all four sides of the tank to keep it from flopping around and keep vibration from sending bubbles through the fuel line. I was trained to put a fuel filter (sullivan craptrap) in the fuel line, but I'm surprised at how many other guys think a filter is another failure point. Filters have saved me problems (I know by the crud that accumulates in them), never caused me problems. Same rule for two-strokes and four-strokes.

bentgear

Steve, looked at the Kangke website and the new version of the Sport is nothing like the original 232 Cap-60 that they offered, but it looks a lot better than the plain yellow version of the Sport or the 232 - 60 size. The original Kangke Cap 232 -60 was blue/white and red, loved that plane, and they didn't make many of them.

My comments on the Saito 100 inverted are based on the Saito 91 mounted inverted in this plane (Sport version) that gave no problems other than you made sure the throttle was closed when fueling the plane. Granted, for most people side mounting may be the way to go, and yes I will agree it is the safer way to go.

Ed M.

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

Trust me, Ed; the ONLY difference between the original all-yellow CAP 232 Sport and the current multi-color offering is the covering and the stab; unless, of course, Kangke has changed the kit from what was shown at Toledo last year. The "regular" CAP 232 is more scalish; and doesn't fly as well, from what I've been told. And they made several different sizes of this one, too; one of which was also all-yellow.

My comments too are based on the all-yellow CAP 232 Sport. Not disputing your experience; but, to me, the tank height (when installed per plan) is sufficiently higher - by a couple of inches- than an inverted mount carb to potentially cause siphoning and other fuel draw issues.

Perhaps not. But I've seen a newcomer wrestle with this exact problem (and others endemic to that brand) in a VMAR P-40. I was trying to save xstew some potential large grief. As always, some mileage may vary...