Texas Pete wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I'm going to second (or third) that. If you really like building and have a lot of room, then a Kadet or a Kadet Seniorita are my first choice. They take a lot of building (nothing tricky, just a lot of building) and just sort of putter around the sky very nicely. I've flown several of them and they're my favorite trainer. The LT-40 is quite a bit easier to build, though, probably a bit more rugged, and also a very good trainer, so it would be my first recommendation.
Shea Martin wrote in news:Jx8Yf.54051$VV4.929514@ursa- nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
actually, even with electrics, I've found that I get blurry shots unless I turn off the motor while I'm taking pictures. Of course, with electrics, you can re-start the motor in-flight. And you don't have to be as concerned about getting fuel on the lens, although there are straighforward ways to do that even with 2-stroke glow.
It's a larger plane than the LT-40. It's going to take a 60 size engine. I haven't even gotten into the box yet. I may go right now and do that. I got it because I was looking for a large trainer kit for a good price. This was an eBay deal. mk
Keep in mind that my only direct experience here is with the LT-40.
The Mk II is the smallest of the three and an older-engineered kit, so it's probably fussier to build than the other two, and it's also got the highest wing loading so it's probably gotta be flown a little faster. I've not flown one, though, so I really can't address the flight performance.
Have a look at the specs for yourself:
LT-40 -
formatting link
LT-25 -
formatting link
Mk II
formatting link
Depending on how your newsreader functions you may have to copy these into your browser, and they may be split into more than one line so be sure to copy and paste both lines correctly.
By the specs the LT-25 should be as good a flier as the LT-40, but the larger size, more complete kit, and tricycle landing gear of the LT-40 would make it my choice as a first plane recommendation. My advice is to stop pondering and get an LT-40.
As per Bob's remarks re - the Aerostar, the vertical fin on the LT-40 could benefit from some tri-stock braces or dowelling (a couple or three toothpicks would do) to the horizontal stab. If you can you should get an experienced modeller to help you, but if that's not possible the LT-40 is literally a model building course in a box.
The engine rating of the Protege is actually rated at .40 to .60 for
2-strokes or .60 to .80 for 4-strokes. A .60-sized 2-stroke should provide the extra power you'd want for flying with a camera as additional payload.
Pairing a Protege trainer with a good ball-bearing .60 2-stroke should provide a large, stable platform with the power you'll want. The LT-40 may be the better plane from a pure flying standpoint, but the Protege should be a good second choice while perhaps providing a more flexible photography platform.
RC Universe only lists two user ratings for the Protege, but one is a 4.5 while the other is a 5. One of the posters mentions that the Protege "flies almost as well as his LT-40."
You have the tough choice, you have to decide. Good luck, but I think you can rest assured that a Telemaster, a Protege, or a Kadet LT-40 would all make terrific trainers and good photography platforms.
"Ed Paasch" wrote in news:FmAYf.27296$EZ6.26172@dukeread12:
What size camera are we talking about? I've flown a small digital camera with a servo & some framing on a few planes; the first was a .46-powered floater (a .46LA, even) and, from the handling, you really couldn't tell the camera was there. The camera, rig & servo added about 10 oz to a 70 oz airplane. Later, I mounted it in a lightweight 150W electric floater and it still flew well. Now, the electric was built for the camera, so it was a much cleaner installation, and the camera definitely made a difference on rate-of-climb, but it still handled the weight just fine. And a 150W motor will put out maybe 1/4 of a decent .46.
So - I'd say if you're looking at flying just a small digital camera, a lightly-loaded .40-sized trainer will work just fine.
Of course, if you're looking at flying something bigger - say an SLR, or a videocamera, whatever - that's a whole 'nother story.
The original poster didn't specify which camera he wanted to use, hence my description of the Protege as "a more flexible" camera platform. Perhaps the Protege with a .60 2-stroke would allow him to use a heavier digital camera or perhaps even a small video camera.
It's also possible the LT-40 would be just as capable of hauling whatever camera equipment he'd like. I simply wanted to throw out another good choice for his consideration, I wasn't trying to convince anybody the Protege would be better than the LT-40.
"Ed Paasch" wrote in news:hkSYf.27388$EZ6.19661@dukeread12:
Fair enough. I have experience with the LT-40 and I like it, but I certainly wouldn't say that the LT-40 is the only game in town. I don't have any experience with the Protege so I'm in no position to make a recommendation for or against it.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.