Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who has flown/owned these airplanes and can give a report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Pierce
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve Stanton View Post
    Hi David, I would offer a word of caution. Both Cam and Ty are in a category of builders that probably doesn't

    include more the a hand full of builders in the entire industry. I mean no disrespect but what may seem possible

    to them with there years of experience, could lead many of us would be builders into troubled waters.

    Considering that these are performance planes (Cardens, Cam/.Aero), weight gets moved into the equation

    with equal standing along with straight and flat.

    Just my two cents


    I was considering that but thought I would at least ask. Never know when I might learn something! I really don’t have space to build one. I might be able to store but building likely not an option. Good comment, those guys are good!

    Leave a comment:


  • Vincente Bortone
    replied
    Hello Cam,

    I agree with all comments. More because I am flying both 35% Extras Krill and Comp ARF. I remember you judging and giving me a comment that the Krill Extra flies like it is on rails. Yes, I have to get a lot of trimming work to make it fly better. I move it the engine 1" forward to avoid adding more weight. I remember you took a picture of the TT spinner back plate that was specifically made to cover the 1". It really looks like the real Extra spinner. I agree that all composites IMAC planes are heavier. Probably 4-6 lbs penalty in the 35% size. Therefore, if you are a good builder it is better for IMAC to get the current wood kits that are availble. Even better if you can fit a 40% or bigger in your shop.

    Vicente "Vince" Bortone
    Last edited by Vincente Bortone; 12-10-2019, 03:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Stanton
    replied
    Hi David, I would offer a word of caution. Both Cam and Ty are in a category of builders that probably doesn't

    include more the a hand full of builders in the entire industry. I mean no disrespect but what may seem possible

    to them with there years of experience, could lead many of us would be builders into troubled waters.

    Considering that these are performance planes (Cardens, Cam/.Aero), weight gets moved into the equation

    with equal standing along with straight and flat.

    Just my two cents



    Leave a comment:


  • Adi Kochav
    replied
    Originally posted by Ty Lyman View Post
    Which Carden Extra?
    I've not owned all, but have flown all you mentioned. My order of preference:
    Kam Extra or Carden 126" Extra (thin wing version)
    Carden 126 Extra (stock wing)


    Carden PRO


    Then waaay down the list you'd find the composite offerings from Krill and CA. Those that I've flown (with stock wings) are slugs when it comes to snaps. Perhaps a Krill SC or LX with properly built foam wings might (as were Gernot's when he flew Krills) snap and roll well, but the composite wings tend to be heavy; don't start or stop snaps very well.
    Hi Cam

    Owned Krill for a long time to say that its a very good plane, but I agree with Ty.
    There is no comparison to any of the wooden planes youve just mentioned here. They, by far much better IMAC planes.
    The wings are very heavy and makes the plane slugish and very heavy on the downlines.
    I flew the Carden Pro only to realize how much the difference is.
    Only wooden planes for me for now on, yup, learned it the hard way...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ty Lyman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Pierce View Post

    So Kam Aero 300KK is your fav? Is it hard to build these large ones and get them straight?
    Difficult? No, it just requires attention to detail, patience, and as Cam mentioned a flat build surface on which to work. Speed squares and clamps are your friends. The Kam-Aero plans are the best of all the kit suppliers out there with respect to accuracy; the fuse is built over the plans, so as long as your table is true and you make certain you're working square, getting a true airframe is not difficult. Measure thrice, cut / glue / screw once...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cam Shahrdar
    replied
    it is possible to do, you need to use a work table that is perfectly flat, and then use many tools to check and make sure you build it as straight as possible. But, that will all depend on how meticulous / fussy the builder is. I intentionally did not use another word, to keep it clean on here.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_6048.JPG Views:	0 Size:	2.37 MB ID:	1233Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_6049.JPG Views:	0 Size:	2.37 MB ID:	1234

    Leave a comment:


  • David Pierce
    replied
    Originally posted by Ty Lyman View Post
    Which Carden Extra?
    I've not owned all, but have flown all you mentioned. My order of preference:
    Kam Extra or Carden 126" Extra (thin wing version)
    Carden 126 Extra (stock wing)
    ...
    So Kam Aero 300KK is your fav? Is it hard to build these large ones and get them straight?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cam Shahrdar
    replied
    thank you Ty. Stick with wood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ty Lyman
    replied
    Which Carden Extra?
    I've not owned all, but have flown all you mentioned. My order of preference:
    Kam Extra or Carden 126" Extra (thin wing version)
    Carden 126 Extra (stock wing)


    Carden PRO


    Then waaay down the list you'd find the composite offerings from Krill and CA. Those that I've flown (with stock wings) are slugs when it comes to snaps. Perhaps a Krill SC or LX with properly built foam wings might (as were Gernot's when he flew Krills) snap and roll well, but the composite wings tend to be heavy; don't start or stop snaps very well.
    Last edited by Ty Lyman; 12-07-2019, 11:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Who has flown/owned these airplanes and can give a report

    Who has flown and owned all 3 of these airplanes and can give a report?? Carden Extra vs Krill Extra/Yak, vs Comp Arf Extra/Yak


    Has anyone flown all three brands, and could they tell which flew better?
    With regards to sequence flying and IMAC?
    Meaning, which is lighter and snaps cleaner and has the least coupling? Can anyone tell the difference?

    granted, here is my disclaimer:" all airplanes are, to some degree, going to fly as well as the set up is made,. the geometry of servo / control surface set up /mechanical, radio set up, and pilot thumbs, but in general, is there one of the above that could be said to be exceptional? or they are all the same and purely dependent on the pilot and how he or she sets up the aircraft.

    disclaimer #2, not to start a brand war or oil thread on here, just constructive / objective discussion,.


    :
    Last edited by Doug Pilcher; 12-08-2019, 05:44 AM.
Working...
X