Steve Colman Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Having never owned or flown a twin I thought it was about time that I gave the idea some serious thought. Now, being very satisfied with Mpx models, the Twin Star came to mind as a simple and modest offering that could offer a great intro to flying a twin. Additionally, it could make an ideal platform for mounting a video camera and perhaps some FPV gear which is something else I'm looking to do. Thoughts of those with experience of the TS greatly appreciated. Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon barr Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I had one of the original grey ones. In fact, it was that that got me into electric models... A club mate had the newer Elapor ones which flew very well... I see that Hobby King/Avios are bringing out a newer, up-graded Sky Mule soon, so that may be worth a look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Healy Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Hi Steve - the Twin Star was the original model that started the twin-engine mass popularity back when I used to go to model trade fairs in this country (Sandown etc) and bought one because I was struggling with a semi-scale Mosquito - the Twinstar was a revelation - it actually flew hands off from the first launch. It was really good fun and totally forgiveable. About a dozen club mates bought them as well, and we even had a 'Twinstar Mass Slot'at one of our very early Woodspring Airshows. OK, so you're not going to do multi-aerobatics with aTwinny, but at the price we had a great deal of fun with them, all daft and outrageously silly, but we had FUN. I still have my original one with the Speed 400 can motors (well, not actually the originals - they are a bit like Trigger's broom - I burned out a couple over the last twenty years) - wet grass gives perfect touch and goes, take-offs as well and so easy to hand launch. Never tried the newer ones with brushless motors and Li-Po's, but have seen them and they are exactly the same as the originals - only much better! Get one, but please don't put an undercarriage on it and pretend it's an Islander!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lee Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I've still got one of the original grey ones with brushed 400 motors & Gunther props. Originally with NiCads I gave it an upgrade last year to LiPos which seemed to make no difference! I've also flown some newer ones, including a much battered one at the RCHotel. Without exception they go extremely well & are highly recommended. The model is vice free & can be severely abused without it biting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Colman Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 Many thanks for the feedback gents. Simon, I've seen the new Avios offering and it's very tempting I must say but It's still a few months off being launched I think. Mike, if I do get a TS I promise I won't be adding an undercarriage. I like the simplicity. Thanks for the input John, seems that everyone rates it highly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Claridge Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 i have had 3 of them 2 mk1 1mk2. the2 mk1 had at least 15 breaks glued up with epoxy before killed properly the mk2 was fitted with brushless and lipo and went like a bat out of hell. i now have inherited a mk 1 covered in brown paperand sprayed with gray primer this has stiffened the wings a lot. sadely it does not get a lot of flying these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Posted by Steve Colman on 22/02/2017 11:22:29: Having never owned or flown a twin I thought it was about time that I gave the idea some serious thought. Now, being very satisfied with Mpx models, the Twin Star came to mind as a simple and modest offering that could offer a great intro to flying a twin. Additionally, it could make an ideal platform for mounting a video camera and perhaps some FPV gear which is something else I'm looking to do. Thoughts of those with experience of the TS greatly appreciated. Steve. If you find an unhappy Twinstar owner, let us know Steve - I have never met one! Never owned one but have flown several for others; they have vice free handling, are very robust and can carry FPV kit with aplomb. Recommended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I;ve got one of the original grey ones, I upgraded it to 3s lipo and it then threw the gunther props, so I changed these to 7 x 4s until I burnt the original canned motors out, I then upgraded to brushless added undercarriage (tail dragger) and programmed in differential throttle. Must get mine down from the rafters, it hasn't flown for a few years, they are a lot of fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I've still got the original grey one, it was my first electric twin model and flown it hundreds of time. Still using the same motors, but on 3s Lipo, which is too light, so have to use a 4000mah 3s to compensate for the same weight batteries it used to fly on: 7 cell 1800mah nicads - which just about flew it. On 4000, I'm getting 30 mins, and only need 1/2 power as full power is silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly boy3 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Will fly itself, exellent choice. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Jones Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 The first twin I flew was one of them until about 3 seconds into the flight when one the props departed. First twin & first asymmetric thrust in one quick flight! Another interesting flight was with one of the Twinstar2s when the first came out. It was a maiden flight I was doing for a friend on a grey slightly breezy day. There was some rain round about too so we waited until it looked like it would stay dry for long enough. Oh and it was a cross wind too. Anyway something was wrong with the power setup and it limped into the sky and just as I was explaining to the owner that I would have to line it up into the wind and land early when I felt a cold wind on my back, glanced in the direction of the wind only to see a massive dirty black cloud depositing heavy rain behind us. That wasn't all, that breeze was turning into savage bouncy gusts. The model couldn't make any headway into the wind unless a good deal of down elevator was applied. Gain in forward motion was a gain in lift and it was very difficult to get the bouncing model low enough to land with any chance of survival. Happily, after a few tricky go-arounds I managed to land it without any harm done. Personally I've never liked them but I did like the Kavan P68 Partenavia which unfortunately is no longer available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Brown Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 If you do get a Twinstar you need to look at the upgrade options at Park Flyer Plastics. I'd suggest either the full seaplane conversion kit or get the clear belly pan, cockpit, pilot set and emgine cowls. They improve the appearance enormously and the belly pan will keep the plane looking pristine. I think I have some photos of mine that I will try to post later, fitted with cowls, cockpit and pilots and decorated in a sort of US Coastguard style using packing tape. Sold it to a clubmate who loves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philflyer Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Totally agree with Matty B. My son and I both had the originals. Brushed motors with sub C NiCads (Sanyo 7 cell 1800 mAh) and would take off from its belly on our clubs tarmac runway. One day my son had an ESC burn out . Fortunately we had one of the "new" RCLine Rxs with fail safe that we set up with engines off, a touch of rudder, ailerons neutral and a bit of up elevator. It did a perfect circuit and landing without any interference from the idiots on the transmitter. It taught me to fly figure 8 circuits inverted. Great value for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 It's a standard hack at our Club. Easy to build, maintain and fly. Nobody bothers much with the stock electrics - all are upgraded to brushless. The standard fit is 2212/10 (1400kv) motors with 7x6 or 8x4 props, 20A ESCs and 3s2200 LiPos. I've had mine nearly 10 years and "did a number" on it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kettle 1 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Nice looking Mike T . I'll take a picture of mine and post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Etheridge 1 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Really impressive picture above from Mike T ! I have had a Twinstar 2 for eleven years and have just replaced the radio with 2.4 gear. The plane has been excellent and still flies with heavy 9.6 V Nimh battery packs which can be moved forward within the fuselage if penetration on windy days is a problem. As others have mentioned it is not a stunt machine with the brushed can motors, just a very stable aircraft that is very easy to fly and ideal for camera mounts. It is a good plane to start off your flying day especially if you have had a long winter break. To date mine has had replacement motors, replacement speed controllers, propellers and of course battery packs. Picture from 2007 Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 23/02/2017 13:42:40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Cheers guys! It can be a hooligan with brushless, but despite my best efforts at hydrodynamic design, it's a bit of a pig on the water! My 'design' predates the add-on kit available from the US. Mine may look neater (thanks, Percy) but the plastic add-on works better, I think! I've also used it for FPV. The usual approach is to replace the canopy with a bespoke FPV mount, but I made a long narrow laminated ply platform to carry the FPV gear, mounted over the wing (and hence the CG), secured using the wing bolts. This had no effect on handling and had the nice effect of placing the cowls (unobtrusively) in the bottom corners of the picture. The development potential of this model is enormous but unfortunately, Multiplex are a bit slow off the mark in exploiting it. Edited By Mike T on 23/02/2017 14:09:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 My Mk1, decor using emulsion test pots, Photo scanned in 2005. The standard is decidedly modest when compared to MikeT's but looked OK for a model constructed from what was basicaly packing material. Used supplied motors + props with a variety of 7 & 8 cell nickel batteries. Quite spritely whichever batteries were used but best results with 8 cell KAN 2000 mAH 4/5C & the cg moved a little rearwards. I'm puzzled by Mike E's comment re moving the battery forward to improve penetration, logicaly that will reduce the potential max airspeed given the same wing loading. My TS was badly damaged after crashing due to a faulty aileron servo but repaired & flying again soon after with a replacement servo. Unfortunately, after a couple of months the replacement servo decided to follow it's predecessor's example. By then I had got a little bored with the TS & couldn't be bothered to repair it so binned the bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Etheridge 1 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Moving the battery forward to move the G/G forward Patmac. Ever tried moving the C/G too far back by shifting the battery location, I have it would not fly! . My battery wedges between two strips of adhesive backed sponge rubber and is very secure but also adjustable. I have wondered with the brushless motor and two speed controller set up how every thing can be accommodated in the fuselage recess? I assume with a lipo battery less space is required? During the last eleven years apart from breaking the plastic wing joiners and cockpit clips I have had one aileron servo fail and issues with a propeller detaching from a motor shaft. Also the supplied Multiplex cable connector that links the wing servos and motors has fallen apart and I have replaced it with a couple of electrical 'fixed connectors' unfixed of course. Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 23/02/2017 15:50:57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Posted by Mike Etheridge 1 on 23/02/2017 15:42:47: Moving the battery forward to move the G/G forward Patmac. Ever tried moving the C/G too far back by shifting the battery location, I have it would not fly! . My battery wedges between two strips of adhesive backed sponge rubber and is very secure but also adjustable. I have wondered with the brushless motor and two speed controller set up how every thing can be accommodated in the fuselage recess? I assume with a lipo battery less space is required? As said, moving the CG forward reduces the max possible airspeed for any given wing loading. OTOH moving the CG rearwards increases the potential airspeed so long as it is kept within the limits that give reasonable pitch stability. The TS has a generous tailplane area & moment arm, which allows a fair leeway in usable CG range. The 4/5C cell batteries that I found best were about 20% lighter & shorter than previously used sub C cell batteries. I'd think that a much less bulky & lighter 3s 2200 lipo would allow more leeway for fitting two ESCs. Anyway there must be potential to carve out bags of extra space in the fuselage under the wing root. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Brown Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Couple of photos of mine, the static shot was taken before the cockpit had been completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Fox Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Snap!! - Well, almost .... Really nice model. No vices. fitted a glider tow release to this one, with undercarriage for our tarmac runway. I fitted two brushless motors to mine with the ESC's in the nacelles. Flew with a 3900 3s pack in the nose. Able to get 30min flights easily. Great fun keeping it low and slow too Great for balloon bursting comps to, twin props work wonders! Highly recomend brushless setup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Another good model was this. Flies even better, and much more power. And looks more scale- in fact it is. Not made any more, was called Partenavia by Hobby Lobby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.