Guillows Cessna SkyHawk 172 Kit 802

[IanGreen]

Hi All

I wonder if anyone can help me please.

I have just bought the above kit and thought it would have included instructions and recommendations for using Radio Control equipment with it.
It doesn't have, but I must take full responsibility for this mistake on my part, I should have read the details closer.

However, I now have the kit, and I still want to use radio control equipment with it.

I have never used or installed RC equip. but would appreciate if anyone could point me in the right direction for acheiving this, with the Cessna.

Many thanks,

Ian

[H65 Driver]

Many on this forum would probably recommend getting experience and comfort with RC before attempting to tackle the somewhat formidable task of converting a Guillow's kit. I'll leave that to the others (as I haven't had the nerve to try it yet myself), but in the meantime, the following website contains a host of information and build threads that are sure to both inspire you and give you an idea of what you'd be in for:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=827861

[Bill Gaylord]

I built the 172 as an rc conversion, and it is a relatively simple and straightforward rc conversion for a rubber powered design. Flying the plane requires intermediate skills. The plane is a fine flyer, but it will drop a wing on landing at a slightly higher speed than other high wing planes of similar size and weight that I've flown, being more like a good flying warbird than a high wing trainer. Mine is one of the builds at rc goofs.

[IanGreen]

Hi H65 Driver

Many thanks for your response, and sorry I haven't replied sooner but I had a wee accident which laid me up for a few days.

I haven't had chance to look at the link you supplied, but I shall be going there this evening.

Thanks again,

Ian

[IanGreen]

Hi Bill, and also to you --- many thanks for responding to my query.

Impressive picture you have submitted too.

As you will have seen from my response to H65 Driver, (after he supplied a link) I shall be going and trawling that link for any help I can get in "converting" the Cessna.

It will no doubt be a struggle, but it is likely to be worth it in the end.

By the way, did you use a fuel engine, or an electric one?
Although I have a passion for fuel, I had thought of going electric this time.

Regards,

Ian

[Bill Gaylord]

Hi Bill, and also to you --- many thanks for responding to my query.

Impressive picture you have submitted too.

As you will have seen from my response to H65 Driver, (after he supplied a link) I shall be going and trawling that link for any help I can get in "converting" the Cessna.

It will no doubt be a struggle, but it is likely to be worth it in the end.

By the way, did you use a fuel engine, or an electric one?
Although I have a passion for fuel, I had thought of going electric this time.

Regards,

Ian

I used a geared 370 brushless setup, which is well matched to the plane. One of the reasons for the geared setup is realistic sound. I use it with a GWS HD series prop, which is not as efficient as a SloFly prop, but sounds better. They are not as loud as a fuel engine, but have a realistic engine sound versus a silent outrunner. The C172 cowl will easily fit an outrunner, but some planes like the Aeronca Champ have high mounted prop shafts where a few mm of clearance can make a difference. There are some gearboxes that allow for a tight prop shaft to cowling clearance, where an outrunner would force you to mount the prop shaft in a non scale position, which is another reason for using geared setups. For the C172, an outrunner would be simple to install than a geared setup and less expensive.

One thing I would consider is using aluminum wind struts and reinforcing the mounting areas for screw attachment. The plastic cabin is strong molded piece, where the dowel rod and rubber band attachment can be eliminated if you have strong struts to secure the wing, which gives a cleaner appearance. The challenges I find in small models are often caused by mounting the gear in a location where it reduces or eliminates the need for ballast. This often means mounting the tail servos, receiver, and battery in the nose area, with tight clearances between the components. Other challenges are things like routing the nosewheel steering linkage from the rudder servo, to avoid the added weight of an additional servo. It's a lot easier to mount gear where most convenient, but the weight benefit of placing gear to reduce or eliminate ballast is worth it.

As for posting links, I thought you would find my build thread at rcg and would also understand why I didn't post it publicly. I normally would post a link, but rcg's admin has gone out of his way to make anyone who has disagreed with him look foolish. I figure I'm embarrassing myself enough by showing a photo, that can then be tied to the the link provided in the rcg Guillows thread. The link can easily be found at rcg, but I don't post them publicly, due to rcg's previous tactic of actually adding my real name to the account. Done again, all my build threads would be here, Wattflyer, and places other than rcg, where I would have no issue about placing a link.

Cessna_172_Guillows_19.jpg

Cessna_172_Guillows_20.jpg

Cessna_172_Guillows_25.jpg