Disciple4123
Veteran
Location: Waynesboro, VA USA
| Acrobatic: 12mm mainshaft 25mm tailboom, fuel tank at centre of gravity, simplified frame layout with direct controls 7.49 gear ratio, comes with #422 blades.
Trainer: 10mm mainshaft, 20mm tailboom, fuel tank up front, controls use bellcranks and servos up front. 9.09:1 gear ratio, comes with #421 blades.
The gear ratio and blades are changeable on either machine, #421, or #427 blades and 9.09 ratio would be preferred for your needs.
So technologically the Acrobatic is superior if you ask me. The trainer has enough similarity to the Acro, and the same high quality, so some people use it for AP. I have an Acrobatic with 1 1/2 years of service, have also had a predator and a Bergen in years prior. My vote amongst them is for the Acrobatic.
Regarding the air star deal, I will PM you my feelings on that/him.
I personally consider 14LBS to be carryable on the Acrobatic, set up right, yes it is ( I have done it for a while). But if you consider long term reliability, the ability to log hundreds of flight hours in a hot country, with minimal risk of power loss or a settling with power phenomenon, then the XLV, possibly with a turbine would be an extra layer of safety. Maybe start with an Acrobatic, and if funds develop go XLV in a couple of years??
What engine: the 230RC is very smooth, the 260RC is only as smooth when a machine shop lightens it's piston. Either way the dynamics of the 260's permit the engine to seize a little easier than the 230 which is rather hard to lock up in flight (clearances are the same, but the larger diameter piston expands more proportionally when at operating temperature). I run 230's. People have fair results with either. I have had 260PUH machines in years past with varied results, including lock ups .
Eric |
