Plane Talk: Top Flite Score Control Line ARF - 2009/02

70 MODEL AVIATION
RICK CAMPBELL
Plane Talk: Top Flite Score Control Line ARF
Precision Stunt
experts think this
turnkey model
has potential
Left: The Score flies inverted over “The
Swamp”: the home field of the New
England Stunt Team, north of Boston.
WHEN TOP FLITE released the Nobler
ARF, it gave the CL world quite a shock. I
remember a ragged JPEG copy of a fax
posted on the Stuka Stunt CL forum,
announcing the new model. I wasn’t the only
one who thought it was an April Fools’
prank. Wasn’t Top Flite the company that
dropped all its CL kits from production years
ago?
When I called the local hobby shop, RC
Buyers Warehouse in Nashua, New
Hampshire, I learned that it was no joke. In
fact, the people at the store said that they had
never seen such great interest in an ARF
release.
Top Flite has broken ground again, with
the Score: its first ARF competition-level CL
Precision Aerobatics (Stunt) model. It has a
thick wing, moderate-size flaps, a large
(24%) tail on a long moment arm, and a
clean look that straddles the line between
classic and current.
At roughly 680 square inches, the Score
is a midsize aircraft that matches a vast
selection of engines, from .51 to .75. Pick a
two-stroke, four-stroke, modern, old school,
or whatever floats your boat—er, flies your
Stunt model.
The only rig that might not work is a
modern tuned-pipe setup—but only from an
aesthetic point of view. The Score has little
to no belly beneath the wing; there’s
nowhere to hide the pipe. However, if you
think it looks fine exposed, hangin’ under
the fuselage with a strange, vintage-Corvette
side-pipe sort of vibe, go for it.
The Score comes in a huge box with
everything bagged, taped securely in place,
and well protected. The model is beautifully
covered in plastic film. But after a couple of
Above: Longer landing gear and large
wheels were substituted for rough field
conditions.
The Score sits ready for takeoff.
Check out the huge 13.4-
inch propeller that the
Discovery Retro
engine swings.
weeks out in
the open, down in
the humid cellar, that
covering job starts to
wrinkle and sag like grandma’s stockings.
It’s no big deal; shrink it back up.
Stay away from the heat gun when
reshrinking the film on an ARF that has an
elaborate trim scheme such as the Score’s.
02sig3.QXD 12/22/08 12:25 PM Page 70
Score would come
out at
approximately 67
ounces. For this size
model, I don’t think
that anything less
than 1-to-1 would
be good.
Also, the
controls would be
extremely fast if
assembled as
directed. This is the
opposite of current
thinking. I consulted
with two
experienced Stuntdesign
gurus, and
both agreed that a
slower 1-to-1
control setup would
be the way to go.
With that in
mind, I replaced the
stock bellcrank with
a 4-inch model,
threading new
leadouts through the
wing and adjustable
leadout guide. I
cleared out the
mount and installed
the new bellcrank,
foam-wing style, on
a 1/8-inch-diameter
steel rod suspended
between plywood plates and glued to the
outside of the wing.
I opened up the adjacent wing rib to allow
a wider range of motion. I replaced the flap
horn with a taller unit, which did align with
the stock elevator horn for a 1-to-1 flap-toelevator
ratio. I replaced the stock pushrods
with carbon-fiber/ball link units. The flap-toelevator
pushrod I made is adjustable in
length.
The trim film will shrink away from the base
film, and it will look terrible. Use an iron
instead. It’s slower going but will yield
better results.
The big box includes many items that
aren’t supplied with other ARFs, such as the
spinner, tip weight, fuel line, and fuel tank.
This kit is complete!
The only things the builder has to supply
are an engine, propeller, and glue. There’s
also a full hardware package—much of
which, as far as the control system goes, a
competition pilot should consider replacing.
The supplied hinges are of the
cyanoacrylate-installed, semiflexible, “easy”
variety. The Score is intended to be a
competition machine, and this type of hinge
has no place in a competitive Stunt model. I
replaced the hinges with the pinned
mechanical variety.
I cut the film covering away and notched
the flaps for hinge pockets. Then I installed
the hinges with slow-setting epoxy. Come to
think of it, that is exactly how Top Flite had
us do it on the ARF Nobler; the company
had it right the first time.
The aluminum-tube flap-to-elevator
pushrod is stiff enough, but the threaded
ends are soft, thin, RC clevis stuff that is not
up to the task. The bellcrank is a 3-inch
metal unit with unbushed, braided-cable
leadouts; this was never considered a good
combination, because the cable pivot points
would fatigue easily.
The horns are nice, strong, stiff, and
nearly 1/8 inch thick; they are plated, too.
But the holes are positioned so that a 1-to-1
flap-to-elevator ratio is impossible to
achieve. I weighed all the bits in the kit,
added my engine, and determined that my
Construction: The assembly manual is clear
and full of useful tips and photographs. I’ll
touch on the few places that are worthy of
attention or where I did my own thing.
Top Flite instructs the builder to hinge
the flaps to the wing and the elevators to the
stabilizer before installing these components
in the fuselage. I didn’t. Had I done it that
way, I could not have used my incidence
meter to make sure that the wing and
stabilizer were installed in the fuselage level
with the thrustline.
Is that essential? The TLAR (That Looks
About Right) method doesn’t cut it. Just
because the wing or stabilizer fits the
fuselage cutout perfectly does not guarantee
that it is aligned correctly. Always check
this. Straight Stunt models fly better.
Regardless of the method you use, make
sure that the airplane is properly aligned in
all three dimensions.
The wing went into the fuselage needing
no adjustment to be level with the thrustline.
The stabilizer settled into its cutout showing
a half degree of negative incidence. I
carefully trimmed the saddle until the
stabilizer was level with the wing.
One can build the Score with removable
wing and stabilizer; I didn’t. Seeking
maximum rigidity and resistance to oil
penetration, I glued and screwed those parts
to the fuselage.
The fuselage has two removable hatches
below the stabilizer—one on each side. I
glued one hatch in place. I left the other,
held per the directions by four small screws,
72 MODEL AVIATION
Pluses and Minuses
+
• Fast, easy, strong assembly.
• Complete kit.
• Flies competitively.
• Excellent as engine test bed, practice
airplane, or quick route to full-size
competition model.
-•
Inadequate, out-of-date controlsystem
hardware is inconsistent with
a competition model. Small fuel tank.
Heavy!
Specifications
Model type: ARF
Wingspan: 56.5 inches
Wing area: 677 square inches
Length: 46 inches
Weight: 60-70 ounces (test model’s
weight: 67 ounces)
Airfoil: Fully symmetrical midwing
CG: 41/8 inches (105mm)
Engine: .40-.51 cu. in. (test model’s
engine: Discovery Retro .60)
Construction: Balsa and plywood
Finish: Plastic film covering
Price: $109.99
Steven Yampolsky signals for launch, and the author releases the
Score. The ponytail is sewn into the back of the cap; it provides
excellent protection from the sun!
02sig3.QXD 12/22/08 12:27 PM Page 72
removable to gain access to the adjustable
pushrod.
Top Flite recommends a .40-.51 engine. I
know of several Scores that are flying with
SuperTigre .51s.
The truth is, pilots have been flying
airplanes this size since the 1980s with
muffled .60s and, later, piped .40s-.65s.
Maybe you’d put a muffled .46 in an aircraft
this size back in ’76, but not today; Stunt
fliers want more. The Score is no
lightweight, so a .60 or .65 is probably best.
I chose the Discovery Retro .60, which
Yuri Yatsenko makes in Ukraine. Its rearexhaust/
muffler setup is a bit more difficult
to install than a side-exhaust engine, but it
looks cleaner.
The firewall has a generous amount of
right thrust built in. For the tip of the spinner
to end up in the correct place, centered in the
fuselage, the engine mounts must be
installed offset to one side of the firewall. It
seems weird at first glance, but Top Flite did
the math and its instructions are correct;
follow them carefully.
The supplied fuel tank weighs slightly
less than 5 ounces. This is fine for my
engine, which is a fuel miser, but it will not
be enough for most .60s.
The tank is held in with long tie-wraps. I
like that idea; it’s simple, lightweight, and
secure but easy to remove.
The Score features a moderate amount of
wing asymmetry. On my model, the small
fixed portion of the flap on the inboard
wingtip had a narrower chord than the
adjacent part of the flap. Hmm, what to do?
Not having another kit to inspect, I
shaved the inboard flap’s TE a bit, to match
the wingtip. Most of the modern models I
build have a slightly wider outboard flap, so
this little fix suited me fine.
The Discovery Retro .60 spins a
monstrous 13.4-inch wood propeller. The
Score’s supplied landing gear wasn’t tall
enough to provide safe ground clearance for
this propeller, so I had to bend a new set.
That was too bad, because the supplied
gear was beautiful. It was rigid, accurately
bent to fit the supplied fiberglass wheel
pants, and nicely plated.
My model finished up at 67 ounces, with
the CG at the aft end of Top Flite’s
recommended range. I adjusted the leadouts
so that the center point between the two lines
was an inch aft of the CG. Top Flite instructs
the builder to start with an ounce of tip
weight.
I sealed the hinge lines with transparent
UltraCote Lite before I flew the Score. This
covering may be the best thing for sealing
hinge lines on plastic-film-covered models.
It’s thin and flexible. Since its adhesive is
activated by heat, it has zero tendency to
stick in the hinge line after application. So
far, the UltraCote Lite has held up incredibly
well to fuel/oil goo and repeated cleanings.
I hung the Score out on 66 feet (center to
center) of braided .018-inch-diameter lines,
with my own version of a Fancher cableless
handle.
Flying: From the first flight, I knew I had
work to do. The tank was nowhere near the
correct height, and the engine ran
inconsistently. Taking the engine off of
uniflow fixed the erratic run, but then it sped
up way too much from launch to landing.
I tried removing the cowl for more
cooling, but it was apparent that the engine
didn’t care for the type of plumbing I used or
the tank’s height. In addition, the model
seemed to need a good flap tweak to level
the wings. This was unexpected, because I
installed both flaps with the incidence meter.
It was time to go home, measure, and do
some research on the Discovery Retro .60’s
preferences.
Poking around on the Internet, I got an
idea of what tank and venting would be best
for my engine. I also learned that its designer
advocates a bit more oil in the fuel than I
was using. Ya gotta love living in the
information age! While in the cellar, I also
tweaked the flaps.
Two fuel tanks later, I experienced
success. The engine ran better, allowing me
to focus on flight trim. I made another gentle
adjustment to the flap tweak, moved the
leadouts a bit, added a little more tip weight,
and I was doing patterns.
To improve the groove in level flight, I
drooped the elevator roughly 1/8 inch at
neutral flap. The adjustable-length pushrod
made that easy; I’ll never build another
Stunter without this feature. Then the Score
grooved well and still turned equally inside
and outside.
Back at home, that flap tweak was still
bugging me. I know I assembled the flaps
straight, so why did it fly banked out upright
and banked inward when inverted?
It turns out that leaving the wheel pants
off to save weight was a big mistake. The
11/2 ounces of wheel pants (and lighter
substitute landing gear) I omitted from the
lowest point on the model upset the vertical
CG. I found some heavier wheels that were
the equivalent weight of the stock wheels
plus the pants.
Subsequent flights with these wheels
proved the flap tweak to be unnecessary. I
removed it, and the Score sat squarely on the
lines, upright and inverted.
If you think this sounds like voodoo,
please read Chris Lella’s “Balancing for Roll
in CL Stunt Ships” article in the May 1976
MA. You can check it out in the “Members
Only” section of the AMA Web site. Moral
of the story: You really can have more fun
with your pants on.
The Score reminds me of a friend’s
model I flew years ago; it is stable but still
aerobatic. You steer this airplane through
maneuvers—not “hit it and pray.” It is easy
to fly, fun, and forgiving, but it might be less
taxing to fly if it were a bit lighter.
My model is still balanced at the aft end
of Top Flite’s recommended range, but I’ll
try moving it a bit farther aft. With the
slower controls I installed, I think I can get
away with that; the design certainly has the
tail volume to handle it. As my friend, Steve
Yampolsky, is fond of saying, “Try it. All
you have to risk is 4 ounces of fuel.”
Where does the Score fit in? You can fly it
in any contest but Open at the Nats. You
only lose appearance points for not being
compliant with the Builder of the Model
rule; that’s fine with me. I usually build my
own stuff and have no problem taking the
penalty when I don’t.
What attracted me to the Score was the
chance to try a new engine. I didn’t have a
model I could easily retrofit (pun intended)
for the Discovery Retro .60. I have precious
little building time, so I’m hesitant to
scratch- or kit-build a model around an
unfamiliar power plant. The Score proved to
be a perfect test bed for that engine, and it
flies a competitive pattern.
With minimal time invested in assembly,
I was able to take a chance on a new power
plant. If replacement engine mounts become
available from Top Flite/Great Planes, the
Score will be a perfect test bed for all larger
Stunt engines. Meanwhile, I have a niceflying
new aircraft in my stable.
Looking around at opinions and
experiences posted on the Internet, I found
that almost everyone else who is flying the
Score replaced the controls as I did. Flying
weights vary from as light as 60 ounces up
to 68 ounces. Several different engines were
used, but there’s not enough difference in
their weight to make an 8-ounce difference
in finished weight.
I have been told that one Score is
powered by a SuperTigre .60. I guess that’s
the acid test for those RC-type plastic engine
mounts. If a SuperTigre .60 can run
consistently and doesn’t shake the nose
apart, almost anything can run well in this
model.
Grab your favorite engine and give the Top
Flite Score a go! MA
Rick Campbell
[email protected]
Manufacturer/Distributor:
Top Flite/Great Planes Model Distributors
Box 9021
Champaign IL 61826
(217) 398-8970
www.top-flite.com
Sources:
Stuka Stunt Control Line forum
www.clstunt.com
Discovery Retro .60:
Yuri Yatsenko (Ukraine)
[email protected]
Kaz Minato (Japan)
http://homepage3.nifty.com/bluemax/
Other Published Reviews:
Flying Models: February 2007

70 MODEL AVIATION
RICK CAMPBELL
Plane Talk: Top Flite Score Control Line ARF
Precision Stunt
experts think this
turnkey model
has potential
Left: The Score flies inverted over “The
Swamp”: the home field of the New
England Stunt Team, north of Boston.
WHEN TOP FLITE released the Nobler
ARF, it gave the CL world quite a shock. I
remember a ragged JPEG copy of a fax
posted on the Stuka Stunt CL forum,
announcing the new model. I wasn’t the only
one who thought it was an April Fools’
prank. Wasn’t Top Flite the company that
dropped all its CL kits from production years
ago?
When I called the local hobby shop, RC
Buyers Warehouse in Nashua, New
Hampshire, I learned that it was no joke. In
fact, the people at the store said that they had
never seen such great interest in an ARF
release.
Top Flite has broken ground again, with
the Score: its first ARF competition-level CL
Precision Aerobatics (Stunt) model. It has a
thick wing, moderate-size flaps, a large
(24%) tail on a long moment arm, and a
clean look that straddles the line between
classic and current.
At roughly 680 square inches, the Score
is a midsize aircraft that matches a vast
selection of engines, from .51 to .75. Pick a
two-stroke, four-stroke, modern, old school,
or whatever floats your boat—er, flies your
Stunt model.
The only rig that might not work is a
modern tuned-pipe setup—but only from an
aesthetic point of view. The Score has little
to no belly beneath the wing; there’s
nowhere to hide the pipe. However, if you
think it looks fine exposed, hangin’ under
the fuselage with a strange, vintage-Corvette
side-pipe sort of vibe, go for it.
The Score comes in a huge box with
everything bagged, taped securely in place,
and well protected. The model is beautifully
covered in plastic film. But after a couple of
Above: Longer landing gear and large
wheels were substituted for rough field
conditions.
The Score sits ready for takeoff.
Check out the huge 13.4-
inch propeller that the
Discovery Retro
engine swings.
weeks out in
the open, down in
the humid cellar, that
covering job starts to
wrinkle and sag like grandma’s stockings.
It’s no big deal; shrink it back up.
Stay away from the heat gun when
reshrinking the film on an ARF that has an
elaborate trim scheme such as the Score’s.
02sig3.QXD 12/22/08 12:25 PM Page 70
Score would come
out at
approximately 67
ounces. For this size
model, I don’t think
that anything less
than 1-to-1 would
be good.
Also, the
controls would be
extremely fast if
assembled as
directed. This is the
opposite of current
thinking. I consulted
with two
experienced Stuntdesign
gurus, and
both agreed that a
slower 1-to-1
control setup would
be the way to go.
With that in
mind, I replaced the
stock bellcrank with
a 4-inch model,
threading new
leadouts through the
wing and adjustable
leadout guide. I
cleared out the
mount and installed
the new bellcrank,
foam-wing style, on
a 1/8-inch-diameter
steel rod suspended
between plywood plates and glued to the
outside of the wing.
I opened up the adjacent wing rib to allow
a wider range of motion. I replaced the flap
horn with a taller unit, which did align with
the stock elevator horn for a 1-to-1 flap-toelevator
ratio. I replaced the stock pushrods
with carbon-fiber/ball link units. The flap-toelevator
pushrod I made is adjustable in
length.
The trim film will shrink away from the base
film, and it will look terrible. Use an iron
instead. It’s slower going but will yield
better results.
The big box includes many items that
aren’t supplied with other ARFs, such as the
spinner, tip weight, fuel line, and fuel tank.
This kit is complete!
The only things the builder has to supply
are an engine, propeller, and glue. There’s
also a full hardware package—much of
which, as far as the control system goes, a
competition pilot should consider replacing.
The supplied hinges are of the
cyanoacrylate-installed, semiflexible, “easy”
variety. The Score is intended to be a
competition machine, and this type of hinge
has no place in a competitive Stunt model. I
replaced the hinges with the pinned
mechanical variety.
I cut the film covering away and notched
the flaps for hinge pockets. Then I installed
the hinges with slow-setting epoxy. Come to
think of it, that is exactly how Top Flite had
us do it on the ARF Nobler; the company
had it right the first time.
The aluminum-tube flap-to-elevator
pushrod is stiff enough, but the threaded
ends are soft, thin, RC clevis stuff that is not
up to the task. The bellcrank is a 3-inch
metal unit with unbushed, braided-cable
leadouts; this was never considered a good
combination, because the cable pivot points
would fatigue easily.
The horns are nice, strong, stiff, and
nearly 1/8 inch thick; they are plated, too.
But the holes are positioned so that a 1-to-1
flap-to-elevator ratio is impossible to
achieve. I weighed all the bits in the kit,
added my engine, and determined that my
Construction: The assembly manual is clear
and full of useful tips and photographs. I’ll
touch on the few places that are worthy of
attention or where I did my own thing.
Top Flite instructs the builder to hinge
the flaps to the wing and the elevators to the
stabilizer before installing these components
in the fuselage. I didn’t. Had I done it that
way, I could not have used my incidence
meter to make sure that the wing and
stabilizer were installed in the fuselage level
with the thrustline.
Is that essential? The TLAR (That Looks
About Right) method doesn’t cut it. Just
because the wing or stabilizer fits the
fuselage cutout perfectly does not guarantee
that it is aligned correctly. Always check
this. Straight Stunt models fly better.
Regardless of the method you use, make
sure that the airplane is properly aligned in
all three dimensions.
The wing went into the fuselage needing
no adjustment to be level with the thrustline.
The stabilizer settled into its cutout showing
a half degree of negative incidence. I
carefully trimmed the saddle until the
stabilizer was level with the wing.
One can build the Score with removable
wing and stabilizer; I didn’t. Seeking
maximum rigidity and resistance to oil
penetration, I glued and screwed those parts
to the fuselage.
The fuselage has two removable hatches
below the stabilizer—one on each side. I
glued one hatch in place. I left the other,
held per the directions by four small screws,
72 MODEL AVIATION
Pluses and Minuses
+
• Fast, easy, strong assembly.
• Complete kit.
• Flies competitively.
• Excellent as engine test bed, practice
airplane, or quick route to full-size
competition model.
-•
Inadequate, out-of-date controlsystem
hardware is inconsistent with
a competition model. Small fuel tank.
Heavy!
Specifications
Model type: ARF
Wingspan: 56.5 inches
Wing area: 677 square inches
Length: 46 inches
Weight: 60-70 ounces (test model’s
weight: 67 ounces)
Airfoil: Fully symmetrical midwing
CG: 41/8 inches (105mm)
Engine: .40-.51 cu. in. (test model’s
engine: Discovery Retro .60)
Construction: Balsa and plywood
Finish: Plastic film covering
Price: $109.99
Steven Yampolsky signals for launch, and the author releases the
Score. The ponytail is sewn into the back of the cap; it provides
excellent protection from the sun!
02sig3.QXD 12/22/08 12:27 PM Page 72
removable to gain access to the adjustable
pushrod.
Top Flite recommends a .40-.51 engine. I
know of several Scores that are flying with
SuperTigre .51s.
The truth is, pilots have been flying
airplanes this size since the 1980s with
muffled .60s and, later, piped .40s-.65s.
Maybe you’d put a muffled .46 in an aircraft
this size back in ’76, but not today; Stunt
fliers want more. The Score is no
lightweight, so a .60 or .65 is probably best.
I chose the Discovery Retro .60, which
Yuri Yatsenko makes in Ukraine. Its rearexhaust/
muffler setup is a bit more difficult
to install than a side-exhaust engine, but it
looks cleaner.
The firewall has a generous amount of
right thrust built in. For the tip of the spinner
to end up in the correct place, centered in the
fuselage, the engine mounts must be
installed offset to one side of the firewall. It
seems weird at first glance, but Top Flite did
the math and its instructions are correct;
follow them carefully.
The supplied fuel tank weighs slightly
less than 5 ounces. This is fine for my
engine, which is a fuel miser, but it will not
be enough for most .60s.
The tank is held in with long tie-wraps. I
like that idea; it’s simple, lightweight, and
secure but easy to remove.
The Score features a moderate amount of
wing asymmetry. On my model, the small
fixed portion of the flap on the inboard
wingtip had a narrower chord than the
adjacent part of the flap. Hmm, what to do?
Not having another kit to inspect, I
shaved the inboard flap’s TE a bit, to match
the wingtip. Most of the modern models I
build have a slightly wider outboard flap, so
this little fix suited me fine.
The Discovery Retro .60 spins a
monstrous 13.4-inch wood propeller. The
Score’s supplied landing gear wasn’t tall
enough to provide safe ground clearance for
this propeller, so I had to bend a new set.
That was too bad, because the supplied
gear was beautiful. It was rigid, accurately
bent to fit the supplied fiberglass wheel
pants, and nicely plated.
My model finished up at 67 ounces, with
the CG at the aft end of Top Flite’s
recommended range. I adjusted the leadouts
so that the center point between the two lines
was an inch aft of the CG. Top Flite instructs
the builder to start with an ounce of tip
weight.
I sealed the hinge lines with transparent
UltraCote Lite before I flew the Score. This
covering may be the best thing for sealing
hinge lines on plastic-film-covered models.
It’s thin and flexible. Since its adhesive is
activated by heat, it has zero tendency to
stick in the hinge line after application. So
far, the UltraCote Lite has held up incredibly
well to fuel/oil goo and repeated cleanings.
I hung the Score out on 66 feet (center to
center) of braided .018-inch-diameter lines,
with my own version of a Fancher cableless
handle.
Flying: From the first flight, I knew I had
work to do. The tank was nowhere near the
correct height, and the engine ran
inconsistently. Taking the engine off of
uniflow fixed the erratic run, but then it sped
up way too much from launch to landing.
I tried removing the cowl for more
cooling, but it was apparent that the engine
didn’t care for the type of plumbing I used or
the tank’s height. In addition, the model
seemed to need a good flap tweak to level
the wings. This was unexpected, because I
installed both flaps with the incidence meter.
It was time to go home, measure, and do
some research on the Discovery Retro .60’s
preferences.
Poking around on the Internet, I got an
idea of what tank and venting would be best
for my engine. I also learned that its designer
advocates a bit more oil in the fuel than I
was using. Ya gotta love living in the
information age! While in the cellar, I also
tweaked the flaps.
Two fuel tanks later, I experienced
success. The engine ran better, allowing me
to focus on flight trim. I made another gentle
adjustment to the flap tweak, moved the
leadouts a bit, added a little more tip weight,
and I was doing patterns.
To improve the groove in level flight, I
drooped the elevator roughly 1/8 inch at
neutral flap. The adjustable-length pushrod
made that easy; I’ll never build another
Stunter without this feature. Then the Score
grooved well and still turned equally inside
and outside.
Back at home, that flap tweak was still
bugging me. I know I assembled the flaps
straight, so why did it fly banked out upright
and banked inward when inverted?
It turns out that leaving the wheel pants
off to save weight was a big mistake. The
11/2 ounces of wheel pants (and lighter
substitute landing gear) I omitted from the
lowest point on the model upset the vertical
CG. I found some heavier wheels that were
the equivalent weight of the stock wheels
plus the pants.
Subsequent flights with these wheels
proved the flap tweak to be unnecessary. I
removed it, and the Score sat squarely on the
lines, upright and inverted.
If you think this sounds like voodoo,
please read Chris Lella’s “Balancing for Roll
in CL Stunt Ships” article in the May 1976
MA. You can check it out in the “Members
Only” section of the AMA Web site. Moral
of the story: You really can have more fun
with your pants on.
The Score reminds me of a friend’s
model I flew years ago; it is stable but still
aerobatic. You steer this airplane through
maneuvers—not “hit it and pray.” It is easy
to fly, fun, and forgiving, but it might be less
taxing to fly if it were a bit lighter.
My model is still balanced at the aft end
of Top Flite’s recommended range, but I’ll
try moving it a bit farther aft. With the
slower controls I installed, I think I can get
away with that; the design certainly has the
tail volume to handle it. As my friend, Steve
Yampolsky, is fond of saying, “Try it. All
you have to risk is 4 ounces of fuel.”
Where does the Score fit in? You can fly it
in any contest but Open at the Nats. You
only lose appearance points for not being
compliant with the Builder of the Model
rule; that’s fine with me. I usually build my
own stuff and have no problem taking the
penalty when I don’t.
What attracted me to the Score was the
chance to try a new engine. I didn’t have a
model I could easily retrofit (pun intended)
for the Discovery Retro .60. I have precious
little building time, so I’m hesitant to
scratch- or kit-build a model around an
unfamiliar power plant. The Score proved to
be a perfect test bed for that engine, and it
flies a competitive pattern.
With minimal time invested in assembly,
I was able to take a chance on a new power
plant. If replacement engine mounts become
available from Top Flite/Great Planes, the
Score will be a perfect test bed for all larger
Stunt engines. Meanwhile, I have a niceflying
new aircraft in my stable.
Looking around at opinions and
experiences posted on the Internet, I found
that almost everyone else who is flying the
Score replaced the controls as I did. Flying
weights vary from as light as 60 ounces up
to 68 ounces. Several different engines were
used, but there’s not enough difference in
their weight to make an 8-ounce difference
in finished weight.
I have been told that one Score is
powered by a SuperTigre .60. I guess that’s
the acid test for those RC-type plastic engine
mounts. If a SuperTigre .60 can run
consistently and doesn’t shake the nose
apart, almost anything can run well in this
model.
Grab your favorite engine and give the Top
Flite Score a go! MA
Rick Campbell
[email protected]
Manufacturer/Distributor:
Top Flite/Great Planes Model Distributors
Box 9021
Champaign IL 61826
(217) 398-8970
www.top-flite.com
Sources:
Stuka Stunt Control Line forum
www.clstunt.com
Discovery Retro .60:
Yuri Yatsenko (Ukraine)
[email protected]
Kaz Minato (Japan)
http://homepage3.nifty.com/bluemax/
Other Published Reviews:
Flying Models: February 2007