> Hello
> I just purchased the Hobico Superstar EP kit, 48 " wing with Ailerons
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Thanks
they will be fine.
Ive used micro servos in 48" stuff.
mjohn@twmi.rr.com wrote in news:5p0rc35cql8927vn6udvqm5snpgjl7f3m8@
4ax.com:
> Hello
> I just purchased the Hobico Superstar EP kit, 48 " wing with Ailerons
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Thanks
Without going through the math (and sometimes I actually do go through
the math), 36 oz-in should be plenty. Generally, "standard" servos (like
the S3003) are considered appropriate for .46-sized planes, which usually
weigh 5+ lb with ~1.5 hp.
For the Superstar EP, it's a 3 lb airplane that's probably underpowered
with the stock motor (compared to a standard .46 trainer). That would
suggest that 25 oz-in would be sufficient.
Of course, it's better to have a too much servo than to have too little.
Now that I've said all that - standard servos are cheap ($9 at Tower for
Hitec or Cirrus), and the socket in the wing is probably sized for one,
so it may be easier to just go that route.
Beyond all *that* - Might wanna wade through the discussion on RCGroups.
Here's one of them: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=
311392
I didn't read through it to see if anyone talks about servo sizing, but
someone probably did.
Since the thread is a few years old, the brushless motors weren't so
widely available and Li batteries were much more expensive. Don't know
if you're planning to use the stock power system or not, but . . .

Signature
"Whatever will have been, will have been."
- Douglas Adams, "Life, The Universe, and Everything"
Milt - 24 Aug 2007 18:09 GMT
>mjohn@twmi.rr.com wrote in news:5p0rc35cql8927vn6udvqm5snpgjl7f3m8@
>4ax.com:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>widely available and Li batteries were much more expensive. Don't know
>if you're planning to use the stock power system or not, but . . .
Mark
Thanks for detailed info.
The http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t= pages look
good.
From your knowledge, is it a good cite, relative free of spam ?
Thanks ,again ,for input.
If the plane handles OK, as is, with no quirks, i will probably
upgrade power.
With all the free bees etc., I got it cheap enough- only paid $79 & I
am happy with quality of what I see.
Milt
Mark Miller - 24 Aug 2007 21:43 GMT
> Mark
>
> Thanks for detailed info.
> The http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t= pages look
> good.
> From your knowledge, is it a good cite, relative free of spam ?
I've certainly found a lot of useful info on RCGroups & RCUniverse; in
some forums, there are manufacturers posting information, but AFAIK, the
manufacturers always identify themselves. If you're new to the hobby,
then bear in mind that the people who post to those forums (fora?
whatever the plural is) aren't gods; some know what they're talking about
and some don't. But it's always interesting to see what problems they
had when working on the same plane, and what hardware choices they made,
what mods they tried, etc.
> Thanks ,again ,for input.
>
> If the plane handles OK, as is, with no quirks, i will probably
> upgrade power.
That sounds reasonable.

Signature
"Whatever will have been, will have been."
- Douglas Adams, "Life, The Universe, and Everything"
lipston@west.tt.com - 25 Aug 2007 00:57 GMT
>mjohn@twmi.rr.com wrote in news:5p0rc35cql8927vn6udvqm5snpgjl7f3m8@
>4ax.com:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>widely available and Li batteries were much more expensive. Don't know
>if you're planning to use the stock power system or not, but . . .
Thanks for detailed info.
The RCGroups looks good.
From your knowledge is it a reliable cite relative free of spam ?
Thanks ,again ,for input.
If the plane handles OK, as is, with no quirks, i will probably
upgrade power.
With all the free bees etc., I got it cheap enough- only paid $79 & I
am happy with quality of what I see.
Joe