Contender Gold (oz12845)

About this Plan

Contender Gold. Radio control sport aerobatic model. For .40 to .61 2-stroke, or .52 to .70 4-stroke engines.

Discontinued kit from Top Flite.

Note the original Top Flite Contender (oz3281) kit first appeared circa 1969. This here is the later 1999 (Gold) version, and has been redrawn, from scratch, in CAD by AlanSinclair. Complete with parts sheet, decals sheet, also an instrument panel.

Note the plan as supplied in the kit (see review) was on 2 sheets, and did not include this 3rd sheet here - which is a massively useful drawing showing all parts at full size.

Instructions file is 32 pages, complete with build pics, etc.

Quote: "The Contender was introduced thirty years ago and there have been so many requests to bring it back that we decided to remanufacture it to today’s high quality standards for Top Flite Kits. You should find this kit easy to build and a lot of fun to fly! Get your other projects off your workbench, say goodbye to your significant other for a while and...keep reading!

Recommended engine size: .40 to .61 cu. in. [7.5cc to 10cc] 2-stroke .52 to .70 cu. in. [8.5cc to 11.5cc] 4-stroke. Your Top Flite Gold Edition Contender will perform well with any of the engines within the recommended range. We flew our prototype with the OS 40LA and the 60FP and both engines had more than ample power.

FLAPS: Your Contender is designed to incorporate a center flap; however, the flap is optional and not necessary for an excellent flying experience. Without the flap, the takeoff roll is a bit longer and the landing speed is slightly faster. If you do not wish to build the flap, just disregard those parts of the manual involving operational flap construction.

The flap is not difficult to build and it operates well. The flap adds nicely to the model’s flight characteristics. Very minor trim changes were needed for our prototype when the flap was lowered. You will find more information on the use of the flap in the flying section. The flap requires one additional standard servo.

POWER REQUIREMENTS AND PROPELLERS: We did our test flying using Top Flite Power Point Propellers and an OS .60FP engine. With the .60 2-stroke engine the model flew very well. A .61 will provide more power than the model needs, but you will appreciate the extra power when vertical maneuvers are being performed. Initial test flights were with the Power Point 11x7 propeller. As with any model, you may experiment with different propellers to find out what type works best for you.

During our flight testing we found no bad characteristics in this airplane. Takeoffs were straightforward with good ground handling. The plane was airborne in approximately 100 feet [30m]. Once the plane is flying it goes exactly where you point it. Depending on how you set up the model, rolls can be very slow or very fast. Power-off stalls were very soft and predictable with only the nose dropping in the stall. There was no tendency for the wing to tip stall.

Landings were straightforward with or without the flap. Without the flap you should maintain a bit more airspeed on your approach. With full flap deployment the plane slows very nicely and allows for a very soft landing. If you have never flown with flaps this an excellent model to learn with..."

Direct submission to Outerzone.

Quote: "Hello, Got some more for you. Just finished the Top Flite Contender Gold CAD conversion. Managed to find the manual on e-bay that had a copy of the plans as the center fold so I completely redrew the plans to go with die-cut parts. Also I went and created some markings and the intrument panel similar to the original kit, they can be printed on white and clear laser printer decal paper. Have a great day."

Update 03/03/2021: Added kit review from Flying Models, July 2000, thanks to RFJ.

Supplementary file notes

Decals.
Instrument Panel.
Manual.
Review.

CAD file

This plan is available for download in CAD format.

Corrections?

Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)? That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction