Dalton 300 vs Dalton 300ML

[The Dirt Doctor]

Can anyone out there in GS land offer an opinion as to the flying difference (IMAC only) between the two subject airframes?

Thanks.

Bobby aka TDD

[3D-Seth]

If I were to guess (having only flown the ML version and not the standard version), I would say tracking has a lot to do with it. I'm sure the longer fuse makes the ML version track a lot better. This is just a guess though, anyone here who has flown both chime in...

Tony?

[bodywerks]

The 300 ML is the obvious winner for IMAC only. Simply put, you'd be a fool to purchase the standard 300 if your only intention is to fly IMAC. the standard 300 is a great all-around airframe, but there's a reason for all the 300ML's at IMAC contests - it's the sh!t when it comes to precision. The longer tail moment not only makes it track better, but it also snaps crisper without drifting or displacing from the flight path. This impresses the judges.

[BreadBowl]

I've flown both, and honestly, I think they're close. The ML being longer coupled tracks slightly better, however I kind of liked the standard 300 better.

[Vic3D]

Completely agree with Bodywerks. IMAC calls for the ML. If you only want to 3D then you're probably going to want to get the regular 300 but overall, ML is the way to go.

[Jim Woodward]

I have the D300 ML DA 170/RE3 combo, and my flying partner has the standard D300. Both are very good, but the ML is the "king of the hill" right now. It was in use quite a bit at the 2009 TAS, won several classes including Invitational. This plane is awesome for sequence flying - and has withstood the naysayers crys of being out of scale. I just ordered a 2nd ML kit myself. The longer fuselage really shows up in overall tracking. There is more side area for rolls, rolling circles, etc.
Thanks,
Jim W.

[ben_beyer]

The only complaint about the ML I've heard is that you have to push more in rollers. Of course, the pilot that said this had never flown a regular 300 so I don't know that's how they are or what. Either way, when I move up out of sportsman in IMAC, I'm going to be flying a 300ML.

[The Dirt Doctor]

Thank you guys for the exact information I was looking for. Now, I can make an informed decision about what will be my next plane.

Bobby aka TDD

[superdave1963]

Bobby I thought you were already building one....Are you going to be at clinton this weekend..........I have got my new 40% 260 going now.......Well I have 4 flights on it

[The Dirt Doctor]

	Quote: Originally Posted by superdave1963
	Bobby I thought you were already building one....Are you going to be at clinton this weekend..........I have got my new 40% 260 going now.......Well I have 4 flights on it

No, it is a 42%AW 260 and it is ready to fly! It will take me 6 months to build a kit and I like to plan ahead!! I'm pretty sure Todd and I will be there on Saturday.

How do you like your new plane?

Bobby aka TDD

[Phxsparky12]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Jim Woodward
	I have the D300 ML DA 170/RE3 combo, and my flying partner has the standard D300. Both are very good, but the ML is the "king of the hill" right now. It was in use quite a bit at the 2009 TAS, won several classes including Invitational. This plane is awesome for sequence flying - and has withstood the naysayers crys of being out of scale. I just ordered a 2nd ML kit myself. The longer fuselage really shows up in overall tracking. There is more side area for rolls, rolling circles, etc. Thanks, Jim W.

I have never seen a 300 that is remotely close to looking like this plane. The stretched tail on this plane looks like it is alot more than 10% of either the L or the S version of the 300. I would love to see a full scale version of this plane.

[Jim Woodward]

sorry dude. This has been hashed out here and on the www.mini-iac.com website. I suggest that you read the proof of it there - and actually, it could be longer!
Jim W.