NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Fast,

Thanks! I agree on the covering, and I think if you asked him, Chip probably wouldn't disagree with you either

My buddy has one of the new DV's sitting here and it looks like the same covering. Actually, I liked the original DV scheme better, but this one is OK. He made definite improvements in the cabane structure, but looks like the covering is the same ol' same ol'

Hopefully all will go well with my range check and running in the motor soon... and... warm weather soon!

Happy flying!

Tom

Fastlif

My Feedback: (2)

Tom,
Flew my Vision yesterday. All be it brief, the motor was giving me fits. I got two hops on it, with two dead stick landings. Last time I ran this 50 was last fall, ran perfect, I put some marvels mystery oil in the cylinder for winter, and that fouled the plug at first. I replaced that got it to fire, then it would not transition to full rpm. So, took off cowl and fiddled, richened low end and high end a touch. Seemed to be spot on, but once in air it was a tad rich, and would quit on me after some tumbles and snaps. O well, I got to fly it, it flys light, it really does compared to my Katana. From what I could feel I really like it, real comfortable with it. It was about 40 degrees so a bit cool, runway was mud, plane came home covered. So it will not be going back till ground is hard and motor is tuned perfect at my house.

Just thought I would pass that along.
Jim

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

I say if you have to add the kinda weight with the recommended engine then there is a definate problem. If you wanted to balance it without adding the weight you could always relocate where the wing joins the fues. Move the wing back. You have spent a lot of time on this plane, and a lot of money on CF upgrades I would hate to see you have to waste all of that by adding dead weight.

Moving the wing back is how TBM fixes the tail heavy problem with the H9 Sukhoi so talk to Gene and he could walk you through it.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Thanks for the flight report Jim, sorry about the engine problems. I blew my entire flying season last year fighting a BME 50 that way... turned out to be 2 bad ignitions, but the season was over before I figured it out and got it fixed. I better not have those problems again this year with my 2 new DA's. I gotcha with the cold and mud... my field is the same way, which is why I'm not joining the club "snowbirds" down there yet. I'll wait for better/drier weather.

Layne,

Thanks for the suggestion but there is no way I'm going to that much trouble to save a the weight. I'm confident that I'm going to be able to knock at least 4 ounces of lead off of it and still be in good flying shape. I also managed to shave another ounce off of the canopy, so I think I can fly at 16-1/2 pounds. That is NOT heavy for a plane this size, with this much wing area and a DA50. It's simply not worth all that work to move the wing and risk screwing something up on a perfectly good plane. As I mentioned before, my Edge last year flew great at almost 2 pounds heavier, less wing and a weaker engine.

You have to remember, that I added that much weight due to the tail mods I installed, and the nose weight I "lost" due to the CF stuff. Let's say I didn't use the CF stuff... The bare weight of the plane would go from 16.0 pounds, to 16 pounds - 5 ounces. So if I come in balanced now at 16'8... I'm only 3 ounces heavier than it would have otherwise. That's not a big difference and justifies the "insurance" I have of knowing that my surface hinges are secure. OK, so I replace the CF spinner with an aluminum one... I lose 3 ounces of lead, but gain 2 ounces in the spinner... net difference of only an ounce. Not worth it to me.

I think guys get WAAAAAY too caught up in the numbers. 16 pounds, 16.2 pounds, 16.5 pounds... what difference does it make as long as the plane performs to your satisfaction? The plane doesn't know how much it weighs. Any plane with this much wing area and a DA50 at only 16.5 pounds is still going to have extremely high performance... certainly enough for a rookie like me.

Tom

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

True that numbers are sometimes deceiving but Imagine how it would fly at 14.5lbs. BTW do you still have your WH, I am trying like heck to find one of this used to strip it down and do somewhat of the same thing that you did to the vision.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

14.5 pounds!!!!! Why not imagine it at 12 pounds, cause you got about as much chance getting it to 12 as you do 14.5 pounds. What's the point in imagining that when you ain't never gonna get there?

If I took off all my nose weight, I'm at 16 pounds even. Take off maybe 4 ounces max for all my mods (except covering) and you're at 15.75 pounds. My extra graphics and covering net no more than 4 ounces over the stock scheme, wich would be 15.5 pounds... minimum. NO WAY you'd ever get another pound off of this plane... and, that is "with" CF spinner, landing gear and tailwheel. Without all the CF stuff you'd be back up to 15.8 pounds. 14.5 is a pipe dream.

No I don't have my WH Edge anymore (which by the way weighed 17.5 pounds with the stock scheme). I sold it a few months back to fund the Vision.


Tom

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

Lets work down from 15.5 to 14.5 That means we have to shave a pound

At 14.5lbs the BME 44 would be the right motor

Switch to BME 44 ---> Save 4.8 oz
Replace the NICAD ignition battery w/ Li-ion ---> Save 1 oz
Take off spinner ---> Save 2.2 oz (you will get more useful area out of your prop)
Drop those wheel pants ---> Save (guessing here) 3 oz

Thats 11oz off the top of my head but Im guessing that holes could have been drilled in the motor mount/motorbox area

Would I have gone to all that trouble?? NO But where theres a will theres a way my brotha

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

I think I'd have to disagree with you.

"At 14.5lbs the BME 44 would be the right motor"
That's a wash. Lighten the plane, the put a MUCH weaker motor... you're getting a "little" less wing loading, but at swinging much less prop/power.

"Switch to BME 44 ---> Save 4.8 oz"
Sorry, but you'll need that 4.8 oz to balance

Replace the NICAD ignition battery w/ Li-ion ---> Save 1 oz
I don't like Li-ons, but again, you'll need that ounce for balance.

"Take off spinner ---> Save 2.2 oz (you will get more useful area out of your prop) "
Sorry, not my style. All the work to make this plane look beautiful and then run it without a spinner? UUUUUUUUGGGGGLLLLLYYYYY!!
AGAIN, need it for balance.

Drop those wheel pants ---> Save (guessing here) 3 oz
Another aesthetic issue. If I were going to do that, why would I put all the effort into making it look good... plus that's ahead of the CG too.

"Thats 11oz off the top of my head but Im guessing that holes could have been drilled in the motor mount/motorbox area "
Yeah, and that's 11oz all ahead of CG. Sorry but you would never balance this plane with 11 oz taken off the nose... at any weight. Might as well take the motor off and save 4 pounds... heck then we'd have it at 10 pounds! It would fly just as good as it does with a tailheavy 11oz off the nose.


Tom

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

well...I wouldnt have added the tristock that far back either and moved the wing to balance

Im just not a big spinner fan. At one time I put a spinner on everything but one day I questioned Quique after watching him fly a demo on why none of the planes there have spinners and he told me it takes away from the prop, I tried it and you can tell a difference. I ALWAYS have a performance over looks kinda mindset. If you can make it look good without adding weight then its a bonus.
However that is a great job at covering the plane, I need someone to cover my next one for me [8D]

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Hmmm, that's interesting about the spinner... never woulda imagined it had an effect on performance! [X(] Oh well, I understand your performance over looks point... but I'm one of those guys that's a little more the other way around. As a big scale nut, my planes have to "look like planes" if at all possible and I LOVE the real good lookin' ones. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in making it look good if it also makes it perform poorly. But this plane will NOT perform poorly. I'm just not going to destroy it's looks to give it 5 or 10% better performance. It will be more than enough for me as it is, and waaaaay better than anything I've ever had.

Besides, I've also got an EF 87" Yak that should come in at 15 to 15.5 pounds. Now THAT plane will be a performer for sure. So if I've got one that looks "OK" (Yak) but performs "extremely awesome" then I'll have another (Vison) that performs very well, but looks "Awesome." They don't ALL have to be the best or the same. Some look better and some perform better... as long as NONE of them perform like dogs.

Tom

Fastlif

My Feedback: (2)

Tom,
Yeah, my engine troubles were just lean on the low, and high, I richened it, and seemed good on the ground, but after flying, under load it did not like it when dropped to idle during yanking and banking. This motor was perfect last summer for me, I love DA and think there is no better on the market right now. I will buy DA forever, long as I am running gas. I got some time on it though, so all was not lost. It fly's light, and you know I do not even know the weight of it, I would guess right around 16.5, but thats a total guess. I will have to weigh it next time I put it all together. I would not sweat the weight too much on yours, I know what everyone is talking about, lighter flies better I know, I come from Fun Fly competition, where 2.5 lbs is fat. So yeah, I know all the games, but really this big plane stuff is a nice break from being so anal about weight. The new EF yak looks promising, my fllying buddy has one on order, and I may order one once I twiddle the sticks on his, but it should rock. I like the Vision/DV and like the way they both fly.
Only mods I plan to do to the Vision is Carbon wing tube, which Gene at TBM will have next week, and a carbon rear gear, the stock one is junk, did not make it thru the day yesterday. My friend had the same problem on his DV last summer. Beyond that, I just want to fly. Prolly will not be til after Toledo though, the ground is just a mess.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Yep you will love that Yak. I've got one sitting here still in the box. Got the servos, engine, etc... but haven't started it. I've also got a DV in the box but nothing to go in it. Those are 3 of the best 50cc planes available today, so I should be in good shape once they are all done. My buddy Dave (Maudib) flew his DV at our field a lot last year and that thing was amazing. Mine is a "scratch and dent" so I have a couple minor repairs to make but nothing serious.

Hopefully I'll have good luck with the DA in my Vision... all the ones at our field run flawlessly. Seems like I'm always the guy that gets the "odd" one that doesn't
Anyhow, keep me posted on any further flights and I'll do the same. Like you, I doubt I'll get up until after Toledo. Between snow, cold, mud, and I'm also having some battery issues to straighten out first... well, not gonna happen this week. My Li-On pack is not cycling properly, so I'm trying to find a better pack for it. Don't want to risk this puppy on a questionable battery! [:-]

Cya,

Tom

southern_touch9

My Feedback: (3)

I flew the 87" EF Yak about a year and a half ago when it was in its prototype stage. It flew great, I have the smaller yak now, I have a few issues with it but as soon as I put a different motor on it Im sure I will like it too.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Coolio. [8D] Maudib had the smaller one too, and it was awesome. It was the main reason we got interested in the 87" version over a year ago. That thing would do pretty much anything you asked it to without any bad tendencies. Sweet bird. [sm=thumbup.gif]

Tom

Eric.Henderson

With the long winter I had time to replace my own ISO mount with a new Hydemount, for the DA-50 in the Vision. It saved me about 4 oz over the B&B iso-plugs.

This is what it looks like.

Eric.

mvigod

eric,

your motor looks like it is pretty far forward. how far is the mounting plate off the firewall?

Eric.Henderson

I measure 7" to the spinner backplate. The cowl hits the landing gear if it goes any further back. The Hyde mount lets you use your stand-offs of choice. The engine could be put further back if so needed or desired. The CG came out as per spec.

Regards,

Eric.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Therein lies the main problem with my CG. Everyone was saying to use the 1-1/4" standoffs on the Vision, so that's what I got. I found them to be way too short so I added another 1/2" of wood standoff behing each post. Now at 1-3/4" away, I still had to cut some of the cowl for the Landing Gear. Bottom line is I'm WAY closer to the firewall than you are with these standoffs, which hurts CG a lot. I let it go at the time, because I heard this plane was noseheavy.

Now in retrospect, yes I should have used longer standoffs... and yes, I still could. But, I've already got the cowl, linkage, fuel lines, paint/covering scheme, etc, all done for this distance and it would just be too much work to change. Definitely would need a new cowl. Maybe something to do in the future, maybe next winter... but not now while I'm just entering the flying season. This is the only big bird I have ready to fly and she's not going back on the bench!

Tom

Eric.Henderson

I understand. Mine has had far too much bench time. We did not get a friendly spring in NJ this year.

One other problem that had me fed up was the bouncing around of the huge VISION rudder. I had tried several servos including the mighty 8611 but to no avail.

This what I did to stop it miss-behaving. I used a lightweight RC car damper with no spring. Now there is not even a hint of backlash-induced-bouncing.

Regards,

Eric.

mvigod

eric - nice solution to the servo oscillation issue. I used to see this on my Magic fun fly with a DS368 digital. the rudder used to oscillate back and forth and once it got going there was no stopping it. The reason this seems to happen is that there is so much throw on the surface and the size/mass of the rudder induces a very tiny amount of push or pull in one direction. The speed, strength and the smallest amount of play plus fighting for center on these servos is such that they tend to overshoot just enough and then correct back the other way. This happens over and over to create the oscillating effect. Putting that damper on it is a nice way to stop this behaviour for setups that exhibit this unwanted effect.

So...with all the standoff lengths being tested here is there a consensus on the "ideal" size to use for somebody who has a blank slate and can go any size in order to have best shot at hitting the correct CG (using 8611 in tail for rudder and NOT pull-pull setup)?

Fastlif

My Feedback: (2)

Use the stock DA full length standoffs if you want the easiest mounting, 8611 in the tail, and not hassles. The cowl will go on much easier, like a thousand times easier, if you run the batteries rear of the wing tube, servos in tail, you will be spot on, or darn near it. I listened to everyone that asked chip here what to run, he said shortys, so I did, I was this close to running the stock standoffs but decided not too, now I wish I did. my cg is aft with short ones, and 8611s in tail, with duralites behing wing tube. By an inch, it flies fine, maybe a skoosh tail heavy, nothing I cannot help with a carbon tail gear, and move batteries. But its fine, it flies just fine, I am saying this only if you are super anal about the cg, yes, its aft of where the manual says. But as we know, some things work better with a cg aft. I plan on 3D, not Imac or pattern with it, so its fine for me.

I am very interested in this rudder oscillation. I hope I am good to go, but interesting fix on yours with the shock. I have never had that problem on any plane before.

Eric.Henderson

(Thank you for the compliment).

The hard part was getting a blind nut in through the servo opening. There is no usable ply area towards the rudder so I had to go forward to find a hard point for the damper. The fuselage side is approx 1/8" ply so a 4-40 blind nut and a washer on the outside did the trick. The damper is easy to move in both directions. Some R/C car dampers have high resisatance, so test before you use. It only needs to be a light mechanical "drag" to stop the backlash and over-reaction in the servo gears.

I have tried them (dampers) on the rudder horn before now with long usage success. In this case the geometry and throws get a bit severe on a 3-D plane so went for the inner hole on the servo arm..

Ref the stand-offs.

With 2-1/2" stand-offs the VISION will come out nose heavy when using with a DA-50 and a Hyde mount plate. I reduced my stand-offs to 2-1/4" with my Sherline lathe. They Hyde ISO plate is about 3/4", so I was actually using 3" stand-offs. This was dictated by the size and position of the Slimline muffler.

If I was not using the Hyde plate I would use a total of 2-3/4" for stand-offs using the Slimline. Then the battery will become your "CG tuning" device. If I was using a pipe and header I'd keep it at 3"

I saw, (at the WRAM show), that DA had a range of stand-off lengths and some stand off "feet & spacers" that let you make up your own length. Look under [link=http://www.swbmfg.com]www.swbmfg.com[/link] There is a pull down menu on the left hand side of screen where the product is hiding.

Regards,

Eric.

NE0

My Feedback: (9)

Agreed, stock 2-1/2" standoffs is the way to go. No reason why you should have any problems balancing it then. The 1-1/4" are just too short, especially if you don't go pull-pull rudder and/or do any mods aft of CG. You can always move stuff backwards and compensate for noseheaviness much easier (and lighter) than trying to fix tailheaviness! Get that engine out there at least 2".

Tom

Angus Balfour

Theres a guy near where i live got a Vision for sale with a ZDZ 50 and Hitec digitals. Basically I want to know what it flies like before I make a move.

Im heavily into F3A type flying and im usually dissappointed with how 3D models perform the F3A type stuff. I know people will say they are for 3D but I want a model that will do both pretty good. Any views would be much appreciated especialy from FAI guys who have also got a Vision.

Thanks,
Angus

Fastlif

My Feedback: (2)

Couldn't tell ya. I flew mine, and it was never in a straight line, I 3d so I do not worry much about precision flying. sorry. Prolly best to ask Chip direct in his thread.