rcflyer96

I'm still thinking about this plane but I think I will have to go glow. Only for the initial costs... I may be able to do it if I go with a used Moki. I know fuel costs are much greater to run the Moki but for our short flying season it will still be about a $250 + differance between the total costs of a DA+gas and a Moki+gas. Then maybe the year after go with a DA or something like that.

Any thoughts on doing this? Also would the 1.8 or 2.1 be a better choice? Lastly do I need a pump for a Moki even if the tank is up by the firewall?

Thanks for any help.

Bob101

You know you can run 5% fuel in a moki and get great perfomance out of it. It's made to run on real low nitro - so it's not like you have to buy 20% nitro. Just something else to think about.

50%plane

My Feedback: (5)

The fly-in is June 17-19. Perfect for bringing a 27% 260.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

True, but even FAI fuel (0 Nitro) runs $10 a gallon and the Moki will need 20-24 oz for an 8-10 minute flight.

At 20 oz, you'll get maybe 7 flights per gallon... $1.43 a flight... Gas... 31 cents per.

That's not really that much... but over a year of maybe 100-200 flights that's a savings of $110-$220... more than enough to pay the extra for the DA.

Then let's say you get tired of it. You want to get another plane. Hmmm... not too many large, light planes like the E260 out there... maybe the Giant UCanDO...

BUT just take a look at the plethora of 50cc offerings... EF, BME, Wildhare, Somenzini, Aeroworks, Carden, etc...

Then look up here n RCU for sale the Moki's, O.S. 1.60's then the DA's... you 'll get a MUCH better resale for the DA than the other two... often getting within $50-$75 of your purchase price (espeically if you offer it during the "noone's got any" time...


Still on the other side of the coin... this is a perfect plane for the 1.60... I'd have to wonder how it might perform with a Roto 35.... 22+ thrust on a 14 lb plane...

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

the roto weighs more without muffler than a DA with muffler .. also you have the extra weight of the mount. that H9 mount that comes with the kit is pretty heavy... the roto looks like a nice motor though good thrust #s and at a low RPM 8800

BTW there is no pinning needed on the firewall and the gear block shouldnt be a weak area on this plane. they are reinforced with light aluminum.. looked nice

rcaviator-RCU

My Feedback: (20)

I'm looking at this plane, however my budget is kind of tight. Glow is not an option for me, has to be gas.

So here are my thoughts on the set up. Brison 2.4 can be purchased for $375 with the ignition and it weighs 2.75 lbs. bare. Brison claims 21 lbs thrust, if this is accurate, or very close, then it would be enough power assuming the plane would come out about 14 lbs. For servos I would use the Futaba 3050 digitals, $47 and 90oz of torque on 6 volts.

This is the combination I am pondering, I may or may not do it. If I knew it would fly well with the Brison engine I would do it as the cost would be around $1200 for the complete plane. A .90 - .100 size glow would cost almost that much.

Just some thoughts. Any comments?

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

here is an affordable muffler if you decide to go that route

http://www.abellrc.com/catalog/briso...er_3081570.htm

Bob101

Who pays $10 for FAI fuel? I pay $8 for 5% fuel per gallon thru my club....

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

rcaviator, having just finished mine up with the DZ 40 and also owning 2 Brison 2.4's, I think you would have a great combination. I have a 2.4 in the Hyde Cap X and really like the combination. I think this 260 comes in right about the same weight but with a larger wing so if anything performance should be better. I prop my Cap X with a 20 X 8 Mezlik and it does all I could ask of it. Weight would be near perfect as well.

The servo's you mentioned are the very ones I used and even though I have only two flights on mine they seem to be plenty for the plane. I did use a Hitec 5645 on the rudder but the manual specifies a minimum of 120 oz. I think for that one. The combination you laid out should work very well.

rcflyer96

I pay 12 something for a gallon of 5% and about 94 Cents a Litre for gas but remeber thats Canadian......

My main reason for thinking about glow on this is the fact that I could probably get a Moki 1.8 for somewhere around $200 used. Where a DA would run me $595 plus muffler. The differance makes up alot of glow fuel. After one season if funds allow I would consider selling the Moki and upgrading to a DA. Thats my thinking right now. I'm still debating though.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Now there is a good argument. I'd go for it.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

The overall weight of the Roto 35vi and DA-50 will be about the same after installation. Little smaller prop, little smaller tank, The DA looks like it needs the 3" standoffs Should cancel the engine mount wieght.

But the engine is physically smaller (not as tall or wide as the DA) and $100 less providing a good value/match and 20+ (as much as 24 lbs thrust) and if you wanted to use a pipe, the Chip Hyde Quiet pipe would all the Roto to really breathe... at 8 oz, it's pretty light (header another 3-4 oz)

The DA will be unbelievable power on this plane. I've flown a couple ridiculously powered planes and found them to be not as much fun as "well powered" planes...

When you are hovering at 1/4 throttle there's is such resolution lost in the throttle. Even with a curve programmed there is the inherent dangers of too much speed... If I were to use a DA I'd use a 3 blade prop to quiet it and drop it's power down a tad.

Still my choice would be glow... but that's where it's a shame... too bad this plane wasn't blown up another few inches to increase wing area and better match a 50cc engine.

Bill Killillay

My Feedback: (18)

Which 3 blade prop would you run on this plane with the DA-50? Just wondering...

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

So would moki 1.8 be a good choice?

bodywerks

My Feedback: (4)

yes.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Maybe a Mens Ultra 21x10, Bolly, air models Mejzlik 20x10... dunno for sure would have to ask around for some suggestions myself... probably call DA and get their take...

Bill Killillay

My Feedback: (18)

You read my mind. I'm going to be calling them later today anyway. I'll ask them then.

I bet this plane would look killer with a CF 3 Bladed prop and spinner and Black CF LG too... [:-]

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

A 3 blade prop would look great on this plane!

50%plane

My Feedback: (5)

The full scale had a four blade I believe, but a three blade looks better.

drumbum

My Feedback: (1)

i agree about 84"


yet ive flown ADDICTs plane it flies very well and dont think you would be able to tell the extra weight of the roto or the brison. even though the wing area #s on paper look low

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

My experience with glow is rather limited (one plane so far ), but I've had not any problems with my Saito 150. It starts reliably, and tuning it for max RPM takes no more than a minute or two. It there really that much advantage in term of convenience by going DA vs Moki / OS?

cstevec

My Feedback: (1)

Bonedoc, the short answer to your question is no. The long answer is yes.

Glow is much easier to set up, cheaper to purchase and very very reliable. No ignition to go bad, no dual switches, no RF interference, ignition modules, making standoffs and more. However, (ain't there always a however?) After you have done all of that, gas has minimal break-in headaches, is much cheaper to operate, sparkplugs last forever, fuel is available on every corner, flight times are greatly extended, (or the fuel load is greatly reduced) field equipment is reduced, they smoke better, power is more predictable, idle is smoother and reliable and more.

It really boils down to preference, but once you get into gas, most people prefer it. On an aside, It seems to me most people resist the move to gas until their flying skills are (in their own mind anyway) at the point where they think the investment will last. Gas powered planes are viewed with a little different respect from the glow planes at my field and the pilots as well. Personally, I got into gas to explore a different aspect of the hobby, kinda to challenge myself a little more, and with the realization that some of my planes were too big for a glow motor to power the way I wanted to fly 'em.

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

Very well said cstevec. A great summation.

markf3x

My Feedback: (3)

Bonedoc,

What cstevec says is all true. You'll find with the bigger planes there isn't much of a choice other than gas engines. Unfortunately, this airplanes size and weight makes it so that it's a toss up between gas and glow (15lb airplane is right in the middle of the two) .

Tom at WildhareRC has a good "primer" document on gas and what you should know that is well worth reading:

http://www.wildharerc.com/Downloads/...GasEngines.pdf

Mark

BARCC

That's a VERY GOOD document by Tom, thanks Tom!! I couldn't have worded it any better[sm=idea.gif]. Cool, that document gets you "excited" about going into gas, although pricey at first[sm=greedy.gif][sm=greedy.gif]