mga

I don't think you know how the plate is made. It is not an easy one to replace. As many planes, you see the plate underneath, and those are easy to change, but the Yak is a slide in system, and the gear is screwed on above the plate, not beneath like most. To get at the plate, you have to cut out all of the bottom of the fuse that covers the plate, and then it is one big job to change. I will be posting pics of the mods and I will be installing my landing gear from under not above as the original was.

FishMan

My Feedback: (17)

After about 80 succesfull flights with my Yak, my gear did the same thing two weeks ago. Left side gave way on a SMOOTH rollout, pulled out the side of the fuse, punched through wing, busted prop and pulled the rudder off its hinges aswell as taking out my Sullivan tailwheel assy. Busted the plate right down the middle. No damage to the gear itself or the wheel pants. The material of the landing gear plate and the way it is constructed are not of the best quality/design IMHO. I am in the process of redisigning mine too. Plate will be more towards the bottom of the fuse and the gear attached from beneath instead of on top. I also feel the two piece design of the gear lends itself to more sideways pulling forces on one plate . Im going to join the two pieces with a splice of aluminum flat stock to help spread the load so one gear half isnt taking all of the load on crosswind landings etc. I will post some pics soon.

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

FWIW, my Lanier Edge's LG block was solid, even able to take a full on pancake. But then again it looks like it's designed differently.

iflywhenican

My Feedback: (1)

mga, I doubt that these 2 guys even own a Lanier Yak, so don't get to upset with them. We DO...so there is our proof!!!
I took the peice of ply that was installed in mine and crushed it with my fingers...thats how "tough" it is.[X(]

mtwister

You'd be wrong with that doubt. You guys ever seen a gear plate on a Comp arf? Come on guys, you botched a landing, it pulled the plate, big deal. If you wanted a plane to land in the weeds, go buy a stearman.

FishMan

My Feedback: (17)

I didnt botch a landing... read my post. If I did I would be the first to tell ya. And I dont like Stearmans , thanks.

Patto

I have one of the newer versions of this ARF it seems, since mine had updated, higher-quality control horns and a beefier landing gear plate and supports than I've seen pictured. It sounds like they made improvements and have only recently had them come out in the kits. My LG plate is rock solid and, so far, I have no complaints about that part. They are still including the flimsy tail gear, but I went ahead and spent $8 on the Sullivan gear.

-Pat

mga

You would think that a company that wants to do good marketing, would finally annouce that they did the improvements, thanks to the people who wrote on the message board. This way it would encourage us to continue to buy from them, as we would know that they are interested in improving their product. I am almost ready to glue on the new plate. What I did was reinforce the side of the fuse where the plate pushes up against the sides. That is a very weak design, and also done with cheap china ply. you can see in the pic where the side part broke from the plate pushing against that very small structure.

iflywhenican

My Feedback: (1)

You know...maybe that was why Tower did a "dump" sale on these a little while back. To get rid of the "old style" landing gear kits???? I noticed that they are back at $509 now.

pcsol

My Feedback: (2)

I dont think I ever mentioned in ealier post's that I sent lanier a box O pieces. Never got a reply though. Not even a thank you !

mga

It would be nice to see the inside of the new fuse and set up. See if they did the same amount of lightning holes and the side wall set up. If anyone has a new or thinks it is the new one, could you please post some pics.

Patto

I will try and post some pics of my set-up later on today or tomorrow, and you guys can tell me if there is a difference.

-Pat

matus777

Hi guys just wanted to pass along somewhat of an update. A friend who has a couple of these yaks allowed me to fly both of them. One was "radically" lightened to 17 1/2 lbs and the other built basically standard (one servo per ail on both planes) with each powered by an Evo58. Both planes were equiped about the same.

Neither plane was really setup completely for various reasons but comparing equal stages of setup the model built closer to standard flew noticeably better IMO....maneuver for maneuver. I'm not sure of the actual weight of the standard plane but i thought it was interesting to note and pass on for what it's worth!

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

So you're saying that the heavier plane flew better?

iflywhenican

My Feedback: (1)

My Yak weighs in at 21 lbs. and I think it flies like a 15 pounder!! I let a very seasoned 3-D pilot take the sticks and he stated that it can do stuff quicker than he can keep up with. I watched him do rolling harriers right on the deck that made me sweat!!![X(]

matus777

I'm saying that IMO his heavier, unmodified Yak flew better than his lighter Yak....yes.

tenman1010

i need some help with my lanier yak. it has real bad wing rock when in a harrier. it weighs 20# 12 oz, cg is at 7 inches back. all throws are set up as they suggested except high rate rudder has 55 degrees throw about 45 on elevator and 45 on ailerons. also it has the wing rock on both high rates and low rates. think this could be fixed by moving the cg back?

FishMan

My Feedback: (17)

yes, move the CG back further. Im flying mine at 7 3/4". [8D]

Patto

Mine has a healthy wing rock as well. It is balanced right in the middle of the CG range, and the elevator is about as touchy as I would like it to be, even with a lot of expo. It is, however, very solid in elevators, so much that I bring it right down next to the ground before I power out. I have not weighed mine, but I imagine it is around 19-19.5 lbs. with a 3W 70 bolted to the firewall.

I initially thought about bringing the CG back to help with hovering, but after spending some time getting used to how it hovers, I'm finding that it is my lack of experience with this plane rather than a set-up issue. The main problem seems to be keeping it from torquing. Full right aileron is effective at holding it straight with enough power, but it ends up climbing if I use that much power. I've tried pulsing the throttle a little bit, but that makes it want to torque a little less predictably, (and almost gives the pilot a freakin' heart attack in the process).

-Pat

kmeyers

Anybody have anything good to say about this plane long term? Is it worth building and setting up?

yarom

My Feedback: (82)

Fine built kit - excellent covering job.

Flies really nice on a 60cc engine or a real powerful 50. Hrad to complete below 17.5lbs.

It is on par with most GP and H9 large kits and quite sturdy long run.

Hardware will have to be replaced, though I hear they fixed that to some extent.

Patto

The newer hardware is better than what they used to include, which from what I understand was completely inappropriate for this size plane. I used the new hardware on the ailerons, but some of the pieces did not fit together tight enough and I ended up replacing the elevators' and rudder's control horns with H9 heavy duty.

I did not like the way the landing gear plate was constructed. I had heard that it was not a solid plate but did not believe the one I had was until I broke it. The aluminum gear survived the trip into the tall grass with not even a slight bend, but it ripped the whole mounting box out. I ended up putting some solid pieces of ply in there.

Now, I don't think that my current set-up would have survived under that stress either, but I really don't think that the original LG block was sturdy enough regardless. If I were part of a re-design team, I'd take out some of the ply in the canopy deck and beef up the LG area. Then, I'd include some real hardware. If you pay full price for this kit at $509, you really deserve to get some decent hardware.

I fly mine with a 3W 70cc. I had to cut out a hole big enough for the carb stack to fit through, and then I attached the carb to the stack after the engine was mounted. I had to cut away about 3/4" from the bottom of the firewall for the wrap-around Pitts-style muffler to fit. That is not necessarily a design flaw for Lanier to worry about, but if you use a similar set-up, those will be things you have to plan for.

The tail gear assembly was not strong enough to hold its shape during 3-point or tail-first touchdowns, so I replaced it with the Sullivan tail gear. Lanier definitely owes it to its customers to provide better tail gear.

The flying performance is really quite nice. I have not regretted this purchase at all. It's now my favorite plane in my hangar. I do recommend getting some long, heavy duty control horns for the best throws. Holding it in a hover without torque-rolling can be a challenge if you don't have some serious aileron throw.

-Pat

mga

I am extremely happy with mine. I did the mod on the landing gear. it is bolted from the bottom and I have a foam cap to hid the underneath. I have now 15 flghts on her.

Langster

I also did the mod on my Yak undercarriage mount after it broke. Just cracked really and the repair was quite easy, but time consuming to get the exact fit of the replacement ply. I like flying the Yak I think in part due to the responsiveness of the 5955 servos which make most maneuvres possible from the planes perspective and it is just up to me to get it right from the thumbs! It also pushes through the regular breeze at my flying field which makes it more versatile for these conditions.

I have complete 153, 10 minute flights, and plan to move on to something else in the next few months. Overall, I have been very pleased with the Yak and it has taught me a lot.

Lang

mga

A few more pic of my Yak. I have added more decals to it. Love the looks of the plane which makes it even more a pleasure to fly. I have a FPE 70cc and it pulls straight up until I want it to stop to climb. It weighs 24lbs.