GMoneyPit

My Feedback: (5)

Sounds good adolfsonjat. If it works out well, you'll be giving lots of other people another engine choice. I really hope it works because you can't beat the price of those Tower engines and they are supposed to run really well once properly tuned (I've heard that part can be tricky, but I've never owned one).

Gary

adolfsonjat

I have already had 2 tower .46 and they do have alot to offer but i just dont think that it would have enough for what I would want.

boosted180

My Feedback: (8)

i dont recommend the .75 two-strokel. 23oz is way too heavy an engine for this plane! a magnum .52 is only 13 oz. or an o.s. 46 is only 11-12 oz. even my saito .82 is 17 oz. anything more than 20 oz is too heavy an engine in my opinion. you will have tons of power but the wing loading will be too high for good flight performance.

GMoneyPit

My Feedback: (5)

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Maybe there is enough wing area to pull it off, hopefully he'll let us know how he fares.

Thanks,
Gary

adolfsonjat

i will when I get it nitro has horrific mailing and customer service so we will see when I get it

adolfsonjat

what is the elevation where you guys are located I am right around 5000ft so that makes you need a about a size or two difference is what I have been told have you guys heard of that i'm not sure thought that is why I am asking

GMoneyPit

My Feedback: (5)

I'm much closer to sea level here in Georgia. You are correct, altitude plays a factor because the air is less dense. There are a number of ways to compensate for this (higher nitro content, bigger engine, lightening up the plane, etc). Although I lived in Albuquerque, NM for a number of years, I did not fly R/C then so I have no personal experience. However, many people on these forums do and they can offer you some excellent advice. You could probably do a search on "altitude", among other things to find answers. Hopefully someone will chime in here to give you a hand to help you understand. I'll just end up confusing you. Like others have pointed out, there is a tradeoff when you add weight to a plane (by going with a bigger engine, for example). You increase the wing loading for one, which changes the flight characteristics of the plane. If it flies the way you like it to fly, it doesn't matter. That is the most important thing. In my opinion, you'd be better off using a 46 size engine, along with keeping the plane as light as possible. The 75 might work just fine, you'll have to try and see. I'm all about having too much power and managing the throttle to keep things from getting out of hand, but too much wing loading can be a problem.

I almost guarantee that there are some people that have used a 75 on this plane and loved it. Hopefully they will give you some help to get this combination to work. I understand budget constraints, you have to do the best you can with what you have and what you can afford. I better shut up now before I get you in trouble :-).

Thanks,
Gary

yagua

Hello to all:

I just purchased one, I will put on, the Magnum 52, 2 stroke, with a 13x4 prop on the first chance. One Metal Geared micro servo on the throtle, a 6 volts, AAA battery pack (home-made) and a GWS 8 channel receiver which is very small.

Greetings

Armin

Love2FlyMN

I think I might buy this plane.. I was also thinking of getting the .75 but the thunder tigre instead of the tower.. I would go compare the tower and thunder tigre before you get them cuz they say a lot better things about the thunder tigre..

Maybe a thunder tigre .61 would be a good combo wtiht his plane??

Love2FlyMN

http://www.nitroplanes.com/extra300s40.html
What about this plane with the .75 Thunder Tigre?? I think I might do that..Anyone have any opinions or thoughts on the edge?? if not... How would my OS 46 FX fly that Yak?? Cuz if I'll be able to hover the yak with my 46 I'll just get that and keep the money so I don't ahve to buy a new engine
or this one with the .46
http://www.nitroplanes.com/edfu544052ac.html

adolfsonjat

I just read the manual and it said to put a 2 stroke .70 in it but I will let you know about how it is working next week when I get it all put together.

GMoneyPit

My Feedback: (5)

Wing span: 56 in / 1420mm
Wing area: 616sq in /39.8 sq dm
Flying weight: 5.2lb / 2400g
Fuselage length: 52.3 in / 1330mm
Engine Required: 2c 0.52 cu in 4c 0.75 cu in
Radio Required: 4 channels,5servos

That's what the page says here http://www.nitroplanes.com/yak543d5056n.html.

The manual says .70 two stroke? That is odd. Surely it is a misprint for a plane barely over 5 lbs. Who cares, get her balanced and let us know how she flies, we're all waiting anxiously!

Thanks,
Gary

Edited: fixed a typo

GMoneyPit

My Feedback: (5)

poorkid, I hope you go with that Edge, I've been dying to hear a flight report about it. It looks a lot like the Kyosho one that was reviewed in a recent edition of Model Airplane news seen here http://www.kyoshoamerica.com/airplanes/gp/11065B.asp. The specs are a little different, however, so I'm not sure how similar they really are.

Thanks,
Gary

GotSky

adolfsonjat
Just checked in to the thread again. Do you still need the CG mark? If so let me know and I will messure it for you ... Flew mine all last weekend... Its a very fun plane and flys well in light wind around 8 to 10 mph. I have about 3 gallons through it so far with no real issues to speak of --

kwboost

I'm much closer to sea level here in Georgia. You are correct, altitude plays a factor because the air is less dense. There are a number of ways to compensate for this (higher nitro content, bigger engine, lightening up the plane, etc). Although I lived in Albuquerque, NM for a number of years, I did not fly R/C then so I have no personal experience. However, many people on these forums do and they can offer you some excellent advice. You could probably do a search on "altitude", among other things to find answers. Hopefully someone will chime in here to give you a hand to help you understand. I'll just end up confusing you. Like others have pointed out, there is a tradeoff when you add weight to a plane (by going with a bigger engine, for example). You increase the wing loading for one, which changes the flight characteristics of the plane. If it flies the way you like it to fly, it doesn't matter. That is the most important thing. In my opinion, you'd be better off using a 46 size engine, along with keeping the plane as light as possible. The 75 might work just fine, you'll have to try and see. I'm all about having too much power and managing the throttle to keep things from getting out of hand, but too much wing loading can be a problem. I live in Clovis New Mexico altitude is abou 4300ft. At first i would always try to power my planes with the biggest highest power engine I could find. Vertical was great but because of the heavier engine/higher wing loading, flight performance sucked.
The biggest and most important thing to consider when doing 3d is wing loading then power. In my opinion it is best to choose an engine with the best power to weight ratio. I have more fun with an airplane that is moderately powered with a low wing loading than a way overpowered one with a heavy wing loading. Not to mention it's much easier to fly.
At higher altitude engine selection becomes more critical and extra emphasis on building planes light.
I think Gmoneypit was giving good advice.

adolfsonjat

ok thank you advise taken

Love2FlyMN

anyone got that edge?

yagua

Does anybody know another thread about this airplane?

boosted180

My Feedback: (8)

i just picked up the yak today. i was just about to begin putting it together when i noticed that there is a small amount of dihedral built into the wings! this is the first aerobatic plane i've seen with dihedral built in. what's the flight report from people who've flown it? it cant possibly fly very neutral with dihedral on the wings, could it? it must have very a ton of roll coupling on knife edge. can someone who's flown the plane comment on how it flies? i cant imagine why they would build dihedral into an aerobatic plane....

yagua

there is no diedhral on mine

boosted180

My Feedback: (8)

[quote]ORIGINAL: yagua

there is no diedhral on mine

unless they've changed something, there IS a small amount of dihedral on these planes. it's hard to tell, but you can see for yourself by plugging the wings onto the wingtube without the fuse. then place it on a flat table and you will see the two wingtips rising above the table (the the wing roots resting on the table). if you flip it upside down, you'll see that the wing tips will rest on the table but the wing roots will be off the table. you can even see how the holes where the wing tubes go into at the wing roots is towards the top of the wing (not centered). i'll post pics later but try for yourself and you can see the small of positive dihedral built in.

captainpitts-RCU

My Feedback: (24)

actualy after I think about it a little dihedral can help compensate for a wing that is lower than the thrust line. just like the cap 232 has dihedral buil into the wing. or vise versa with an older pattern plane I saw that was a high wing with anhedral built into it. But either way the yak flies really nice.

boosted180

My Feedback: (8)

i guess i'm wrong about aerobatic planes needing zero dihedral. most aerobatic planes have no dihedral on the wings (at least the ones, i've had: ultimate, extra, edge 540). but that doesnt necessarily mean that ALL aerobatic planes are built this way or need to be in order to fly neutrally in all attitudes.

it looks like the yak was built to have dihedral. i checked out my friend's great planes 25% yak this weekend, and his had dihedral on the wings too, although it seems less than on this plane.

one more thing: does anyone notice that the horizontal stab is placed really low on the fuse on this particular yak? i've looked at yaks from other manufacturers (including other models that nitroplanes sell) and they all have horizontal stabs placed much higher (about the same height as the wings). the one on this plane is really low, well below the thrustline and wings.

brian

rcpilot26

My Feedback: (3)

Why does one say yak52 and the other says yak54 whats the difference??????? I may try one of these but i sure would like to hear more flying reports.

bakersfield68

I'm thinking about getting a yak. I have 2 different engines, a fox 50 bb, and a veco 61( old engine) good power though. I cant really find anything on the fox 50 bb though. I know its an old engine but its brand new and never ran. Any one know about the fox engine? I really would like to put it in this yak. I proably wont order it for another 2 weeks or so.