sthill

Hey all, just go my father's day present delivered today and will be starting the build in a few days. I'm going glow with a Saito .82 and Hitec digital servos, should be fun! This is my first Aeroworks bird and it seems very well built and the hardware package looks excellent, they really seem to think of everything. Stay tuned!

ro347

My Feedback: (13)

Looks really nice!

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

And Happy Father's Day, you lucky dog! I got a bottle of Patron and a pair of shorts! Did you happen to get an empty weight on that, by any chance? I have an electric setup in mind that should work really well, but I was hoping to use more than the 5 cells they recommend for the Skyshark setup.

sthill

Thanks! My wife and I go bigger on Mother's Day / Father's Day for each other than the other holidays where we focus on the kids! Unfortunately, I did not get an empty weight on the plane and have already started mounting servos last night. I usually just stick with the manufacturer's suggested power plant and not worry too much about weight. If you Google "Aeroworks Extra 300 60" you will find another thread on another non-RCU form where a gentleman has already set this bird up for electric flight.

I am a little curious about the servos for this plane. I am going to use Hitec 5645's on the control surfaces at 6v. I know they can be a little slow, but they are powerful, metal geared and are more reasonably priced than others. After looking at the size of this plane I think my servo choice is probably overkill.

I'm new to Aeroworks (mostly Hangar 9 and Great Planes before) and do have a few gripes like wanting to charge $49 extra for stickers that they show in EVERY picture of the plane, the wheel pants are plain white instead of having the neat swoosh in the rendering on their site, showing a burnt orange color in the rendering and getting a bright orange plane and showing an aluminum fuel dot in the "Parts Slide Show" on the website, but not include itin the kit. I attribute most of the difference between marketing and reality and the chance you take when preordering a new model. I'm probably just being picky and all of these gripes are pretty minor compared to the overall quality of this plane, but it is a $285 60 sized plane, so I had high expectations. That being said, the hardware is good quality (compared to the standard Hangar 9 and Great Planes stuff) and I don't find myself running to the LHS to by new hardware or balsa to beef anything up.

All that being said I would certainly buy the model again, I just hope I don't have to!

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

I was wondering about the color. I thought it may have been the camera. I knew about the decals though. I have some experience with Aeroworks and a friend of mine has a few as well. Here's something that may help you. The first AW airframe I bought was the Edge 540T, which is the same size and weight as this Extra 300. The airframe was only $190 and came with the decals go figure. I even think it was cheaper around Christmas that year. The 91 4-stroke they said they were using in the AW website video turned out to be a little underpowered for 3D (the pilot in the video was really huckin' it up) but if you look closer, you can see that the engine is really a Saito 100 or 125, and the 100 would have been perfect for the plane. My 14 year old son flys the IMAC heck out of it, but it will not pull out of a hover, so keep that in mind if you are thinking about that type of flying. Won't happen with a 82, for sure.

As for servos, we went cheap-cheap and the plane still spins like a top. I'm talking about HS-425 and a one HS-645 for the rudder. Of course I can't say how this Extra 300 will perform, but I was thinking about the 5645's too @ 130 oz/in with 6V. All in all, the Edge 540t help up better than I expected and here's a video of my son trying to tear the wings off. Remember that the Edge has a one piece wing so I'm not sure you can do the same thing with the 300. Excuse the camera work, and I hope this helps you make the right decisions about this model. It seems like a good choice so please keep us informed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sapfjiZxoFc

ro347

My Feedback: (13)

I have the Edge 540 with a Saito 100 and the power is great. If the weight is the same, I would want more than the .82. Again, depends on what type of flying you want to do.

sthill

Oh man! Now you guys have me second guessing my power plant. I guess I could do a Saito 100 or OS 110. That being said, what do you think of an OS 75AX or 95AX? I know they are two strokes but I'm very comfortable tuning OS 2 strokes and they are supposed to have a good deal of power. Decisions, decisions....

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

Analysis paralysis is something I know all too well. I know the Extremeflight RC Extra 300 (58 inch) flies great with a Saito 82. But that airplane will finish up between one-half and one pound lighter than this airframe. Again, it all depends on the type of flying you will do with it. The Saito 82 will be fine as long as you’re not expecting to participate in the next Huckfest, and rocket out of a hover. We have a Saito 82 in a 46 size U-Can-Do. Great 3D fun and plenty of vertical, but we're talking about 5.5 pounds.

I think that going 2-stroke is a personal decision, but not an alternative for me for several reasons. I love OS engines and I know first hand that the 75AX is a great one. I've also heard nothing but good things about the new 95 too. But there are factors that must be seriously considered about adding a 2-stroke to this airframe. If the 60-inch AW Extra 300 is anything like the 60-inch AW Edge 540t, then it may not handle the weight difference between the OS and the Saito. The only reason I mentioned the Saito earlier is because my 1.25 weighs only 24.7 oz, which is about the same weight as the OS 91 and 2 ounces lighter than the 75AX. So the Saito 100 will give you a big power to weight advantage at only 21 ounces. Big difference for this size airframe, and the last thing you want to do is start adding lead to the tail. Now consider that the Saito 82, the FS engine they recommend, is only 17.6 ounces. That's like 9 ounces lighter than the 75AX.

The other advantage I find with the 4-stroke is that the bigger prop slows the approach. Oh, one more.... If you ever had a problem with a 2-stroke mounted any way but right-side-up… I’ll say no more, but I’ll refer to page 25 of the assembly manual. I’ll never go inverted or side mounted with a 2-stroke again without an onboard igniter... which is even more weight.

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

Since you mentioned tuning, I forgot to add that I dial in my Saitos the same way as my O.S. engines, and this seems to be the case for most people at our club 190 members. I have four O.S. engines and two Saito engines and I rarely touch the settings on any of them and run all on 15% nitro and 18% oil (normally 2-4 Wildcat). They are both solid performers and I generally use the weight and size to determine which one I'm going to use. I suggest that, after you mount the rest of the electronics, you take your 82, mount the prop and spinner, and tie it to the mount before drilling the holes and test the CG. If it needs more nose weight, go bigger! Speaking of CG, I also found that the AW Edge 540t flew much better after I calculated the CG and rebalanced the plane. I actually had to move it back just a bit from the suggested measurement. There's a website that helps calculate this but I would have to look for it again. There is really no way to tell how different the 300 is from the 540 so I don't even know if it will help until you get a few flights on it. Let me know if you're interested and I'm sure I can find it. Got anymore pics? I'm curious about the color. It's definitely not orange. [:@]

sthill

Thanks for all of your thoughts and guidance. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile and I tend to agree with Downthrust’s approach. I’m going to proceed with the build and will “dry fit� the Saito 82 I already have, check the CG, overall weight and work from there. I already have a very gently used Saito 82 so purchasing another engine is something I would like to avoid if possible!

I’m not a 3D junkie or anything and tend to do more standard aerobatics. I am adding this plane to my collection as it seems like a solid aerobatic plane that will allow me to add a few 3D moves to my routine. I have no immediate plans of hovering this thing 2 inches of the deck, that is for certain!

I will post some more pictures as I progress. I mounted the ailerons, servos and linkages last night and all seems to be going reasonably well. I tried to fit the elevator but it is a really tight fit and it was getting late. I suspect I will have to do a bit of light sanding to get them slide in and out without wrecking the covering.

I’ve included a picture of the fuse under better lighting. It isn’t burnt orange, but it isn’t too bad. I really like the contrast to the midnight blue.

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks for the pics. Looks really sharp! I think I'll save the money for the decals and have someone make up some custom Extra designs. I'm surprised AW would pass up the opportunity to get some branding on that airframe. It would be funny to put someone else's logo on it.

I took your advice and read the 'other' thread on the 'other' forum. The electric setup they are talking about is very similar to what I had in mind but the 3D Hobbyshop fans are right that their 330SP/EP is almost 30 ounces lighter. Although the wingspan is three inches shorter than the AW, the fuse length is one inch longer (57x57). The same electric setup, marginal in the AW, will pull the 3DHS Extra 330 around like a ragdoll. Does anyone know if we can use the Tower discounts on this AW model? I think they won't ship it free because the AW products are drop shipped, but I'm not sure about the other discounts for members. I think I have a 15% coupon in my email inbox. Looks like the 3DHS 3303 is $240 plus about $8 shipping to my zip. The Tower discount would make them about even in price. Now it's me with the tough decision. [&o]

Any help on the TowerHobbies discounts would be appreciated.

sthill

I was curious about adding tower discounts to the Aeroworks planes too. Short story is that it didn’t work for me. Prior to my wife ordering this one I added an Aeroworks plane to my tower basket, added the “$60 off a $300 order� discount and tried to take it to the next screen where the discount would be applied. Needless to say, it wouldn’t apply. There are a few other threads on RCU that talk about this restriction. I have had really good experiences with Tower and was bummed that the coupon didn’t work, but I also understand that it doesn’t make much sense for Aeroworks to undercut their own web sales with Tower discounts.

To be fair, Aeroworks does give you a few decals for the plane. They are the same ones that are shown in the manual and are pretty minimalistic. The nice big “Extra 300� logos in all of the pictures are the separate package. I ordered up a custom package from “bad brad graphics� today for this plane and will be sure to post pictures when I get that far. Brad is an awesome guy and was really willing work with me to make this plane customized for me for a very competitive price.

Good luck with your decision!

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

I think I'm going to wait and see how the 82 ends up performing for you. The only problem I'm having is that I don't think the Skyshark 50 or my 60 equivalent motor, will provide any additional power than the 82, and I suspect that the Saito 100 is the right engine for this plane, considering my experience with the Edge 540t.

I also have a 110 motor setup and I also know that it delivers about the same power as a 1.20 4-stroke since I replaced a Saito 1.25 with it in a H9 Frenzy (8-pounds, all up). I'm turing a APC 16x10E now versus a 16x6 evolution prop with the 125. But for the AW Extra 300, the 110 setup with 8 cells would increase the nose weight by about 6 ounces. I enjoy the Frenzy, so I would rather move my 60 motor to the 300 anyway, but no power equals no fun. I'll keep reading so let us know how the 82 works out.

da Rock

Man I love RCU. Always something pertinent going on.

I just got the same plane. UPS was at the door Wednesday. Figured it'd be backup for my AW 60-90 Extra 260 (which is the same model in red/black/white).

My Extra 260 with OS61FX/pitts muffler weighed 6lb 15oz dry. It's been flying since December along with an AW Yak 54 that was flying about June last year. They both have way more power than IMAC calls for. I don't do 3D so got no idea if either will pull out of a hover HOWEVER...... The Yak was clocked with radar a month or so ago. It was doing 91mph with that powerplant. I usually spin whatever prop shows the best performance (and I got at least a thousand props to test) and it's favorite for the IMAC flying is a Master Airscrew 12x6(3). And that's what did 91mph.

What prop an engine does top speed with isn't usually the best bet for sudden, heavy lifting (pulling out of a hover is an excellent example of "sudden, heavy lifting"). But it shows the power loading rather reliably. I'd bet your car against however much money you got on you that with a bigger diameter and whatever pitch works, the OS61 would pull this sucker out of a hover. Wanna take that bet?

da Rock

As for weights..............

Seeing this thread reminded me that I hadn't done that weighing and mine is sitting with the box open and most of the packing off. Timing is perfect for a weigh-in. Be right back.

da Rock

OK
fuse = 22.1
rudder = 1.2
canopy/hatch = 4.6
empennage = 4.0
cowl = 4.0
legs/pants = 4.0
wings = 18.4
CF spar = 1.9

Looks like the airframe is 60.2 ounces

that's 3 lbs 12.2 ounces

That's real close to what my Extra 260 weighed before radio, servos, tank, plumbing, motor mount, motor, prop, spinner were shoveled on.

I'd bet mine comes out under 7 lbs, and that's a weight a 60 can haul the mail with.... or hover and pull out with the right prop ??

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks for the info, da Rock, and if your weight data is right, it's starting to look very promising. But low and slow is the flying I'm most interested in now, and I have had to retire my 2-strokes because they just can't cut it. I'm sure the 61 (or better yet, the 75 at the same mounting size) would be a great alternative for this airframe, but I prefer the torque of the 4-strokes, and I'll explore an electric alternative whenever possible. I am hoping that my existing electric setup is a good match with this airframe, and that was the reason for my involvement in the thread.

For anyone else considering this airframe for 3D/electric fun, I did confirm on 'another' thread that this plane has been flown at 1200 Watts and 52 Amps with a 16x8e APC prop with virtually the same motor/battery setup I had in mind. The setup is just under 40 ounces without pushrods and servo extensions. Even if you did not include the hardware/incidentals, we're still talking right around 6.5 lbs and that means a very robust 180 Watts/pound. Now the question is the 16 inch diameter. My son flies his Edge 540t with a 14x6 (O.S. 91 4-stroke) but he has tried a 15x6 as well with no clearance issues.

For the electric setup, the math says a 15x10 should output about the same power (Watts), so on paper, everything is a go and what da Rock is saying seems to support that. The 1200 Watt motor is really the 60 2-stroke Horse Power equivalent, but one can turn a 15x10 with authority, and the other will not, but it will go 90 mph. Different strokes, I guess.

da Rock

And your electric strokes really are the way to go 3D. Those motors seem to have lots less limits than any kind of fuel engines have. With enough ESC amperage and battery power they simply draw what they need and you decide that. When propped right, they seem to have no limit what they can do, and if they don't, replace the sucker with one that's almost the same weight but higher power design specs.

And the way LiPos are being developed recently, there's a chance they'll up the performance potential another level.

The only thing that'll limit the pulling power you can get is actually the duration you're willing to accept. The weight in batteries seems to be the real limiting factor we've seen. You can add cells and amp-ability and get almost any power into your model, but what actually stops the up-sizing is you run out of duration.

I'm starting on my Orange Extra in a week or so. Got a H9 Hellcat about half done that puts the O.Extra off. So I'll be watching this thread with extra interest, although it looks identical to my earlier one. whatever.....

friedclutch

Just got mine in today. (Orange/blue) I also have a Saito .82 on the bench. This plane is the replacement for my old worn out FuntanaX50. I was really hoping the weight would be lower on the airframe. The advertised flying weight says 6-6.5lbs. So far, everyone I've seen is at 7lbs 5 oz (on electric power.) I will probably fly the .82 on 20%nitro for awhile. It is looking like the Saito 1.00 is the engine to have for this airframe though.

The quality of the kit is top notch. I am impressed with the little details that they have designed into the plane. It is gorgeous. However, there are some glaring errors here that I find misleading and extremely dissapointing.

1. The Orange color is completely wrong. Advertisement photos showed a burnt orange. I REALLY liked the "burnt" orange. My new plane is bright orange.
2. Where are my custom decals? I want the decals that were pictured with the ads. The add in "Model Airplane News" CLEARLY states "custom decals" in the features column along with the carbon gear. Now I see that they are selling them separate for FIFTY BUCKS. Seriously?
3. 6-6.5 lbs flying weight? No one is getting that weight all up.

We are eagerly awaiting a response from Aeroworks about this. I did not buy a "Chinese Junk" or a "Cheap" airframe. I payed for a "World class Aircraft". I am actually considering sending this back to them for a refund and waiting for Extreme Flight to get some more 58" Extras in. That was the plane contending in my research. Sorry for the rant.

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

The same thing happened with the 60 inch 540T. It came in heavier and needed one and really two engine sizes more than their high-end suggestion. We ended up going one size bigger, and it was okay for scale aerobatics at mostly full throttle, but nothing like the promotional video. It was also obvious that the engine they said was used in the video was not. You can see right away in the first few frames of the video, and if you know the visual difference between a Magnum 91 mounted at 120 degrees and a Saito so big that it needs to be mounted inverted, you will see what I mean. As far as the Funtana X50, this plane will come in about the same weight as the old X90, and the Saito 100 was right for that plane too.

But I will say that the 540T held up very, very well considering how hard the plane has been flown and that's why I was considering another Aeroworks product. Whatever Chinese manufacturer is building these for them should be kept busy by some of the other companies. But the weight trade-off is something important to someone like me that wants a 3D performer with an electric setup and especially from a airframe promoted as electric ready. The consensus says that this plane will end up at about 118 ounces with a 60 equivalent motor setup and that is clearly way over the 3D limit. Too bad, because she sure it pretty.

daveopam

My Feedback: (9)

I would look hard at the Saito 1.15 for this plane.

David

da Rock

The opposite happened with the AeroWorks Yak 54 (60-90). Mine is a half pound lighter than the AW Red/White/Black Extra, which is the advertised weight with the advertised engine.

In actual fact the AeroWorks Extra260 (60-90), which is the same plane as this new Extra300 just with a more detailed cowl and different covering scheme, is decently light for it's size.

My AW Extra260 flies excellent with it's OS61. Not a 3D, but no need to worry about power for pattern flying. And everyone knows to step up a level for 3D.

Don't be pessimistic based on one or two like types. Heck don't be optimistic either. But odds look good that this covering scheme version will come in @ what the previous did. And that was the low weight of the two advertised on the box. We're not talking about a cheap, you don't get what you don't pay for model here.

Dave45

Nice lookin' plane. I'll probably end up with one. I wanted to add my findings on hover pullout with the O.S. 61 fx. I had this motor in a GPExtra that weighed 6 lb 6 oz. I used an APC 13-4 and found it would hover solidly and hover pullout was on the slow side. I'm sure a better 3D prop would yield better results, but this one was fine. I used to hover it about head high right in front of me ad then kick it over into a High alpha knife edge. My guess is the .61 would be a good match for IMAC flying with the AW Extra, but probably wanting in the 3D department. I'll probably use my O.S. .91 fx.

If I may offer a bit more, someone mentioned the Hitec 5645's for this plane. I've had a bunch of those and really like them, because for not money you can equip a 28% plane, confident your servos are up to anything you throw at them. Centering's not the best, and they're kinda slow, but they'll handle a large airplane safely. For this bird I wouldput my money towardbetter centering/speed rather than massive torque. Since I like to 3D on occasion I'd probably want metal gears, but I've had a number of planes in this size in which I used nylon geared servos with give or take 70 oz of torque for years with no problems. As I said, for 3Ding which includes abrupt moves like walls and blenders I'd want metal gears and maybe a bit more torque, but this is a fairly small plane. When couple with solid linkages, much less servo than the 5645 will do the job well.
Bottom line is everyone should fly what they're comfortable with. Just my opinion

Downthrust

My Feedback: (6)

You're right da Rock. Let's not imply or impress that this is not a very good airplane. If it is anything like the 540T, it will be very durable. But there is a considerable disappointment that comes with buying something based on information that turns out to be misleading, at best. I can see this model being a real winner, but I'm glad I engaged in these threads before I pulled the trigger and I have no intentions of buying the 300, considering what I am looking for.

Now maybe the 260 is the airframe I should be looking at instead. It seems that the top hatch is set up well for electric and if it is actually lighter by a half-pound at the same wingspan and $10 less, then perhaps this would be the better choice for what I'm looking for. I'll investigate other threads on that model as not to waste anyone's time here and see if it will do the trick with the electric setup I was hoping to install in the 300. If you can tell me your dry weight with the OS61, it would help start me off.

friedclutch

To Aeroworks' defense, I have not seen better build quality for a glow intended plane. I will post pictures of the build details after I weigh everything up here in a few. My funtana did not hold up well to the extreme vibration that 4 stroke glow puts out. In side by side comparison the Funtana looks like a cheap gimmick. The durability in the design is just not there for the Funtana.

I have a question for everyone though. Who is adding weight for CG balance? Also, how much weight? One last question.. What is the absolute lightest servo I can use for throttle? Many thanks.

On a side note, I can see quite a few areas on the airframe where one could lighten things up. Possibly even a considerable amount. I will know more here upon close inspection and weighing.