gbfan

My Feedback: (3)

Hey guys...

Who can answer this one correctly ???
G62 is 62 cc and weighs 5 .125 lbs or 82 oz i dont think g62 has electronic ignition

DL is 50cc and weighs under 3.5 lbs or 55 oz

any ideas here

I am thinking of putting my new DL 50 into a 1/3 scale Lanier laser
many people have used a G62 and they say it is good on power , not unlimited vertical but enough
I understand more power is better to a point . I have seen people using 75cc and 80cc but I only have this DL 50
Plane should weigh under 20lbs
Thanks David

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

Before I commit to an answer, are you talking the early DL 50 and not the later DLE55?

CF105

You are correct, the G62 does not have electronic ignition. Uses magnetos.

gbfan

My Feedback: (3)

This DL 50 has electronic ignition but it is new , but old stock ... I dont know how old
DL 50 stamped on engine

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

For that airplane, I would go with the G-62 and without a second thought.

Frankly they are very similar in power output but the older DL engines were not known for quality and reliability .... though many were quite good. DL(E) has come a very long way since those early engines. The DL may favor a slightly larger diameter prop than the G-62 as it is more of a torque engine than the G-62 that will be happier turning a slightly shorter diameter prop at a higher RPM. The G-62 will hands down out live the DL.

Unless the Lanier airframe was made around a rear intake engine, the firewall location will probably favor the G-62 so the installation should be a bit easier. I've flown the Lanier Laser quite a bit with a G-62 and it is a very pleasant combination. Not screaming performance but plenty adequate. I think you will enjoy the combination.

Now if you had a DLE 55, I would probably recommend that engine.

kmeyers

G62 is a brute. The DL (those mounting lugs look like the new bigger version) is a 22 x 8 prop @ ~ 7200 which the G62 would be 24 inch.

Is the DL enough for your Laser? Yes for standard aerobatic flying ( about 30 lbs of thrust). No for unlimited vertical punch.

gbfan

My Feedback: (3)

Hey Ken..

I am in Tri village Thanks for answering my thread I will see you at the field.
David D

sensei

It really depends on the weight of the airplane if it is going to have unlimited vertical or not. Here are pictures of mine with a DA 50cc finished out at 15 lbs. 8 ozs. and the vertical is insane...



Bob

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

With your talent for building light weight airframes, I think it would be a safe bet that few others could build the old Lanier plane to that weight. Yes it would perform like a rocket ship at that weight. Regardless, either of the OP's engines will give acceptable performance and typical for when the plane was designed.

STUKA BARRY

On a Ziroli Stuka, both weighing 30lbs, the G-62 will walk away from a DL-50 both swinging Mezjlik 22X10 three bladed props. I cant say what it will do in an aerobatic plane, I dont fly them, but I can tell you about a dirty warbird, and the Stuka is by far the dirtiest with huge spatz, divebrakes, air siren, bomb, and flight controls that hang below the wing, its a drag queen, but the G-62 gets her movin and shakin. My advice would be the G-62, and Yes, it can be converted to RcExcell ignition which will knock off some weight.

TimD.

My Feedback: (207)

If you do not like the G-62 get a Z-62 it is the electronic ignition version. Lighter in weight as well.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

My G62 has a CH ignition that uses the original G62 coil.

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

Again, having flown both engines, they are so different in performance characteristics it is almost impossible to compare them. Again though, for the OP and his airframe, I would recommend the Zenoah.

sensei

Hello David,

A G-62 is a very reliable engine that has been around for many years, and I have owned and flown my share of them. My only problem with them today is they are just too heavy, IMO. I have also flown and seen many Lanier 1/3 scale Laser 200s that weighed in the 22-25 lb. range and unless this airplanes was placed on some sort of diet, I see no reason why this one will be to much lighter, Bubba did not design light weight airframes or use lightweight wood in his kits. Don't get me wrong; I loved building his kits and certainly wish they were still around, but that is another story. You are asking for opinions so here is mine, I would lighten this aerobatic airframe as much as you are comfortable with, sell that DL-50cc POS, again my opinion, save and get yourself a DA-50cc or DA-60cc, they are powerful, light and possess some of the best service backing them in the business. Just keep one thing in mind, horsepower in not an antidote for high wing loading's and never will be.

Bob

Tony Hallo

Did happen to post a build anywhere for this plane?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

+1

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

If the airplane is already built, it might be very difficult to reduce its overall weight by any significant amount. Likewise, most of the typical Lanier Lasers I've seen and flown required a heavier engine just to balance them. I certainly agree that putting the airplane on a diet and using a lighter engine is desirable, I'm just not sure it is possible in this case.

If the plane hasn't been built yet, then we're on the same page as the builder can pretty much build the plane as he wants it.

I still have one of those planes hanging in my garage and it balanced perfectly (a bit aft for some people) with a FPE 4.2 on the nose. Built by an old school builder, it flew very well and typical of some of the better planes from the time it was built.

kmeyers

So lets make this easy, the plane is built, the DL 50 is bought and in hand. Put the DL 50 in the nose with 2-3 pounds of lead and fly the plane.

It will have performance like a warbird. It will take an extra 30 feet to get into the air. It will land at a speed faster than today's modern designs.

So what. It will be fine to fly and a great learning experience.

This concludes : IMHO

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

That would certainly work and I doubt he would need that much extra nose weight. Performance at all speeds would probably be better than some might expect. If flown like that Laser was designed to be flown, it won't disappoint.

If the DL is one of the later ones and it appears to be with the thicker lugs, it should hang in there for quite awhile.

sensei

Hello Tony,

I Never did a build thread on my Laser as I have done on several others.

Bob

sensei

I have taken two ARFs that I documented, stripped the covering and lighten them, one was a 35% H9 Extra 260 weighing in at 29 lbs. in stock configuration as most all do, my lightened configuration came in at 22 lbs.13 ozs. ready to fly. The other was a 40% SD Models Yak with a 131" wingspan weighing in at 54 lbs. as most did in stock configuration and some as much as 59 lbs. The one I lightened for a flying buddy came in at 36 lbs. ready to fly. There are threads on FG showing the entire lightening processes and supporting flight videos for both aircraft. Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.

Bob

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

I never suggested It couldn't be done. I have stripped planes myself and put them on a diet. One was a very heavy Lanier Extra built by a friend. Right now, I'm putting a Ziroli Skyraider on a diet so I understand the process. But in a thread started by someone that seems fairly new to this segment of the hobby, I doubt that a strip, modify and recover would be likely. Anyway, that is the direction I took with my answers. That is, trying to be practical with what he has to work with.

Tony Hallo

Thanks for the reply

sensei

No you didn't suggest it couldn't be done, you simply implied it's most likely a waste of time by stating (If the airplane is already built, it might be very difficult to reduce its overall weight by any significant amount in your post 17). gbfan states in his profile he is a 15 year veteran at building with 14 years of piloting skills. That said I think he is most likely more than ready to take on a simple lightening project like this aerobatic platform if he so desires. You also stated you are trying to be practical with what he has to work with. Well you may see his Laser as a lost cause so it's just fine to place a heavier engine and as much lead as needed to balance, but I see what he has to work with as a diamond in the rough, just the same as many of us feel when we see an old car or motorcycle. My response to you being practical is that there is nothing practical about this hobby in the first place, we do this because it is what we love to do. I have spent a good number of years and countless hours documenting building and lightening techniques in several forums because I love to share with others what I have learned over the last 53 years in this hobby.That by definition was impractical and a waste of time as well. Anyway debating with a couple of old goats (I can say that cuz I am an old goat too) on why we should or should not settle for ordinary when extraordinary is available is just plain good old fun...

Happy Flying,

Bob

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

Frankly Bob, I'm, thinking we think more alike than we disagree. The nature of communicating in a forum when all the facts aren't known sometimes tends to head people in different directions, even when they agree for the most part. Oh well ....

Again, I based my responses on the OP's questions and comments regarding two fairly common engines that most people, who have been around awhile, have a fair amount of knowledge. Only he can tell us his final plans for the plane and about his final choice of engines, if he so chooses.

Regarding my old Laser, it may be headed to the chopping block after I complete the Skyraider project. The wings on this Laser are very heavy and the only way I see to lighten them is by building new ones. Though thinking about things that are practical or not, frankly it would be easier to build a new airplane than to take on this particular project. It was build by an old friend so that tempers my judgement a bit. I would like him to see it again, looking like new, before he passes one day.

Best Wishes,

Roger