QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
03-03-2005, 09:32 PM
#1
QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
I am going to replace the DA-50 in my Comp-Arf 2.3 cause I want a little more umph! Tired of waiting for anything from DA so I am looking at the 3W-75. What is the deal with the QS series other than getting a pretty read cylinder head and costing about $250 more. Could someone please enlighten me as to what upgrades you get in the QS series over the stock and whether or not they feel the $ is well spent?
Thank You
Paul
Thank You
Paul
03-03-2005, 10:52 PM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Fayetteville,
AR
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
I do not own one, but I know what they do. I have a local flyer/friend that is sponsored by 3W/Cactus Aviation. The QS series are lighter and are more powerful. They tweak the porting and timing and etc. They are the cream of the 3W crop. They are much lighter than the classic line.
Norman Ross
Norman Ross
03-04-2005, 12:30 PM
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bradenton , FL
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
Now now John... he asked about 3W, not ZDZ !
I have a 3w-75i in my Columbo Anderson it is a rocket ship, the engine runs truly outstanding. I have other 3Ws and a DA 50 too, they all are great with no issues at all after hundreds of flights. They each have their strong points and their quirks.
The QS series is a bit lighter but not enough to notice - what you are paying for is additional bench tuning and optimal porting and timing profiles. There is some machine work that is done for porting that improves power as well to match the more aggressive timing. You also run 91 octane as a result.
That said, and I am a 3W guy - I think the 3W-75 anything would be too heavy in that plane and would kill its wing loading! You would almost double the weight up front over the DA50 you have now. You would have more power but the plane would handle like crap at high alpha.
I would put a tuned pipe on the DA50. If you already have that or don't want to mess with it - go with the MVVS 58 or (Ok John, now you can say "I told you so".. ) the ZDZ 80 as it is lighter and puts out the most power for its size and weight. The 80 may be too much though. I still think is a full pound heavier than the DA 50. I have seen the MVVS on a 2.3 it is a rocket. The MVVS has a TON of power, more than most 60s and almost as much as a 75. It weighs about what the DA50 weighs and runs just as good.
When I was looking for a plane for my 3W-75i I was considering the Comp-Arf 2.3 ... one of the reps talked me out of it because of the weight of the engine.. that should tell you something.
Anyway, good luck with your selection!
DP
I have a 3w-75i in my Columbo Anderson it is a rocket ship, the engine runs truly outstanding. I have other 3Ws and a DA 50 too, they all are great with no issues at all after hundreds of flights. They each have their strong points and their quirks.
The QS series is a bit lighter but not enough to notice - what you are paying for is additional bench tuning and optimal porting and timing profiles. There is some machine work that is done for porting that improves power as well to match the more aggressive timing. You also run 91 octane as a result.
That said, and I am a 3W guy - I think the 3W-75 anything would be too heavy in that plane and would kill its wing loading! You would almost double the weight up front over the DA50 you have now. You would have more power but the plane would handle like crap at high alpha.
I would put a tuned pipe on the DA50. If you already have that or don't want to mess with it - go with the MVVS 58 or (Ok John, now you can say "I told you so".. ) the ZDZ 80 as it is lighter and puts out the most power for its size and weight. The 80 may be too much though. I still think is a full pound heavier than the DA 50. I have seen the MVVS on a 2.3 it is a rocket. The MVVS has a TON of power, more than most 60s and almost as much as a 75. It weighs about what the DA50 weighs and runs just as good.
When I was looking for a plane for my 3W-75i I was considering the Comp-Arf 2.3 ... one of the reps talked me out of it because of the weight of the engine.. that should tell you something.
Anyway, good luck with your selection!
DP
dp
03-04-2005, 04:11 PM
#6
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NWest,
IN
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
I have a friend flying a 2.3 Extra with the ZDZ-80. It is about as over-powered as one could describe. It is a gas to watch. If I did the 2.3, I would have to consider this combo.[X(] walt
03-05-2005, 09:19 AM
#7
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
Desertpig:
To bad your Comp-Arf dealor talked you out of the 2.3 for your 3W75I. You would have loved it. Talk about flying weight, my buddy has one with a BME105 twin, smoke, dual airleron servos, dual rudder servos, etc. I have flown it and I do notice a little difference but not much as the plane handles the extra wing loading extemely well.
By the way, I do have a pipe on the DA-50. The amount of power it puts out with the pipe is impressive but lacks the extra punch I like when close to the ground. I was thinking about the MVVS 58. The key to your response is "almost" as much as a 75. Don't you think the piped DA-50 would put out about the same as a MVVS 58 on a stock muffler?
I have seen this plane fly with the ZDZ80 and it is a good combo. I hessitate to go this way because of the service problems I had with the importer on a couple other engines I had (not ZDZ).
Is the difference in weight between the 3W75 and the ZDZ80 that much?
To bad your Comp-Arf dealor talked you out of the 2.3 for your 3W75I. You would have loved it. Talk about flying weight, my buddy has one with a BME105 twin, smoke, dual airleron servos, dual rudder servos, etc. I have flown it and I do notice a little difference but not much as the plane handles the extra wing loading extemely well.
By the way, I do have a pipe on the DA-50. The amount of power it puts out with the pipe is impressive but lacks the extra punch I like when close to the ground. I was thinking about the MVVS 58. The key to your response is "almost" as much as a 75. Don't you think the piped DA-50 would put out about the same as a MVVS 58 on a stock muffler?
I have seen this plane fly with the ZDZ80 and it is a good combo. I hessitate to go this way because of the service problems I had with the importer on a couple other engines I had (not ZDZ).
Is the difference in weight between the 3W75 and the ZDZ80 that much?
03-05-2005, 09:37 AM
#8
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
Well, I checked Catus Aviation's web site again. It lists the 3W75 standard and the QS75 at 5.25lbs each. They are both rated at 7.5 HP. That is why I started this thread, as I wondered what the advantage is on the QS series. I assume that the 5.25lbs is bare engine but it does not say.
The ZDZ 80 is listed at 4.2lbs bare engine and 8.5HP.
AHHHH the light comes one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Paul
The ZDZ 80 is listed at 4.2lbs bare engine and 8.5HP.
AHHHH the light comes one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Paul
03-05-2005, 01:18 PM
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bradenton , FL
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
The side mounted carb 3W sucks, I wouldn't recommend it. I always use rear mount carb setups.. a lot more power and less of a hassle to install.
DP
DP
03-05-2005, 01:27 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (61)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bradenton , FL
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
ORIGINAL: Paul Eagon
Desertpig:
To bad your Comp-Arf dealor talked you out of the 2.3 for your 3W75I. You would have loved it. Talk about flying weight, my buddy has one with a BME105 twin, smoke, dual airleron servos, dual rudder servos, etc. I have flown it and I do notice a little difference but not much as the plane handles the extra wing loading extemely well.
By the way, I do have a pipe on the DA-50. The amount of power it puts out with the pipe is impressive but lacks the extra punch I like when close to the ground. I was thinking about the MVVS 58. The key to your response is "almost" as much as a 75. Don't you think the piped DA-50 would put out about the same as a MVVS 58 on a stock muffler?
I have seen this plane fly with the ZDZ80 and it is a good combo. I hessitate to go this way because of the service problems I had with the importer on a couple other engines I had (not ZDZ).
Is the difference in weight between the 3W75 and the ZDZ80 that much?
Desertpig:
To bad your Comp-Arf dealor talked you out of the 2.3 for your 3W75I. You would have loved it. Talk about flying weight, my buddy has one with a BME105 twin, smoke, dual airleron servos, dual rudder servos, etc. I have flown it and I do notice a little difference but not much as the plane handles the extra wing loading extemely well.
By the way, I do have a pipe on the DA-50. The amount of power it puts out with the pipe is impressive but lacks the extra punch I like when close to the ground. I was thinking about the MVVS 58. The key to your response is "almost" as much as a 75. Don't you think the piped DA-50 would put out about the same as a MVVS 58 on a stock muffler?
I have seen this plane fly with the ZDZ80 and it is a good combo. I hessitate to go this way because of the service problems I had with the importer on a couple other engines I had (not ZDZ).
Is the difference in weight between the 3W75 and the ZDZ80 that much?
Hey paul, I'de have to see the BME 105 on a 2.3 to believe it. you sure it wasn't a 2.6? The standard engine for a 2.6 is the 100. I can't even see the DA100 fitting in the cowl of the 2.3
I think the MVVS still has more power than a DA on pipe but I can't be sure since this is such a new engine. If you believe the specs it has more power than the 3W -75i which I have a hard time believing. The C-Arf that I saw on the MVVS looked like it had a ZDZ 80 in it .. it flew amazingly well.
I would not hesitate to get the ZDZ 80, the service from RCS has improved a lot over the past year and the 80 is a very good engine. I just put two of them in two H9 Extras.. a little over 20 pounds each.. power to weight a good 2:1 Engines have been rock solid and no deadsticks.
The ZDZ 80 makes 15-20% more power than the 3W and weighs a good pound less. On a plane that balances with a DA50 that will be important.
I did not use the 3W-75 on the Comp-ARF 2.3 because I did not want 25% of the planes gross weight in the nose. The pound less on the ZDZ makes a big diff.
One last question - what kind of pipe are you using?? Is the KS tuned pipe or is a can? The KS is what makes the power.
DP
03-06-2005, 10:25 AM
#12
RE: QS QUESTION TO YOU 3W GUYS!
DP
Yes, I know it is a 2.3 because I built it for the guy. Spark plugs only stick out about 1/4" and it actually stuffed in very well. I just flew it again yesterday and am amazed how well the plane handles the extra weight. Since it has all the gear required, personally, I would have put it in a 2.6.
My 2.3 with the DA-50 is with the KS tuned pipe. Every where I fly it, everyone is amazed at the power it puts out. I would estimate a 1 1/2 to 1 power\weight ratio. Just not quite enough if you get into trouble close to the ground. Otherwise, awesome combo.
You have to go to extreme measures when building the 2.3 with the DA-50 as the plane is designed for a heavier engine. All batteries and throttle servos must go in the motor dome. Additionally, the rudder servo must go in front of the tank. Needless to say, this takes some serious pre-planning. When you look in my canopy, all you see is the pipe and the receiver.
The 2.3 I buildt with the BME102 had all radio gear mounted in traditional locations. To balance this plane at the rearward recommended CG required placement of the receiver and isolator battery just behind the rear of the canopy. Exactly where the batteries are for my 2.6. So, you can see, that engine weight is not a major factor for this plane, just like the 2.6.
Will spend so time today and check out the MVVS 58, heard they were hard to get. Paticularly interested in seeing if they offer a header pipe that would like up with the KS pipe already installed in the plane. Thanks for all your good advise.
Paul
Yes, I know it is a 2.3 because I built it for the guy. Spark plugs only stick out about 1/4" and it actually stuffed in very well. I just flew it again yesterday and am amazed how well the plane handles the extra weight. Since it has all the gear required, personally, I would have put it in a 2.6.
My 2.3 with the DA-50 is with the KS tuned pipe. Every where I fly it, everyone is amazed at the power it puts out. I would estimate a 1 1/2 to 1 power\weight ratio. Just not quite enough if you get into trouble close to the ground. Otherwise, awesome combo.
You have to go to extreme measures when building the 2.3 with the DA-50 as the plane is designed for a heavier engine. All batteries and throttle servos must go in the motor dome. Additionally, the rudder servo must go in front of the tank. Needless to say, this takes some serious pre-planning. When you look in my canopy, all you see is the pipe and the receiver.
The 2.3 I buildt with the BME102 had all radio gear mounted in traditional locations. To balance this plane at the rearward recommended CG required placement of the receiver and isolator battery just behind the rear of the canopy. Exactly where the batteries are for my 2.6. So, you can see, that engine weight is not a major factor for this plane, just like the 2.6.
Will spend so time today and check out the MVVS 58, heard they were hard to get. Paticularly interested in seeing if they offer a header pipe that would like up with the KS pipe already installed in the plane. Thanks for all your good advise.
Paul
