lovinero

yust as the titel says will a Brillelli 46 GT will it be sufisiente for a Great planes Patty Wag staff?? i am think of bying that engine and wood like to hear your coments and recomendations on what engine is bes for that plane

thanks in advance for loking

att
Alexis M

karolh

The Great Planes and Midwest Extra wood kits are pretty much the same size, and my Midwest Extra flies great with a Zenoah G45. Using the Brillelli 46 which is reported as being much lighter and just as powerful as the G45 should make for a very good combination.

Karol

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

The 46 will be MORE than sufficient.

lovinero

thanks for the infoo

dose any body have any fligth report on this engine and plane combo?

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

I had that combo and it flew very well. More power than you could need. Will hover around 1/2 throttle.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

I have seen Patties with this weight motor in the 15.5 to 17 pound range. --Maybe the newer Patties are lighter? In this weight range I would opt for the B50 over the B46 if I had in mind 3D.

altavillan

My Feedback: (1)

I vote for the Brilleli. If it's the ECHO engine. More than enough power. lightest in it's class. Bolts into standard G.P. glass filled motor mount. Huge weight savings alone right there. Fantasticaly smooth (Arnold lingo) I have one I converted myself. A 50 would be major overkill. And heavier.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

The B46 is a Poulan Pro and the B50 is the Echo. The B50 weighs ~+2 to 3oz.

altavillan

My Feedback: (1)

Rats!

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Mine was around 15.25 with the prototpe of the B60 on it. I had a CF wing tube and spinner as well as light NoBS single packs.

You can do this plane between 15-16 with the 46. Will the 50 have more power? Sure... but not neccessary unless you like overpowered planes.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

A 50 is overpowered with a 16 pound plane for 3D?[&:]

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Well I am expecting it to come closer to 15 pounds. By today's stands no a 50 in a 16 pound plane is about the norm but it's not needed.

I was orig going to use a 3w50 I had laying around but changed plans and then had to put a bunch of extra epoxy and a new front pate on the firewall to cover up the hole I cut for the 3w... then I ran it out of gas once and broke a broke / firewall. I had a ton of repair weight up front on it and it still was under 15.5 pounds.

If dont right they can be right around 15 pounds nps... there is a $120 difference in cost between the 46 and the 50 and the extra power is not needed to do 3D. Will the 50 fly it? Sure and you will have that much extra power... but it's not needed.

46 will be norm out of a hover.. that 50 will be rocket out of hover. Depends what you want...

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

The problem with a 46 to 50cc engine on the GP Patty is that the final weight of the plane is greatly influenced by the engine selected. It would be a 13 to 13-1/2 pound plane when using an OS 1.60. That's why engine choice in planes of this size, and the size of the Goldberg Ultimate the poster asked about in another post, is critical to the flight performance of the plane.

A 46 or 50cc engine will indeed fly them, but the wing loading was increased a minimum of two pounds after adding a gas engine. A gasser weighs more than a comparably sized glow engine by itself, then you have to add the additional weight of an ignition system, battery, and switch. Let's toss the size of the required gas tank aside for this discussion. The plane was designed around a lower final weight and has the wing area to fly the design weight quite well. Adding a heavier engine increases the wing loading, requiring that the plane be flown faster to perform the same maneuvers. It also places more weight in the nose that has to be offset to the tail.

I've seen how the Patty can become a very "snappy" plane with the addition of a gas engine where it is not with a lighter engine. One needs to strike a balance with weight and wing area for the best performance. Unfortunately the Patty and many others are right at the break point where a gas engine is too much weight and the correct sized glow engine is too expensive to operate. I won't be the one to say that using gas engines of 46-50cc should not be used, but there may be better choices with smaller and lighter engines to do the job. My personal opinion would be to save the 50cc engine for a plane that was designed for it and be much better rewarded in performance by doing so.

karolh

Amen to that. You guys should heed SS's statement well, as they are words of wisdom backed up by tons of experience talking.

I once saw a fellow at our club replace a lightweight 40 gas motor in a Midwest Extra with a G62. Sure the model had unlimited everything, but that engine changed the plane from a really nice flying model into a brick with wings.

Karol

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

There is a point where the trade off between a gas and glow engine is self defeating, and this is one of them.

karolh

I do agree, but sometimes you can get lucky and beat the odds, depending on the situation in question. My first dabble into gas was with a Goldberg Extra powered by a G23. Though warned that it was a bad idea by many, I pressed on with the conversion.

With the stock gas engine the model weighed a tad over 11 lbs, an increase of 2.5 lbs from it's glow days with a ST 90. The model stiil flew fairly well but the extra weight took it's toll and robbed the model of some of it's original excellent flying manners.

All that changed when Ralph did his EI magic on the engine and it became 14oz. lighter, and with 8 oz of lead ballast removed from the rear and weighting 10 lbs, the Extra is once again a really great flying model.....lucky me I guess.

Karol

seagull extra

My Feedback: (12)

I believe the brillelli will be a good choice. I have just finished building my wagstaff with a DL 50 which I believe is about the same weight as the brillelli and my ready to fly weight is 14.75 lbs with a single reciever pack and 15lbs even with redundant switch and pack. I did a few simple things to keep the weight down and this saved me close to a lb. Just for comparison I have the May issue of Fly Rc magazine and they tested the aerowarks extra 260 and it weighed 16lbs 4oz with a da and had 1270sq" my patty is 1180sq' and weighs 15lbs even, considering the Patty is fully sheeted and a five year old ARF I think it does very well. I think it got a bad rap for being heavy because people were installing everything but the kitchen sink in it and coming out with a 17 to 18lb tank when it came out.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Just don't complain if it snaps out of a tight loop or turn and needs to land at a high speed or it will tip stall. That all comes from too much weight for the wing area and is owner induced. Those few extra inches in wing area and span make a tremendous difference in flight. We've heard all the complaints far too many times before.

seagull extra

My Feedback: (12)

Silversurfer do the math. The aeroworks extra 260 which is a modern fairly state of art 50cc size extra has a wing loading of 29.5oz per sq. ft. and my Patty has a wing loading of 29.3oz per sq. ft. I'm not saying I believe my Patty will fly quite as good as the areoworks but it is definatly in the proper size range for a light weight gasser. You were also off by about a pound on your weight estimate for the Patty with a OS 1.60 . it is a 14 to 14.5lb plane with the 1.60 and your take-off weight is only about 1/2 lb lighter plus your spinning a 18" instead of a 22" prop. This plane will perform much better with light weight gas engine like the 46cc the original poster was asking about.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

No probs, go fly.

As you said, mine was an estimate. I only watch others fly gassers that small and don't do it myself. The results to date have left me less than enthusiatic. There's more to the equation than just the wing loading. Wing root chord, chord thickness, shape of leading egde, wing taper, fuselage shape, rudder height and area. Location and size of horizontal stabs. All of it and more factors into the final equation. I assure you that I could assemble a Patty at less than the manufacturers suggested final weight.

The Aeroworks would not be high on my list of choices either if you really wanted to know. That's another than comes in too heavy. Mostly due to the size of the engine used.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

My Uncle has a GP patty. It has of all motors a Fuj 84cc twin. I is very close to 20 pounds. I has been flown XXX's of flights with 2.1glow @~17 pounds for the last 5 years before he went to this motor. Can you say lead sled? [sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif]

lovinero

changing the tread abit whic Plane wood be agood choice for a brillelli 46 Gt

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Well I can tell you with several hundered flights on my old Patty at around 15 pounds it flys well. You must keep it close to 15 pounds though. I had it up to 16.5 in the beginning because of dual large batteries heavy spinner and overall heavy building. After I progressed with my flying style I decided to put the effort in to lighten it. At 15.25 it flew way better ( yes lighter always flies better).

I found mine to land fairly slow and wasn't too snappy unless you really got on the stick with med. rates. They do very nice KE and fly precision fairly well.

These points aside-----

If you don't already have one, for the same money you can buy a better plane that will fly way better. For example you can get into a WildHare Extra 84" for $399. A lot more wingarea and an overall better flying plane. I heard weights of 15.5 pounds stock with a DA 50. The B46 is 3/4 pound lighter RTF with the light muffler which means you should be able to hit 15 pounds. Add a CF wing tube and spinner and you will be sub 15 which would be an awesome flying plane.

I have owned the Edge, the Yak, and currently have a Cap... seen the old Extra fly many times and it flies just as good as the others. For $400 I would be getting that over a PAtty.

maddieone

My Feedback: (2)

Okaaaay, my turn. I have been into gasers for a number of years and you want to hear something surprising, mine are Quadra 42's and US Engines 41's. They are both the same type of engine. Quadra is magneto and US is CD.

I have the GP Patty and she weighs in at 15.10 pounds dry. The engine is the US 41. The plane flys really great, is stable and floats in for landings. I fly the normal 'airplane' style, don't do 3D and if you want to hover get a helicopter.

I have just finished the WM extra 300S and have the Quadra in her nose. Came in a little over 14.5 pounds. Have not flown her yet but she should also do well on the 42 as she is lighter than Patty.

Take this for what it is worth and good luck to you.

Eagle Flyer

My Feedback: (84)

I have a Poulan 46 in mine. On Scotts web site. He set it up. And of all things it runs on mag. Yup, mag! And I love it. I can abort a landing at the very last moment and pull right up. Why mag? Every single gasser I have owned in the past with ignition systems has experienced interference at one time or another. Don't even bother with the usual did you do this and that because yes I did. Strange, cause in every instance where I switched back to mag the interference went away. So now I am am a mag man and also a believer in spring starters. Sure I could hand start them but the spring is soooooo easy it doesn't even come close. Weight, well I don't do any real fancy stuff. More of an advanced Sunday flyer.