suzi87

Finally maidened the 260. Had to add some of my own changes of course. Couldn't run tank down under the wing tube like Dak illustrated though. My moki 2.10 kept pooping out in high angle maneuvers. What I did was took throttle servo tray out and slid tank straight back against wing tube. Now I have tank by cg but don't need pump. Throttle servo is mounted next to rudder servo mid ship. The only thing I was kind of bummed about, was how my moki performed. It just didn't have the umph it usually has... may be because it was about 110 degrees out.[X(] I know, but I finally had a weekend off and darn it I'M FLYING!!!![>:]

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

pump that sucker

suzi87

I hope you guys don't bar me from this thread for asking, but do you think a g62 is out of line for this airframe? I know, I read the part of the box that said "lightweight 50" but i've got the gasoline bug and have got g62 with no home. I plan on getting one of the newer 50's but just can't right now. Maybe I should just keep flying with moki 2.10 before I destroy a perfectly good airplane.

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

suzi87,
I have read every post here and am considering this airplane myself. I'll know more on Monday after speaking with a trusted friend about the wing loading. I feel that this particular airplane for me might be better suited for a lightweight HP 35-45cc engine, but that is for me. IMHO, the G-62 would be way too heavy with the wing loading even with the Ralph Cunningham ignition conversion. Have you thought about one of the Wildhare 28% planes? Perfect for a G-62 as they were initially designed around that engine. I would not expect any great 3D performance with a G-62 though, but they are ballistic with a lightweight 50. Why don't you give Tom Fawcett a call and get the story from the horses mouth? A 28% WH is only $30.00 more and they fly great. www.wildharerc.com good luck with your decision.

Flying Geezer

My Feedback: (14)

The airframe is pretty strong, but you'll be real heavy. Carrier landings.

suzi87

Nice input Olstoney, I like those WH planes. Maybe i'm just being to impatient with motor choice. It's just that i've stepped up the size planes that i'm flying, but i've got motors that are just barely flying them. I picked up the g62 because it was a good deal at the time (Ralph Cunningham ignition). No worries though, i'm eager to find out what your source says.

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

As you probably already know the G-62 with Ralph's conversion is substantially lighter than stock, but by today's standard is still considered heavy. That should allow it to perform better in the platform that I suggested. Tom will be able to advise you better as really what to expect performance wise so that you are not disappointed. That engine by the way if well cared for can last a lifetime. I am looking at the H-9 260 as I like the lines better than the Extra 300. FWIW I just think a 50cc high performance lightweight engine is just a bit too much for this airframe for my likes. That is why I'm following this thread very carefully and meeting a friend with much more gas engine experience than I have to discuss this. The other question is how good a pilot is someone? I have seen exceptional pilots make a bad plane look like it flies well. Give me that same plane and it could wind up a pile of balsa.

BoneDoc

My Feedback: (1)

if you really go gas, I would encourage getting some 40cc engines, like the FPE 2.4, which weighs only 3 lbs AUW including muffler and all. I would say though, that it'd be better to get the hotter ignition (another 80 dollars more). BME 44 is also another good choice, but I didn't get it because they're phasing it out. ZDZ 40 would be a good choice also, but my LHS warned me against getting it.

With my DA50, I rarely ever go above 2/3 throttle. Hovering is around 1/3 throttle, and that's with the linkage setup so that most of the plateu is at the lower range of the curve! I went with a DA for "future-proofing." If/when I loose this airframe, I'd like to go bigger into a "true" 50CC airplane (AUW 15-17 lbs with 1350-1405 Sq of wing area). Another reason is that the DA is so light, that it's as light / lighter than some competitor's 40cc like th Brisson 2.4. Heck, I think it's even lighter than the Zenoah G26.

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

Josh,
My biggest concern is the landing speed with the heavier engine and wing loading. What I mean I guess is folks are flying this airplane with an OS 160FX and Saito 180 due to the weight of the airframe. I agree for me that a 35cc-40cc would be perfect, kinda thinking along the lines of maybe a Roto or something. Then on the other hand if one is going to invest that much in that size engine, might as well get a 50 size engine and a bigger plane

suzi87

Good point olstoney.

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

I have flown several 50cc planes and I really like my Extra 260/zdz 40 combo. Bigger is not always better in this case. This plane will fly slow 3d and harriers better than a lot of the 50cc planes out there. Mine weighs 13lbs 7oz. The people that say this plane won't fly well with a gas engine have never flown one properly set up. Mine flys great, and I would not put a glow engine on it due to the cost of flying it. If you are on the fence about getting one I would say go for it.

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

Hey Eric,
Exactly. By the way were you able to get those black stripes sent off for the "Little Edge" to my Bud in Boca Raton?

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

I have them cut and ready to drop in the mail tomorrow. Anything else I need to throw in there?

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

Nope,
Unless you want to surprise me. He's got the hinge gaps sealed already and is waiting for me to show up in the morning with the rest of the parts.



l

kolarshooter

My Feedback: (1)

This point is why I can't get too excited with this plane as a gasser. It's a TWEENER. It's inbeTWEEN a practical glow-size airframe and a gas-size airframe. At its weight and wing area, I'd have to go glow.

I just got in from flying my Funtana-90 (Saito 150) which has 1108 sq inches of wing and weighs about 10 pounds. The Extra 260 has 1134 sq inches of wing...and some of you guys are weighing in at close to 15 pounds! For you number-crunchers out there, that's only 2% more wing area and as much as 50% more weight! I know, I know...some like to say that the numbers don't matter, etc. Well, if a 5'2" woman weighs 195 pounds, she's fat. In anyone's book, she's fat. You might LIKE that, but it is still the case that she would be well advised to lose some weight.

I really am trying to understand your enthusiasm for your gas set-ups...I honestly am...but wow, some of your wingloading figures seem really high for an airplane destined for aerobatics...particularly 3D stuff (which I find myself moving away from as I'm warming up to precision IMAC kinda stuff.) I also don't want to take away from your enthusiasm you have for your planes, so please don't missunderstand my motivation here.

I have a transportation issue which puts my plane's maximum size at about the size of this Extra 260 (or just a tad larger...well, a tad longer and a smidge taller, actually.) I'd really like to go gas, but I just can't see this plane being the one to do it with.

If I were to go with this plane (and I think seriously that I will), I'd look at a big Saito or YS four stroke glow.

Again, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade...this one just seems a little too small for a gas engine to me.

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

Well I just picked up a BGX 3500 in the box for 200 bucks (I couldn't turn that one down!) So I am gonna see how it does on the 260. The OS 160 is pretty anemic in my book it just doesn't do much for me. So I will keep you guys informed.

olstoney

My Feedback: (19)

If Bryant 330L says that this airframe flies nicely with a ZDZ 40 then I believe him. I for one think that a 50cc engine is just too much. The problem is the wing loading and the limited availability of a really good airframe in the 35cc to 40cc class. I agree with Kolarshooter that this plane is a "Tweener" and is probably best suited for glow like a YS 140-160 or perhaps the new Saito 220, but can you imagine the fuel consumption[:'(]? The OS 160'S are supposed to be very good on fuel from what I have read and maybe the BGX or a large SuperTigre would be a good combo. As I reiterated previously for what you would have to spend for a good 35cc-40cc gasser a 50cc engine is not that much more expensive. I can tell you this much a YS 140FZ with a Performance Specialties muffler weighs about 34 oz. That is less than a 160FX without the muffler, so where do you go from here? You pay your money and take your chances. I think I'll order a 28% Extra Special from Wildhare Tom in the morning, suzi 87 are you getting the drift?

AirWizard

My Feedback: (3)

The best thing to do is fly a 260 that has a DA50 engine.....that way you can make a decision based on personal experience. I really enjoy mine and have let several club members that fly both 3D and IMAC gassers try it and they are surprised at how well it flies.

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

I agree with Dgeorge. I too was surprised at how well it flew after listening to all the naysayers on here. I am convinced that none of them have flown this plane.You can crunch numbers all you want, but until you fly it you don't know how it is going to fly. There are so many things that factor into it the design that you can not throw it all on wingloading and say that it won't fly well. Don't forget who designed this plane. Even though it would be "better" if was a little bigger, he knows what he is doing. There is no possible way to compare this plane to a funtana, no matter what the wingloading is. That is 2 completely different kinds of airplanes with totally different wings. I would like to fly one with a glow setup to see what the difference is, but the way mine flys I would not put one in it. Good luck guys.

kolarshooter

My Feedback: (1)

I won't disagree with you. However, imagine what the plane would feel like if it was 5-15% lighter with similar power (in terms of power required to comfortably perform the manouvers you are flying.)

I don't doubt that you and your friends enjoy your Extra 260. I'm not looking at this with any emotional investment...just looking at the wingloading of planes which I think are comfortable to fly.

Besides, why would they be "surprised at how well it flies"??? Because it's so heavy?

I'm not picking a fight, rather, I'm looking at wingloading of planes which are easy to fly well (EI: "That plane makes me look good!") versus planes which .... well, we've all flown heavy planes at some point. A friend of mine at the club flys a GP PW with a newly installed DA50. Great engine. Poor match up (in my opinion.) Power? yup. Easy to start? yup. Sounds great? yup. No "slime"? yup. But it flys "heavy".

GP PW:
Wingspan: 78 in (1980mm)
Wing Area: 1157 sq in (74.6 sq dm2)
Wing Loading: 31 oz/sq ft (94.6 g/sq dm2)
Weight: 14-16 lb (6.35 Â* 7.26k)g
(From GP website.)

thedak

My Feedback: (21)

Here is my opinion:


I have flown my buddies 260 with a DA50. It has a sick amount of power. Almost to much. Very nice flying plane. Weighs 14lbs 10ozs. He has also flown my plane. I'm at 11lbs 13.25ozs with an OS 1.6FX. We both agree that my plane over-all flies better. I don't have the crazy pull out power of the DA but I can hover all day, as low as I want and not have to worry about power. (if that sounds right). Off power my plane will float all day. Harriers are much more stable and show NO wing rock on my plane, than his. If you can get your 260 under 12lbs there is no need for go gas an OS 1.6FX is plenty. He told me if he could do it over again he would copy my set up. I did lighten the plane up by cuting the floor of the hatch out, lightened spinner backplate, Great Planes engine mount, Dave Brown 3" superlite wheels and a Fromeco Li-ion. I balance with a pull-pull right at 5 1/8" with everything as far forward as possible. I have my li-ion on the side of the engine box and the Rx inside the engine box. My tank is under the wingtube. I run a Cline Regulator.

Later
Matt

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

I don't even understand how a F-90 got thrown into this thread it is comparing apples to oranges! those 2 planes aren't even in the same ballpark no matter what the wingloading numbers are.

thedak

My Feedback: (21)

Quick question. The guys using a pull-pull set on your 260, do you get a fair amount of slack in the wire at full deflection? (on the nonpulling side)

Thanks

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

I get a little slack. I understand there shouldn't be any but I havn't had any problems.

kolarshooter

My Feedback: (1)

Would an "Edge" be in the ballpark? Or a Staudacher? Giles? Ultimate? Cap? I'm just curious what ball park we're in.

The F-90 has swept leading and trailing edges, a long tail moment, etc. like en Extra (and some others mentioned above.) I'll admit that it does probably have a thicker airfoil than many listed above and a longer chord, this is likely true. However, I'll contend that the most significant difference in flight characteristics between the F-90 and all the planes listed above (in the 70-80 inch size range) is the lightweight construction (which equals light wingloading.)

The F-90 fuselage is taller than that of the full-scale Katana, and as such is certainly out of the 10% scale margin, but the F-90 isn't much less "Scale" than lots of popular Edges, Caps and Extras. (That Katana's kinda homely, ain't it!)