Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

So using your equation a 50cc plane should be at 13.33 lbs? Not hardly.

Again it's subjective. Up until the Extreme Flight 87" Yak, there WEREN'T any real sub 16 lb 50cc airframes.

The 50cc response from many manufacturers was either 18 lbs+ on 1400+ sq in... or Dinking down the airframe/wingarea like the H9 Extra 260 and PA Edge 540...

Over the past year we've seen several good sub 17 and even some sub 16 lb models come to market... quite nice... so there is a lot to choose from.

I keep hearing 18.5 lbs is too heavy for a 50cc to 3D... yet the video shows VERY CLEARLY it is not... and that is with a tuned pipe and 3/4 extra weight.

Some may have the personal desire for more power, more pullout, more power to weight... and by all means have at it... The plane will take more weight.

But for many the 50cc-60cc option is the better choice... trading a little power for better wingloading...

THe plane in the video pulls out of a hover pretty decently... it knife edge loops very nicely thanks to that extra "drag" and authoritative rudder, it harriers very well and generally appears VERY stable.

For every person that doesn't own one and says it's not enough.... there will be a hundred that DO own one and says it rocks... in my book majority rules when applying a "rating" to something.

Tor

Doug, I am actually saying that this model looks like it flies very light. I don't know why you don't understand that desired power may differ from person to person. Even futher, I don't know why you want to do any "anti-TORanything". Instead try to realise and respect that people have different oppinions.

Chris, I wrote this in the other thread aswell. Primarily, t seems like is loses momentum after the vertical snaps, and is having a hardtime regaining. I would imagine it would have a hard time doing multiple vertical snaps?

I don't know why people make such a fuzz about this, I think it looks like an excellent flying model and stunning looks too. To say that it is too heavy is rubbish when looking at the videos - it's a floater! Those who are contempt with a little less power than on the 80-85" offerings may go for 50cc with or without a pipe. And those (like myself) that desire a little more may go for 60 to 80cc.

As I currently have no gassers I am considering this model for the old ZDZ 80 (lighter than the super). I think that the Evolution 58 may be a good choice aswell, but since the ZDZ is about the same weight, why not get the extra power?

Capiche

Problem is that since the advent of shock fliers and aero park flyers on brushless motors etc, the term 3D in the context of IC has become distorted.

People who have flown these elec models and then get a biggy are looking for a biggy version of the leccy.

Those of us that grew up before the shocky came along, and those of us with F3A blood too, recognise that achieving shocky type power to weight is not the be all and end all....

Sure if you want to prop hang and tumble all day but there is more to that in AA than this - like flying a straight smooth train track line for example !

Yak Man

My Feedback: (1)

Tor,
I can guarantee that you would be more than happy with any Extreme Flight model and the way it flies.
The interrpertation of how the plane pulls out of a hover is atmost a personal preference.
I presently own a EF 87" Yak and have dreamed of the day when EF would offer a new plane to the public. That day is just around the corner for me. I have a DA 50 w/ less than a gallon thru it and have order the Brillelli to satisfy my power trip.

I apoligize for the play on words and have edited it, but I will give you my honest opinion THAT YOU SHOULD GET ON THE LIST FOR THE YAK OR THE EXTRA. For those of us that have had an "Extreme Flight Experience" the wait has been too long.

Tor

Thanks Doug, no worries. I edited my first post as well.

Tangy Tom

To an extent. The 150cc models I've seen at the ~40lb mark and my own at 37lb have been more potent than your 15-16lb 50cc jobs. I’m certain that a model of this 88" size and weight will struggle in a wind when doing IMAC with a puny 5hp engine up front. Need an extra 1.5 - 2hp. If you always fly in calm wind or all you want to do it pull gently out of a prop hang then a 5hp engine will suffice. But we don’t always fly in calm wind do we.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

We've gone so far over the top with the weight thing it's not even funny anymore. We worry to excess over a pound or so in a plane with 1,400 square inches of wing area, and most would not be able to note any real differences between two of the same planes that were only a pound apart in weight. Worse, we publically castrate any manufacturer that produces a plane that fails to make a weight that WE think it should be produced at, when most of those purchasing the planes don't even know how to build one themselves.

Have we lost so much knowledge and ability that we no longer remember how to manage energy or airspeeds in flight? I won't ask if we have lost the ability to create a plane from scratch or assemble a box of parts to make it a plane. This I believe we have sacrficed to arfs. Folks, we really need to learn how to fly again, and re-discover the fundamentals of flying on the wing. The engine and propeller were never designed to be the primary sources of lift...

Josey Wales

My Feedback: (61)

Well said...if you want to prop hang all day then get a profile...excess power is really overrated for everything except hovering IMO...Im talking 3D..maybe things are different with IMAC but for most of the 3D moves you are usually at 1/2 throttle or less anyway..Also If Chris' weights are accurate and you dont run a pipe, Im sure you can it under 17bs...

dbrford

My Feedback: (3)

I am on getting one of the first 20 and live at 4000ft, am I worried.....no. I fly a TOC Yak that comes in at 17 1/2 pounds, this plane has plenty of power for 3d, could it use more, perhaps but I have never found myself in a situation where it was a problem. With the way the new EF appears to fly am I not worried.

That being said the if the yak weighs more out of the box than expected mine will get bme110, have it sitting on the shelf might as well use it. If it tears up the airframe...oh well, I paid for it. Have fun, gonna be exciting to see these start flying.

torqmeister

Let's see, you saw the video. You thought it had good pullout from a hover, you saw it do a knife edge loop, but yet you wonder if it has the power to do a one roll rolling loop? You can't be serious, can you?

YNOT

You can take all the numbers and shove them. They don't mean a thing, its the way the plane flys. I have flown a too light 40% and didn't care for it and a 43% Yak that was a freakin BRICK and it rocked in the air. I would have lost money on both of those bets.

The numbers do not always tell the tail of how an airplane flys and 3D's.

YNOT

Post # 2 now that I read though all the post.

If you can pull off a one roll loop, you should know, you shouldn't have to ask. And the loop with a bird other than a foamy.

Takes more than reading RCU to be a pilot.

romanrc

.

shakes268

Tangy Tom

It did the KE loop reasonably well. But judging by the way it performed it I think it would struggle in a wind starting downwind.

I have never at any stage said this model was overweight. All I'm saying is that for TOC type performance you will need a bigger engine up front.

I assume that comment was aimed at myself. Gimme a break. This is a discussion forum where we discuss things. Public castration, what a joke. In essence all I said was that the model performs well, but for excellent performance in all weather you would need a touch more power. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there another thread on RCU where someone who you may be familiar with is building one with a 60cc up front? I arrest my case.

EXTRA ADDICT

My Feedback: (2)

Just my opinion but I am glad to see a 50cc plane brought to market that gives you more options on motor size and weight. I see the other thread guys are gonna use the Brillelli 366GT which is 60cc and costs less than a DA 50 also has anyone thought about the EVO 58 GX which is available over the counter from most local hobby shops. I don't think Chris had a ZDZ 80 in mind when he went with this design but I do think he wanted his customers to have options and I am sure there are more options out there. It is just nice to see that you are not stuck to the norm on setup and you can run a little larger or heavier motor without sacrificing flight performance. Great job Chris and with all that in mind bring on the Extra!!

Maudib

My Feedback: (51)

The Evo 58 would be a good choice too...

GoeKeli

My Feedback: (18)

Thanks Shakes! This is the whinny-est RCU thread i might have ever seen,,. Chis and David you are doing a great job! PTW is such a personal thing, let the planes fly!~).

Good luck Chris, can't wait to see this and the extra show up at my field, also wondering when the 100cc stuff will emerge!~)). .

Would you like a little cheese with that wine? this thing will be wicked with a 45cc!

joe

rcblimppro

[quote]ORIGINAL: Tangy Tom

[quote]

I have never at any stage said this model was overweight. All I'm saying is that for TOC type performance you will need a bigger engine up front.

[quote]



You are sadly mistaken if you think ANY 50cc airplane will perform as well as a 40% in the IMAC arena. Bigger just flies better in this case. On the other side of the coin, My father is on the list to purchase one of these Yaks. When it arrives I will be taking pics and posting them as the build proceeds. I will then pry the TX from his hands and put the airplane through the Unlimited sequence to see how it does. I will be posting the results here on RCU for all that have interest. Please do not mistake this as a contadiction, a 50cc airplane will fly the sequences but at a higher pilot workload than a 40%.


Shawn

therupman

Thanks "Shakes 268".
I needed that.
A fellow MTRCS'er.

Tangy Tom

Shawn,

I'm not talking about point scoring or any of that "bigger is better" stuff (don't know how you got that impression anyway as it was never mentioned). Even my old Gran could tell you that bigger will perform better. I was talking TOC performance as in how it pulls out of a hang, how it pulls round a one roll rolling loop starting downwind etc etc.

And I'm not whining, having a dig at EF, claiming this new Yak is an over weight sea monster or anything else (you really have got thin skins over the water don't you). All I'm saying is that I personally think it wants more than a 5hp engine.

matus777

I've had planes that would not do a KE loop but easily do a one roll loop (one roll 360 deg in one loop)....so i'm guessing it's not a problem.....in fact i'll bet it not going to be a problem. Also if you look at the video some of the snaps were pretty deep ....it was the 1st day of flying i think?

Absolut Yak

My Feedback: (4)

I'm not saying my girlfriend is fat (my wife says she is), it's just that she needs a van when we go out to eat! She can't help it if she's big, bless her heart, but she doesn't have to go out!

Maybe the thread shouldn't be if the plane is overweight, but if 50cc is enough. I will either put at DA50 with stock pipe on the plane or the Brillelli, but I'll wait to see Chris' build report. I bought a digital fish scale today to weigh my current AeroWorks Yak 54 50cc. It flies JUST fine with a DA50 with Vess 23A. My total component weight for it is 17# 5 oz, but I haven't been able to actually weigh the whole thing assembled to know for sure. I DO know from 60 flights, that the DA is enough power for the weight I'm flying and the 3D flying I do. More power is nearly always nicer, but more power requires more strength and that results in more weight which needs more power. STOP the INSANITY! Good is good, great is better, and ridiculous is not what it's cracked up to be.

MustangAce

My Feedback: (3)

The Evolution 58 might have more power than the B60. Does anyone know the AUW for flying?

rcblimppro

Tom, I understand what you are saying. IMO mentioning TOC in reference to a 50cc airplane is as if I presented a reference to my Chevy Suburban and NASCAR. TOC had always been a showcase of the best and biggest the industry had to offer at the time. Suffice to say we have different perspectives regarding TOC and what it means.

We will most likely have have different perspectives on what we would like to see in an airplane. there are lots of guys that want rocket like acceleration out of a hover or feel that after a double snap on an upline that the airplane should regain it's energy quickly and that is just fine.

For me I would like an airplane that that would perform at the slower speeds thus the requirement to overpower is eliminated. I hope I am explaining this so it can be understood. For sequence flying I like the airplane to have a solid feel. Some airplanes require more airspeed than others to aquire this feel. At a higher airspeed the pilot has more workload to present his sequence to the judges. For 3D this will apply as well. If an airplane has a solid feel to it at slower speeds then the pilot workload is less. IMO a large lightly loaded airplane with lots of fuse area may just be the ticket.

This is why I think it is important to hold jugment on this new airplane until the flight reports come in from customers whom have built and flown the airplane.


Shawn