RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> Giant Scale Aircraft - 3D & Aerobatic >> Quique's Aircraft Support



Message

Texas_Flyer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/10/2008 5:07:26 AM)

Glasscock and Glover,

Thanks to both of you for the feedback.

Alan



mobilemenice80 -> RE: 69" QQ Yak-54 (9/11/2008 4:07:59 PM)

reza...

need a little help

i have an o.s. 2.00 fourstroke. it weighs slightly less then the o.s. 1.20 (straight form os website and tower)

i plan on buying my 6th qq yak but cant decide between the 69'' or the 73'' for this engine... is there clearance for an 18'' prop..on the 69''

i think this engine might be a bit much for the 69'' and a little lacking for the 73'' a little help would be appricated

Brad



octanehuffer -> RE: 69" QQ Yak-54 (9/11/2008 6:16:01 PM)

It will be good on the 73". A saito 1.80 is fine for it.



Rezagh -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/15/2008 1:31:31 AM)

Guys,

Here's a video of the electric 69".

www.rcmodelaviator.com/Videos/69E_V1.wmv

some parts of video, camera is not zoomed in enough to show the plane as good. Plane handles 9.5 lbs very well.



mobilemenice80 -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/15/2008 2:42:55 AM)

reza


any input on the o.s. 2.00 four stroker in the 69" yak...i posted earlier but was kinda looking for your input

Brad



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/15/2008 5:47:38 AM)

Reza, any idea if there is an improved main landing gear without the toe-in camber? Thx



Rezagh -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/15/2008 3:12:20 PM)

Brad, that engine is too big for that plane.

Mike, there won't be any improved main landing gear as far as I know.



Jeff_edge540 -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/15/2008 3:33:27 PM)

Does anyone have a source for an aftermarket gear for this plane? I'm about 80% finished with my build (going to be using a YS110) and the gear look terrible.



Brenner -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/26/2008 1:44:54 AM)

Yeah, mine looks like a bow-legged sailor ....



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/26/2008 5:53:32 AM)

IMO Quique should seriously look into the quality of the main landing gear. Nobody would want to spend an extra $50-60 on an aftermarket gear, considering the price of the Yak69". In my Yak102" I had to also make some modifications to the main landing gear due to the bad tilt in the plane caused by the gear.



Texas_Flyer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/28/2008 5:33:08 AM)

Finally completed my Yak and maidened it today. :-) I'm using a Saito 125, 16x6 prop, Cool Power 30%, Futaba 2.4 Rx, and various digital servos. I don't have a final weight, but preliminary weighings were putting it about 8 lb - excellent for the size. While the 6 pitch prop doesn't fly very fast, it has lots of pull - takeoffs are in about 10'. The most amazing thing is that I couldn't get it to stall in slow flight. I cut power and gave it some elevator and it just seemed to float in the air - and there was no wind to hold it up! I yanked the elevator at different times and couldn't get that to stall either. In very little time, I gained a lot of confidence in this plane. I'm still slowly moving the CG back and am almost where I want it (roughly neutral). This has resulted in nearly zero coupling in KE. The only issues I had were that the canopy rattles in the front (some foam saddle tape should do the trick) and the covering really loosened in the sun (the heat gun should solve that). Overall, I've very pleased with the results, though the assembly took much more time than I anticipated. Thanks to all of you who posted in this thread to help those coming behind you.

Alan



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/28/2008 6:51:11 AM)

Hi Alan, try the APC 16x4W prop. It's great for 3D type flying. I would also spray the inside of the canopy with silver paint (e.g. Tamiya mica silver) to prevent greenhouse heating effects. As you might be aware of, Futaba's 2.4 Rx could be temperature sensitive.



Texas_Flyer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/30/2008 4:09:16 AM)

Mike,

Thanks for letting me know about the Futaba 2.4GHz RX heat issue - I had not heard about it!

I read another thread where Mike McConville from Hanger 9 also liked the 16x4W for 3D. The only reason I didn't try that was I thought it'd be too slow. With the reduced weight (significanly lighter than the 16x6 since it's flat/wide), what rpm should I expect to get? I'm wondering if the increase in rpms may partially offset the speed reduction from the lower pitch. I'm getting about 8700 max from my 16x6 with 30% fuel.

Thanks,

Alan



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/30/2008 12:06:49 PM)

Hi Alan, my Saito 125 on 15% coolpower and APC 16x4W (with TT spinner), I'm getting about 9700rpm peak but I richen it to 9400. I set my idle at 1800-2000 rpm. I also use a cline regulator with it. The valve lash is set to 0.002"

I also add a couple of ounces of Klotz Benol castor to every bottle of coolpower for the added protection.



octanehuffer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (9/30/2008 6:48:56 PM)

I use the 16x6 APC. I found that the 16x4W is under propped for a 1.25. Makes alot of noise and dosnt fly fast enough. I run 20-30%.



Texas_Flyer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/1/2008 12:52:58 AM)

Mike & Octanehuffer,

Thanks for the data. It's helpful to compare notes on props and performance.

Alan



kochj -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/26/2008 5:31:48 PM)

Hello guys..... Just checked in....
I have a spare os 1.20 AX to place in a airframe.....
I would really like to have a YS 1.10 but money is a issue right now....

For those wondering how a 1.20 AX would do with a muffled tuned pipe??? It is awsome.....

I cannot say enough of how well the O.S. 1.20 AX did... with the standard muffler it is good/great.
With a tuned pipe it is fantastic in all areas..
Just remember to not set the header length to maximum RPM's as this may make it have a very limited power band....
Cut a little at a time and take the time to tune it on a bench and it should work out well

Hope this reasures those that have been on the fence with this engine...
I know that some may not agree with a tuned pipe option, but the pipes are criticle with any 2-stroke engine...

It is what really makes these engines perform at there best. Yes the stock muffler works really well, some may argue that it is mildly tuned.
I am sure that those that have the extra money and go with a CF pipe, you will get even better performance .

THis will shoot a 11lb yak up to the moon and back... Unfortianatly the yak I had was a horrible plane (of corse it wasn't a QQ aircraft)
I will be picking this one up soon....

I (don't) work for qq aircraft, but I just wanted to say..... "Thanks for supporting a company that is located here in the USA"
Right now economic hardship is seen everywhere, and we need, now more than ever,
to stand together, and support companies that are here and have been here from day one..

My only complaint; Why did QQ take the Brio scheme away????
Hope it stays with the 69" and the 73"

Justin



octanehuffer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/27/2008 12:22:19 AM)

You work for QQAC?
Gonna have to wait for a couple of months to get the 69" now.



kochj -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/27/2008 4:06:38 AM)

whoop's

I meant to say NOT[;)]

now that I read it, kind of funny....
Must of had wishfull thinking!..



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/27/2008 12:50:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: octanehuffer

You work for QQAC?
Gonna have to wait for a couple of months to get the 69" now.


I hope there will be an improved landing gear in the next batch.

BTW, has anyone tried placing the fuel tank just above the wing tube? Will it fit?



Texas_Flyer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (10/31/2008 9:43:12 PM)

What CG are people using for 3D flight? The recommended range is 6.5 to 7 inches from the TE of the wing-tips. I started at 6-3/4 and moved it back slowing through flight testing. I moved it back until inverted flight was almost neutral and just before I ran out of glide slope (ie, too difficult to land w/o constant down elevator). I just measured the CG and it's at 6 inches even - half an inch further than the instructions recommend! I'm really surprised because the elevator isn't even close to being sensitive. Does anyone else have it this far back?

Thanks,

Alan



Brenner -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (11/1/2008 1:07:05 AM)

I sincerely doubt that we'll see any improvements in the landing gear because the current landing gear is still functional.

If you check out some of the earler postings in this thread, people have been complaining about the landing gear since the product's inception, and no change has been made, so what would motivate QQAC to "improve" it now?



rajul -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (11/1/2008 5:23:37 AM)

Poor sales



octanehuffer -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (11/1/2008 5:46:22 PM)

That wont happen either.
Sure the gear isnt straight, but it still works. Fine by me for this plane. Wont make any difference in the air.
My CG is very far back(unknown measurement) and it flies like I want it to for hardcore 3D. It wont IMAC at all, in its current setup. No sensitive elevator.



kochj -> RE: New Somenized (TM) 69", Yak-54 (11/5/2008 6:17:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jadamian75

What is the disadvantage or advantage of not using the yellow servo arm attachments. I used it on the elevator and when I went to do the rudder I noticed it was shorter than most of the thick plastic servo arms that came with the Hitec digital 5985MG servo arms. I used the double sided arm on the rudder that camd with the hitec servos. Is there more slop going to develop with the plastic ones by themselves. Are the plastic servo arms not strong enough by them selves? I really don't like the look of the very large round servo arm or the time drilling them and attaching the servo arm attachment that offers no extra throw. Thanks for any info
Joe



Anyone want to tackle this one???
I would like to know as well, if I really need to use the servo arm/pc board placed atop the plastic radials included with servos..???
Why not use the Hitech heavy duty arms that come with there digital servos???
Do the included arms have no binding? or are they a more of a possitive control setup???

Justin



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.65625