The new Lanier Edge 87"
10-06-2005 | 08:11 PM
#53
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
This bird is definitely made for 3D. The elevator and rudder are double beveled, and even though the elevator isn't counter balanced, I think there's enough surface area for good 3D.
I'm definitely going with 2 servos on this one
I'm definitely going with 2 servos on this one
10-06-2005 | 08:16 PM
#54
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Last pics for the night... the fuselage. It's very lightly built, definitely built to fly, not to crash. You do need to go through every single joints though, as I find that the glue joint near where the hatch is screwed on is loose. All joints are glued with epoxy, not that white glue. The firewall and engine box is doulbe laminated ply as described before, and the firewall box, LG, and wing tube are interconnected, making the structure stronger (see the last pic).
I'll try to get the weight, but it should come close to the Extra posted earlier. This is definitely not your dad's Lanier.
I'll try to get the weight, but it should come close to the Extra posted earlier. This is definitely not your dad's Lanier.
10-07-2005 | 02:33 AM
#57
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Ok,
Here's the tally on the weight
L Wing ------------23 3/4
R Wing ------------24 3/8
Rudder ------------4 3/4
Cowl -------------8 7/8
Tank +hardware 5 1/4
Hardware --------10 5/8
Wheel Pants ------4 1/4
LG ----------------11 5/8 (definitely THE place to start saving weight)
Spar tube -------2 3/8
Wing tube ------9 3/8 (another great place to save weight)
H Stab x 2 ----10 1/8
Fuselage -------57 3/8
Total = 194 Oz = 12.1 lbs
Hmmm... maybe I got the heavy version
Here's the tally on the weight
L Wing ------------23 3/4
R Wing ------------24 3/8
Rudder ------------4 3/4
Cowl -------------8 7/8
Tank +hardware 5 1/4
Hardware --------10 5/8
Wheel Pants ------4 1/4
LG ----------------11 5/8 (definitely THE place to start saving weight)
Spar tube -------2 3/8
Wing tube ------9 3/8 (another great place to save weight)
H Stab x 2 ----10 1/8
Fuselage -------57 3/8
Total = 194 Oz = 12.1 lbs
Hmmm... maybe I got the heavy version
10-07-2005 | 05:11 AM
#59
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Thanks.
There might be close to 1/2 lbs though in plastic wrapper because I didn't unwrap all of them, just the fuse and wings because they're the biggest.
There might be close to 1/2 lbs though in plastic wrapper because I didn't unwrap all of them, just the fuse and wings because they're the biggest.
10-07-2005 | 08:15 AM
#61
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
I'm pretty sure it won't be over. Given the wing area, this is a reasonable weight. You can probably shave off close to 1 lb if you go with CF gear and tube
10-07-2005 | 11:51 AM
#62
My Feedback: (41)
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
The BME Yak's are coming in at around 10 pounds out of the box and around 17 pounds all up. But that is with CF stuff. If you built yours with the aluminum stuff provided you would be around 19 pounds (with a DA, ZDZ, or BME, 50cc). You could easily be at 18 pounds with CF stuff. With some other measures even at 17 pounds (CF/balsa firewall, one big servo for elevator using pull pull etc).
Oh yeah, is that wing area of 1450 squares accurate? The BME seemed to fall short of what they claimed. If your wing area is what Lanier said that thing will float like it's filled with helium (even at 19 pounds).
Oh yeah, is that wing area of 1450 squares accurate? The BME seemed to fall short of what they claimed. If your wing area is what Lanier said that thing will float like it's filled with helium (even at 19 pounds).
ORIGINAL: BoneDoc
I'm pretty sure it won't be over. Given the wing area, this is a reasonable weight. You can probably shave off close to 1 lb if you go with CF gear and tube
I'm pretty sure it won't be over. Given the wing area, this is a reasonable weight. You can probably shave off close to 1 lb if you go with CF gear and tube
10-07-2005 | 12:34 PM
#64
Senior Member
My Feedback: (44)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Wichita, KS
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
I hope your weights of 12 pounds out of the box are not correct. If they are it will be 19 pounds with a lightweight 50 and 20 pounds with a Evolution 58, this would be 2 pounds heavier than advertised, no longer making it so attractive. Also would add $150 to the price if you have to change out to all CF to lighten it.
At 19 pounds the lightweight 50 is not enough power in my opinion. I have a 16 pound airplane with a DA-50 and at times wish I had more power, but it all depends on your flying style.
At 19 pounds the lightweight 50 is not enough power in my opinion. I have a 16 pound airplane with a DA-50 and at times wish I had more power, but it all depends on your flying style.
10-07-2005 | 03:06 PM
#66
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Independence,
KS
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Finally found my camera and got some pics. This Extra is pretty similar to the Edge, but there are minor differences in the canopy lines (of course). I don't know why my weights came out so much less than Docbone's. I did remove all of the bags, but I don't think that they weigh that much.
10-07-2005 | 03:12 PM
#67
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Independence,
KS
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Here is the final group of pics. The control surfaces are HUGE and double beveled edges should give monstrous throws. I think that I need some killer servos here. Manual says 100 oz or better - but I think some of the newer Hitech56xx series in the 200+ range might be in order.
10-07-2005 | 09:13 PM
#68
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
That's interesting. My manual says Edge, but the pictures are all from yours. It seems that your Extra has a couple more lightening holes than mine... (well, more than just a couple).
10-09-2005 | 05:02 AM
#69
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Ok, here's the measurement of the wing that I got
Width ---- 39 1/4
Root ------22
Tip -------11
Width of the fuselage ~10
So by that measurement, I got 1295.2 sq In of the wing alone
If you add 10 x 22, that brings it to 1515.25
I've gotten a lot done the past couple of days.
The ailerons, and rudder are completely done and trimmed
Engine mounted
Elevators need a different pushrods (as I went another route with the control horn).
Unless you're really picky, you probably only will have to spend 20-50 dollars in extra hardware. Mainly the clevis that joins the pushrods to the control horn / servo arms, are weak. They may hold up fine, but I don't want to risk it on the elevator and rudder. The ailerons are done exactly stock. The wheels are actually foam, so I might swap it with my H9 wheels. I may keep it just the way it is though because they are lighter.
There was also a slight (1-2' I'm guessing) twist in the fuse that you notice when you try to line up the stab tube against the wing tube. a little shrinking and twisting, and it's almost gone now. I wasn't able to completely remove the twist because I was working by myself. Basically I gripped the heat gun with my teeth while trying to twist the fuse ever so gently. I'm not even sure how much they will affect the flight performance.
Ok time for a nap now before I go to church
Width ---- 39 1/4
Root ------22
Tip -------11
Width of the fuselage ~10
So by that measurement, I got 1295.2 sq In of the wing alone
If you add 10 x 22, that brings it to 1515.25
I've gotten a lot done the past couple of days.
The ailerons, and rudder are completely done and trimmed
Engine mounted
Elevators need a different pushrods (as I went another route with the control horn).
Unless you're really picky, you probably only will have to spend 20-50 dollars in extra hardware. Mainly the clevis that joins the pushrods to the control horn / servo arms, are weak. They may hold up fine, but I don't want to risk it on the elevator and rudder. The ailerons are done exactly stock. The wheels are actually foam, so I might swap it with my H9 wheels. I may keep it just the way it is though because they are lighter.
There was also a slight (1-2' I'm guessing) twist in the fuse that you notice when you try to line up the stab tube against the wing tube. a little shrinking and twisting, and it's almost gone now. I wasn't able to completely remove the twist because I was working by myself. Basically I gripped the heat gun with my teeth while trying to twist the fuse ever so gently. I'm not even sure how much they will affect the flight performance.
Ok time for a nap now before I go to church
10-09-2005 | 11:17 AM
#70
My Feedback: (41)
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
I had that twist in my DPM Edge 27% and was all rev'd up about it. Called Dave Patrick to complain etc. He said to just fly it (of course). So I just flew the heck out of the thing all summer long, you name it I did it. I cannot feel the twist at all. The thumbs just do what they gotta do. Does perfect elevators, harriers are great. Can't tell it's there. Not saying I accept crooked planes, just saying that it didn't make a difference in mine. I was stuck with the plane anyway, didn't seem like DP was going to do anything.
ORIGINAL: BoneDoc
Ok, here's the measurement of the wing that I got
Width ---- 39 1/4
Root ------22
Tip -------11
Width of the fuselage ~10
So by that measurement, I got 1295.2 sq In of the wing alone
If you add 10 x 22, that brings it to 1515.25
I've gotten a lot done the past couple of days.
The ailerons, and rudder are completely done and trimmed
Engine mounted
Elevators need a different pushrods (as I went another route with the control horn).
Unless you're really picky, you probably only will have to spend 20-50 dollars in extra hardware. Mainly the clevis that joins the pushrods to the control horn / servo arms, are weak. They may hold up fine, but I don't want to risk it on the elevator and rudder. The ailerons are done exactly stock. The wheels are actually foam, so I might swap it with my H9 wheels. I may keep it just the way it is though because they are lighter.
There was also a slight (1-2' I'm guessing) twist in the fuse that you notice when you try to line up the stab tube against the wing tube. a little shrinking and twisting, and it's almost gone now. I wasn't able to completely remove the twist because I was working by myself. Basically I gripped the heat gun with my teeth while trying to twist the fuse ever so gently. I'm not even sure how much they will affect the flight performance.
Ok time for a nap now before I go to church
Ok, here's the measurement of the wing that I got
Width ---- 39 1/4
Root ------22
Tip -------11
Width of the fuselage ~10
So by that measurement, I got 1295.2 sq In of the wing alone
If you add 10 x 22, that brings it to 1515.25
I've gotten a lot done the past couple of days.
The ailerons, and rudder are completely done and trimmed
Engine mounted
Elevators need a different pushrods (as I went another route with the control horn).
Unless you're really picky, you probably only will have to spend 20-50 dollars in extra hardware. Mainly the clevis that joins the pushrods to the control horn / servo arms, are weak. They may hold up fine, but I don't want to risk it on the elevator and rudder. The ailerons are done exactly stock. The wheels are actually foam, so I might swap it with my H9 wheels. I may keep it just the way it is though because they are lighter.
There was also a slight (1-2' I'm guessing) twist in the fuse that you notice when you try to line up the stab tube against the wing tube. a little shrinking and twisting, and it's almost gone now. I wasn't able to completely remove the twist because I was working by myself. Basically I gripped the heat gun with my teeth while trying to twist the fuse ever so gently. I'm not even sure how much they will affect the flight performance.
Ok time for a nap now before I go to church
10-10-2005 | 09:44 AM
#71
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Independence,
KS
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
OK - I figured out the mfg's wing area measurement.
Using a fabric tape, I measured the circumference on the wing at the tip and root. On the Extra, that gives 23 3/8 at the tip, 42 3/8 at the root, and a length of 39 5/8.
This gives an area of 1301 sq in. on the wings. The fuselage is 6 1/2 inches wide, but flat, so this adds 128 1/2 giving exactly 1429 1/2 sq in. as stated in the manual.
Using a fabric tape, I measured the circumference on the wing at the tip and root. On the Extra, that gives 23 3/8 at the tip, 42 3/8 at the root, and a length of 39 5/8.
This gives an area of 1301 sq in. on the wings. The fuselage is 6 1/2 inches wide, but flat, so this adds 128 1/2 giving exactly 1429 1/2 sq in. as stated in the manual.
10-12-2005 | 10:19 PM
#73
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
This plane is probably better matched for an Evo / MVSS 58. With a 3 lb engine, it is quite tail heavy. They didn't set it up for pulll pull AT ALL. They've even made servo cutouts already for the rudder servo. I tried weighing everything and ballancing it after everything is there, and right now it is about 1.5 - 2" aft of the suggested rear CG range. I will have to fashion a pull pull setup to get them to balance I guess... or dare I say dead weight on the nose
I have a question guys, mechanically, is pull pull more advantageous? does moving the servo up really move the CG that much? When I did the calculation, I come up with a possible (under optimal condition) of a 4 oz weight saving. Not that much advantage if you as me.
I'll try to post more pics later. This kit is BEAAAUUUUTIFUL
I have a question guys, mechanically, is pull pull more advantageous? does moving the servo up really move the CG that much? When I did the calculation, I come up with a possible (under optimal condition) of a 4 oz weight saving. Not that much advantage if you as me.
I'll try to post more pics later. This kit is BEAAAUUUUTIFUL
10-12-2005 | 10:57 PM
#74
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Lynchburg,
VA
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
ORIGINAL: FreedomFlier
Anyone doing a ZDZ 80RV?
Keep us posted.
Anyone doing a ZDZ 80RV?
Keep us posted.
10-13-2005 | 07:42 AM
#75
My Feedback: (41)
RE: The new Lanier Edge 87"
Yes pull pull rudder makes a big difference in CG and I would do it if I were you. 4 ounces in the tail equates to 12+ ounces in the nose. So you can save yourself adding close to a pound of lead if you just install a pull pull rudder. Then you can move your batt's up front if necessary. My guess is that with the pull pull rudder your CG will be right where you want it. Mechanically a push pull is simpler and does not have the slack issues of a pull pull rudder that is anything but perfectly installed. But the little amount of slack on one side at full deflection is usually no big deal. The pull pull is also lighter since it doesn't require a 2+ ounce 36 long servo extension. It's usually very close to the receiver. Another great way to push the CG forward is to use a very light tail wheel or entire tail wheel assembly. There are foam wheels out there that will save you a half ounce to an ounce. The RC Blimp production tail wheel assemblies with titanium and CF are the lightest and best out there.
ORIGINAL: BoneDoc
This plane is probably better matched for an Evo / MVSS 58. With a 3 lb engine, it is quite tail heavy. They didn't set it up for pulll pull AT ALL. They've even made servo cutouts already for the rudder servo. I tried weighing everything and ballancing it after everything is there, and right now it is about 1.5 - 2" aft of the suggested rear CG range. I will have to fashion a pull pull setup to get them to balance I guess... or dare I say dead weight on the nose
I have a question guys, mechanically, is pull pull more advantageous? does moving the servo up really move the CG that much? When I did the calculation, I come up with a possible (under optimal condition) of a 4 oz weight saving. Not that much advantage if you as me.
I'll try to post more pics later. This kit is BEAAAUUUUTIFUL
This plane is probably better matched for an Evo / MVSS 58. With a 3 lb engine, it is quite tail heavy. They didn't set it up for pulll pull AT ALL. They've even made servo cutouts already for the rudder servo. I tried weighing everything and ballancing it after everything is there, and right now it is about 1.5 - 2" aft of the suggested rear CG range. I will have to fashion a pull pull setup to get them to balance I guess... or dare I say dead weight on the nose
I have a question guys, mechanically, is pull pull more advantageous? does moving the servo up really move the CG that much? When I did the calculation, I come up with a possible (under optimal condition) of a 4 oz weight saving. Not that much advantage if you as me.
I'll try to post more pics later. This kit is BEAAAUUUUTIFUL
