Hello Guy's, I've been reading this thread and I also read that review on the Laneir Edge I bought one back in December. I got a all up dry weight 16.025 lbs thats with DA 50 stock muffler, one servo per wing, 5945's all around and all CF. I've also have a EF Yak it compares very well to it.

That's comforting Porty, and knew it had to be true... the Edge I saw was to lightly built to be any more than 10 lbs out of box anyway...

Really interested to see what evryone finds the Yak to be out of box...

I’m there with you. I am planning on weighting all components first. By weighting each component we can asses were to shave weight, taking in consideration CG location, cost of new parts, and difficulty of performing changes.

You guys, I think I may have to go with the ZDZ 50. I don't know what I was thinking trying to cheat 4 ounces from the motor. I have ZDZ 50's already and have seen them handle a HEAVY GP Patty VERY WELL!!!! I think I'll send this engine back, but it really does look beautiful! Like I said, I might just keep it and stick it in a GP Ultimate, or maybe even the Goldberg 330.

Hotdog,

That’s a great choice. The ZDZ 50 should be adequate for the Lanier YAK. I have a ZDZ 40 on a GP Patty, and it flies a decent IMAC Basic sequence pretty decently. It's hard to make it hover, but will pull vertical fairly well. The new YAK 54 from Wildhare is the perfect plane for that EVO 45. Keep the EVO for another project if you can afford that. The 45 is sure a good looking engine, and very powerful for its weight class. Good luck,

I have a ZDZ 50 on GP Patty and it hovers at 1/2 throttle. But it weighs in the 17.518 lbs range, with the Smoke in it. It also is running a 22X8 (due to ground clearance) so pretty much, I know I will hover decently well with the 50. Any, I was debating on keeping the 45, but just an hour ago called Horizon for a return authorization number. I think I'll send it back for now, I can always buy anoth when needed.

Hotdog,

I wish I would have mounted a ZDZ 50 on the Patty. It's a lot more powerful than the 40, and I should have not ended adding 12 oz. of weight in the nose to balance. The Lanier Yak will probably fly great with the ZDZ 50 if you shave a pound or so off the total weight. I think the Evolution 58 is about the same weight as the ZDZ 50, with 3.5 more H.P. . 3W 75 cc engines are about 1/2 H.P. less than the Evo, and over a pound heavier. The ZDZ Super 80 is about the same weight as the Evo, have 1 more H.P., but will set you back $825. That's why the Evo 58 was a "no brainer" in my opinion.

Patty can be balanced even with 160 fx on the front. You can use one rudder servo or go for a pull pull or put the battery in the engine box and get rid of the 12 oz. This will change the performance drastically. The evo58 is not the same weight with zdz50 it is about 1 lb heavier. I think it is the better choice for power with 1 lb weight penalty however one should see the flight performances with a both for a sound comparison. BTW do you get 8.5 hp with a tuned pipe? Which prop do you use? My friend have a zdz80 on a comp-arf 2.3 extra and he can not get 8 hp with 26x10 bolly wood and pitts mufflers. If this engine is that powerfull with stock mufflers than it would be a the first choice for all airframes designed for 75-80 cc engines on the market.

alpsat,

I agree in that the Patty can be balanced with your suggested changes, and I am working in doing so this winter. You are correct in that the ZDZ 50 is "advertised" at 3.37 Lb. " with all flight hardware, Ignition and plug", and Approximately5 HP output. Static thrust /HP "calculated from actual engine data and ThrustHP 2.0 (@ 29.92 in. Hg.)". The ZDZ Super 80 is "advertised" at 4.2 Lb. bare engine, and 8.5 HP, "calculated from actual engine data and ThrustHP 2.0 (@ 29.92 in. Hg.)". No information provided as of type of muffler, and or propeller size.

On the other hand the Evolution 58, which is the exact same engine as the MVVS 58 ( see: http://www.mvvs.com/mvvs/58cc_gasser.html ), "advertised" Weight - 3 lbs 12.7 oz, RPM - 7,000 using a 22x12 prop. My engine actually weight 4.75 with ignition and plug (no muffler). The MVVS factory published dynamometer data showing an output of 6.8 KW ( 9.1 HP), no muffler or prop data. Horizon Hobbies, is more conservative and advertises the 58 output at 8.5 Hp.

As you can see is extremely difficult to navigate through all the manufacturers’ claims of weight and power. They "all" want to make their products (engines, and aircrafts) look as the lighter, most powerful, and with the highest performance. Disregarding the manufacturer’s hype, if we take their data at face value the 58 still looks like the better powerplantvalue for your dollars, even for 75-80 cc class airplanes. This coming IMAC competition season will prove if that’s realistic or not, since there is not much experience with these new engines.

The whole horsepower thing is kindof a misstated voodoo mumbo jumbo too.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak, and that means what prop will it spin at how much RPM's.

Are there any user reports on props and rpms for the 58 that we can make reliable "field observations" from?

Again, the 7000 rpms on a 22x12 does not sound so much more powerful than the DA50's I see spinning 22x8's at 7500 and 23x8's at roughly 7100 or so.

RC Showcase states the ZDZ 60 spinning a 22x10 at 7300... seems like this is what you should expect from a 60cc class engine.

Until someone shows me an EVO/MVVS 58 spinning something like a 26x8 prop, I don't respect it as an "80 class powerhouse" nor do I suspect it would come close in spinning it the same.

My point?

To determine the "ideal" engine you must consider wingloading first THEN power to weight ratio.

An Evolution 58 may be somewhat more powerful than a DA50... but weighs 1.75 lbs more. If a DA50 already is "gobs of power" for a 16.5 lb aircraft, then adding 1.5 lbs of weight is senseless and will detract fromt he flying charateristics for the plane even if it is powered more.

Conversely, if an 80cc aircraft is powerefully powered with an 80cc engine (a good match), then putting a 58 in it will lighten it a little but drastically drop the power to weight ratio.

Each plane is a case by case situation... but suffice it to say that there aren't any real 60cc airframes out there that aren't simply heavy 50cc airframes.

Just my opinion you know...

I agree with you in that engine manufacturers misstate their specs, and support them with all kind of unrealistic paper calculations, and voodoo mathematics. Even the automotive industry was recently forced to adopt a more realistic standard of calculating HP figures. Until recently the industry measured their engines bare, no accessories, or transmission. The recent adoption of ISO standards has forced them to measure power at the drive shaft.

It would be nice if hobby engines manufacturers standardized their testing and supported their allegations with factual dyno testing, using specific props and muffler combinations. In my experience the most accurate measure of engine performance is how much thrust an engine/prop combination can produce. Evolution states the 58 can turn a 26x10 prop. I doubt that it will turn it more than or even close to 6000 RPM. But we don't know how much thrust it will produce. I also doubt that a ZDZ 60 will turn a 22x10 at 7300 RPM and put out 36.79 Lb. of thrust in the process. Are there any reliable "field observations" to support this claim?

The bottom line is that the "ideal" engine taken wingloading in consideration should provide a considerable difference in thrust to weight ratio. Even an 18 Lb. plane powered 2:1 thrust to weight ratio will fly ballistic. A 10 pound brick powered by 100 Lb. of thrust will fly like a missile (i.e. the F-104, the Saturn rockets, etc.) If a 4.75 Lb. engine can produce over 40 Lb. of thrust, I will consider it as very viable powerplant for up to 33% models. Leo Loudenslager vision in building aerobatic planes was to keep the airframe weight as low as possible and the power as high as the airframe could withstand.

You are correct in that the proof is in the pudding. And there is very little data out there on the Evolution engines. So we will have to wait and see what they really can do in real life.

Remember the old cliché, When it comes down to engine power: Lots is good, more is better, and too much is just enough.

lol.

Again back to softwqare calculations. And even measuring thrust with fish scales isn't overly reliable.

So the "constant" is the prop and the measurable variable is RPM.

SO wether a ZDZ will produce 36.79 lbs of STATIC thrust is irrelevant...

If it spins a 22x10 at 7300 (which I do not doubt for one instant) and the 58 Spins the SAME prop about the same... then it raltes the fact the the mystriously powerful 58 is indeed... a 60cc class engine and certainly does NOT provide the equivilent thrust of a ZDZ80 that spins a 4" bigger prop.

Look... we all want the most thrust for the lowest weight (unless you are building a warbird) What I am getting at is that it is evident that people will believe whatever they WANT to in order to complaete the "perfect picture". And while I could very well be wrong... I doubt very seriously that the 58 is anywhere CLOSE the usable power output of a ZDZ80. Meaning down and outright thrust.

If you want a semi-accurate method of comapring, then ThrustHP is a good tool cor comparison... it is completely accurate? Perhaps not, but it stand to reason it calculates everything with the same level of innaccuracy, meaning you can compare the numbers to get an idea of what the differences are between engines.

Horizon's "Benchmark" 24x10 Mens prop at 6900 calculate in ThrustHP as 46.04

RCShowcases stated ZDZ80 (not super) info is 26x10 Mens 6500 rpm and calcs at 56.28

IF these engines spin these props as stated, the it's easy to see that the "Regular 80" is approximately 25% stronger than the 58 regardless of what the real world thrust is.

I've been watching some of the reports of fish scale results and calcing them with Thrust calc... if there is some trend, it apperas real worl "fish scale" pull is about 2/3's of what it calc.

If THAT relates then the 58 will produce real world thrust of about 31 lbs... the 80 about 38...

If you have a 33% plane that weighs say 24 lbs, then you may be dissapointed with 1.3:1 power to weight ratio as compared to 1.6 to one. And if you can have either at very close to the same weight... which do you choose? Which would you consider the better choice for the plane?


But on a 50cc plane that comes in at 16.5 lbs with a DA50 and I KNOW that it spins a 23x8 @ 7150 rpm calcing 41.70lbs... you get about 28 lbs of thrust and a 1.7:1 thrusts to weight ratio.

Where as the same plane with the 58 will be at LEAST 1.5 lbs heavier or 18 lbs with a 1.72:1 thrust to weight ratio.

So again, I ask you... which is the better choice... nearly identical power generated, but the wingloading will be significantly different.

O.K., I've whipped up a good deal of mumbo jumbo here myself.

But again the theory is sound in that what a motor spins a particular prop at is the comparison factor. And until I see verifyable reports of the 58's RPM with what props I can't really make a final judgement... but at this point I take a doubtful view that the 58 is the powerhouse it is reported to be. I think it is a fine 60cc engine putting out approximately what a 60cc should, but being 1.5 lbs heavier than a DA50, and considerably less powerful than a ZDZ80 that it fills a niche where planes do not exist... at this point anyway.

As is the case with this particular aircraft, I can't see why it is rated for 50-80cc engines... they are so in a diffferent league that it's like saying an airframe is a 100cc-150cc airframe.

Ah well... all conjecture and mumbo jumbo... let us know when you get your engine running what it spins and how fast...

Well I just want to see this bird. I hope they come in soon. All you guys keep talking about engines and what to put in it. I dont think the evo is going to put out numbers like they claim. Im not saying these arent good engines. But I think for the money there are alot better ones suited for this plane. Weight will be a factor with this plane but even if comes close to the same weight as the edge with a da 50 it should be an awesome plane. Im not saying a da 50 is the way to go. I personally dont like it. Ive seen to many problems with them. I plan on purchasing this plane when they come in and are available. Power choice 3w-55 maybe a little heavier than the Da but I think there will be a big difference in power. I havent bought the 3w yet but I would almost gaurentee it will put out the same or more than the evo 58. I might even stuff in my 3w-75 for the heck of it. If I can get this plane at 17-18 with the 75 perfomance will be endless. This is just my 2 cents.

with all that said, i would love to see the new BME 55 run. That would be the ultimate! And I would find a way to balance the place, with the half pound less in the nose. (we all know that that by the time you add ignition and all the equipment it will be only a half pounnd difference)

It will be about 3/4 lb lighter... engine with plug is 2.1 lbs (reportedly) and a DA50 is just a scoonch under 3 lbs... so accounting for slight differences in ignition weight/prop nut/washer, etc... 3/4 lb... 12 oz is significant...

I'm not arguing that this is definitely a 50cc plane, but I thought i'd clear up that 41lbs of thrust on a 16.5 lb plane is well above 2:1 thrust to weight ratio, more like 2.5 : 1 ratio

Heck, even at ~31 lbs of thrust, its is pushing 1.9 : 1 A bigger motor is definitely overkill at the expense of wingloading...

imho, a really powerful 3d plane should be set up with near 2:1 thrust to weight ratio, as light as possible. And it sounds like the DA 50 is the ticket for that

I agree 100%... 2:1 and above P2W ratio is what a fella wants for rad 3D power.

BUT... I add cautiously, that we don't KNOW yet that the plane will come in at 16.5 lbs with a DA50 and therein lies the rub....

But yes... if the plane will, the DA50 will...

If the airframe is the same as the Extra and the Edge, you will be hard pressed to finish under 17lbs. Actually, in the magazines advertising, Lanier states the Yak a pound higher than the others (larger FG cowl?).

Since these are advertised as 50 to 80cc., it is also expected to be heavier than a plane designed for 50cc.

The Yaks are coming!!!!!! As of Tuesday January 31st the Yaks are at Lanier. They will be shipping to the various distributors on Wednesday and Thursday. If you ordered yours from Tower Hobbies you should have yours by the end of next week, depending on how fast Tower Hobbies turn around time is and where you live. If you ordered yours directly from Lanier I would expect they should ship them out by Friday and depending on where you live, you may get it early next week. Finially, we can get some reports on what they actually weight out of the box. Stay posted, because I will weigh mine on the calabrated scale at work. it was juct cal'ed in December, so it should be accurate with in a couple of grams.

Yahooooooo!!!!!

I I have some real life data for the Evolution 58. This video comes form MVVS Canada http://www.mvvs-canada.com/images/Video/edgeVCD-1.wmv . It shows an MVVS 58 IRS turning a 26x10 Mejzlik prop at 5950 RPM. ThrustHP calculates this to come out at 47.16 Lbs. of thrust. If the Yak comes in at 18 Lbs. the thrust to weight ratio is a generous 2.62:1. Heck, even if it comes out at 20 Lbs. that’s still 2.36:1. If the Evolution performs the same as the MVVS I can live with the wingloading penalty. The video shows the MVVS pulling a 35% Edge 540 and I am sure that’s a 20 Lbs. plus plane.

I'll admit that's impressive... yet keep in mind that includes about 1 lb of canister exhaust... The 26x10N prop is one not often spun and will be hard to get comparable RPMs from 75-80cc class engines. It would be nice to see what a ZDZ running the same prop would do on a stock muffler and LMB can. I think you'd be very surprised.

Being that the video is a marketing video from a distributor, I still look forward to enduser reports with various props so we can directly compare it to other engines spinning the same prop. For sure it has more power than the DA50, but them again it should being a 58cc engine and weighing a full lb more.

The stock muffler for the DAis under 5 oz... and inv. pitts for the 58 will be around 10 oz or so... another 1/4 lb difference.

Again on this airframe, AND if it can come in at 16.5 lbs with a DA50 and stock muffler, that will put a 58 powered version at 17 3/4 lb. It would then be a matter of preference... More power or better wingloading. both will power it very well... but for me 1.75 lbs is a lot of difference on a 1468 sq. in. aircraft and would definitely result in a difference in flying.

It won't be long now before we know the out of box/in the air weight of the components. Add 6.75 lbs (because of the extra 2 servos) and I'll know within a couple oz. of what one built by me would weigh all up dry.

Yikes !!
Did you catch the $100 dollar price jump on the Lanier site !! ?

What's up with the jump in price!!!!!! That's very misleading now. A phone call is going into them right now, I will post a reply once I get their story!