Hi, I'm going into my first gas airplane ever and picked up a Lanier 87' Extra by total chance.

I read the whole Lanier Edge thread which covers a lot of what I needed to figure out but I still have a few smaller questions I'd like to ask the experts on this board:

- My DA50 has no engine standoffs - does anyone know where I can pick up the right OEM 2.5' standoffs that are appropriate to mount the DA50?

- Would using a pull-pull rather than the dual servos in the tail create a balancing problem? Two servos in the tail is a lot of leveraged weight but the DA 50 is on the light range for this plane (up to 80cc).

- Are dual wing servos actually needed and effective or would a single 8611A make more sense (and save weight)?


BTW, my setup is the following (please tell me if I'm going totally wrong):

DA-50R
Slimline pitts muffler
Menz 22x8
4 JR 8411 for ailerons with 2 Smartfly servo matchers
2 JR 8311 for Elevators
1 JR 8611 for Rudder
1 JR Synth receiver
SWB 1.5' servo arms
2 Thunder power 11.1v 2100 LiPo with Smartfly dual battery module and Fromeco regulator
1 2100mah Li-Ion for ignition and Fromeco regulator

Thanks for any feedback.

Varom, It's obvious that you have done your homework with your selection of equipment for the "Lanier," 87" Extra, 330. Everything you are using is a perfect match for this airplane. I'm not familiar with the JR synthesized receiver, but I use JR 950, and 945 PCM receivers on my gas planes. As to where you can get the 2 1/2" standoffs, for your DA 50, Desert Aircraft, sells them. As for the servo location, I would assemble the aircraft with the engine mounted, and then lay the servos, and batteries where you would like to install them. You can vary where you place the batteries for the receiver, and ignition to achieve the proper balance. I would prefer a "pull-pull" system over two servos mounted in the tail of the plane.
One JR, 8611 on the rudder, will be more than enough torque for the plane. The same is true for the aileron servos. One JR 8611A, on each aileron is also more than enough torque for an aircraft with an 87" WS.
Good luck with your Extra, and welcome to the "GAS" world.

P.S. Be sure and keep your ignition module and switch at least 8" away from your receiver.

Thanks for all the answers I was looking for.

Check out my Lanier Edge thread on the 3D forum also.

I would personally go with Evo / MVSS 58 if you haven't gotten a motor already. I had to work extra hard to get the plane to balance without adding nose weight. I can guarantee that if you don't do a pull pull on the rudder, you're going to have to add some nose weight.

HTH
Josh

Do I need to gang up two servos for rudder pull-pull? Or would a JR 8611A or Hitec 5995TG be enough?

One 8611A will be more than enough on the 87" Lanier Extra.

i used a smartfly regulator switch on an aircraft, he recommended using a 2 cell lipo. the extra voltage of the 3 cell creates more heat that needs to be disappated (did i spell that right?). on another aircraft i used a MPI miracle switch (not enough check rating for all the digital servos here though). i also used an rcreporter for electrics (rcreporter.com), it gives an audible voltage reading on your lipos. i appreciate your list here, i am planning to set one up similar.
jon b

I could actually try using the 7.4v Thunder Powers. I happen to have them lying around without much use since all my electrics use 3 cells these days.

From feedback I collected, the adjustable Fromeco regulators have heat sinks and dissipate heat quite well. I can save weight and a regulator by sticking a 4.8v for ignition. DA says you will get a spark all the way down to 4.3v.

I just saw a guy at my field today flying a 87" Extra he build from some kit. His plane was well over 19lbs. and the DA 50 had no problem tossing it around, doing all kinds of 3D stuff and pulling up out of hover.

Following impressions upon opening the box:

First of all, this is one well built and sturdy plane. Everything is massive and thick. I can see why people are hitting 19 lbs. when not careful. I aim to keep it around 17 lbs. and will most likely will have to sub CF parts to reach this goal.

Second, on the 2 vs. 4 servos for aileron issue. Rather than remove covering and modify this extensively, I will just go ahead and install 4 8411s and matchers. Too much time will be consumed on removing this great covering and I don't want to hurt the looks.

I agree with all the comments on the Lanier Edge thread about the screws used for aileron and elevator horns. What is provided in the kit is soft and not up to par with such a model. Furthermore, there are discrepencies between the parts described in the instruction and what is actually provided - bolts are genrally longer than the instructions describe. No question in my mind this would have to be replaced with either DuBro 913s or the H9 8x32 (Rocket City) type bolt sets.

Too bad the holes, or pilot holes, are not already drilled in the hard points. It's a pain to drill straight through a bevelled surface. The instructions suggest to drill from the top and then from the bottom. I don't see how this can work and how one can meet the hole already made from the other direction? I'd rather try and drill a small pilot hole using a press and enlarge it later on for 8x32s.

The instructions themselves are quite loose and rather lacking. Not enough detail for my taste as it compares to a GP or H9 ARF. I guess an experienced modeler would not have issues with missing descriptions, but I like to validate everything. For this reason, the RCU threads are a very important source of information.

There are no instructions for installing a pull-pull and saving tail weight when using a DA-50. It does not seem overly complex if one carefully builds the servo plate and cross bracing in the fuse. This servo will have to support quite a lot of stress as it is.
Does anyone know if intalling a cantilever type thing provides any benefits? I was just going to use the metal brace support that installs on top of the servo, but connect the wires directly to a 3" SWB or H9 pull-pull arm.

Other than that, I'll take some pictures and post them soon. The parts look very nice...

Pictures:

i fly a 40 size edge 540 and 60 size GP extra 300 among other types of aircraft. is this lanier extra a good choice for a first large scale gas aerobat? i prefer the extra over the edge. i'd set it up w/the da 50. costwise and what i've read here and in the model airplane news review, it seems like a good choice.
jon b

Can't really tell you other than my original impressions of what was in the box and the articles I read.

I am still putting it together.

I like the size, the way it looks, the quality, and it will be my first gas plane...

I'd don't care if it's a bit heavier than the mythical EF Yak. i don't do much 3D and perfectly happy with IMAC.

I am also building the 330. It will be assembled with a 3W75 rear carburetor. My first impression "out of the box" was that this plane was too large for a 50cc. It seems no matter which way you cut it the plane will weigh 17lbs. This is at the very top end for any 50cc engine in my opinion. So we will see how I do with the 75.

Anything in front of the wing tube will be fair game.....let the challenge begin.

It really depends what you are looking for.

If I am not after extreme 3D and absolutely happy with good IMAC performance, I would think the 50 will be exactly the ticket.

The two reviews I read (and the ones for the Edge, which looks like a very similar airframe) seem to indicate exactly that.

If I believe what I read, the Extra with the DA 50 and pull-pull will most likely balance properly. At most I could install batteries really up front and use some CF and still keep around 16 - 17.

I have the Edge with DA50 at 17.2 lbs AUW, and vertical is plenty for my taste. It's definitely enough for 3D.

Continuing report on this Lanier Extra 300 project.

I just mounted the engine exactly as detailed in the instructions, using Desert Aircraft 2.5' standoffs.

The template I printed off some PDF file was not exactly up to scale and I ended up transcribing the wrong placements for the mounting holes (about 1/4 inwards of where it should have been). I remeasured on the fly and got the engine mounted on axis without having to mess up the firewall too much.

The engine seems a bit low and I've seen previous comments on the Edge thread that people moved it up about 1/2" even at the price of grinding the engine box to clear the muffler. I will know if this is necessary when I fit the cowl and cut it properly.

Corners inside the engine box got a bit of epoxy runs to add strength. I will also drill a larger hole behind the carburator (when I get to it).

I completed drilling the ailerons and fitting the control horns.

Since the hardware that came with the kit was not an option (too soft), I got both the Hangar 9 solution and the DuBro 913s.

The DuBro screws were a tad too short if I was to mount all the parts included - the aileron being 1.5" thick at the hard points. The Hangar 9 screws were even shorter.

I ended up installing 2.5" socket screws with brass washers, the Hangar 9 nice nuts and the Hangar 9 plastic parts (significantly smaller than the DuBro parts).

The ailerons were hinged with Gorilla glue. First time I'm trying this based on feedback I read on RCU (instead of epoxy). I coated the hinge pins with vaseline, put glue in the holes with a small stick and smeared some on the hinges before inserting them.

is it necessary to use two 8411's on each aileron? seems kinda expensive, 2 less expensive servos combined to spread the load along the length of the aileron i would expect would be fine. combine that w/the cost of the match boxes. i was considering using hitec digitals and use the programmer to adjust them for identical centers.
jon b

Sorry, I'm against using Hitec in principle. I've had too many of them fail on me in the past.

They might be very reliable these days but I did not play much with the new titanium ones though...


The only JR servos I had lying around were:

4131s - 90 oz. each but not digital
8101 - 90 oz. each but not digital
811s - Digital but too weak
8231s - 90 oz. digital - borderline
8311s - 130 oz. - using them for the elevators
8411s - 155 Oz. digital - pretty much the only ones I felt were proper
8611s - overkill
8611A - Overkill - using for pull-pull rudder

Jon,

Unless you plan on flying serious IMAC go with 645's or 5645's. Granted they are not as precise as a coreless digi but for sport and 3d they are hard to beat.
I have a bud that flys a 34% columbo extra with 645's all around and a 5745 on rudder. I watched a competative pilot fly it and he commented on how well it flew. When he found out what the servo's were he was rather surprised.

Personally I will not use JR's just because everyone I have talked to and read here will tell you the gears get sloppy quick. The 5945's I will never use from all the reports of lockups. The same guy put together a TOC yak and thought he would try (better) with 5945's. Had one lock on the rudder. He went back to the trusty 645's.

Now the 5955's from what I here are doing very well. Hard flying for a year and the gears are still tight and no lockups. I just put one on the tail of my ulty. very impressed so far. Hope to abuse it good this summer to see just how good they are.

Just one's thoughts. Have fun how ever much you spend.

From a pure torque perspective, the 645 and 5645 should fit the bill at 133 oz. and 168 oz. respectively. If the 5645 is programmable, it might even allow me to get rid of the servo matchers.

I should definitely try them at some point in a large scale application.

I have both the 5625 and 5645 running in a small size CMP Giles (Saito 56) and my general impression so far was that they were noisy and rather coarse. That is, their movement was not as smooth as similar JRs. I am not talking about the fact they are larger in size and slightly heavier than the JRs.

I got most of my JRs from eBay deals at very attractive prices. They have zero slop at the moment and I have spare gears for them in case they develop some and need attention. despite the high list price, one can occasionally find an 8611A for less than $80 and 8411 or 8311 for less than $60, which makes it a great deal, even compared with the Hitecs.

Progress report -

Hinged the tail surfaces and fitted the control horns. Elevator horns are the H9 type. Rudder uses the Dubro 913 setup (the black plastic arms will have to go - they are too big).

Also begun trial fitting the pull-pull setup. once I make the cables, I will move the servo tray to the right position on two beams epoxyed to the side ply. Servo will be the right 8611A and arm will be 4" (3" in the pircture).

I suck. I have been travelling so much, I did not get to this plane much and did not manage to keep some sort of constant progress going. Besides being four times in Europe and Asia since the last post, I also started putting together a QQ 72' Yak that I want to use to get my thumbs back in shape this spring...

I did change the elevator servos to 8611s. I also connected the control rods, using the provided 4-40 from the kit which seemed to be very solid.

I also installed the tail wheel according to the instructions.

I now need to muster the courage to cut the nice covering and link the pull-pull setup with the servo. Another one I dread is the fitting and cutting of the cowl...

OK, definitely run into some trouble.

It seems from looking at the engine in relation to the cowl, with and without spinner that tthe engine is fixed slightly lower than it should be. I think the pictures show that very well - it looks like the engine is lower by at least 1/2 an inch compared to where it should be.

No big deal, I can add some plywood behind the firewall and redrill higher.

The question is, will it affect flight characteristics? Will the engine installed higher on the flight axis, in relation to the stabs and wings incidence line, influence the way the plane flies.

I seem to recall someone earlier had the same issue (perhaps Josh) and raised the engine, only to find out he had to grind the box in order to accommodate the pitts muffler.

To add insult, it seems that the spinner plate is too close to the cowl, a hair from touching it. Rather than insert plywood shims that will eventually crush and compromise the engine mount, I ordered longer standoffs (2.75').

well, whatever it takes...

Hey, Yarom, before you tear everything apart... it looks like Lanier intended the engine to mount exactly as you have it. Have you looked at the image(s) of the Extra on the Lanier website? Looks like the spinner on the one in the picture is in about the same place. Does seem wrong... maybe you should call them before you change it?

As for moving the engine out, just a few washers should do the trick. No need for new standoffs!

By the way, I was the one talking to you at Marymoor yesterday (along with Jason... I was flying the Giant UCanDo). Looking forward to seeing your Extra there this spring!