wing area??
02-14-2006 | 09:28 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , MD
wing area??
The aerotech Yak with a 84"ws,has 1410 wing area,the QQ has a 85"ws,but has less wing area.Would this make the aerotech the better flying plane?or easier to land plane?Or do other things combined with the wing area make the differance?
02-15-2006 | 06:36 AM
#2
My Feedback: (4)
RE: wing area??
There's more to it than just that. Wing loading is what you are really looking for. Plus, read post #378 in the 50cc Yak thread in the Aerotech support forum (in Giant scale forum). That guy did actual measurements and only got 1330 sq.in. I don't know for sure, but I think the QQ Yak wing area is more accurate.
Now, take the actual weights of what people's planes are coming in at. Again, while Aerotech has and advertised weight of 16.5-17 pounds, most of them are coming in at 17.5-19 pounds, while the QQ's are easily built at 16 pounds or less.
For the sake of truer comparison, lets say you can get an Aerotech down to 17.5 pounds and it actually has 1410 sq.in. Your wing loading is 28.6 ounces. Then take the QQ at 16 pounds and it's 1330 sq.in and you get a 27.7 ounce wingloading. They are relatively the same size, so Reynold's numbers don't matter, and the QQ appears to be the winner, by an ounce in my comparison, but I was being generous to the Aerotech's specs...
In my opinion, the QQ Yak is a FAR superior plane, in both flight and quality. The cheesy fiberglass canopy of the Aerotech is enough to keep me from buying one...
Now, take the actual weights of what people's planes are coming in at. Again, while Aerotech has and advertised weight of 16.5-17 pounds, most of them are coming in at 17.5-19 pounds, while the QQ's are easily built at 16 pounds or less.
For the sake of truer comparison, lets say you can get an Aerotech down to 17.5 pounds and it actually has 1410 sq.in. Your wing loading is 28.6 ounces. Then take the QQ at 16 pounds and it's 1330 sq.in and you get a 27.7 ounce wingloading. They are relatively the same size, so Reynold's numbers don't matter, and the QQ appears to be the winner, by an ounce in my comparison, but I was being generous to the Aerotech's specs...
In my opinion, the QQ Yak is a FAR superior plane, in both flight and quality. The cheesy fiberglass canopy of the Aerotech is enough to keep me from buying one...
02-15-2006 | 09:59 AM
#3
RE: wing area??
ORIGINAL: bodywerks
There's more to it than just that. Wing loading is what you are really looking for. Plus, read post #378 in the 50cc Yak thread in the Aerotech support forum (in Giant scale forum). That guy did actual measurements and only got 1330 sq.in. I don't know for sure, but I think the QQ Yak wing area is more accurate.
Now, take the actual weights of what people's planes are coming in at. Again, while Aerotech has and advertised weight of 16.5-17 pounds, most of them are coming in at 17.5-19 pounds, while the QQ's are easily built at 16 pounds or less.
For the sake of truer comparison, lets say you can get an Aerotech down to 17.5 pounds and it actually has 1410 sq.in. Your wing loading is 28.6 ounces. Then take the QQ at 16 pounds and it's 1330 sq.in and you get a 27.7 ounce wingloading. They are relatively the same size, so Reynold's numbers don't matter, and the QQ appears to be the winner, by an ounce in my comparison, but I was being generous to the Aerotech's specs...
In my opinion, the QQ Yak is a FAR superior plane, in both flight and quality. The cheesy fiberglass canopy of the Aerotech is enough to keep me from buying one...
There's more to it than just that. Wing loading is what you are really looking for. Plus, read post #378 in the 50cc Yak thread in the Aerotech support forum (in Giant scale forum). That guy did actual measurements and only got 1330 sq.in. I don't know for sure, but I think the QQ Yak wing area is more accurate.
Now, take the actual weights of what people's planes are coming in at. Again, while Aerotech has and advertised weight of 16.5-17 pounds, most of them are coming in at 17.5-19 pounds, while the QQ's are easily built at 16 pounds or less.
For the sake of truer comparison, lets say you can get an Aerotech down to 17.5 pounds and it actually has 1410 sq.in. Your wing loading is 28.6 ounces. Then take the QQ at 16 pounds and it's 1330 sq.in and you get a 27.7 ounce wingloading. They are relatively the same size, so Reynold's numbers don't matter, and the QQ appears to be the winner, by an ounce in my comparison, but I was being generous to the Aerotech's specs...
In my opinion, the QQ Yak is a FAR superior plane, in both flight and quality. The cheesy fiberglass canopy of the Aerotech is enough to keep me from buying one...
Now, if we take the benchmark plane (EF 50cc Yak), it neither is 87" (its 85" ), nor its true wing area is 1450sq.in (this has been posted somewhere on the QQ Yak thread, I don't have the plane at hand). You only get 1450 if you do the same as with the AT Yak (add wings and central fuz area unassebled so you cheat on the area overlap within the wing sockets).
The QQ yak specs post the area without the above trick, so the fair comparison is EF ~1380 TRUE, QQ 1350 TRUE, AT 1370 TRUE. They are pretty close. QQ is the lightest, so this would be the choice. My AT Yak will be close to 17lbs (with a cannister) so I expect good performance. But, take your pick!
As far as the cheesy FG canopy is concerned, I do not find it ugly (quite the contrary)!! Have a look...
02-15-2006 | 06:21 PM
#5
My Feedback: (4)
RE: wing area??
Well, the paint doesn't match the pearl white covering, for one, and you have to glue the canopy in from the inside, which is not only Cumbersome, but it is something that you did not have to do at all with the EF or the QQ, and the paint match was spot-on.
Also, I haven't taken the time to read the entire QQ yak forum, but I think the EF was the lightest...mine came in at 15 pounds, even. The only thing I didn;t use in the kit was the wheelpants.
Also, I haven't taken the time to read the entire QQ yak forum, but I think the EF was the lightest...mine came in at 15 pounds, even. The only thing I didn;t use in the kit was the wheelpants.
