westside

I must say the plane is awesome looking and built well. Instructions are brief but are being revised now. I am going to run a OS 1.08 in my plane for 3d experimenting. I have placed flying wires on the tail section and replaced the tail wheel that comes with the kit. I will be flying my plane later this week and will post again about the flying characteristics.

-Brian West

David Cutler

Hi Brian,

I have mine now agree it's very well engineered.

One point ..

How have you attached the belly pan? The instructions say to screw it on with wood screws, and I am a little concerned these won't have the durability needed to be able to take it off every time you fly, to fix the wings on.

-David C.

Steve Campbell2

David,

I am watching this thread with great interest, as this firm (either the Edge 540 or Extra in 66" trim) is one of three "finalists" I'm considering for my next project.

If I understand correctly, the belly pan must be removed/replaced each time the wings are attached/detached?

If so, is there enough hardwood in the area designated for the screws to support brass threaded inserts? You've seen these; they take 4-40 or 6-32 or whatever hex bolts. MUCH more durable than wood screws.

These Vector models look very good, but it has been my observation that little things like this can make or break the overall experience. Another thing; judging from the kit photos on the web site, the belly pan and wheel pants appear to be vacuum-formed. That's a BIG red flag to me personally...

And what's with this "polycarbonate" cowl? I'm hoping it is not just another buzzwoord for that horrible, brittle, so-called "ABS" that most inexpensive ARF cowls are made from. I already realize that the pretty scheme in the web pix are NOT paint, but decals that I imagine will be a chore to get on properly. Well, that's why its called "modeling", but I'm finding you have read this site closely to get the full picture.

So, what is the cowl like, compared to glass?

If I seem excessively nit-picky, its because I am. I have built over two dozen different ARFs, ranging from the outstanding to the execrable, and a couple of the latest ones (SIG SE, Kangke CAP Sport) have spoiled me, they were so good; as a result, I don't mind paying extra for a first class product. Of course, if I can get that overall level of quality for less, then great.

But these Vector models just seem a little bit too good to be true. Pardon my paranoia, but whatever I choose will end up being my main "flyer", so I want it to be right.

Thanks for your insight.

Steve

David Cutler

Hi Steve,

My observations about the quality of the Vector Edge:-

The initial impression, looking at the glue and wood quality is excellent. They have actually glued it with small fillets around the skin/former joints, which has saved me a job, as I always do that when I get an ARF!

I agree about using brass inserts. I always do that for cowls as it not only removes any worry about durability (as a metal to metal contact is far superior) but also looks better. I plan to do the same with the belly pan on the Edge, and it looks like there is enough meat there to do it.

The cowl is indeed plastic, but looks like it's the soft polythene type material, which is much more durable, as it probably won't crack. I still plan to lay a CA fiberglass layer around the bolt holes though. The paint is excellent , although it was obviously sent out in a hurry, as I had to immediately take it out of the packaging, and let it set hard in free air.

One feature I really like is a general treatment of their design philosophy. They have obviously put a lot of thought into the structural design. One example of this is that the wings are mounted using a full-width pair of very strong ply joiners. They have to be epoxied in, (in each wing half, with a wing nut connection in the middle) and actually glue to the wing skin as well as the center. The strength is, of course, in the skin and they have picked up on this. Their construction method for the wing is amazingly strong, and is a perfect airfoil shape.!

As a general statement, they have obviously gone for good strength and engineering design over prettiness. By that I mean the covering is excellent, with no wrinkles, but there is, for example a large overlap of two colors under the wing, to improve the joint, at the slight expense of looks.

I personally like that philosophy a lot, as everything we make is a compromise, and to compromise towards strength and away from prettiness is the right way to go in my book.

There is one thing I really like . . Have you tried corresponding with them? They are first rate at customer service, and I definitely get the impression that, once you buy one, they are very keen to help you get the best out of it.

For as little as they charge for their products, that's almost a miracle these days!

Put it this way, I doubt if you will get a better deal than what you receive for what it costs you!

More to come when I start to build it!

-David C.

David Cutler

. as an addition to my latest post......

I have just cut out one of the holes at the front of the cowling and it's definitely looking like it will last a long time.

The plastic is very thick, and is the sort that 'squeaks' when you cut it, if you know what I mean. It's a bit like the material good quality canopies are made of but at least twice as thick.

- -More to come!

-DC

Calflyer

Totally agree. Honest to goodness quality and no frills is what I would call them. Their customer service is very good and usually replied within hours. I love their design philosophy which obviously prefers functionality and strength. BTW polycarb or PET is heads and shoulders different and much stronger than ABS. There is NO comparison betwee these two plastics. My cowls from the other two airplanes from vectorflight have been great and in fact better than many fiberglass ones I have had, inluding recently from a Kyosho Sukhoi which was brittle and micro cracking just by handling. Some others weighed like a brick. Sure they could use some glass wheel pants and belly pan, but I suppose unless you are making them in China, it makes sense to stay away from labor intensive parts, as these airplanes are made in North America. All in all it seems that this company does not just follow the trend blindly, as would seem from the wing attaching setup, but actually does what it thinks makes good engineering sense. And is doing so at a price that is absolutely incredible. If you look at the many other similar airplanes, their Edge, a steal at $149, saved me enough money to buy a 60 2 stroke for another airplane, lol. And the quality I got was unsurpassed. I would get it before they smartened up to more realistic prices, cause I cant see how anyone could be making any profit at these prices.

David_Moen

So what would you think about an OS 91 four-stroke on one of these?

David Cutler

Well, as long as you don't expect 3D flying, that should be fine.

I can't decide whether to put my Saito 100 or OS 91FX 2 stroke in it.

-David C.

David_Moen

Do you think it would 3D with a 91 2 stroke? I just have the opportunity to puck up a Surpass 91 for about half the price of a new 91 2 stroke....

Steve Campbell2

Thanks, David and Calflyer. Excellent, informative posts; both.

Next question; what about the hardware? Usable? So-so? Standard Pacific-rim junk? I'm including ALL accessories in this query, specifically the tank, gear, wheels, horns, etc.

Do the horns have "hard points" to attach to, or are you going into balsa like 99% of other ARFs?

Keep us posted with your observations/experiences.

Steve

Calflyer

Fuel tank is Dubro, Wheels are Dubro, Engine mount is Dave Brown, LG is claimed 6061 aluminum which is one of the hardest, and I believe it is in fact 6061. I dont know what is meant by hard point as the entire tailplane is solid balsa shaped to airfoil, and the clevises are metal Dubro, control horns are a screw and nut arrangement which goes thru predrilled holes in the control surfaces. No, none of that crappy cheap stuff so common in ARFs. And this airplane could easily have been $249 rather than $149!

LSP972

My Feedback: (13)

By hardpoint, I mean an area of hard wood for the horns to attach to. Balsa, no matter how good the fit, is going to get soft, crushed, etc., over time.

Joe Bridi understood the need for this when he designed such classics as the Kaos. "Modern" ARF fabricators apparently don't understand it...

David Cutler

I'm just starting to assemble mine now, but still haven't decided whether to fit my OS 91FX or Saito 100 in it.

C'mon, which one?

-David C.

westside

Go with the Saito 100, I am running a OS 1.08 FX and will probably test fly the plane tomorrow or the next day and I will let you know how it goes.

-BW

David_Moen

Westside,

Do you haev anything to add with respect to build quality etc? Antone have any photos of their planes during assembly?

David Cutler

Hi Brian,

Yes, I s'pose it should be the Saito.

Actually, that engine was right on tune the moment I first started it. It's currently in a Graupner Extra and hasn't missed a beat, even though it's still nowhere near run in.

Good luck with your Edge. Tell us if it has any bad habits like snapping with excessive elevator, tip stalling on landing or something.

-David C.

David_Moen

David C.

How would you compare the Graupner Extra and the VF plane? The published weight for the Graupner seems very low - 90 oz I think...is that what you've found in reality?

Calflyer

Just had first early morning flights with the Edge. Will try to remember exactly, I am too excited.

CG was about at the aft end of range. I wanted to add about 4 oz in front but decided against it. Only addition I have done is to add tail wire braces. Just gives it the extra assurance.

Used an FX 91. Set all trims to neutral, added 2 notches of right aileron. Ground handling was trouble free, and take off run smooth and straight with tail wheel lifting in about 15 ft.
Opened throttle slowly to about 80 %. Let it gain speed for about a 100 ft and slight up elevator apliocation lifted the airplane effortlessly. Noticed airplane was very quick to respond and immediately went to reduced rates on elevator and aileron.
Pulled up in a left hand, airplane was flying rock steady, slight nose up and fast gaining height. Leveled it off at about 100 ft and when directly in front applied up elevator and opened throttle and whao, it shot straight up almost out of sight. Very very quick change in direction! Kept pointing straigt up till I could barely see it. This aiplane goes straight where you want it to , no questions asked.

Next pass tried rolling. Very fast roll rate, truly axial, no correction whatsoever to keep it rolling without losing altitude. Left it inverted and did not touch the trim and it just kept going with hardly any loss of altitude. Rolling is so precise it tempts you to do 8 point rolls.

Next tried basic loops. Straight and true execution, from very large to tight.

A few more laps, now getting the hang of the airplane and beginning to enjoy the responsive control after initially being a bit nervous to use too much. To say the least, this airplane is more responsive than I have flown in some time! Turns on a dime and just goes like an arrow where you point it. Did not try any advanced aerobatics today as I am just trying to adjust to the airplane skill level.

Made a fast low pass at about 15 ft. No sign of any flutter. Wings are cutting smoothly and airplane is flying fast and straight without any tendency to go up or down. I didnt dare touch elevator in case I point it to the big one! Looks very impressive!

Tried slow flight. This is the most incredible part. The airplane slows a lot, even in no head wind this morning. Just kept reducing power and adding elevator until the airplane was flying at about 40 degrees angle, but still responsive to turning where you want to. The airplane would just hang in there without any fuss.

To bring the plane down you have to set it up in correctly with nose down attitude. Come time for landing, reduced throttle, final approach over left shoulder. Very gentle, no problem tracking, or any hint of stall, although I think I had it slowed down considerably. Greased the first landing! Rolled in easy.

It looks like this aiplane is one of the most exciting I have flown. It is fun and easy to just fly around as long as you are on reduced rates, but turn on the heat and it becomes a precision flying machine ready to do whatever you want it to do without hesitation or bad habits. You just have to keep on top of this awesome bird and the experience becomes very exhilarating. Wow!!! I think I will just relax today.

David Cutler

Calflyer,

<gulp>

So, let's see. . . .

It's fair to say you quite liked it then?

-David C.

p.s. Thanks for the great review! I MUST get mine in the air as soon as possible!

David_Moen

Wow! Sounds exciting! Congrats on the maiden!

David Cutler

Hi David,

This is an interesting comparison, as it compares two great models that have completely different design philosophies.

You may have read about the vital need to fit tail strengthening wires in the Graupner? Well, I can vouch for that! The whole plane is of top quality, with no wrinkles, and everything fitting extremely well, but it looks like it aims to be pretty as opposed to a good bit of engineering.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a Grauopner Extra to anybody, as it's a pleasure to assemble, and flies really great.

The Vectorflight Edge, however, is one mean bit of engineering! No compromising strength and straightness for prettiness here! It is a superb bit of thoughtful engineering all round.

Judging by calflyer's message, it looks like this has translated into a really great flying machine too!

Sooo, it depends what you are looking for. I personally like the idea of the designers being a little quirky, as that proves they have put some thought into it. The Grapuner, however, is a very good example of what an imported plane should be, and is way up there with the best.

Hope that helped!

David C.

David_Moen

I like the looks of the Extra better than the Edge, and I do like the "robust" nature of the VF planes, I was just wondering if this robustness led to any sort of compromises in terms of in-flight performance.

Can anyone characterize the flying capabilities of the Edge design versus the Extra?

I must say that I've been e-mailing back and forth with Vector for quite a while, asking all sorts of questions and they have demonstrated remarkable patience and courtesy in their answers. I also really like the idea of supporting a small manufacturer.

Calflyer

Love the Vector Edge, although not a plane to relax with!

David is right, it is a piece of engineering and design. No frills, just single minded in purpose. I mean if you just look at the way the framework is so integrated and well thought out. For example if you look inside the fuel compartment, there are 4 prongs of internal ply structure coming from the wing area, which grab the firewall from all corners, in addition to the usual sides. I have not seen a level of design as this before. There is also a flat piece of framework which runs from the firewall to the back of the plane. I can see this providing a lot of strength to the airframe. No wonder it flies very steady.

In terms of robustness vs. performance, the plane is not heavy for its wingspan, but it is certainly not designed specifically for 3D, although it might do it with a bigger engine. I think it was designed to be a pure aerobatic airplane. However it would be great to know how it does 3D. I am going to stick with the 91FX for a while, which is more than adequate power for advanced aerobatics (and me)

Steve Campbell2

Calflyer,

I have read and studied every bit of available information on this firm and their models. It just seems "too good to be true", given the amazingly low price. I keep looking for the hidden catch.

Judging from your reports, there isn't one. Would that be a correct assumption?

Steve

beavertail

Ive got the Extra, and Vector Flight has been phenominal in customer service. The sent me another tailwheel when they upgraded the kit, and sent me emails asking how satisfied I was with the kit. Might get the edge next