RE: Lanier Yak
 

Well,

With good bit of patience and time, I got the stab tubes replaced with the CF version from GraphTec. That's officially 3 oz I have saved in the tail... that's huge...

I actually came close to sanding through on stab's fiberglass sleeve in one spot, but I'm O.K.

I also measured and made sure I cut the CF tubes as long as they could be so that they physically caught the doubled ribs on the inside. This way the tube isn't jusy held by the sleeve, but also all the ribs.

Tight fit, but they can be removed if a person wanted to. I even considered epoxying the whole deal, but second guessed myself...

I slid them in place and attached the hold down screws... then checked for stab>wingtube alignment... dead nuts on. Always good to have things go your way... ;)

I guess I need to get to hingin' :)

RE: Lanier Yak
 

I don't want to hijack this thread. I'll post something in the gas engine forum.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Whew... always feels good to get the hinging behind you... almost like a halfway-hump though it's often in the first 25% of building...;) Awe well we'll just tell ourselves we're halfway done...

I opted to use 30 minute epoxy this time. No reason... as I often use gorilla glue... but I thought I might get ti done a littel quicker... I suppose it was about the same.

Wings, elevators and rudder are hinged. These surfaces really are big. I expect lots of authority.

It starts to go pretty fast after this, and it won't be long before I'll start to pre-lim check the balance...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

There is no question, if already you have the 80, I'd use it. Weight shouldn't be a problem, just use throttle management.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Well, I'm somewhat disappointed in that while my wingtube fits snugly in the fuse sleeve, I just found out that it's way too tight for the wings sleeves... grrrrrr.

I suppose I could do a little sanding on the sleeves, but at 2 oz savings... I'm not sure it's worth it... especially since we're talking at or near CG...

I'm still pretty happy that I got the stab tubes in there because that saved a bunch of nose weight...

Some good news though...

I placed three servos in the tail 2x Futaba S9451 on the elevators and 1 x HiTec HS-5955 on the rudder... 36" extensions but no linkages.

With hatch on, motor mounted, cowl on, ignition and battery placed on top of the engine box, spinner backplate & prop...

The plane is slightly noseheavy from the center of the wingtube... (middle of suggested CG)

This is with aluminum gear but no wheel/axles (ahead of CG) and tank on CG.

So I'm pretty confident that balance will not be an issue at this point and that allows me to have the single rudder servo in the tail. I like that direct connection of a pushrod and won't have to fuss with modifying for a pull-pull setup.

I think it's safe to say that with the tail mods that you can easily balance a DA50 or comparable weight engine in this airframe. Whew... there's a load off.

Now it comes down to what the all up will be in relation to the power output of the engine... if I can see the 17.25 lbs that my Double Vision is... I think I'll be happy overall...

A quick check of weights has me at 11.5 lbs for the fuse as listed above and approx. 4 lbs for the two wings/wingtube... 15.5 lbs

Add 12 oz for wing servos and extensions adn I'm at 16.25 lbs...

Then wheels, axles, receiver, battery, switches, linkage, throttle servo, plumbing, etc... and it looks like 17.25-17.5 lbs. We'll see.. it semes that it's this last part an extra 1/2 lb shows up from nowhere...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

I've added the rudder linkage... as I mentioned before, I just couldn't bring myself to use the 6-32 stuff in the tail... but will probably use it on the ailerons since there are two per...

I chose to use DuBro Heavy Duty Control Horns with 8-32 rod. I mixed and matched a bit... used the rod from a pull-pull kit but the large aluminum nut from a control horn set... this allowed me to screw the horn closer to the surface and gave me the best throw. This is a really thick rudder...

I placed a nylock nut on the opposite side of the rudder, and located the hole in the hardpoint to where the control horn axis was even with the hingeline.

I also used an Double-Loc servo arm from SWB http://www.swbmfg.com/

I get almost maximum throw (within 1/8" of of the elevators) with the endpoints on my FUtaba 9C set to 140%... This will give me optimum resolution.

Lastly I'm not real happy with the servos ability to flex the fuse sides around the servo... the whole wood are flexes some when I put heavy pressure on the rudder... so I will tie both sides of the fuse together by cutting a piece of lightply that will span across the fuse sides and epoxy it in place by sliding it through the servo openings. This should eliminate that flexing I am seeing.

I'll go ahead and use the DuBro HD horns on the elevators too, then seal the hingegaps.

Add my tailwheel springs and I'll be done with the tail... :)

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Maudib

I almost wish you had built the plane stock and flown it. Then modified it to lighten it and flown that and then did a comparison of the two. That way an honest evaluation of the kit would have been done. I think that alot of guys at this level do a certain amount of mods and free building but you are a very experianced builder and I think that before you even weighed the stock components you already were developing a plan to make it better than stock, thats the level that you are at in this hobby.

I think alot of guys would like an honest opinion of the stock plane and hardware. I can already tell that your YAK is going to be a good plane but it is so far from the stock kit that it might as well be from a different manufacturer. I compare what we do to these ARFs to guys who watch GT racing on the TV. They see the Mustangs racing and winning or the BMWs and then go out and buy one at the dealership. You know as well as I that the only thing that is the same between the cars you can buy and the ones that race are the names. I have been flying my planes and had guys come up to me and say they are going to get the same exact plane as me. I tell them they cant because mine is not for sell. They give me a puzzled look then I explain all of the mods that I made to the plane to get it to fly the way it does-they then tell me to forget it, its too much work. This is my point it takes alot of work to get any plane to fly a certain way and I think a lot of people get dicouraged in our hobby because they see an ARF and beleive the marketing and go a head and purchase the plane without really understanding what is involved in getting a plane set-up and dialed in so that it can fly like in the videos.

Your build will be a good guide for the guy who wants to get his to fly like yours but at the same time alot of guys will think this plane is trash if you have to go to these lengths to get it to fly right.

I personally am very impressed with your build so far and cant wait to see a video of the maiden and then some seriouse 3-D. Also, I hope you get with someone who has a stock one at say 20lbs so that you can compare the two.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Barry,

I certainly understand your concerns... but I think there will be plenty of opportunities to see and hear how a variety of installations will perform.

The problem with this offering is that there will be an almost unlimited number of setups... starting with a wide array of engines... from DA50's to G-62's to ZDZ and EVO 80's and the entire gamut in between.

Some will add smoke others will go light... lions, nihms... well you get the point.

When you say you wished I had built it stock, I guess I would ask "What stock?" 50cc or 80cc? That's a huge difference right there.

I think to build this plane stock with a 50cc engine would not do it any justice. At over 18.5 lbs it will not have the power to weight ratio required for serious 3D. With an 80 it will have awesome power, but the much higher wingloading precludes it from being again a serious 3D machine for anyone but the most experienced pilot.

As opposed to the magazines that do a gloss over of the manual steps, take a dozen pictures (most of the finished plane) and say who-hoo what a nice plane. I take a look at it from the perspective of what I beleive most readers do want... to know how they might make a marginal plane good and a good plane great.

If this had been a plane in the weight range stated, I wouldn't be sharing these things... but just because the manufacturer got it wrong, doesn't mean the plane should be ignored or passed over. While it is the heaviest I've seen in it's size, it can easily be brought to within the normal weight range of this wingarea class.

There is no voodoo in what I've done thus far (though fitting the CF tubes might be a little advanced). I've basically lightened the hatch and drilled some holes in the tailblock and rudder.

If I had "built stock" with a DA50, I'd be at the end with a plane that wouldn't balance... then what? Show a pull-pull rudder setup that I DON'T want to perform? That's not stock either.

Bottom line is this... I, like everyone else, was told this was a 16.5-18 lbs plane with a 50-80cc engine. Someone made a serious miscalculation... it's MUCH heavier than expected.

I can either do a gloss over review and it get average or perhaps less than average ratings, and people don't buy the plane, OR I can share my techniques so that average builder's can learn new things and develop the plane into something better.

In reality... If someone wants a 50cc 3D plane, they don't want this plane built stock. If they do, THEY will out there screamin' bloody murder because it's a heavy so-and-so...

This certainly won't help anyone... the builders/pilots or the manufacturer.

I think this plane holds a LOT of promise... if I didn't I would have weighed it, packed it up and sent it back. It simply is not what was advertised... BUT with just a FEW simple mods this plane can lose 1/2 pound (without buying CF anything) and balance easy with a 50cc engine.

I will be able to rely on my experience and relate what a 50cc engine feels like on an 18 lb plane and an 80cc on a 21.75 plane.

I suppose I COULD have built it "stock" and then made mods afterward... but some are easier than others to do prior to assembly. Cutting the hatch out with the canopy attached would like scratch the daylights out of it. Trying to peel covering away from the rudder might not happen when it's hinged, etc.

I'll either keep this plane or sell it... and cobbling it up multiple times doesn't appeal to me or a potential buyer either.

So again, I DO understand what you are saying... and as I said there will be plenty of online reports and videos as to how this plane does with "various stock setups" and then there will be my build review that addresses shortcomings, offers tips and techniques and allows those who want to learn to make the best of a particular product. It will cover the many positives I have found as well as whatever negatives I find. SO that potential buyers will be armed with usable information to make a purchase decision. If they think my mods are too much they may check the threads and ask around... "Who built it stock and how does it perform?"

Fortunately there are several Lanier Yaks here in Ohio... and I might very well get to see one or more of them... but perhaps not before my review is published.

That's not to say I am the end all guru... there are PLENTY of people out there that are excellent builders and a bunch of different ways to do most everything.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

David

I think I missed it, what is the wing area of this YAK?

I agree with you this particular plane is not exactly a 50cc size plane it seems better suited for a 75cc engine. Who knows mabey we will have another plane to consider for the new DA-75 or current 60-80cc offerings.

Have you had a chance to talk with someone at Lanier and discuss the size and weight issues with them. Mabey they really tried to design a kit that could span all the popular and available singles 50cc-80cc, with the 50cc slightly underpowered but delivering a sporty plane. The majority of 75cc engines are probly in the sweet spot with the 80s providing ulimited power. This all would depend on the wing loading as 3-D is not just prop hanging. As I type I am watching a blizzard outside my window, we have had some crazy weather this winter. Yesterday it was 58 and raining cats and dogs today its just above freezing and almost a whiteout.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Wing Span: 87”
Overall Length:8 4”
Wing Area: 1468Sq. In.
Flying Weight: 16 ½ to 18lbs.
Engine: 50 to 80 cc
Radio: 4 Channel & 9 Servos



Barry, here are the specs...

I think anyone looking at these specs would think this is an excellent airframe for 50cc... and expect maybe 17 lbs all up...

If I built this plane stock it would have come in at 18.5 lbs, based on my past experience.

Even with my mods I won't see 17 lbs.

If the weight range stated 18-20 lbs, I would have easily said this is an 75cc-80cc plus airframe with heavy wingloading for it's size. I might have lined up a more appropriate engine, or even more likely passed on the airframe.

I'm glad I didn't because with a little effort this plane can do very nicely with a 50cc engine, and if someone cares to follow along they too can make these mods and reap similar results.

This review will point out the obvious errors in the suggested weights and perhaps THAT will allow people to make a more informed decision. It will also contain results gathered from others with various loadouts so people can get a feel for how it might turn out in other configurations.

You'll have to be patient for a Model Airplane News or Fly RC review of this airplane as it will undoubtledly not cover any mods at all... I'm sorry if my review won't fit your specifc needs at this time. I'm somewhat at a loss, as I've never been told before that I should build an aircraft any other way but the way I would for myself. I thought that's what distinguished my reviews from the hohum manual rewrites. I guess I just can't do it any other way... :)

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Making more progress...

I've got all the tail linkage installed... I may epoxy a small length of CF tube onto the elevator pushrods even though it's only 1.75"... Since it is all thread I'll feel better stiffening it with a CF tube and it won't add hardly nothing to the weight.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Maudib,

Thanks for the ongoing updates, and great photo quality as well. I can see that you are not too far from the final weigh in! I have started assembling my Yak and found that even the canopy lightening has made a big difference to the weight.

I look forward to hearing more progress reports on your Yak.

Lang

RE: Lanier Yak
 

David

I agree with you that for the DA-50 this is how this plane should be built, this is how I would do it if I were putting in a DA-50. I guess I am just trying to figure out Lanier's thinking behind this size plane at 18.5lbs its clearly too big for the a 50cc. I take it Lanier didnt supply the plane.:D Does it actually have 1468Sq In.? Have you considered putting in a 75cc or 80cc?

RE: Lanier Yak
 

For one though, Lanier's wing measurements are accurate, unlike the BME Yak. My 87" Edge is pretty much spot on, so even at 17 lbs it flies light.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Actually they did supply the plane for review.

Wing area and advertised weight make this a 50cc-60cc aircraft. Similar aircraft are the BME Yak, TOC/AM 30% Yak and 85" Edge... all of these feature similar wingareas and come in under 17 lbs stock

75-80cc aircraft generally are 92"+ and would weigh somewhere between 20-23 lbs... Better selections for an 80cc engine might be the H9 Edge with over 1700 sq in... The coming CHP 94" Yak, Aeorworks Yak, Lanier 33% Laser 200, etc

I think MOST guys will say that an 80 will make this size aircraft heavier than they prefer.... but there will be plenty fellas who will love it with an 80.

I simply think that Lanier ended up with production planes heavier than their prototype... otherwise where would they have gotten 16.5-18 lbs from?


It's a gorgeous plane that is 2 lbs heavier than expected... youhave to make the best of what you got... For me I'd MUCH rather jump through the hoops and make this a really nice 50cc aircraft than to throw money and cc's at it.

Again, it simply comes down to the advertised weights... and 2 lbs isn't minor to say the least. Had this offering been 10 lbs out of box... I would have built it bone stock (except for changing to 8-32 hardware)... but it didn't...

I do believe I am doing Lanier and potential buyers a service by sharing how it can be modded to be closer to what they obviously had intended... and to take what many will simply pass up for the myriad of lighter alternatives and offer it in a light that people will say... WOW... with alittle bit of effort this plane can be the largest 50cc out there and be nicely powered with my 50...

Well... that's my hope anyway. For a pretty much bone stock build, see my recent GP Ultimate 1.60 review. 1450 sq in... 14.75 lbs... nearly 4 lbs lighter...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Here's the Edge specs from Laniers site...

Wing Span: 87”
Overall Length:83 ½”
Fuselage Length:61 3/4”
Wing Area:1447 ½ Sq. In.
Flying Weight:16 ½ to 18lbs.
Engine:50 to 80 cc
Radio:4 Channel & 9 Servos

Seems to me that at 17.1 lbs you are right where you should have been and expected to be... Imagine if you built it stock and it was 18.5 lbs...

Maybe you'd be willing to tack on 1.5 POUNDS of lead to the nose of your Edge and tell us what you think then? :)

Remember even with my lightening mods, and about $175 worth of carbon fiber... I WON'T make it as low as 17 lbs...

And believe me... I'd MUCH rather fly a BME 1350 sq in, 50cc powered 16 lb'er, than a 1450 sq 50cc powered 18.5 lb'er or an 80cc powered 20+ lb'er...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Barry, there are several Yaks, Extras and Edges being currently built with extensive follow-up on the board. What they all have in common, besides being from Lanier and very close in dimensions, is that they are significantly overweight for a light 50CC engine and for performing 3D.

The 2 reviews I read (MAN and FLY) were very brief, limited in insight and completely ignored the weight issue. I guess they want to keep them review models coming and will not alienate the distributors at any cost.

The short of it is that people who are looking for a 3D performer should walk away from these kits unless they are willing to take significant weight saving steps. It is common practice for the distributors to cheat a bit on the stats when trying to sell their product. 2 Pounds on a 50cc plane is more than just a bit and affects the flying characteristics significantly.

What Maudib and Bonedoc are doing is invaluable to all of us, less experienced modelers. Without the weight savings steps, we might all end up with at best, an average IMAC bird.

I want to thank them and other members of this board for their very dilligent documentation and sharing their best engineering steps with us. Without this information I'd be building something closer to a flying pig and probably selling it shortly afterwards...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

David

The majority of BME Yaks are above 17lbs, we are averaging 17.8 lbs. The Da-50s are comming in the low 17s and everything else is 18+. I think the few 16+ pounders went your rout and lightened everything they could and went with lipos, the lightest that I can recall was an ARC that had been completely gone through. So I guess manufacturers are giving us bigger planes but in order for us to see the advertised weights we have to put them on diets of carbon fiber, lithium polymer and give em liposuction with the old Dremel tool.:D The EF and QQ Yaks are the only 15-16 pounders that exist in this size and they are $$ or not available. I think light planes are like beutiful women, they are available if you have money. Your build might just be the thing we really need, I am re-thinking my position on your build you have made me see the light. You are on to the secret of good flying light planes and I think that based on the manufacturers track record so far we have to assume that all planes will be heavy by at least 2lbs and if we are going to have any chance of seeing the advertised weights and get the full flying potential of the design then we have to implement the weight saving measures ourselves. Mabey Lanier will include your review as an addendum for a better lighter version.:D It could say somthing like "If using the DA-50 then follow the included addendum to the instructions". Ya I think all ARFs should come with such an addendum.

You know as well as I that this weight battle has been faught for ever, I am just having some fun at your expense...;) Sorry. Seriously, I think your review is going to help alot of guys learn what it takes to properly set-up a plane so that they can fully enjoy what modern R/C planes have to offer especially in the realm of Aerobatics. If we want to fully enjoy what these planes have to offer then we have to learn the techniques to unlock their potential, its as simple as that and I applaud you for your efforts to educate the masses. We will all be better off for it. Also mabey more manufacturers will take notice like EF and QQ and offer what we really want at a more affordable price.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

One more thing that I just thought of, weight could have a direct corelation to the cost. I think that anything below $600 is a pig and the lower the price the more pork! A $700 50cc plane should be right at 15lbs with a DA-50 no mods, liposuction or addendums needed and it would have a 1450Sq In. wing right on the money. Now its a class issue again, I cant win for trying.LOL:D I dont care what anybody says, rich people do have all the fun, my fun is on credit and it can be revoked at any time.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Mine IS stock... it's more like 17.3-5 lbs though. But as long as you do a pull pull, you can easily get to 17.5 lbs with NO weight savings employed.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Josh

You know you wish you had a 16 pounder.:D Now get out that Dremel, LOL!!

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Josh...

Man your plane gets heavier with each passing page... I thought you said 17.1, but looking back you said 17.2... it's now up to 17.3-17.5 :)
Wait til it gets to 18.5 lbs then tell me if you are happy with the DA's performance... Either that or dump the fish scale for something better... :)

Of course your 17.2 has a CF tailwheel and no spinner and a mod for pull-pull for balance. Your choice of batteries may have saved an oz or two as well...


Now when you say "you can easily get to 17.5 lbs with NO weight savings employed"... of course you mean the Edge right? because I know you can't be guessing what a Yak could come in at? your figure of over 12 lbs for your Edge parts was simply wrong... You can't get to 17.2 lbs from there. My buddies Edge parts were 10.5 lbs so he is expecting 17 lbs...

RE: Lanier Yak
 

!W00T!
I don't think I've seen a thread yet where the weight of a particular model has been so analyzed ! Is fun though..
Seems to be the way these days, everyone tying to get rid of a half ounce here and a quarter ounce there :)
Anyhow, I don' think it was mentioned before: If you replace the main tube/spar with carbon be ready to do a little touching up with some fine sandpaper. I know Maudib covered replacing the rear tubes and doing a bit of work on them but the main tube will need trimming as well, but just a tad..
Meant to mention this in an earlier post but forgot.
Wouldn't want you all getting a carbon spar and finding out its a little too tight and getting all worked up for nuttin :D

RE: Lanier Yak
 

Maudib:
I had to take a double take of your pics of the rudder/elevator hardware. I have the EXACT same hardware setup:D EXACT...LOL
Was thinking of adding some SWB arms for the elevator's as well but concerned about maybe too much twisting from the ball links.

RE: Lanier Yak
 

When I weighed it, it was 17lbs 3oz, using a fish scale. I've never claimed sub 17lbs:D. I think I might have left out the spinner though, but I'm pretty sure evrything else (including those heavy wheelpants) are there. There's a balsa undercarriage that covers the LG that I just never got around installing. Either way, I don't think you'll feel that much difference from 17-17.5 anyway, :)