Just talk to AW at 6:00 est he said the same thing with the adtion that the plane can be a ***** cat with the 3-3/4 cg but can rip it up with a 4-3/4.they said that pepole who have flown a low wing sport and do good by them selves shouyld have no prob. they also highly recommended a radio with duel rates and expo. i personally have flown an advance 40 with 0.s. 46fx with macs pipe. i can fly 5 feet off the deck inverted and hang on the prop for just a sec before it slumps. his comment was he had flown them and it flys easier. i plan to fly the edge with a os 1.08 fsr. its a 91 crank bored to 1.08 and it only weighs a couple onces more. whys everbody use in 4 strokes why not ligther more reliable and more power to weight? hope it helps

Four strokes have a number of advantages over two. They produce more torque at a lower RPM allowing the use of a larger more efficient prop. They use less fuel and are quieter. Throttle response is usually better and the idle is more reliable. They are less suscepable to atmospheric changes and once the needles are set need very little tweeking. Modern four strokes can produce just as much and sometimes more static thrust than two strokes of the same size. However if all out speed is what you are looking for the RPM of a two stroke will win hands down.

I talked to Rocco at AW today. He said he had received several calls about the pitch sensitivity today.

The recommended CG of 4 3/4 is definately for 3D. He said it will porpoise at that location. He is flying his own planes at 5-5 1/4 back.

It was his suggestion that the CG be started at between 3 3/4 and 4 inches back. He felt it is very stable, but a little nose heavy at 3 3/4. As you get more comfortable with the plane move the CG back until it fits your flying style. He gave me the feeling that most experienced pilots should be able to handle a starting CG of 4, but, if this is your 3rd plane or so, that you might be advised to start a little more forward. It is better to have it noseheavy and stable than tailheavy and uncontrollable. You can always move the CG back later.

He also said that the plane was designed for 3D, not blasting around at high speed. He is using a 15x6 prop, but, pointed out that he is in Colorado and that the 16x4 may very well work better with the YS 91 at closer to sea level. The only way you will know is to experiment a little. One plane was built with flying wires on the tail for a picture to put on the net. He feels certain that they are not necessary at the speeds the plane was designed at. If you want it as something other than a 3D plane it might be wise to put the flying wires on.

He pointed out that this is AW's first venture into smaller planes. Most pilots that have purchased the larger planes have a little more experience than some that are purchasing this one and that in the future they will take that into account when making recommendations about things like CG for 3D. He also said that they will probably include a manual with a little more information in it in future small planes to accomodate less experienced pilots.

He said that the reported weights, from real people that have built this plane, are coming in at 8 1/2 pounds max, or under depending on the engine being used. He said that he had not talked to anyone that had one weigh more.

He was extremely helpful. If you have questions, don't hesitate to call him.

JR

Sorry for the duplicate post. It is also posted at the end of the long thread about this plane