eagletalon

My Feedback: (21)

Hello fellow members I`am looking for further info (aside from aeroworks tech support) i have already addressed this issue with them and attempted there suggestions with the exception of going with carbon fiber tail support=tube`s plus wheel gear. I have done the obvious minus any dead weight > i should`nt have to any how!Gotta keep`m light. So according to Aeroworks manual mesure 4-1/4" aft of most outter leading edge of wing tips for CG okay . Now i`am forced to put my lion battery`s all the way up into the motor box i extended my da beyond the standoff`length`s with spacers but the problem here is that the cowl will not cover the #1 former or i`am forced to bucher the cowl front bevel air intake , that`s not gonna happen i would lose entegritty of the cowl not to mention it would ruin it`s look. i even went as far as moveing my CG 3/4" further back and thats outside recomended tollerance of most CG point`s i`am 7 to 9 oz off CG at this point and do not want to add any further weight i did a search here and did find others with similar issues and really should`nt have to deal with such an issue especialy going by Aeroworks manual. I like to think i have some time under my belt for the understanding of these and other issues that can be rectifide in this hobbie but i`am stumped. although one thing that the tech support fellas did mention is that now and then some of the planes may have been built with hevier / dence wood , okay thats a good possibillity here. .
so i`am posting this thread in Regards to one of my smaller builds should be simple right?, the AeroWorks Yak 54 50cc my install is a da-50 stock+ tbm 23x8+ tbm 2600 li-ion ign+ tbm 5200 li-ion for Rx, SF reg. hs5955 over all. thanks for takeing the time to read this thread and would be grateful for positive solution`s keeping in mind the above notes.

hanko

I know with most of the 50 cc yaks, the motor extends out to the point the cowl does have to be trimmed so the cylinder heads sticks out in the air. If thats what your talking about

hanko

I forgot to add, that on my TOC (thunder tiger) SD TT-TOC or what ever the Flock you want to call them these days I needed to build a tray over the top of the fuel tank to get the proper balance, I run dual A123's . I want to put them right behind the wing tube, buit Im chicken. I know the AW is set up the same way

eagletalon

My Feedback: (21)

Hi` hanko i understand what your saying, yes the cyl:head cut out below the cowl but i`am refering to the very front edge of the cowl intake were it bevels inward. my cyl:head is against it keeping the cowl from mounting over the #1 former. even if i extend the motor out and cut the cowl i`am still tail heavy .... and in regards to the toc/sd/tt i have the 35% and your right that is a working option check my gallery pic`s of my 35%yak setup batt`s in the aft of CG position. thanks for your input and i will keep banging my head on the issue at hand .

hanko

Oh ****, your way the hell out there. I dont know what to tell you guy. That sucks big wheenies. I wonder how much lead it would take to make it right? What did AW have to say about that?

eagletalon

My Feedback: (21)

hi` hanko, yes this does suck ! to answer your question on lead i would have to add 7to9 oz. and thats with battery`s as far into motorbox as possible. aeroworks tech`s say that i should buy the graphite tube`s and tail gear that they cary and add a prop hub weight and that should take care of my problem , i asked why so tail heavy and the two tech`s i spoke with mention and i qoute: it`s a posibility of heavy wood structure . and my option was to purchase the graphite setup for the tail end. iam currious to the weight and ballance of the fuse itself and elevator/stab. I would have to remove all my gear to do so & not that it would help not knowing standard production weight.

aeroworks solution option`s
1. purchase their graphite tail tube`s & graphite wheel gear. then add a prophub weight. i`am leaving this sector open for discussion.

hanko

I bought one of there 35 extra 260"s about 4 years ago. It ended up being way nose heavy with the DA 100. They said that it was impossible, cant remember the exact point as to which it was suppose to ballance, but anyway I had to put two 3500 mah Ni cads as far back as I could to make it fly right. Ive herd quite a few comments on Aw planes either being nose heavy, tail heavy, and just plain heavy.

eagletalon

My Feedback: (21)

hello~again` hanko thanks for your sharing your past experience , but i`am not trying to bash AeroWorks product i happen to have a couple of their ultimates the 100cc & 50cc and had know problems. what i`am thinking though at this point is my aw yak missed part of it`s quality control check. because most others aside from a couple have had no problem setting their gear in their common place of install and i`ve gone to the extreme and it`s still tale heavy. i say extreme but i`am not gonna add dead nose weight...
thanks again for your post.

ndb8fxe

My Feedback: (1)

Okay, so it seems that everyone is tiptoeing around it, but I'll come out and say it: At what point is the product faulty and require a replacement model? This situation doesn't seem right to me.

hanko

Who said anything about replacement? I didnt. I cant see that anyone is tiptoeing around anything

sensei

Purchasing carbon products to lighten an airframe is a great thing to do, but to buy them for c/g reasons and then add 9 ozs. of lead on the nose is just wrong. If in fact this is true, then all that tells me is that the wing by design is just too far forward on the fuse, because on a 50 cc bird unless you have added a forest in lumber aft of the c/g it would be almost impossibe to to get that much difference from airframe to airframe due to the density of the wood. So the way I see it, you have two choices, move the wing aft between 1/2" and 1 ", or lighten the tail, both will be a PITA and defeat the purpose of buying an arf in the first place, but could be done with a hell of alot of effort. This is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions...

Bob

hanko

that would be a job to move the wing back. I ran a G62 on an older TOC 50 cc yak, and it actually fit in the cowl better than a DA, DL 50 type engine. It sat closer the the fire wall and didnt require cutting the bottom out at all. just a thaught. It really hauled ass with that engine. Of course it will add 2 lbs to the front. It actually flew quite nice

closetguy

My Feedback: (13)

don't know if there is a 9oz. difference,but you could go with a 2300a123 and a 2500nimh five cell for the ignition.the da will handle a five cell and mount it to a tray on the engine standoffs and the a123 on the engine box.that rite there is a little over 10 ozs,just a thought.

ndb8fxe

My Feedback: (1)

From the first quote above I assumed (bad on my part) that you were implying that AW should do something about this. Your reply to seemed curt so I hope I didn't offend you in some way.

My belief is that if you receive a product (in any market) that is not as good as advertised that the manufacturer/retailer needs to make it right. Asking the customer to spend a bunch more money on tail tube and LG, etc, quite frankly, is insulting. Adding that much weight IMO is not acceptable. These planes are advertised as being a QuickBuild ARF. When complications are discovered it (1) is no longer a quick build ARF, (2) won't perform as advertised. As sensei said to start modifying it defeats the purpose of buying an ARF. If it is a wood density that would be a QC issue and not up to the consumer to resolve.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but coming from a CS background, I hate to see people unhappy when purchasing very expensive items. it would be alot easier to stomache if AW offered the parts they are recommending for free to get the plane in the air. Also, I don't think that replacement should be out of the question.

hanko

No i was not offended at all, I was just trying to figure where you were comming from. what your saying really gets in to a real sensitive area as far as mfgs responsibility. There was a post a while back, and a guy was raising hell with AW concerning advertised weight on a AW 50 cc yak as I guess is the topic airplane here. Book said it should weigh 17 lbs, and I guess it ended up around 19 or so the dude says. I ve put together 20 or so Gas ARF's, pretty much name brand stuff, no just on the market new junk. Mostly AW's, Sd's, and H-9 stuff. Nothing is ever as advertised. The building process in China is not micro tolerences. As I stated , I had a nose heavy 35% extra 260. I dealt with it. Ive had some holes that didn line up right, deal with it. If I broke a wing doing a big lazy loop, well that a different story. Ive felt that there alot of goofy things and poor designs out there even with the name stuff. Im a full scale aerobatic pilot. I wont list my qualifications, but They are vast. We flew precise with our eyes, and control surfaces. I think there is to much radio mixing, and things mfgs to do planes to compensate making them easier to fly. Aw I know puts more positive incidence in the wing on a few of there airplanes than what is scale. I measured, I know. Thats the rest of the story

Mark Dennis

My Feedback: (4)

eagletalon,

Just to clarify on this thread like I did on Flying Giants, if you were to switch to the recommended slimeline muffler like what is recommended your CG would be perfect. Using the stock muffler as you said you were using on your other thread will account for the 7-9 oz of weight you need in the nose.

Mark Dennis
Tech Support
Aeroworks, Inc.
4903 Nome Street
Denver, CO 80239
303-371-4222 ext. 105 - Phone Number

eagletalon

My Feedback: (21)

Hi` mark the da50 stock muffler is 7oz and the slimline pitt`s is 11.5 oz thats 4.5 oz. diffrence. I will purchase a slimline pitts and remove spacers on the 2-1/2" standoff`s. I had already cut the cowl intake to compensate the engine extention, not pretty. anyhow hopefully this will resolve my problem .

Mark Dennis

My Feedback: (4)

We weighed a stock DA muffler here and it was about 5oz, either way this should help your CG issue.

Mark