Something different??? (Bigger is usually better though!!)

http://www.aero-model.com/ProductDet...?productID=428

You guys may find this weird coming from a manufacturer, but when it comes down to it, its all about who burns the most fuel. Any of the airframes mentioned above will get the job done. The question becomes, are you willing to put in the time and effort to get the aircraft properly set-up and trimmed? Are you willing to put in the time to master your sequence as well as working on various combinations of rolls, snaps, rollers, etc. that you may encounter in the unknowns? The airplane will not do this for you.

I remember a few years back in the SE district, a fellow from Florida was competing in Unlimited with an old, heavy Lanier 1/3rd scale Laser, against everyone else who had the latest greatest. He was well practiced and prepared and kicked some butt. Time spent behind the sticks is what really counts.

Man are you right Chris,Now lets get that 87" Yak here so I can burn some fuel.I got to fly my friends 68" again this weekend and it is un-real! Snaps and tumbles were a blur on 3D rates,just made me want the 87" that much more.

Boy are you correct! I talked to Gerry Neal the year he flew in the Masters and he placed very well with a 44lb Staudacher while everybody else was flying Cardens and Aeroworks.

BTW-- I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Composite ARF (2.3M) since we are talking IMAC.

From what I read, the CA2.3's are coming out pretty heavy....too heavy for 3D at 20 lbs w/DA~50's
If your only considering IMAC the CA is doable, but why limit yourself?
I'm waiting on the 87' Yak...and am also working on a deal for the 81'Velox

Wouldn't know about that-- got a Brison 4.2 on mine. Hoping for a test flight tomorrow.

So would you mind posting the all up weight of yours?

im goin with the Yak, i like the looks more, and you (not you in particular, just in general) you can have more fun when you aren't competing

you see the vid? http://www.sirs.cc/video/ExtremeFlightRCYak.WMV

the Yak has alot less wing loading then the extra, so it's a better floater, i don't know, i just like it more, appeals more to me

Good luck,
Scott

Well, I had 3 flights today and all I can say is WOW--no wait--BIG WOW!!!! As for the weight
1---Don't know
2---Don't care (pardon my flipit remark, but when something is this perfect, numbers are of little value to me--Just my opinion of course)

To say that this combo has unlimited verticial is one extreme understatment. The first tank through the Brison got 6800-6900 RPM with a Mejslic 23/8--after a brief roll out I just pointed it stright up and gradually opened the throttle and it climbed as far as I could see into a clear crisp Carolina blue sky. Keep in mind that I am no "hot dog IMAC or 3D pilot" but in my years of flying RC, I enjoyed a thrill today that is very hard to express. Point it in the direction you want and go from there.

I have owned a DA 50 and they are superb engines, but I think Brison gets forgotten in all of the hype. Anyway, I was able to mount 2 5945s in the rear of the plane (rudder) for CG purposes and everything else balances out from there with a standard pitts muffler-batteries are abought 4 inches behind the wing tube--- I am running 2 battery (1400 MA NiMah) packs for redundancy and also to feed the power hungry 6-5945s and JR 811 on the throttle. I am sure there are people that will say my 2.3 is too heavy, but for me, it is in a class by itself. Next time at the field, I will try to get some weight numbers! (still waiting for the "buzz" to wear off)

Scott, please post a video of you flying the extreme yak and your AUW. It might be fun if this plane was available for purchase and not pre-hyped to death. Talk about buzz kill. Did you do your homework tonight?

AJF-2, I love my 2.3 too. I get those numbers with my engine setup as well. The thing is flawless in the air. It is way way more plane than I am a pilot. It will do everything I can think of and I am not a hot pilot at all. The brison my friend has runs really good and is smooth as heck. What muffler did you go with?

Joe

Just a standard Bisson Pitts. I still have to cut the ends off--it has the rolled exhaust tubes and I hear that you can gain a few hundred RPM. I agree totally--this is a much better plane than I am pilot. Still lots of fun.

Weight may be of little value to you, but is surely a consideration for me, oh, and a few others who hang out here.
Funny thing that, not very many CA 2.3 owners are willing to post their accurate weights...

well comp arfs site lists the weight for the 2.3 at 20 to 22 pounds i bet that most built are nearer the 22 pounds so imho i would want the bigger engine not so much a da 5o now when da gets that 75 then the 2.3 guys will be performing many upgrades to there engine and i bet the 75 wont weigh to much more than the 50 and will prob see a 2.3 that flys just like the 2.6 da100 combo

these are my slightly educated opinions no actual real world exp with the ca planes

what ide like to see is ca list there wing areas and all companys list all the info on there products

I think it all circles back to what a person wants out of a plane-- as the thread was started with that thought. Dangerboy (here on RCU) has the 2.6 with a DA 100 and I have flown it, and the 2.3 is very, very close IMHO. Of course your opinion may vary as all things are subjective to what the pilot likes. Mike, I will be happy to post some "honest" numbers next time I catch somebody at the field with some scales.

Rube Goldberg would have you weight yourself on a bathroom scale without the plane...then while holding the plane. Even with a + or - accuracy of a few ounces it would be better than a guess or not knowing whatsoever.
I have done this and then went to UPS terminal to verify...found out my bathroom scale was more accurate than I thought..measured the same..rounded to the pound of course.
Knowledge is power.

Mike,
Does the weight of one model compared to another model really have much value. At the end of the day subjective flight comparison is all that is really important to a particular pilot (except Dick Hanson of course). A model could have lighter wing loading and still not fly as well depending on size, CG, set-up. Does the weight of the CA planes really matter if almost all the owners swear they fly better than previously owned models? Or, do you think they are just hypnotizing themselves into believing they fly better to justify the expense of thier new toy?

I think your getting close here. I have stated in the past that the honeymoon of getting a new plane clouds objectivity. I have even done it to myself, so don't think I'm pointing fingers here.
We (many) get so high on our latest baby that we get tunnel vision and ignore/justify the planes blemishes and flaws.
We end up rebuilding the landing gear mounts, engine box, correcting incidence problems, re-engineering cabane mounts all in the name of all ARFs need this, so why is mine any different?
I have also said in the past that we should hold off on our flight reviews until the 25th flight. Believe me when I tell you I suffer from the same curse, I have done it time and time again.
Several things consistently help me to make up my mind when considering a new plane, video being one of the best ways to determine how a plane actually flys. BUT, the pilot should be considered as well...if it's Chip, QueQue, McConville or other greats I'll wait untill John Q Modeler gets it in his hands. Then there is the RCU forums...user reviews complete with photos..they help, too.
I fly a DA~50 17lb 28% WITH A 1380 sq in wing. My plane tracks great, flys 'big' and is light on the sticks. It has unlimited vertical. It punches out of a hover with great authority. I completely love it in every way.
I now have 185 flights on it.
Do I think it, (or ANY) would preform as great for my style of flying 5lbs heavier?
Not a chance.
4 lbs?
Nope.
3 lbs?
Not hardly.
One more thing. I have from time to time landed 'heavy'. You know the kind, a drop from a foot high on a Oh *****e what was I thinkin' type landing. Misjudged the length on a visiting field, running over by a few feet into the rough, and over a berm.
Damage, none thankfully, save a loosened wheelpant.
Would I have been as 'lucky' at 5 lbs heavier?
Dunno.
Experience tells me probably not.
Can you overcome a 5lb weight penalty with a larger engine?
Sure, but at what cost?
Battle of weight VS power, ad nausea-um.
Sorry for the diatribe, just my thoughts.....

Sounds like a Wildhare Extra and I bet you're 17-1/2+!

Edge, and exactly 16lbs, 12 oz
Care to comment on any of my questions in my previous post?

All your questions seemed rhetorical but if it makes you happy...
Bigger flies better, lighter is better, higher power to weight is better for 3D. Happy?

I agree with the honeymoon theory, I call it the 90 days till the ether wears off syndrome but it's the same thing. I also think whatever those CA's weigh they are still good planes.

I think we can all agree that Mudsurfer needs to go do his homework and stop waxing poetic about planes that don't exist.

Bathroom scale??????? (I threw that away after it kept telling me I was fat)

I have to agree that weight, flying needs and plane are all too subjective factors to come up with a perfect formula. My CA 2.3 flys very very nice and I like it. I like it a lot. I can't wait to get basin bum on the sticks. I have never hid the weight of my 2.3. It is 19lbs and 6 oz. Does anyone want me to repeat it? Ok, 19lbs and 6 oz. Ooops, I just checked again and it's, 19lbs and 6 oz. I have a photo of it but RCU will not let me upload for some reason. Maybe I can get it on my web site then link it here. Basically is says, 19lbs 6 oz. ~!

Joe

email me the pik and ill post it also post your web site so i may gawk

[email protected]

Got to luv these rant and rave sessions...How can people have a honey moon period with any airplane. I have never pulled one off the board and flew it with great luv. Always with a tweak here and a tweak there and then we will see. Planes fly different and people fly different..I have met with a few that were absolute dogs, even though they were popular kits. Then I have had planes that people trashed and the kits were off the market quickly that I luved, and after 20 yrs (cap-21) still have in the basement (any cures for extreme oil soaked wood, already been k'd twice).
Mike I remember your session with the Razzel, how great a plane it was, how light it was, and how the ***** end kept falling apart. Sometimes light isn't better.
I think people need to fly it before they say anything based on weight, wing loading, and thrust. Then base that on the type of flying and set up.
Why trash a plane you don't have, probably won't get and won't get enough time on the sticks to see if it is actually quality or not. Hear say is only that, it is based on my set up, my flying style (ability), and my perception of what a quality plane is.
My philosiphy is if I don't own one, ask questions but never make a judgemental comment. Then people will listen more and these forums won't have so much trash to route through to get the quality information.

Just my 2 cents, would give more but I don't make enough...

Your right Scott, that's why I stated that I have been guilty in the past of clouded judgment with regards to early flight reports. The Razzle is a textbook example of lighter flys better, (after adding carbon fiber to the stabs), which I shouldn't have had to do in the first place. I have now moved completely to gassers, and foamy type electrics exclusively. In fact I am selling all the rest my glow this fall to finance my next 28-30%
My point is that I have learned from my over zealous quick fingered flight reports..or at least I hope I have.
I'm not trashing CA products, nor their owners.
I'm in the market every fall for my next project, and this year it is another 50cc aerobat.
I'm compiling facts and data right now and the CA 2.3 is in the mix, however I don't want to have to put a 75 or 80 in it to fly it like I need to have it preform.
(Did that make sense?)
Factors that carry weight in my decision are customer service, repair ability, cost, performance with my given engine choice (DA~50), company reputation, and parts availability and cost as well as performance data, total all up weight included.
So when I come off as a wee bit abrasive, I apologize.
Gathering facts and data, separating the wheat from the chaff is sometimes tough to do, and only facts will do...not excuses or justifiable modifications needed for the plane to preform satisfactory or to manufactures's claims.

I hope I have cleared up my scrutiny.
Thanks to all.