large scale aerobats
07-20-2003 | 12:57 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: kingston, MA
large scale aerobats
does anyone out there have experience flying a number of large scale aerobatic aircraft , 1/4 scale and up, and if so which one is the easiest to handle (most forgiving) and stable yet nimble.
i am looking at the edge, extra, laser, yak and sukhoi.
any advice is appreciated.
Greg
i am looking at the edge, extra, laser, yak and sukhoi.
any advice is appreciated.
Greg
07-20-2003 | 08:28 PM
#2
My Feedback: (12)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Frederick,
MD
stable yet nimble??
By design maneuverability and stability are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If a plane is designed to be stable then it would be less maneuverable (nimble). Overall there would be less than 5% difference in the planes mentioned which were all designed for the same purpose.
The Edge has a reputation for being stable in 3D flying. I have flown a few and don't personally like the way they stall. This is due to the straight leading edge (where the plane gets it's name).
The Extra and CAP have all but identical wings. Placement of the thrust line and horizontal stab make the differences. The shorter moment (placement of the stab high and in front of the rudder) make the elevator more sensitive. The Yak and Sukhoi would fly very similar to an Extra as the overall is very similar. The Yak seems to really have an in-line thrust line which I would like to try.
The Laser is a well proven design and laid the way for most of the previously mentioned aircraft. It was a modification of a Stevens Acro. Many good designs exist in both kit and ARF form.
A lot depends on where your piloting skills are and what you want to accomplish. What are you flying now? What size and engine combination?
EXCAP232
The Edge has a reputation for being stable in 3D flying. I have flown a few and don't personally like the way they stall. This is due to the straight leading edge (where the plane gets it's name).
The Extra and CAP have all but identical wings. Placement of the thrust line and horizontal stab make the differences. The shorter moment (placement of the stab high and in front of the rudder) make the elevator more sensitive. The Yak and Sukhoi would fly very similar to an Extra as the overall is very similar. The Yak seems to really have an in-line thrust line which I would like to try.
The Laser is a well proven design and laid the way for most of the previously mentioned aircraft. It was a modification of a Stevens Acro. Many good designs exist in both kit and ARF form.
A lot depends on where your piloting skills are and what you want to accomplish. What are you flying now? What size and engine combination?
EXCAP232
07-22-2003 | 12:44 AM
#4
large scale aerobats
I've flown:
H9 Cap 232 25% ARF
H9 Edge 540 25% ARF
Sig Cap 231EX 25% ARF
Have built the Lanier Laser 25% Kit and the MW Extra 300S 27%.
The Laser flew for 3 seconds and then my engine flamed out and I crashed it. Haven't flown the MW Extra yet. Maybe 2 or 3 more weeks and I'll be done building it.
For 25% planes-- use a glow engine. They just don't have a big enough airframe to carry the weight of a gas engine. The glow engines that are big enough to fly these size planes, with any authority, are going to run you into the poorhouse with the cost of fuel. A Moki 1.80 or a 2.10 will suck down a 20 or 24 ounce tank pretty quick. Thats fine for IMAC-- you only need to fly for about 3 or 4 minutes anyways. The problem is when you want to PRACTICE. If you ever want to get good at aerobatics--your going to have to fly----A LOT. The glow fuel expense adds up very quickly. Of course you could always brew your own glow fuel--but who wants a 55gallon drum of Methanol in their garage or basement??? And you'll probably use some nitro-- just to make it easy to tune-I certainly don't want nitromethane in my garage.
So your pretty much stuck with buying glow fuel at $13-$15 a gallon.
For a bigger plane; such as the 27% Extra that I'm about to finish; you can and should run a gas engine. They have enough square inches of wing area to support the gas engine and ignition system. Gas engines are MUCH cheaper to operate. Fuel is basically $2.00 per gallon after you figure the cost of the fuel and the oil. Gas engines use less fuel per minute than a glow engine. That equates to a smaller tank in the plane- which saves weight. Gas engines have pumper carbs. -- you can put your tank on the CG and not worry about pulling fuel to the carb. They can suck fuel a long distance and still run fine.
If you can afford it-- get at least a 27% or a 30% plane to start with. Get a gas engine. Bigger planes are more stable and the gas engines are more reliable.
My $.02
H9 Cap 232 25% ARF
H9 Edge 540 25% ARF
Sig Cap 231EX 25% ARF
Have built the Lanier Laser 25% Kit and the MW Extra 300S 27%.
The Laser flew for 3 seconds and then my engine flamed out and I crashed it. Haven't flown the MW Extra yet. Maybe 2 or 3 more weeks and I'll be done building it.
For 25% planes-- use a glow engine. They just don't have a big enough airframe to carry the weight of a gas engine. The glow engines that are big enough to fly these size planes, with any authority, are going to run you into the poorhouse with the cost of fuel. A Moki 1.80 or a 2.10 will suck down a 20 or 24 ounce tank pretty quick. Thats fine for IMAC-- you only need to fly for about 3 or 4 minutes anyways. The problem is when you want to PRACTICE. If you ever want to get good at aerobatics--your going to have to fly----A LOT. The glow fuel expense adds up very quickly. Of course you could always brew your own glow fuel--but who wants a 55gallon drum of Methanol in their garage or basement??? And you'll probably use some nitro-- just to make it easy to tune-I certainly don't want nitromethane in my garage.
So your pretty much stuck with buying glow fuel at $13-$15 a gallon.For a bigger plane; such as the 27% Extra that I'm about to finish; you can and should run a gas engine. They have enough square inches of wing area to support the gas engine and ignition system. Gas engines are MUCH cheaper to operate. Fuel is basically $2.00 per gallon after you figure the cost of the fuel and the oil. Gas engines use less fuel per minute than a glow engine. That equates to a smaller tank in the plane- which saves weight. Gas engines have pumper carbs. -- you can put your tank on the CG and not worry about pulling fuel to the carb. They can suck fuel a long distance and still run fine.
If you can afford it-- get at least a 27% or a 30% plane to start with. Get a gas engine. Bigger planes are more stable and the gas engines are more reliable.
My $.02
07-22-2003 | 01:04 AM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: phoenix, AZ,
large scale aerobats
The Edge 540 is without doubt the most stable of all the big scale aerobatic airplanes out there at the moment. It will also do everything you require of it at your current level of flying.
Having said that, not all kits/ARC's/ARF's of Edge's are the same.
The AeroWorks 33% ARF is a good start. Little on the heavy side, but a very strong airframe. I helped a fellow flier who went straight from a .40 sized 3D aircraft to the above airplane with a DA100. This by the way was not some young hot shot kid, like me he was the other side of 40. Go back to the buddy box system until you get the feel if you have to.
Having said that, not all kits/ARC's/ARF's of Edge's are the same.
The AeroWorks 33% ARF is a good start. Little on the heavy side, but a very strong airframe. I helped a fellow flier who went straight from a .40 sized 3D aircraft to the above airplane with a DA100. This by the way was not some young hot shot kid, like me he was the other side of 40. Go back to the buddy box system until you get the feel if you have to.
