sensei

There is still just so much un needed beef all over that fuselage.

Bob

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

What finished weight do you think I’ll have by removing additional material? What should it weigh at this stage?

scale only 4 me

My Feedback: (158)

Where are the anti rotation pins and attachment bolt holes for the wing?

I wouldn't take any more material off that area until those are established

sensei

It is hard to say, but if you pickup every single piece of wood, and lighten it between 1/3 and 1/2, that is a great way to start, next replace aluminum landing gear and wing tube with carbon fiber, use the smallest high torque servos, light weight batteries, carbon spinner, plastic covering and so on. It is achievable to come in between 8-10 lbs. and you will be very happy at that weight!

This is exactly how I have been building for nearly two decades and the performance is staggering.

Here is my latest model, 72” span Giles 202 single seat version, weight 9 lbs. XPWR 30cc.






Bob

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Well I have reduced the fuselage weight by 38% so far, I have replaced the aluminum wing tube, I made landing gear from a carbon/Kevlar material I had left over from a project.
By replacing the wing sheeting that came in the kit with selected pieces, I have about a 70% weight reduction over all in sheet balsa.
I reduced the weight of the front hatch by over 50% . Rudder will be pull-pull, and elevator halves are joined and will be driven internally with a single servo. Placement to be determined be balance needs. Other components based on balance needs. If I need nose weight, I’ll add a larger battery or rearrange components.
I don’t do 3D/hovering type stuff. My airplanes have wings and I prefer that they use them over just hanging on an overpowered prop. I fly helicopters for that.

sensei

Sounds like you got it figured out, and you are far enough along to have a pretty good Idea of what your all up will be, so what is your projected finish weight?

By the way hanging on the prop has nothing to do with overpowering your airplane, even if you have wings, lots of power to hover with and your wing loading is to high, you will still have a poor flying aerobatic airplane because horsepower is not an antidote for a heavy wing loading, never will be.

The weight that Bubba of Lanier projected was 12 lbs. on your kit, but from experience of his kits that would be a conservative low number of what they would usually come in at.

Bob

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

I’m currently on track for 11.5 pounds dry.

I’m sort of using my Seagull SuperStar as a comparison. It’s just about the same size. My SuperStar is just a hair over 12 pounds dry. Is stupidly over powered with a Saito 180, and doesn’t want to land.
I haven’t determined the actual wing loading on the SuperStar, based on its flight performance at its current weight, I’m comfortable that I should get acceptable performance with the Extra in that weight range.
Once the building is done and I have a better idea of how much weight I’ll need to balance, I’ll try to find a motor that’s close so additional weight is not required. (My degree is in engineering)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

If I were building that airplane my target weight would be 10lbs even. As Bob says you will be much happier with it. The long landings are not really a function of light weight, heavier airplanes typically use more runway. It could be your CG is a bit forward, high idle, wrong prop, technique or any combination of those.

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Stupidly over powered.
I spent a lot more time selecting the engine for my H9 Cap 232, about the same size and weight, but I selected the prop I thought would give me the best performance, and then matched the engine to one that performed well with that prop. I was happier with the results.

sensei

So what do you think your engine selection is going to be for the Extra?

Bob

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Great Question. IMO this size has become a bit of an oddity. If it could be kept at 10 lbs then my first choice would be a Webra 120. Anything heavier and I would go YS 140. If going gas, I think a DLE 20 would not have enough grunt. A 30cc may be too heavy.

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Good question
I have been out of touch with the hobby for a few years due to the cancer junk, so I’m not up on the current brands.

The current engines I have looked at are running about 2 pounds for gas. I also haven’t looked into current weights for radio gear, so some of my estimates might be a little on the high side

I haven’t started the wings and other then get new sheeting, and I haven’t looked at weight reduction for the foam panels.

I’m currently at 1 pound 6 ounces for the fuse minus the plastic canopy piece and cowling. So there may be some additional weight savings going forward

sensei

Here is some more food for thought with my Giles equipped with the XPWR 30cc setup, there is a takeoff video and a second flight video, these should give you some idea of power at that weight.




Bob

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

Nothing is worse than building a project, putting your heart, soul and experience into it then having it come out to be a porker. Just today I pulled a plane off the ceiling (same size as being discussed here) that I built over 20 years ago and I just set it aside as a hanger queen all these years. It has never been flown as it was almost 2 pounds over the projected weight when built and I knew I would be disappointed in its flight performance. I came from a pylon and pattern background and I built everything with my scales as a constant companion but this one got away from me. It was build around a Webra 120 that was later changed to an OS 160. Now I'm doing everything I can to try to peel some weight off in hopes of having a decent sport plane. Changing the engine to a DLE30 for a savings there of a full half pound. Changed everything that was aluminum to carbon and changed the full size servos to mini's, etc. All this while trying to maintain a decent CG w/o adding weight. Not much fun and not easy on a completed airframe. Years ago I saw several of the smaller Lanier Extras and was never impressed as they were all severely overweight and had short lives. Another one framed up by a friend went in the trash before completion as the weights got completely out of hand and he was extremely frustrated with it. I always thought the wings and tail were grossly overweight on these planes if built per plans. I once had the kit and sold it. The point here is ..... listen to those here who encourage you to reduce the weight. Not difficult at this stage in the game but extremely difficult later on. I could never build as light as Sensei does and I highly respect his efforts, skill and advice.

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks for the advice

I started building model airplanes in 1972, free flight, then sailplanes. I still primarily build and fly sailplanes. I understand the weight issue.

Sensei, that looks like plenty of power for that airframe. Thanks for the video

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

Didn't mean to preach, just reinforcing what the others were suggesting. I learned long ago that we're never too old or too experienced to learn new things and approaches to a problems.

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

No problem

The primary issue is this is a 20-30? year old design and I don’t want to drive myself crazy trying to modify the kit to meet modern standards.

It will never match the performance of the current offerings and that’s ok. I have done what I can to affordably reduce the weight, if on average these things were finished out near 13-14 pounds, if bring it in at 11.5 that’s not too bad. I don’t compete, I really just want a finished airplane that flies decent.
I have had 3 rounds of cancer trying to finish this, making it to maiden flight would be a huge accomplishment.

There is still a Great Planes 33% 330L I need to build…..

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

JohnFH, First congratulations on beating the cancer off! I hope you're around to a ripe old age. Second, I'm thrilled to see someone still building the few Lanier and other kits that still remain. Building is getting to be a lost art. I still have (3) of the larger Lanier planes (Laser, Staudacher and Extra) that were all built back in the day and to plans. I lovingly call them "cast iron" comparing them to newer planes but they all fly quite well with modern engines, radios and lighter batteries. Newer, stronger and more precise servos were immediate improvements. Two of them have been lightened several pounds just with the lighter engines and radio components. The Extra was completely refurbished and recovered several years back and some lightening was done at that time. The performance changes from these planes is quite noticeable just given these minimal efforts. Your efforts should produce even better results. I'll never be in Sensei's league when it comes to lightening but every little bit helps and I appreciate where he comes from. Keep up the good work and please keep the photos coming.

sensei

I also applaud you on beating the cancer!

My whole concept for a lighter build doesn’t mean cost more, in fact it is just the opposite, if you build an extremely light airframe by simply removing all the excess wood you can use a smaller and lighter engine or electric motor, smaller batteries, smaller fuel tanks, lighter landing gear, wheels and so forth.

In many cases smaller is more cost effective, our model airframes of the past were so overbuilt causing the use of more expensive larger power plants and equipment while all the while making our airplanes fly like aerodynamic cinder blocks, and it just doesn’t need to be.

Just remember the heavier the airframe, the stronger and heavier it needs to be built to support itself in the first place, it’s a viscous cycle.

Bob

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

When I say affordable, the biggest expense I have is time.

I have spent what I consider a reasonable amount of time removing excess weight from like you said, an old over built design.

I have removed approx 38% of the weight from the out of the box fuselage parts. The hatch is is going to be better then 50% lighter then just the plastic skin, and I haven’t calculated the weight savings from the replacement turtle deck. I have much better wing sheeting and haven’t explored removing additional weight from the wings yet. To me, for this particular build, nit picking another ounce isn’t worth the time.
I have the advantage of lighter, better radio gear and engines. I don’t expect a 3D performance, I’m not interested in unlimited vertical up lines. The plane was never designed for that.
Just like building airplanes, everything is a compromise.

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Hatch ready for final fitting and finish. Current hatch weight, 34 grams, weight of the plastic skin by itself 64 grams.

sensei

Your build looks beautiful, no doubt about it, weight removal from the C/G forward is a definite plus, but weight removal from the C/G aft is an absolute necessity if you wish to use a smaller lighter engine, or just for balancing.

Ozs. aft many times convert to lbs. forward in C/G balancing relations, Lanier kit airplanes always flew fantastic when built light, I picked up a nib 1/3 scale Giles G-202 earlier this year, and I believe I can get it down to around the same weight as my 1/3 scale Lanier Laser 200, 15 lbs. 8 ozs. with a DA 50cc.

Anyway best to you on completing your build,

Bob

JohnFH

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks for the kind words.
Started fitting the turtle deck, it’s molded 3/16”structural foam I use in boat stuff in the real world. Once I get the rudder and elevator in I’ll trim it in and heat mold the fillets. Stock plastic skin 104 grams, foam skin 24 grams.
instead of the 1/4” rails called for in the plans to support the skin, I only need a 1/16” x 1/8” lip to locate the foam skin.
total weight savings in replacing the plastic 4.1 oz.

sensei

Nice!

Truckracer

My Feedback: (19)

How will you finish the foam decking?