lanier edge 540 & da85

[Black Bird]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Fl Big Mac
	First of all, don't pop in here as you say it and be insulting. We can have a nice discussion without you making assumptions and inciting ill will towards youngsters. I have been associated (school teacher) with many youngsters that are much more intelligent than many adults that I know. Second, I don't see where skywalker stated his altitude. Your statement that the higher the wing loading the less wing rock is non-sense. We are not talking about pilot induced wing rock caused by overcorrecting the rudder. This happens all the time. We are talking about stall induced wing rock. The entire wing will not stall all at once and depending on the airfoil and the angle of attack the wing will go into and out of stall. This in and out of stall from one wing to the other causes the wing rock. Stall occurs when the lift generated by the airfoil is no longer sufficient to support the aircraft weight. Support the aircraft weight......that is the key here. More weight the more lift needed to support it. The lighter the plane is to easier it is to keep the plane from going into and out of stall. One pound on a 17 pound airplane can make a huge difference. The 85 in this plane may be fine, I am not saying it would be a mistake.

UUmmm, I don't know where to start but I am going to be civil. There is nothing wrong with what I stated. It is the truth. I suggest you do a little more reading before you contradict me. The fact that you did not read this thread entirely proves my point. Altitude was stated earlier. Rather you believe it or not, it is up to you. In a post stall condition, the resultant vector of thrust is vertical and not horizontal. Wing rock is caused by negative roll dampening. I choose not to get into an aerodynamic conversation with your misguided intuition. I get paid for teaching people. You may be a school teacher, but I teach people how to fly. If I teach them somethin wrong, it could cost them their life. Youngsters may be smart, but the information given was incorrect.

Good luck gentlemen.

[Black Bird]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Fl Big Mac
	When tested the 85 may work just fine and may be what you want. I don't have any experience with 4500 feet. I am at 131 feet. At 4500 feet you have thinner air making the planes ability to produce lift harder, so the plane needs a longer roll and faster ground speed to take off. It will also need a faster landing ground speed. It would seem to me that weight would even be more critical at 4500 feet. What element am I missing here?. Do engines run like dogs at 4500 feet? If the air is less dense it seems you will have to lean the fuel to compensate like we have to on 100 degree days. With our temperatures in the summer the density altitude can reach 2500 feet. You can notice a drop in power with that increase. If engines don't produce the HP at 4500 feet, you need more power then you would at sea level, but with the thinner air you need to keep it even lighter than at sea level. Looks like you are squeezed on both ends. If I am assuming things right you do have a conundrum here. Help me out guys is this the problem with 4500 feet? It does seem to me that there would be a better way than trial and error.

I noticed you are talking about the altitude. Did you go back and read the thread completely? You are missing alot. If you were anyone esle, I would answer your questions. But maybe someone esle will.

I will answer one question. You lean out the mixer to prevent the engine from running rich because of less dense air. Less dense air along with humidity reduces prop effeciency. This reduction in prop performance has more of an affect on take off and in flight performance than a 2oz per square feet increase in wing loading. The less dense the air, the more horsepower needed to maintain altitude.

I guess I answer more than one question. Just trying to be constructive and concise.

Good luck gentlemen. I will not reply to this thread again. Well, maybe...

[hady]

well i am still waiting for the da85 to arrive and the plane will be operational in few weeks .
i am eager to see what a da 85 can do with it . hope its a good 3d plane as i am intending to clean the runaway with it .
my setup will be as follow
8 x 8611a
da85
no smoke
fromeco battery
fromeco regulator.
ion cube charger
and me as the pilot lol

[Fl Big Mac]

Well you know when you start out by saying I am going to be civil, I know you wont.

I contradicted your statement a heavier plane will help stop wing rock. What you state about negative roll dampening is not entirely wrong, but does not prove that adding weight to a plane will stop its wing rock. It is another way of saying uneven lift. I am a full scale pilot and I was taught all about negative roll dampening and how to recover from situations when you induce a roll moment during stalled flight and bad things happen. May be a matter of semantics, but I think we agree more than you think. I just don't agree that adding weight will help to stop wing rock.

I wrote a lengthy explanation of what negative roll dampening was and then I read it and thought that was real boring, so I deleted it. It is not what this thread was asking and we are past that. We are waiting to hear how the DA 85 acts in this bird. As I stated before it may work out great.

Ya, I missed the 4500 foot thing sorry about that, but I admitted that and moved on.

[HTSkywalker]

Theory theory theory, Hady the moment you thread the bolts for the 85 would be the moment of solid facts and truth.
Beside guys we should not need a UN moderator for an RC forum ("civil", "youngsters right to talk", etc)
I appreciate all the data and help you are all providing but we are not hiring anyone so no need for CVs
and yes I am impressed
Black Bird your presence is welcomed (sharp and informative) too sharp

[HTSkywalker]

Calling for SNAP A SAURUS anyone can find him in FG ? he is both an expert in our flying field and he surely would be of tremendous help.
ANYONE !!!!!!!!!!!

[hady]

skywalker dont worry it will be great with the da 85

[Wild Thang]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Black Bird
	I choose not to get into an aerodynamic conversation with your misguided intuition. I get paid for teaching people. You may be a school teacher, but I teach people how to fly. If I teach them somethin wrong, it could cost them their life. Youngsters may be smart, but the information given was incorrect.

I thought we were talking models here... Size to weight ratio is WAY off. Black bird, not be be offencive or anything, I'm probably just as skilled as you at flying rc, and I know how planes react the way they do, and why. Age does not matter. I'm just as skilled as most pilots rc pilots. Being a full scale instructor has nothing to do with rc aerobatics. Like I said size to weight is way off. And watch what you say, Fl Big Mac is a full scale pilot aswell. Even i've been flying for 5 years or so now, as you know, I cant be licenced yet though.

I do trust that you know what your talking about Black Bird, but there are diffrent things to factor in on these model airplanes. Why i'm posting this is because you posted twice about age being a factor in flying knowledge.

Hope to see that edge flying soon.

[HTSkywalker]

SP in fact age does matter, while old pilots have a lot of experience as they move they loose on reflexes which youngsters excels in, this is very obvious in Heli flying. I saw 14 years old flying Helis like playing on a PS3.
It's a curve dudes with age, experience and reflexes on axis

[skhalil]

Do not forget Bro the heli 3D champion 5 years old Justin Shi.
You can find many movies of him on you tube.

[Fl Big Mac]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Sp33d
	I thought we were talking models here...

That is wisdom that you speak. Although the physics are the same. we can get out trouble with our models that would doom a full scale plane. This biggest difference is the size and effectiveness of the control surfaces of our models.

[zoomer260]

A 4.3lb engine in a plane this size would have been manna from heaven just a few years ago. A five or more pound engine would have been more the norm. Do you plan to fly on the wing or the prop ? Don't sweat the ONE pound weight on a plane that is tail heavy in the first place ? I always believe (still do) that if you need to add nose weight do it with more engine. Ya gotta have the weight any way ? I have finally come to understand that most modelers today prefer to fly hanging on the prop and not actually flying on the wing as planes are intended to do.
Ten years ago we refered to planes that fly on the prop as "fun fly" planes.
From what I have been able to gather the only problem these days is to get a plane to balance with the new lightweight engines.