Composite ARF...which one?

[DKjens]

Wayne,
You seem to have a VERY good grip on the SX setup. I have a custom green flag SX coming by end of month. I am powering mine with a Kroma180i on cans and 9 x 8711 and a Weatronic unit.
Can you put a number on the amount of up-thrust the engine needs in this airframe? I'd like to incorporate this in the initial assembly so my spinner will keep lining up after further minimal trimming.
Thanks,

[wmat7039]

	Quote: Originally Posted by DKjens
	Wayne, You seem to have a VERY good grip on the SX setup. I have a custom green flag SX coming by end of month. I am powering mine with a Kroma180i on cans and 9 x 8711 and a Weatronic unit. Can you put a number on the amount of up-thrust the engine needs in this airframe? I'd like to incorporate this in the initial assembly so my spinner will keep lining up after further minimal trimming. Thanks,

Hey Jens...It was good talking to you a while ago.... I'm sure you are going to enjoy your SX when she gets here.

I'm answering regarding the up-thrust, even though we discussed it, so that others who may be interested can see what I used.

Firstly, on all my Comp Arf firewalls, I glue (with West Systems epoxy) a layer of carbon fiber cloth on the front so that over time, the firewall will not sink with the compression of the bolts/nuts. I also use a 3 degree SWB engine mount which makes assembly much easier. I then take everything over to my good friend (Joe Cutright) & he mounts the engine...heh, heh...

He's good....A full scale air-frame & power plant licenced mechanic, Joe measures twice before drilling. If you're going to use a 3 blade prop I would definitely look at 3 & half degrees of right thrust & on the up-thrust, I use one of the smallest SWB washers 1/16" plus a 1/32 shim made with a slot to slide in, instead of a hole. The measurements that CompArf gives for the holes can be made a little lower to compensate for the up-thrust washers which should bring your spinner right where it should be.
Bye
Wayne
Sew Busy
http://www.sewbusy.com

[sensei]

I have owned 4 of the 3.3 Yaks, so my vote is well, you know.

Bob

[edgewise]

Bob,
Since you have owned a few 3.3 Yak's, do you think a D.A. 170 with tuned pipes will be a good combination for 3-D? Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject.

[xtra330]

I have not owned the CA aircraft, but have flown and judged many of them. As Wayne mentioned, the SX is avery good flying aircraft for pattern work. Him, Kenny Willis, David Smith, and others fly this plane very well. The 260 is right beside the SX...Wayne, Brad Petty, and a few other IMAC pilots in the SE fly this plane at two different speed envelopes. Wayne fell ina trap of trying to follow others with flying fast in the sequence....he thought the 260 required it....but it does not. It can be flown at 1/2 to 3/4 throttle in the Unlimited sequence and holds the lines very well. Just FYI...Wayne and I are flying buddys and compete in the same class, calling for each other...so I see everything he does with this plane...I can say this......it took him a very short time to get the 260 dialed in as compared to the SX....so save yourself sometime, and contact him on his set ups and mixes...he knows these two aircraft very well when it comes time for pattern work....hope this helps.

Joe

[sensei]

	Quote: Originally Posted by edgewise
	Bob, Since you have owned a few 3.3 Yak's, do you think a D.A. 170 with tuned pipes will be a good combination for 3-D? Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject.

The 3.3 on a DA 150 and 1090 tuned pipes was really very good; so with a 170 on pipes; it would be awesome for 3D. Here is an old video with the DA 150 on pipes. Judge for yourself.

Bob

[edgewise]

Thanks for the info Bob

[JagerBomb]

I'm building another 3.3 right now with a 3w 170 and greeves pipes

[kajunkane]

I have the 2.6 and the 3.1 SX. I am flying IMAC this year for the first time. having a blast with the big girl. I spoke with some sales personnel prior to buying and I was tossed between the SX and 260. I was told both are very good. The thing that swayed me is the SX would be better in wind. I can't say for sure, but for a first year basic pilot with 3 contests do far, I have a 2nd and two 1st. I don't know if this helps, but have flown against 260 and we are pretty close and I was fortunately better in the wind. I still have a lot to learn and practice often the sequence.

[Widow-2-DDD]

Why would the SX be better in the wind? It has a lower wing loading doesn't it?

[kajunkane]

I can't quite remember, yet that is what I was told by sales person who flies one. I went with that and bought the SX. I am not disapointed. I have been wanting a 260 just to have. Someone with more experience may be able to answer. Weight ma be or the height of fuse. Just can't remember exactly. sorry. I will try to go back to the person and find out.

[JCS]

I first had the same impression about the MX-2 like you describe it here. But in fact, with the right setup, this plane is a very good IMAC plane. It is important not to set up the plane to tail heavy as it gets unpredictable and not to use to slow props. But with the right CG and a 12"-pitched prop this plane rolls as nice as the G-202 and draws perfectly nice lines.

Jean-Claude

	Quote: Originally Posted by excelpoint
	I've got the 3m 260 at the moment (DA150,BMB Pipes) awsome plane. I previously had the 44% Giles, and have had a lot of stick time on the 3m 330 and MX2. Ive also had a little play with the 3.3m Yak. Out of all of them the Giles was certainly the best rolling plane but was hard to manage in the negative snaps and spins(I fly advanced), The 3m extra is a very nice all round plane but for my style of flying could benifit with full pipes. The MX2 was also a nice plane but we could never really get it to have that nice locked in feel. The 3.3m Yak(DA150 on full pipes) felt awsome in the air for the short time I had on it, you just had to be patient as it took longer to do everything. I got through the Advanced sequence with it on the 150 with know probs. I think the 3m yak would be wesome on a 150 and pipes or a 170 and can. So far Ive only had about a dozen flights on the 260 but its starting to feel real nice, it all comes down to what sort of flying you want to do.

[excelpoint]

	Quote: Originally Posted by JCS
	I first had the same impression about the MX-2 like you describe it here. But in fact, with the right setup, this plane is a very good IMAC plane. It is important not to set up the plane to tail heavy as it gets unpredictable and not to use to slow props. But with the right CG and a 12"-pitched prop this plane rolls as nice as the G-202 and draws perfectly nice lines. Jean-Claude

Yeah I would of liked a bit more time on the MX-2 but some things just dont go to plan. I still think the Giles was the nicest plane in the positive stuff but the more I fly the 260 now the more and more I like it.

[bnaderi]

Thanks for all your comments and feed back. I've requested a quote for the 3m Yak in KIWI yellow scheme (Extra 260). I may ask CA to moddify the scheme and add black and white checker boards to the cowl ring, or just get plane with the scheme as is. Any thoughts?

Wayne - Thanks for doing the build thread on your new Yak. It looks great.

[wmat7039]

	Quote: Originally Posted by bnaderi
	Thanks for all your comments and feed back. I've requested a quote for the 3m Yak in KIWI yellow scheme (Extra 260). I may ask CA to moddify the scheme and add black and white checker boards to the cowl ring, or just get plane with the scheme as is. Any thoughts? Wayne - Thanks for doing the build thread on your new Yak. It looks great.

The Kiwi scheme looks OK..but on my 260, I had to add some red on the wings...because on a hazy or cloudy day, I find that the top of the wings get lost in the sky when pulling to a 45 degree line (Blends in too much) & precision is lost.
Wayne