lanier edge 540 & da85

[skhalil]

I didn't mention yet that I bought the Lanier 87" edge 540, and still confused about the engine.
For now I am convinced with the DA-85 choice, but waiting, hopefully, for a happy conclusion of this thread.

[BoneDoc]

HTS, if you're still getting the DA50, make sure you get the 3" standoff, and not the 2.5" that usually comes with stock DA50. The actual distance needed is around 2.75" standoff, but you're better off with more weight farther forward. I had the 2.5" already, and didn't feel like messing with the 3".

Yep, even if it didn't work, there's always the Katana .

[Fl Big Mac]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Black Bird
	For anyone esle that is reading this thread and have not decided on a engine. I just would like to pop n and add my two cents. I would be careful not to listen to youngsters when it comes to aerodynamic advise. The higher the wing loading the less wing rock you will have. Increasing the wing loading by two ounces per square feet have small affect on stall speed. At the altitude stated, exspect a 20 percent decrease in overall performance. You will need something bigger than a 50cc.

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.

Skywalker, I do not disagree with your reasons for wanting the DA over the DL. If I could have afforded the DA, I would have gone that route for just the reasons you stated. Fact is, the low cost of the DL allowed me to get into a 50CC where it was just cost prohibited before. I was willing to take the chance on the DL. If you don't want to take that same chance, that does not mean you are wrong, or I disagree: that just means you want to take a different path. Its all good.

[Wild Thang]

	Quote: Originally Posted by BoneDoc
	lol, I wasn't going to get into a shouting match with them so I was just going to ditch this thread altogether. I still firmly believe that this is a 60cc plane, like the EF Yak is. With that in mind, the DA85 is still a natural choice. Once you've learned and fully abuse this airframe, move up into something more expensive. Stay cheap on the airframe upgrades and use it for what it's worth: a gas engine trainer. If what you have is the DA50 and you're looking for an airframe, then I'd highly consider the 3DHobbyShop 85" Katana. it is easily one of the best 50cc offering out there right now, coming in at less than 15 lbs with gas built STOCK. It also can withstand a lot of abuse as my 2nd video shows 3DHobbyshop.com 85" Katana VIDEO But since you've already have that airframe (and I have HAD the airframe myself), my advice was tailored to that need. You can ignore anyone who told you to ditch the airframe for something else. It' s not a bad airframe at all. It's big and it flies quite light even at 17.5 lbs. You'll need something like a 20% rudder-aileron mix and around 10% rudder to elevator mix. Other than that, it harriers great and it has a ton of rudder surfaces. My only reinforcement advice remains, reinforce the firewall. One more thing that will make assembly easier is to swap out those wing bolts with some thumb screws (like the one Hangar 9 makes for their ARFs-- an Extra 260 or Showtime 90 wing bolts will be a perfect fit). HTH, Josh

BoneDoc,

A EF yak was INTENDET to be a 50cc size plane. Ask chris if you would like. 50cc is for modern 30%s. 2-3 years ago, you didn't have that size to weight ratio like todays models. I've seen many 87-88 inch spaned planes weighing 17-18 pounds haveing unlimited vertical. You can easily score 16.5 lbs with the EF yak. 50cc fits the envlope PERFECTLY. I'm not trying to have a product war here but, I want this guy to get the best flying set up he can.

Taken from DesertAircraft.com: "The DA-50-R is the perfect choice for 14-18 lb aircraft".

[BoneDoc]

This is exactly why Black Bird posted the way he did .

Do you own an EF Yak?

Have you personally flown an EF Yak?

Do you own a Lanier Edge?

Have you personally flown a Lanier Edge?

Have you built a sub 20 lb 35%???

Do you know what it takes to make a 103" WS airframe that normally weighs 28 lbs come in at sub 20 lbs RTF with battery?

My point in doing this is that I'm speaking from experience. But if you think you already know everything, then so be it.

At the very least, if you're going to make strong point, make sure your spelling is correct. That alone can speak volumes.

[Fl Big Mac]

	Quote: Originally Posted by BoneDoc
	This is exactly why Black Bird posted the way he did . Do you own an EF Yak? Have you personally flown an EF Yak? Do you own a Lanier Edge? Have you personally flown a Lanier Edge? Have you built a sub 20 lb 35%??? Do you know what it takes to make a 103" WS airframe that normally weighs 28 lbs come in at sub 20 lbs RTF with battery? My point in doing this is that I'm speaking from experience. But if you think you already know everything, then so be it. At the very least, if you're going to make strong point, make sure your spelling is correct. That alone can speak volumes.

Again with the personal insults. Why can't you guys have a discussion based on the facts and not get into this sort of crap. It does not help. SP said nothing that was not correct. Yes I can answer yes to all of those questions up there except the lanier edge one. I have had similar planes to it though.

The extreme flight Yak is 88". Two inches bigger than the edge in question. It is sold as a 50CC. In the tech info it say 50 to 60 CC. My avatar has an 87" wingspan and a 50Cc engine. It weighs 16.5 pounds and flies like a dream. You can see it is close to the ground at 1/2 throttle. When I go to full throttle it will accelerate like nobody's business. I do have experience and I can fly on top of that.

You built your plane light for a reason. You should be giving advice on how to keep his plane light. In my opinion it will be better to keep this plane light than it will be to over power it. It has been my experience that you get a better flying plane when you keep it light rather than add weight and power.

Please stop the attacks they are unwarranted. If you don't like someones opinion, then don't listen, but when you stray from the subject and attack the messenger: that speaks volumes.

[HTSkywalker]

Hey dudes let us calm it all down, may the force be with all of you.
Bone Doc you are very right, most users with 2.5" standoffs had to add spacers but do you think with 3" ones would the engine front shaft still fit within the cowl dimensions ? will get the DA50 hope it won't be enough then I would have a good reason to get the Katana
BigMac you are right as well, we should take the best suitable solution for us to fly, we all know how it feels when we are at the sticks.
And as 1 colleague said "if you want to enjoy it, fly it as if you don't have a penny in it"
And beside i will play the devil this time, will wait for 2 colleagues of mine to install their 85 on it and see how it would fly meanwhile will get the 50 and see if i will install it or get 85 and the Katana.
Skhalil Bro, today it snowed after you left had 2 Extra flights (good ones) and 1 Heli flight and as Jean was preparing the chestnuts. Karl brought HotDogs from Munich and he will invite us to a grill 0=

[HTSkywalker]

Guys I will promise you something, I will have concrete results about both DA85 and DA50 mounted on this babe. meanwhile where the heck the guy with 85 mounted disappeared ? this dude input would be of great help

[hady]

guy's DA85 end of story .
think about altitude problem, think about a multi use engine, think about DA in general, all new airplane are now 75 to 85 size engine. da50 is going to be obsolete in a year or 2 .
factories are building plane for a 60 to 80 size engine.
skywalker . do you like the performance on the hybrid of pete in amaz ??
well i am not satisfied at all i find that they need much more power to enjoy knowing that the hybrid is half the weight of your edge.

[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.

[Wild Thang]

It would be like 3lbs of thrust lost at 4500 ft. At 6000 or so you only geting 25 out of a 30 lbs thrust plane. So you are getting 83% of your power at 6000ft. So it will be greater than 83% at your altitude...

[Fl Big Mac]

With that it looks like we can calculate a thrust to weight ratio and a wing loading and see where we would be with both engines. Time to go to the field right now, will have to continue later, happy flying.

[hady]

power to wight ratio at this altitude is very critical .
so when it comes to engine size i usualy increase it by 20% to get the minimum of the requierment .
i always go to bigger engine as da85 instead of da50.
stall speed is critical also as we have to come faster then usual or to make the aproach with throtle .
our runaway is 150 meter long and 30 meter large
but we are flying also 150cc airplane and even jet .

[HTSkywalker]

Well Hady, now that you are preaching about the extinction of the 50cc line of airplanes then it make sense to get the 85. Meanwhile move your a.. get the 85 and mount it and we will see then . I have a glider project in its last phase and would have to finish the Savage . I will wait and see.

[Fl Big Mac]

	Quote: Originally Posted by HTSkywalker
	Well Hady, now that you are preaching about the extinction of the 50cc line of airplanes then it make sense to get the 85. Meanwhile move your a.. get the 85 and mount it and we will see then . I have a glider project in its last phase and would have to finish the Savage . I will wait and see.

Can't be any more blunt than that.