|
|
|
|
|
|
Stamford, CT
Joined Oct 2000
6,560 Posts
|
Updates
I've built and flown my airplane. I'll stand by what I thought about the kit to begin with-it's a very nice flying airplane. My rtf weight excluding motor/battery is a shade under 10 ounces which I think is pretty good for this size airplane. (I think this kit is a better design than a mini laser 3D, having one in the final throes of construction. It doesn't fall together as easily, but the wood selection is better, and the structure is far superior in design. (Working landing gear is a big plus in my book.) One problem is that if you want to use a 7 cell CP 1300 pack, you have to chop into the wing spar slightly. However, it's large enough so that I've been unable to budge it- and my airplane has flown through some pretty strenuous aerobatics.
Powerplants so far: began with a Promax 4014, 7 cell CP 1300, turning an APC 7 x 5 E prop, probably around 12k rpm. Fast, if anything a little too fast, very good vertical pull. Weight about 23.5 ounces. At this weight, the airplane still slows down like a pussycat- nice thick wing is controllable right up to a stall. Next up- Mega 22/10/6 swinging an 8.5 x 5 prop at about 10,400 rpm. Same batteries, same weight. Surprisingly, not dramatically different, but definitely better vertical performance. Not quite unlimited, but model will do several vertical rolls. Can roll vertically within 20 ft. of ground on takeoff. Motor uses less watts, duration increased. Top end down slightly, but still fast enough to be a little quick. (Doubt if it's significantly slower than a stock J. Ryan warbird on Speed 400.) Still can't get mine to hold a knife edge though- but I'm a far cry ( a really really far cry) from Gary as a pilot. In a fit of curiousity brought about by the evil Ken Mizell, I began wondering what would happen with this airplane on the Mega 16/15/7. It's not a dramatic change in terms of motor weight, but it sounds like it can use significantly lighter batteries. I'll plan on using the same prop. Theoretically I lose about 800 rpm but shave 3 ounces. We'll see... Summation- I think this is an underated airplane. I haven't seen the Wattage stuff like their Extra fly, but I'll lay long odds this one fly's better based on comments here -it's lighter and slows down well for starters. The kit is easy to lighten for electric and is well designed. It is one of the nimblest airplanes I've ever flown and that's relatively heavy at 24 oz. Sam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stamford, CT
Joined Oct 2000
6,560 Posts
|
Flying with the Mega 16/15/7
This is one versatile airframe. I just flew the Mega 16/15/7 turn version for the first time. Swinging a 9 x 4.5 inch prop at 7700 rpm, 115 watts (12 amps) on an 8 cell 1100 AAU pack. All up weight has dropped to 20.5 ounces.
Compared with the previous powerplants, speed is down dramatically. However, the airplane is now much more scale like in flight. Furthermore, the wicked acceleration in down lines is gone- the airplane doesn't get uncomfortable in an extended power off dive. It's much easier to fly aerobatics closer to F3A style- relatively slow- consistent speeds through maneuvers. Vertical pull is down slightly, but the airplane still tumbles fine. Overall, it's a much easier, more relaxing airplane to fly. I'll fly it like this for awhile- if I get bored, I'll drop the Mega 22/10/5 in it on 6 CP1300 cells to see if I can keep some of the weight down, and the power up. Sam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada's East Coast, "An Ocean Playground"
Joined Apr 2002
4,119 Posts
|
good info Sam..
CELLS PROP RPM Amps
7 0X0 11850 0.5 7 6 X 5 10600 5 " 7 7 X 4 9800 6.9 " 7 7 X 7 9000 8.4 " 7 8.5 X 5 8500 9.1 " 8 0X0 13550 0.53 " 8 6 X 5 11400 5.6 " 8 7 X 4 10400 8 " 8 7 X 7 9800 10 " 8 8.5 X 5 9600 11.3 " Sam these figures are from Mega site for this motor....... You chose a 9 x 4.5 prop at 7700rpm.........any reason? How do you think the performance would change on that 7x7 at 9800 or that 8.5 x 5 at 9600..? Thanks for the info......it will be entered into my "database" of good performing models... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stamford, CT
Joined Oct 2000
6,560 Posts
|
Bill
I'm not exactly agreeing with Ken's #s. I tried an 8.5 x 6 glass (white) Aeronaut prop first- I kind of remember looking at 8500-8600 rpm and pulling a total of 100 watts at 11 amps. Therefore, I went up a little in prop size since I was shooting for closer to 120 watts. I suspect what's going on is a difference in speed controllers- I'm using a CC Phoenix 10, and Ken is probably using the MGM Compro or maybe a Jeti which tend to be more aggressive in timing. The variations could also be due to prop design- apparently the APC slow flyer props drop rpm by several THOUSAND!- we don't know what Ken is using. In terms of the airframe performance- well neglecting the difference of three ounces- I flew this airplane on a 7 x 5 turning over 12k and an 8.5 x 5 turning 10,400. The airplane is much faster with these props, I'll lay long odds that it's still pretty quick with the 8.5 x 5 turning 9600 if you can find a way to do it. That's actually what I was thinking I would get- instead the performance was definitely a lot slower with the 9 x 4.5. On the other hand, the lighter weight really was enjoyable. Sam |
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Article Horizon Hobby's E-Flite Mini Edge 540 ARF Review | Steven Horney | Electric Plane Talk | 23 | Feb 24, 2009 08:48 PM |
| 1/4 Hangar 9 Edge 540 gas or glow? help... | idealer | Giant Scale Airplanes | 1 | May 12, 2004 10:47 AM |
| FS: Microjet and Hobby Hangar Mini Edge 540 kits | slammin | Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) | 4 | Feb 26, 2004 12:02 AM |
| Mini Edge 540 from Hobby Hangar | Fly_Baby | Scale Electric Planes | 0 | Sep 11, 2003 03:20 PM |
| Mini Edge 540 | nalondivad | Scale Electric Planes | 9 | Jun 12, 2002 09:59 AM |