RE: New Funtana 125
[quote]ORIGINAL: mbritt [quote]ORIGINAL: Downthrust I have a 110 in another plane with a Turnigy 100A ESC (3.1 oz). I'm using two 4S Turnigy 2650mAh batteries and getting an easy 6 minutes and can push 8 if I wanted to. The plane comes in at about 8.5 pounds. I think the difference in weight between the Flightmax 4000 and the 2650 is 13.4 oz for the 8S pack. This would bring the weight
Posted on: 3/29/2011 3:40 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10430885

RE: New Funtana 125
Racj - My ground test reads about 1510 Watts on a Turnigy 18x8 wood prop at 7400 RPM's and just under 50 Amps (like 47 to 49) with the 2x4S 2650mAh 25C pack. Funny thing about the EF you mentioned, mbritt... my son and I have two 3DHS Velox's and two SHP's and a PA Extra 260, but we're now building a EF 300 EXP. Very impressive with the way they combined CF and epoxyglass with the ply and balsa. Very nice. I've never seen anything like it. But I also have an H-9 Frenzy and it took a beating like no one could imagine with a Saito 125 vibrating around on the nose. I once landed it with the elevator hanging perpendicular to the fuse from the pushrod, and it just slid onto the runway like nothing happened. My friend has the Funtana and my son flew it. He said it flies light and can do pattern and 3D with ease, and even the type of flying I do! ... Kids. Anyway, if the Funtana is going to be close to 10 lbs, then I'm going to have to change motors and batteries, and there are too may other choices in that weight range. Thanks for your help anyway. [;)]
Posted on: 3/23/2011 6:47 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10418824

RE: New Funtana 125
I have a 110 in another plane with a Turnigy 100A ESC (3.1 oz). I'm using two 4S Turnigy 2650mAh batteries and getting an easy 6 minutes and can push 8 if I wanted to. The plane comes in at about 8.5 pounds. I think the difference in weight between the Flightmax 4000 and the 2650 is 13.4 oz for the 8S pack. This would bring the weight of the Funtana to just under 9 pounds. Can you tell me what your flight time is like with the 4000's? I was thinking about this plane for my current setup and if I can't get the weight down to under 9 lbs and get at least 6 minutes of flight time, I may have to consider another plane. The only reason I was considering it in the first place was because a Web site that sells the plane reports the empty weight to be 69 ounces (4.3 lbs) and my hardware would bring that up to 8.5 pounds, which is 175 Watts/pound. Sounds unrealistic from what you guys are reporting.
Posted on: 3/23/2011 8:40 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10417622

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
There is certainly nothing wrong with changing the wheels to 3 inch. We fly off a grass field as well and I changed to 3 inch wheels on all but two of our planes between 60 and 110 sizes. It just sounds like you are compensating for the drag of the tall grass by using too much up elevator. When you think the drag will cause the plane to nose over, you will tend to do this. I know this from first hand experience and I’m guilty of this too. But the result of too much up elevator is that it acts like an anchor.
Posted on: 8/26/2010 4:03 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9961742

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
It's not the Engine, not the RPM's, not the prop, so it may be the grass, and the pants or elevator. Here are the facts.... 10K RPM's with a 4-pitch is still 55 ft per second or 37.5 MPH. If you can say that the plane was crawling down the runway and not obtaining anything near 37 MPH, while still taching out at 10K, then the grass resistance is probably the issue. With a wing area of 690, a 7.5 pound airplane will have a wing loading of 25. If you are really getting 10K RPM's, and your 300 did not finish out at 12 pounds, then it should get off the runway quickly at 37 mph. The only other thing I can think of is that your elevator has too much up programmed, or you are holding up elevator all the way. Holding up elevator will keep the tail pinned to the runway, creating a ton of resistance so check this first. What would you estimate the speed was before you ran out of runway?
Posted on: 8/25/2010 1:21 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9958986

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
That's really funny how everything looks fine in that picture considering how the first pic looks like there is at least a few degrees of downthrust. But this angle obviously looks like a straight datum. I also did not know about the breather length limit, but I have at least seven inches of tubing on the 82 in the U-Can-Do, and it has been that way for over 200 flights. Never had an issue
Posted on: 7/14/2010 7:13 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9865469

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Also, it seems that you have some downthrust in that engine setup, and I don't mean me. [:D] But I guess you will know when you trim it out, and when you cut back on the throttle while inverted. If the nose dies right away, you may need to make the adjustment to the mount. You probably knew... it on purpose. Please let me know if the plane flies neutral with the downthrust so we can keep
Posted on: 7/14/2010 2:08 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9864779

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Friedclutch... it all makes sense because the 14x4W was with 15% Wildcat 2-4. Since we have a combo of 2c and 4c engines, we find that this fuel is a good compromise. I completely forgot about the fuel upgrade that the engine can handle, and the extra performance it will provide the 82. Speaking only from experience with the 60 inch Edge 540T from AW, when we actually calculated the CG, we did end up move it back a bit, and it flew much better. Covering the hinge line and cutting back on the elevator throws also eliminated the snappy characteristics. It is really a fine pattern/sportship now, but we do have an O.S. 91 4c in it. Your comment makes me feel now that increasing the nitro level, and moving up a prop size, and down a pitch notch, may be just what is needed to move the Extra 300 to a pattern/3D hybrid. Maybe with the 82, and more likely with the 91. Let me know if you ever try the 15x4W on the 300.
Posted on: 7/14/2010 10:47 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9864391

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Nice build. Great job, but now I have to have one, which also means investing in a motor size I don't have already. About the tail mounted rudder servo, I was indeed asking about the possibilities of mounting the rudder servo on the other side of the single elevator servo, but your answer about the measurement between the firewall and your Saito 82's thrust washer means that this option is no longer a viable one. The Saito 125 needs 5 inches and I'm not sure there is any room for modification without major surgery. Just not in the cards. Great graphics by Bad Brad too. And the Saito 82 loves the 14x4 Wide APC prop. Be sure to try it if you have one. Not as much speed, of course, but great torque. I'm not sure it will fit in that spinner, though. It looks like it now has all the prop width it can handle.
Posted on: 7/13/2010 12:08 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9861376

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
I would say definitely yes. My Saito swings an Evolution 16x6 prop 9200 RPM's with 15% nitro and delivers unlimited vertical in an 8 pound plane with 20%. The difference in weight between the 82 and 125 is about 7 oz but it looks like this plane has plenty of room to move a 5.4 oz, 5 cell, 2000 mAh, 6V Rx battery around to keep from adding tail weight. As another option, I know that they offer a pull-pull rudder system, but I'm not sure if a rudder servo could be mounted in the tail instead without tearing your hair out. Anyone with one of these models have any comments/observations on this option? Some guys don't like to bash a new plane, but out of the box is really the best time. Adding a two oz servo in the empennage should more than compensate for the added 7 oz in front of the engine mount. I hate adding lead 'cause lead don't fly well. You can also do a mock setup to test it and eliminate the guesswork. And I have to say that I love my Saito 1.25. I bounce the prop backwards off TDC and it fires every time. No starters needed for this engine.
Posted on: 7/12/2010 5:25 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9860441

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
You're right da Rock. Let's not imply or impress that this is not a very good airplane. If it is anything like the 540T, it will be very durable. But there is a considerable disappointment that comes with buying something based on information that turns out to be misleading, at best. I can see this model being a real winner, but I'm glad I engaged in these threads before I pulled the trigger and I have no intentions of buying the 300, considering what I am looking for. Now maybe the 260 is the airframe I should be looking at instead. It seems that the top hatch is set up well for electric and if it is actually lighter by a half-pound at the same wingspan and $10 less, then perhaps this would be the better choice for what I'm looking for. I'll investigate other threads on that model as not to waste anyone's time here and see if it will do the trick with the electric setup I was hoping to install in the 300. If you can tell me your dry weight with the OS61, it would help start me off.
Posted on: 7/7/2010 12:47 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9850016

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
The same thing happened with the 60 inch 540T. It came in heavier and needed one and really two engine sizes more than their high-end suggestion. We ended up going one size bigger, and it was okay for scale aerobatics at mostly full throttle, but nothing like the promotional video. It was also obvious that the engine they said was used in the video was not. You can see right away in the first few frames of the video, and if you know the visual difference between a Magnum 91 mounted at 120 degrees and a Saito so big that it needs to be mounted inverted, you will see what I mean. As far as the Funtana X50, this plane will come in about the same weight as the old X90, and the Saito 100 was right for that plane too. But I will say that the 540T held up very, very well considering how hard the plane has been flown and that's why I was considering another Aeroworks product. Whatever Chinese manufacturer is building these for them should be kept busy by some of the other companies. But the weight trade-off is something important to someone like me that wants a 3D performer with an electric setup and especially from a airframe promoted as electric ready. The consensus says that this plane will end up at about 118 ounces with a 60 equivalent motor setup and that is clearly way over the 3D limit. Too bad, because she sure it pretty.
Posted on: 7/7/2010 8:26 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9849557

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Thanks for the info, da Rock, and if your weight data is right, it's starting to look very promising. But low and slow is the flying I'm most interested in now, and I have had to retire my 2-strokes because they just can't cut it. I'm sure the 61 (or better yet, the 75 at the same mounting size) would be a great alternative for this airframe, but I prefer the torque of the 4-strokes, and I'll explore an electric alternative whenever possible. I am hoping that my existing electric setup is a good match with this airframe, and that was the reason for my involvement in the thread. For anyone else considering this airframe for 3D/electric fun, I did confirm on 'another' thread that this plane has been flown at 1200 Watts and 52 Amps with a 16x8e APC prop with virtually the same motor/battery setup I had in mind. The setup is just under 40 ounces without pushrods and servo extensions. Even if you did not include the hardware/incidentals, we're still talking right around 6.5 lbs and that means a very robust 180 Watts/pound. Now the question is the 16 inch diameter. My son flies his Edge 540t with a 14x6 (O.S. 91 4-stroke) but he has tried a 15x6 as well with no clearance issues. For the electric setup, the math says a 15x10 should output about the same power (Watts), so on paper, everything is a go and what da Rock is saying seems to support that. The 1200 Watt motor is really the 60 2-stroke Horse Power equivalent, but one can turn a 15x10 with authority, and the other will not, but it will go 90 mph. Different strokes, I guess.
Posted on: 7/4/2010 1:16 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9844130

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
I think I'm going to wait and see how the 82 ends up performing for you. The only problem I'm having is that I don't think the Skyshark 50 or my 60 equivalent motor, will provide any additional power than the 82, and I suspect that the Saito 100 is the right engine for this plane, considering my experience with the Edge 540t. I also have a 110 motor setup and I also know that it delivers about the same power as a 1.20 4-stroke since I replaced a Saito 1.25 with it in a H9 Frenzy (8-pounds, all up). I'm turing a APC 16x10E now versus a 16x6 evolution prop with the 125. But for the AW Extra 300, the 110 setup with 8 cells would increase the nose weight by about 6 ounces. I enjoy the Frenzy, so I would rather move my 60 motor to the 300 anyway, but no power equals no fun. I'll keep reading so let us know how the 82 works out.
Posted on: 7/4/2010 8:47 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9843688

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Thanks for the pics. Looks really sharp! I think I'll save the money for the decals and have someone make up some custom Extra designs. I'm surprised AW would pass up the opportunity to get some branding on that airframe. It would be funny to put someone else's logo on it. [;)] I took your advice and read the 'other' thread on the 'other' forum. The electric setup they are talking about is very similar to what I had in mind but the 3D Hobbyshop fans are right that their 330SP/EP is almost 30 ounces lighter. Although the wingspan is three inches shorter than the AW, the fuse length is one inch longer (57x57). The same electric setup, marginal in the AW, will pull the 3DHS Extra 330 around like a ragdoll. Does anyone know if we can use the Tower discounts on this AW model? I think they won't ship it free because the AW products are drop shipped, but I'm not sure about the other discounts for members. I think I have a 15% coupon in my email inbox. Looks like the 3DHS 3303 is $240 plus about $8 shipping to my zip. The Tower discount would make them about even in price. Now it's me with the tough decision. [&o] Any help on the TowerHobbies discounts would be appreciated.
Posted on: 7/2/2010 7:45 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9841278

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Since you mentioned tuning, I forgot to add that I dial in my Saitos the same way as my O.S. engines, and this seems to be the case for most people at our club 190 members. I have four O.S. engines and two Saito engines and I rarely touch the settings on any of them and run all on 15% nitro and 18% oil (normally 2-4 Wildcat). They are both solid performers and I generally use the weight and size to determine which one I'm going to use. I suggest that, after you mount the rest of the electronics, you take your 82, mount the prop and spinner, and tie it to the mount before drilling the holes and test the CG. If it needs more nose weight, go bigger! Speaking of CG, I also found that the AW Edge 540t flew much better after I calculated the CG and rebalanced the plane. I actually had to move it back just a bit from the suggested measurement. There's a website that helps calculate this but I would have to look for it again. There is really no way to tell how different the 300 is from the 540 so I don't even know if it will help until you get a few flights on it. Let me know if you're interested and I'm sure I can find it. Got anymore pics? I'm curious about the color. It's definitely not orange. [:@]
Posted on: 7/2/2010 11:02 AM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9840450

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
Analysis paralysis is something I know all too well. I know the Extremeflight RC Extra 300 (58 inch) flies great with a Saito 82. But that airplane will finish up between one-half and one pound lighter than this airframe. Again, it all depends on the type of flying you will do with it. The Saito 82 will be fine as long as you’re not expecting to participate in the next Huckfest, and rocket out of a hover. We have a Saito 82 in a 46 size U-Can-Do. Great 3D fun and plenty of vertical, but we're talking about 5.5 pounds. I think that going 2-stroke is a personal decision, but not an alternative for me for several reasons. I love OS engines and I know first hand that the 75AX is a great one. I've also heard nothing but good things about the new 95 too. But there are factors that must be seriously considered about adding a 2-stroke to this airframe. If the 60-inch AW Extra 300 is anything like the 60-inch AW Edge 540t, then it may not handle the weight difference between the OS and the Saito. The only reason I mentioned the Saito earlier is because my 1.25 weighs only 24.7 oz, which is about the same weight as the OS 91 and 2 ounces lighter than the 75AX. So the Saito 100 will give you a big power to weight advantage at only 21 ounces. Big difference for this size airframe, and the last thing you want to do is start adding lead to the tail. Now consider that the Saito 82, the FS engine they recommend, is only 17.6 ounces. That's like 9 ounces lighter than the 75AX. The other advantage I find with the 4-stroke is that the bigger prop slows the approach. Oh, one more.... If you ever had a problem with a 2-stroke mounted any way but right-side-up… I’ll say no more, but I’ll refer to page 25 of the assembly manual. I’ll never go inverted or side mounted with a 2-stroke again without an onboard igniter... which is even more weight.
Posted on: 7/1/2010 8:55 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9839395

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
[:D] I was wondering about the color. I thought it may have been the camera. I knew about the decals though. I have some experience with Aeroworks and a friend of mine has a few as well. Here's something that may help you. The first AW airframe I bought was the Edge 540T, which is the same size and weight as this Extra 300. The airframe was only $190 and came with the decals go figure. I even think it was cheaper around Christmas that year. The 91 4-stroke they said they were using in the AW website video turned out to be a little underpowered for 3D (the pilot in the video was really huckin' it up) but if you look closer, you can see that the engine is really a Saito 100 or 125, and the 100 would have been perfect for the plane. My 14 year old son flys the IMAC heck out of it, but it will not pull out of a hover, so keep that in mind if you are thinking about that type of flying. Won't happen with a 82, for sure. As for servos, we went cheap-cheap and the plane still spins like a top. I'm talking about HS-425 and a one HS-645 for the rudder. Of course I can't say how this Extra 300 will perform, but I was thinking about the 5645's too @ 130 oz/in with 6V. All in all, the Edge 540t help up better than I expected and here's a video of my son trying to tear the wings off. Remember that the Edge has a one piece wing so I'm not sure you can do the same thing with the 300. Excuse the camera work, and I hope this helps you make the right decisions about this model. It seems like a good choice so please keep us informed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sapfjiZxoFc
Posted on: 7/1/2010 4:14 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9838835

RE: Aeroworks Extra 300 60-90
And Happy Father's Day, you lucky dog! I got a bottle of Patron and a pair of shorts! Did you happen to get an empty weight on that, by any chance? I have an electric setup in mind that should work really well, but I was hoping to use more than the 5 cells they recommend for the Skyshark setup.
Posted on: 6/30/2010 11:48 PM by Author "Downthrust" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9837633