RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Hoverlow My Yak was as you described , and I called Aero-works about this. It seems that they are using the same drilling template for a number of planes.. Use the holes that are the closest to what is called for in the instructions, and add one hole so that you have all four holes. This what I did, and have had no problems. And yes, this plane has plenty of throw for 3D SteveT<script type="text/javascript">titleAndStar(412,100,0,false,"","")</script>
Posted on: 6/13/2009 4:57 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8844205

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Capt..... And if that was the dry weight (no fuel), and you are using the stock tank, you will add about 1.4 pounds of fuel, so even heavier all up weight. But don't fear, my electric conversion weighs 12.8 pounds ready to fly, and flies VERY well. I have just under 200 watts per pounds, and vertical is unlimited. Of course, I don't fly 3D, so if you do, you may notice a difference. SteveT
Posted on: 5/31/2009 2:10 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8812903

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
HI Capt.... I had the same concern about the way the holes were drilled, but when I called to find out what was going on, I was told that they use the same template for a few planes, including some larger ones that take dual control horns. I added one more hole, so that I could use four screws in each control horn. SteveT
Posted on: 5/25/2009 1:32 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8795121

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Frankie.... Thanks my friend.... SteveT
Posted on: 5/16/2009 8:25 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8774660

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... I maidened my Yak today, and it flew great!!! Balance was right on the money as inverted flight was hands off. I only flew it one time as unfortunately, the brake was on (I thought I had programmed it to be off) Landing was a bit hairy as I either had no power or enough power that it wanted to keep flying, Oh well...no other problems at all. SteveT
Posted on: 5/16/2009 4:35 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8774225

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys..... I finished my plane today, and with a 19-8 APC prop... 66.7amps, 2467 watts!! This was the first few 20-30 second bursts, but thats all I did, so, I'm sure it will drop a bit, but if you want 200 watts per pound, that comes out to 12.335 pounds, and my plane weighs 12.8 pounds, so it should do fairly well... SteveT
Posted on: 5/11/2009 8:42 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8760931

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... Except for re-setting the blind nuts for my canopy (all of them are way out of alignment) or figuring a "quick release" method of holding the canopy on (which I will probably do), my Yak is done. So..here are some pics. The first one of course looks just like all the others, but the other pics show a few things I did for my electric conversion etc... Oh...and don't ask me why my Zippy batteries look purple...every time I upload any thing that is blue that I have taken a picture of, it comes out purple!!! Yet, if I print the photo, it will be just as blue as it should be!!!! SteveT
Posted on: 5/10/2009 11:22 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8757999

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni... Thanks, I just wish it was a bit lighter, but, we'll see how it flies... SteveT
Posted on: 5/10/2009 11:20 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8758305

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jimeni . One thing I have noticed, when you explain something in that depth, is how fast most peoples eyes glaze over if they didnt ask for that much info. [/quote] That's true my friend....its called ADD (attention deficit disorder) these days.... I wish teachers had known about it when I was going to school...perhaps I would have done better in school....fortunately. I outgrew it, and have been able to learn things that I am now forgetting as I grow older (this is called dementia... :D) SteveT
Posted on: 5/9/2009 3:02 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8753592

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
[quote]ORIGINAL: the only thing i never really understood on a 2 stroke is the flame i would think would be pushed out through the exhaust port by the rushing incoming charge. i will probably just use 89 octane in my gassers but nothing more unless the manufactor suggests it or i put a pipe on it. [/quote] Hi jamesrxx951...... While the math to figure the length of the expansion and compression chambers, is more than I understand, the actual principal of how a tuned pipe works is fairly simple.. The cycle start as the fuel/air mixture is pulled in through the intake (carb) into the crank case, there it is compressed as the piston goes down and forces the fuel/air mixture up through the crankcase ports through the cylinder sleeve port. Then as the fuel ignites, and drives the piston down, the piston starts to open the exhaust port, and the spent fuel starts exiting the combustion chamber. As this happens, it first reaches the outwardly tapered portion of the tuned pipe (the actual expansion chamber, hence the the other name for tuned pipes, though in all actuality, they have both expansion and compression chambers as you will find by reading on) ). As the chamber widens it actually slows the charge (which is a "pulse wave" similar to a sound wave, which of course it is to a certain extent, or our engines would be completely quiet). If you want to see how this work, turn a funnel upside down and run water through it, you will find that the water tends to stick to the outer wall, and as noted slows down (this is explained in part by fluid dynamics) .....Ok...the next part of the tuned pipe is a compression chamber, which is the inward tapering part. This speeds the pulse wave back up, before it enters the last straight part of the pipe. At the end of the pipe (and this is the part that still somewhat baffles me, part of the wave actually reverses itself, and travels back up the pipe doing exactly the same slowing down and then speeding back up as the chambers are reversed, but in reverse) and back to the engine exhaust port. Now this is the good part, if all the math was done correctly (and this is why they are called "tuned" pipes) just as the new charge of fuel that has entered the cylinder gets to the exhaust port, the negative wave (which is now a positive wave relative to the cylinder/piston) hits the incoming (and starting to be outgoing) fuel charge and stops it from going out into the exhaust. All of this tuning, explains why you can't take a "tuned" pipe designed for one engine, and put it on another engine, and expect it to work properly...Also.....theoretically, you could take a long piece of straight tubing and do exactly the same thing, but somehow, I don't think that most planes would fly well with a 6 or 7 foot long piece of tubing hanging underneath then. SteveT
Posted on: 5/9/2009 2:58 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8753201

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
[quote]ORIGINAL: The manuals for the SPE, and MLD recommend you do not use higher octane, that was the main point. [/quote] Hi Jimeni..... Sorry my friend, no offense meant, I was not trying to dispute what you said, but rather just trying to shed a little light on a subject that some people do not really understand... :D SteveT
Posted on: 5/8/2009 10:58 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8753210

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jimeni 87, you dont want to run premium, too hot. [/quote] Actually, (and I'm sorry to disagree with you), higher octane fuels do not increase temperature, nor do they increase power as such (though you may get more power with a higher octane fuel, as the engine can run at a more advanced timing). Octane is a rating that is used to describe anti-knock compounds that are used in gasoline. A higher compression engine (I.E. 10 to 1 ratio or more) needs higher octane than a low compression engine (I.E. 7.5 to 1) to keep from getting pre-detonation (ping) in the engine. if you run low octane fuel in a higher compression engine, the fuel will ignite too soon,( unless the timing is retarded) therefore attempting to drive the piston back down before it should, which will eventually damage the engine. This is why you might take an older engine (say a 1960s era Chevy 327 which ran on low octane fuel (read regular), then "hot rod" the engine (I.E. raising the compression) and then it will ping. Of course timing can also effect this which is why cars used to have centrifugal advance systems in the distributors, these of course have now been replaced by computerized systems that sense the state of the fuel detonation in the cylinders and adjust the timing accordingly. However, after all is said and done model aircraft gasoline engines don't have that high of compression ratios and therefore do not need the higher octane fuels (even though the better engines do have fairly good adjustable timing systems.) In fact, if you really want to make a gasoline model engine be a real bear to start, and also be a real "knuckle-buster" (as it will kick back much easier and much harder) raise the compression ratio by installing a thinner head gasket or milling either the top of the cylinder or the mating portion of the head by as little as .010" (ask me how I know). Of course if you really know what you are doing, and know how to machine the "squish band" (the almost flat area around the "normally" domed ignition area) you can lower the head a bit, and raise the compression a bit to sometimes get more power. However.....most of the companies that have really done their "home work" have already optimized the compression for best results with "regular" (I.E. 87 octane) fuels. If you take a "cheapy" brand engine that is essentially a slightly re-hashed "weed-wacker" engine, you may be able to increase the horsepower output slightly (again, ask me how I know). SteveT
Posted on: 5/8/2009 10:32 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8753104

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni... Thanks for the reply, I do appreciate it. I know that you fly 3D, while I fly sport, so hopefully it will fly reasonably well...only time will tell. If need be, I can always go to a smaller flight pack and receiver, but again...we'll see. SteveT
Posted on: 5/6/2009 6:27 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8746337

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys..... According to the specs on the Aero-works site for this plane, it says the plane weighs 9 to 10 pounds...All I can say is I must have gotten one that was built with way heavier wood. Mine is an electric conversion using and Axi 5330-18 motor (weight 652 grams/ 22.998 ounces) which is lighter than the SPE 26 engine at 36 ounces (with muffler and ignition module). My motor comes out to be 13 ounces lighter than the SPE 26. I will be using two Hobbycity "Zippy" 5S 25C 4000mah packs (581 grams/20.494 ounces each for a total of 40.988 ounces or 2.56 pounds). I don't know what model fuel weighs, but gasoline weighs approximately 5.8 to 6.5 pounds per gallon, so if you figure an average of 6 pounds, then the fuel tank that comes with the plane will hold 15.2 fluid ounces or 1.425 pounds (if my math is correct) of fuel. If my math is correct, then my batteries weigh 1.137 pounds (18.192 ounces) more than the fuel. So...as my motor weighs less than then SPE 26, there is only an approximately 5.192 ounce difference for the motor/batteries over a gas engine and a full tank of fuel. I am using a Great Planes 3" "E" spinner (lightened backplate), and have mounted (at least for now) APC 20/10 prop. Now another difference for my plane is I used a JR "Powersafe" 2S 4000mah lipo pack for my receiver, plus a JR VR6010 Voltage Regulator. The combined weight of these is 7.8 ounces. This is more than a JR 2700mah 6volt nimh pack at 7.1 ounces (.6 ounce more) but less than a JR 4500mah nimh 6 volt pack at 10.9 ounces (3.1 ounces less). I would think that most people using Digital servos like the HS-7985MG (which I am using) would use a large receiver pack and go with 6 volt, so I would think that my power system for my flight pack is pretty much a wash as far as weight. A couple more differences on my plane are carbon fiber gear, with larger than stock wheels. I used the Graphtech carbon fiber gear and Hangar 9 3.5" light weight wheels. I can't see where these would weigh much if any more than the stock aluminum gear, stock wheels, and wheel pants. The only mods I made to the airframe itself where that I had to build a new cover over the landing gear to replace the stock one since with the carbon fiber gear, the original cover stuck up about 3/16". I built the cover using liteply, and balsa, and I cut large holes in it to reduce weight (almost identical to the original) and, I put a piece of 3/16" thick liiteply in between the bottom two stringers right behind the rudder servo. This piece is about 5" long, and has 9/16" holes drilled into it to act as air exhaust ports for the hot air coming through the fuselage, from an intake scoop I built onto the motor mount box. This exhaust port was installed flush with the bottom of the stringers, then I ironed the covering to it, then I cut the covering away where I had drilled the holes. The intake that I built on the motor mount box is made of liteply and 1/64" birch ply, and weighs only a few grams. I also drilled two 1.25" holes into the top of the motor mount box, so the removal of that wood pretty much makes up for the addition of the intake scoop So....how come my plane which is essentially ready to fly weighs 12.8 pounds?????? Will this much additional weight be a problem? Is the 9 to 10 pound weight listed in the specs bare airframe or flying weight??? SteveT
Posted on: 5/6/2009 5:09 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8744833

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni..... Young whippersnapper you!!!....Heck, I'm 58 and right now I feel every darn year of it.... SteveT
Posted on: 4/26/2009 3:02 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8715850

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... Ok.... I give up... I got my problem with the wing tube taken care of and now started on the servo linkages.. Now, my kit has the "newer" linkages with the "nut" in the middle. so that they can be adjusted with a wrench to adjust for control rod length...the only problem is that mine are so long (and yes, I have the Hitec HS7985MG servos installed correctly) that the only way to even install the aileron control rods was to cut abut 5/32" off of the end where the ball link screwed on, and then thread it all the way on so there is no way to make any adjustments as there are no threads left. I haven't done the elevators yet, but by just holding the rod (with ball link and clevis on) up the the servo arm, and control horn, it appears to be the same. It also appears that If I reverse the elevator servos then there would be thread left for adjustment, but the rod would only be threaded about half way into the threads of the clevis. One note, I did change the clevis out for 4/40 Sullivan clevises, ( I like the snap on keepers the Sullivans have) but they are with-in a few thousandths of length to the stock ones. SteveT
Posted on: 4/16/2009 12:34 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8685736

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi jdkxtreme Thanks.... SteveT
Posted on: 4/13/2009 10:23 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8678824

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... Ok...Good news... Aeroworks got me straightened out on the wing tube. One of the gents there told me how to make a tool to sand the tubes in the wings and fuselage out, and it worked great. Also... a question about RCuniverse... I checked the email notification box to have an email sent to me when there was a new post to this forum, but now it is getting to be a bit too much... how do I stop them???? I have gone to the page where you are supposed to be able to "un-subscribe" but I have nothing clicked, and I can't seem to stop the emails... Thanks SteveT
Posted on: 4/13/2009 10:22 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8678725

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni .... Nope... No zip ties or anything like that, I haven't gotten that far.... SteveT
Posted on: 4/12/2009 11:53 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8673540

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... So....has anybody else gotten a wing tube that you couldn't pound into the fuselage or wings with a sledge hammer??? My wing tube would only go about a 1/4 of the way into the fuselage and VERY tight in the wings. I was afraid that if I forced it in, I would never get it out. I sanded it down with some 320 wet or dry sandpaper, but it is still very tight, so I'm going to have to sand it some more. Heck I even tried putting a little vegetable oil on it (I got this tip from my 3D hobby shop instruction manual), but as I said...it's still way too tight. Oh...and it also seems to be about 1/2" too long....I'm not going to cut it until I sand it down a bit more, but as it is, the wings won't mate up to the fuselage.... Also.... I have read that a few people have had trouble with the plastic inserts in the control horns breaking. Is this a problem? Does it happen often enough to warrant knocking them out and just using ball links on the control horns?? SteveT
Posted on: 4/12/2009 3:43 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8672733

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... For those of you who might be interested. I am building and electric conversion of the Yak, using an AXI 5330-18. I had a spare Hangar 9 "Frenzy 100" motor mount back-plate and stand offs, so I drew up an Autocad drawing of a back-plate to mount to the firewall that I could screw this to. I then sent the drawings to a friend of mine who has a 3 axis CNC mill so that he could make the plate for me. He suggested that I might also do a drawing that would use a "standard" "X" type motor back-plate sold by Horizon Hobbies for the E-flite Power 110 or 160 motors, or the Axi 53XX series, so I did. He is possibly going to manufacture these back-plates and standoffs if there is and interest in them. The first one (the green one) is the one for the Frenzy motor back-plate, and the second one, (red and blue) is for the E-fite/Axi "X" type back-plate. This mounts directly to the firewall, using the existing mounting holes. By the way.....my friend did the 3D drawings, I have no idea how to work in 3D... (kind of like my flying...) Let me know if you are interested... SteveT
Posted on: 4/10/2009 1:51 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8666773

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... So... I'm just about ready to start putting my Yak together, and have the Graphtech graphite gear for it. I did not notice until just a few minutes ago how much thicker the gear is compared to the stock aluminum gear (about 5/16" for the graphite, as opposed to 1/8" for the stock gear) have you guys modified the bottom filler piece when using the graphite gear, or made another balsa block, or just not used the filler piece??? Also, a while back, I bought one servo which as it turned out, I bought a HS-5965Mg instead of the HS-5985MG. I just bought four HS 5985MG's that should be here any day now, and really don't have the funds to buy another 5985 right now. I will not be doing 3D with this plane, and I am building it as electric. Will the 5965 suffice on rudder until such time as I can get another 5985 or the newer equivalent? Thanks SteveT
Posted on: 4/4/2009 2:24 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8647109

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi graggy ... I am using a 5 cell 2000mAh nimh in my Frenzy that has five servos, no problems at all...2700 would be more than enough... SteveT
Posted on: 1/3/2009 7:05 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8314492

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi geefish1.... Glad to hear that the 110 is enough power. I`m curious to know if you had to add much weight to balance the plane, or were you able to put the batteries far enough forward to balance it?? Thanks for the report... SteveT
Posted on: 12/23/2008 9:44 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8276435

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni Yes, I love the sound of a gas powered plane too (and the lovely ear damage it can cause, and being a rock musician, I have enough of that)), but, as a handycapped person, I have a very hard time getting down and the back up again to start a "slimer" plane (and I don`t like starting planes on a stand). Also, the large park that I normally fly in doesn`t allow anything other than sailplanes, and electrics....But to each his/her own.. :D SteveT
Posted on: 12/20/2008 8:07 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8265826

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Jimeni The one problem I could see with the 110, would be that it only weighs 490 grams (17.5 ounces), while the power 160 weighs 650 grams (23 ounces), which is more in line with the weight that the four stroke engines weigh. A Saito 125 weighs 24.5 ounces, a Saito 180 weighs 31 0unces, and a YS 140 weighs 33 ounces. From what I have been reading, the plane seems to balance fairly well with the latter engines. With a 110, it seems to me that more weight will have to be added to balance the plane and it will be just "dead" weight. So...(and this is just my opinion) a larger motor will be more efficient. That said...If a person has the motors and the batteries, then by all means use what you have. As I said in my previous post, my Frenzy has tremendous power on 8s with a power 110. I don`t fly 3D (yet), so the 18/10 give me the kind of performance I want, both good pulling power (while I don`t know how to hover the plane, I can tailslide it, and power back on to go vertical again), and it the plane is also much faster than it was with an AXI 5320-28 (and it was clocked with radar at 83mph with the AXI). SteveT
Posted on: 12/20/2008 2:31 AM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8263726

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi Guys.... I received an e-mail from Aero-works this morning concerning the de-lamination of the former, stating that they believe the former will be ok, as long as I put some thin CA into it... I hope so... SteveT
Posted on: 12/19/2008 1:10 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8261624

RE: Introducing the new 90-1.20 Yak QB
Hi geefish1.... I too have just purchased this plane with the intention of doing an electric conversion. while weight-wise, I think the 110 may be enough (I am flying a Hangar 9 Frenzy that weighs ten pounds AUW), I do wonder if due to the physical size of the plane if you might not be better off with the 160 (which is what I am going to use, but then I already have one)? My Frenzy flies with 8S Thunderpower 3850 V2 Extreme batteries, with an APC 18/10 and has tremendous power. I am using a CC High voltage 110 ESC (just because I already had it) and am drawing 63 amps, and getting about 1780 watts. Off of semi deep grass, it rolls about twenty feet and then goes vertical as far as I want to go. With 9S you will definitely want to go down a bit on size of prop. Jimeni has suggested 18/8, but you may end up having to go to a 17/6 or 17/8. While I have read of people using the 160 on this plane on this and other threads on RC groups, I have not heard of anybody using the 110. On another note... As to the landing gear mounts. While giving my fuselage a good inspection, I found that the former that runs from the front former (not the firewall) to the former just to the rear of the landing gear had a crack or de-lamination of the outer layer of the plywood about 1/8" up from the longitudinal piece that supports the gear. I notified Mark at Aero-works late this afternoon, and sent him photos verifying this. I tried to call him back after sending the photos, but Aero-works had closed for the evening. From what I have heard of Aero-works support, I don`t think there should be any issues with getting this taken care of. Or....from what I have read, this area could stand to be re-enforced a bit, should I just go ahead and do that, and not worry about the de-lam?? SteveT
Posted on: 12/18/2008 11:14 PM by Author "Draknkep" in the forum "Aero-Works Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8259874