craigteffe

My Feedback: (24)

Hello all,
I was thinking about purchasing the Edge. I currently have a First Place 3.2 but was wanting to know if anyone thinks that will be a good engine for that plane. What engines do you recommend for the plane? I want to do 3d and would like to have enough power to pull out vertically.

Thanks

skyesdad

My Feedback: (1)

i just finished mine with a 3w 50 and wow it will pull. there is another with a da50 and it does fine but the 3w is already turning better rpm than the da and the needles are at factory rich setting but dont think that you wil have problems with this motor mine balanced with no weight . talk to bobby at catus aviation.

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

I really think your 3.2 would be a great engine for the WH Edge. If it is a normal engine in good shape pull out should not be a problem. I have a Brison3.2 which is very similar to your FPE and it pulls my 17.2 lb edge straight up. Have fun!

m.gramling

My Feedback: (8)

bryant330,
Can you tell me how you have your wildhare edge set up. I am thinking of going with a brison 3.2 & I am going to try and get it light as possible. Can you tell what equipment you have in yours.

thanks,
Micheal

Ken Bryant

My Feedback: (10)

If you want to go as light as possible The DA 50 is the lightest in it's group from what I understand. Also with the Hare, you can get the carbon gear and wing tube.

Bryant330L

My Feedback: (126)

Michael,
I have the BME Edge not the WH. If you think my setup applies to the WH I will be happy to let you know how I have it. Just shoot me a pm or an email. I don't want to go talking about the BME plane in the WH forum! I was just sharing my experience with the power of the Brison.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Hang the 3.2 on the nose, tail mount the (1) rudder servo, move the batteries to get the balance, and go with the c/f wing tube for a lighter plane. The tail mounted rudder servo works and holds up just fine. If you can get Tom's fiberglass gear, get those too.

The DA's and BME's are too light so the 3.2 actually helps the balance situation quite a bit. You will not have any shortage of power.

Don't add any more wood or support anywhere on the plane if you can avoid it, it's not needed. Just build it like the book says to do.

Go ahead and get the Brison and keep some money in your pocket. You won't have any regrets. Ever!

Matt52x

Does anyone know how much the WH edge would weigh with a da-50, cabon gear, and carbon wing tube; built by the book?

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Between 16-3/4 and 17-1/2 pounds, depending on how you do with linkages, hardware, and polyurethane glues.

Leaving off the wheel pants and spinner and you can get a little lighter.

mstroh3961

My Feedback: (4)

Mine has all CF tubes and tailwheel, DA-50 Slimeline pits muffler Toms FG landing gear, 3 NiMH 1650 packs, Throttle and choke servos, dave brown spinner, 24oz fuel= 16.75 lbs. balanced at the center of the recomended starting CG no weight added.

Matt52x

Not bad I'm looking forward to this airplane!

Josey Wales

My Feedback: (61)

Here are some pics for you guys asking about the Brison from Silversurfer

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Joe,

Thanks for posting those for me. I'm never able to get them through to a forum.

The older Brison 3.2 that has a blue crankcase will have a slightly thicker backplate than the new polished version. Those that need stand off lengths should be able to use the following, plus or minus 1 or 2 mm. Blue case: 44mm, Polished case: 47mm.

The FPE 3.2, and Fox 3.2, are very similar in appearance and mounting to the Brison. You will need to measure the length of the engine and back plate and subtract that amount from the firewall to front of cowl distance to obtain the stand off length. I would like to suggest that you add a minimum of 2mm to the minimum stand off length to be certain that the spinner back plate clears the face of the cowl ring.

Note that the throttle servo is mounted on the engine box for balance reasons. The servo arm and linkage in this installation is inside, rather than outside the box.

Pat

Shadow-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

I have a question in reference to redrum's plane. I am putting together (still) one of Tom's Giles. I have had several people tell me to close off all of the openings between the engine box and the fuselage so I don't pressurize the fuselage and blow off the covering. I see redrum's has a big opening on top of the engine box. Do you fly it this way and is there a problem?

Randy

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Actually, the pics Redrum posted are of my 300. I can't seem to get uploads through to the forum threads.

If you look at the picture that's facing towards the front of the plane, you will note that near the bottom of the fuselage at the inside of the firewall there is a yellow battery. That's attached to a plate that was used to both hold the battery and close off the firewall opening.

Looking above that a little you will see another battery on the floor of the engine box. It sits on another plate used to close off the opening. The top of the engine box used to be closed off with fake carbon fiber Ultracote, but turned out to be unneccessary. It also got in the way of accessing things. I fly it all the time this way with no problems at all. Of course the cowl is in place when it's flown.

I also have a Giles, and the same two openings have been closed off. More for the routing of engine cooling air than anything else since I'm using a twin for power. The bottom of the firewall should be closed off since it's a direct path air duct, but I don't think the rest have any negative effects. On the Giles, I used some 1/64" ply to close off the two lower openings. MonoKote or similar would do the job just as well.

Leaving the top open will not be a problem.

Pat

rdurant

My Feedback: (32)

I haven't bought an engine for my 28% edge. Which engine would be a better overall performer for unlimited verticle when you look at horsepower , thrust and dependability. Thanks for any responses.

Rich

rctom

For the combination of power-to-weight, reliability, handling, and vendor support I recommend the DA-50.

TF

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Power wise, just about all the 50cc class engines are very, very close to each other. It comes down to a matter of weight for each engine. I believe the BME 50 is the lightest, with the DA50 following close behind. Brison will be a skosh lighter than Fox. Taurus, the strongest of them all, falls between the Brison and the DA.

Now you have to decide on how much you want to spend. Brison has the lowest price, and is extremely dependable and long lived. Taurus is the most expensive, but in the end it's all relative to your needs and abilities. ANY of the above noted engines will serve your purpose well, and be able to provide years of service if you don't run them lean or into the ground.

At this point in time, availabilty is a big issue with some of the manufacturers. It wouldn't hurt to call those manufacturers that interest you to see when and if they are available.

Don't tell anyone, but I'm pretty much a tried and true Brison fan

Pat

rdurant

My Feedback: (32)

Pricewise is not much of an issue because if your spending $550 - $650 , Whats another $100.
I was concerned because I'm looking to put a smome pump in my edge which will add additional weight and I want to make sure the engine I get will be powerful enough to perform 3D. They say that the engines with the mechanical timing advances have the best ability for (optimum performance) because they are able to advance the most under load because of the linkage off the throttle. Whereas on the electronic ignition , The range is somewhat limited so the engines are still able to start easily. Most forum members with the 28%edge weigh in around 16 1/2 to 17 1/2 , If mine weighs in at 18 1/2 lbs , Will the DA be strong enough?
Thanks Silversurfer.

Rich D

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

To answer your question properly, I will have to admit that the first 28% edge that I assembled got a little fat due to my desire to make it stronger. A completely unnecessary effort I might add. That Edge weighed in at 20-1/2 pounds fully fueled and flew just perfectly. That was with a Brison 3.2.

The second 28% Extra came in at 19 pounds wet, with a fully primed TME smoke system, a 24 ounce smoke tank and flew even better. Again with a Brison 3.2.

Your DA50 will do just fine. If you can place the smoke pump as close as you can to the smoke tank, there will be little, if any, shift in the C/G as the fluid is used. Placing the smoke battery, if you are usning one, just behind the wing tube will help maintain the C/G as well.

Pat

m.gramling

My Feedback: (8)

silver surfer, how well did the brison 3.2 pull out of a hover at 20 1/2 lbs. I do a lot of 3d, have been looking to purchase a 28%wildhare. I like the brison 3.2 over the DA50. But I want to know how much power you have coming out of a hover. Is it slow, or it it really good.

I plan on purchasing all light gear using redundant lith-ion batteries. But, if my plane comes in at 17lbs. Will the brison pull it out of a hover quickly.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

At 20 plus pounds, the 3.2 will be sluggish pulling out of a hover. At 17 pounds, it's not a rocket, but neither are any of the others. To really rocket out of a hover with a 50cc class engine, the plane's weight will have to be 13 pounds and under. Unfortunately, if you want to get the plane down to 17 pounds or less, you will likely have to look at a lighter engine to do it. You don't know how much I hated to say that.[:@]

The 3.2 pulls steady and evenly. I won't try to estimate the speed, but at 17-1/2 pounds, I am satisfied with the performance. I fly at a base altitude of around 1,500 feet above sea level, which drops the speed and performance a bit. It does quite well at sea level altitudes. Mine pulls out of a deep harrier with no loss of altitude in the transition, and will often be able to climb the plane in an inverted flat spin.

I've settled on an MSC 22-8 wood prop for the best performance I can get. If you go with the narrower blade carbon props, you will need to go an inch longer with the same pitch. The increased length with the carbon props is the same with all the other engines, too.

As for the mechanical advance thing. The mechanical advance ignitions have the same amount of advance and retardation as the auto advance ignitions. The difference is that the amount the the engine is permitted to advance is tied directly to the throttle with a mechanical. If you have zero throttle, you have about 4 degrees of advance. If you have medium throttle you will have a medium amount of advance, and so forth. Full advance will come in around 4,000 rpm or so.

The auto advance ignitions are designed to provide full advance somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 rpm, regardless of throttle position. This shows up clearly on a downline. With a mechanical advance, the engine does not want to increase prop rpm very much on an extended downline. With an auto advance, the windmilling prop tricks the ignition into thinking that the engine wants to accelerate, and advances the ignition, which permits further increases of engine speed at idle throttle settings. It also shows up in a hover with a "burbling" carb in the throttle mid ranges, and stumbling in quick throttle transitions.

For those interested, CH Electronics is coming out with a new ignition for the Brison engines that will not provide full advance until around 6,000 rpm. Limiting the full advance until later in the power band will smooth out the performance any auto advance ignition.

I fly both types, and like them both. But I like the mechanical best of all on a single cylinder engine. For more information of either the engine or the way the ignition works you might want to get in touch with Brison engines and/or CH Electronics. Both are usually quite willing to speak with you, work load permitting.

m.gramling

My Feedback: (8)

silver surfer,
I am thinking of buying the edge, and putting it on a diet. I am thinking of getting it a solid, color. I really don't like the looks of the stock scheme.


Then taking a whole saw and cutting 4-6 holes in each aileron. then putting a few small ones on the elevators. Possibly the rudder. then taking a dremel took to alot fo the formers i can reach.. I haven't seen one of the WH in person. So I don't know if it has a lot thick formers. I would really like to get this thing down to 16lbs.

rctom

Here's a suggestion. If you want to do all that cutting, buy a Dave Patrick plane instead. His planes are all very lightly built and designed that way. And that's not meant as a criticism, he makes good planes, they're just built light.

Cutting out a bunch of balsa is not going to lighten our planes very much, but it will compromise the integrity and probably cause problems.

It might be simpler to use a MVVS-58 engine which does have enough power to shoot out of a hover. The plane will weigh about 18 pounds with that heavier engine and be a much better/stronger combination.

TF

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

I agree completely with Tom on the above. There would be little gained by trying to put one of the 28% planes on a "diet". Engine choice would have a much more profound effect.