mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

I'm trying to decide on which engine to use. The plane is a Midwest Giles 202 that had a G38 in it. The wing loading was a whopping 37.5 oz. I never flew it like that. I bought the plane to take the engine out and use in another one. Now I'm ready to get the Giles going and the two lightest gas engines in my price rage will produce wing loadings of 33 and 35 ounces. I would prefer the engine that would produce a 35 oz wingloading, but I don't want that plane to be a real handful. I was told it was bad with the G38.
So, would you guys do? 33 or 35 ounce wing loading? (Not a 3D plane, but I really like alot of verticle.)

AeroDave

Which engines are you looking at?

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

How big is the airplane? 72", 80", bigger? 35 ounces is light for an 85" airplane, but it would be no fun at all in a 72".

I don't suppose you have considered a Moki?

Jim

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

Brillelli engines- 26 and 40cc. 72" wingspan. No glow engines. Went gas and never going back.

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

Well, it's your choice of course. I can tell you from personal experience that Lanier's 72" Edge flew great at a wing loading of about 28 ounces per square foot, and that the 78" Great Planes Patty Wagstaff flies heavy at 30 ounces. I just finished a product review of a 72" Giles that everybody loved at 26 ounces. (11 pounds, OS 160)

What can I say, good luck with it either way.

Jim

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

we weighed the airframe alone with the servos installed only. It's at 9 pounds, 8 ounces. Looks like I'll be at 13 pounds with the 26 or 13 and 10 ounces with the 40. I'm leaning towards the 26.
I seen the review on the GP Giles and with an OS 1.60, it had over a 30 ounce loading too. Just an old style airframe. Guess I'm saving over 2 and a half pounds over the G38 combo. That should make a tremendous difference.

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Well since you are not into 3D wingloading is not as much of an issue for you. I have a Patty with the Brillelli 46 and the wing loading is 31oz. It flies like a baby and floats forever on landing so I dont know how that guy can say it flew heavy.

I had the 46 in a 72" GSP Planes Yak and the wingloading was 45oz. Plane flew great and was fun to snap with the extra weight... just landing becomes an issue.. go from flying to droping like a brick in one click of the throttle. Wasn't too much fun landing

I would get the 26 because your plane is pretty light.. get a good prop and you will be completely happy.

Just remember that planes were a lot heavy not too long ago and they all flew fine. Today all you see if ppl putting 300oz+ torq. on a 1/4 scale plane and people taking wingloading to a whole new level. Yes a plane flies better lite.. but there is tons of overkill going on today.

The fact that you saved atleast 2.5 pounds on it from when it was flown last is a world of difference in itself. Put her up high and learn how it stalls at slow speeds and then land a bit faster.

Hope this helps...

jrf

My Feedback: (551)

I guess it all depends on what you have to compare it to. I'm sure after flying a 72" Yak at 45 oz/sq ft, the Patty at 31 would feel light as a feather. On the other hand, compared with almost every scale aerobat that has come out since, it flies heavy.

Hey, maybe you like flying a heavy airplane. It's your choice, this is a hobby!

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Actually I was using that example to show him that 35oz is not too bad that he should be scared or worried about it... although I could have said that most warbirds are over 40oz wingloading as example.

I have lighter planes as well but you said the Patty felt heavy and there are multiple threads that have 1000s of replies all saying you are wrong. I have flown foamies u-can-dos, WHs, composite-arf, all the way to a Carden once or twice... I have well rounded flying expierence.

I am simplying saying that most ppl are taking wingloading to extreme lightness and its really not necessary.

Either way the point is.. the lighter the better.. but dont get too caught up in it.

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

I know this plane will never be a floater for sure, that's why I'm not interested in 3D with it. I have other planes for that. I just don't want any bad snapping going on at that wrong time--like when coming in for a landing. I think I'm going with a 26.

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Well snapping is directly related to your speed on approach. Best to keep it a bit fast till a foot or 2 off teh ground then drop to idle and let it glide in.

Really 72" planes are pretty hard to get light with a gas engine perod... its the odd size where you can get gas on it and sometimes it works well other times it's just better to stick to glow. With the 26 and 33oz wing loading you should be ok.


Good luck!

mrbigg

My Feedback: (21)

thanks. the plane was gotten at a decent price so I might as well fly it. I would never by a new plane this size for sure.