Welcome to Club SAITO !
01-18-2021, 06:00 PM
Thanks for your responses. I do own a Moki 180 and you are right about radials but for sport flying this little bipe I imagine a single will do at low cost with a nice sound. It’s not a super scale project for me. Sounds like glow or gas are both good options but if the glow ones run as well they cost about a case of fuel less!
01-18-2021, 07:33 PM
Jumping in here as I have purchased a Seagull Models Nieuport 28 from an estate sale. It's specs call for 20-28cc gas, maybe 16-17" prop. The original owner has a big electric motor on it. That has got to go! I am very interested in having this airplane sound correct for a WWI fighter. My experience with Saito four strokes is all smaller glow ones from 70-100 size and has been fantastic, absolutely no complaints, ever. My current fun fly plane has a 72 with a crack pipe (radial exhaust pipe) on it and sounds and runs awesome.
So, in the larger sizes I now have a choice of glow or gas. I know gas is more economical but it is not like I will be flying this biplane a whole lot. And I fly 90 size glow helicopters so I always have gallons of 30% nitro on hand. I would like to know more about the running characteristics and sound quality of the big singles. The smaller ones are the 125A or G21, then the 150B (which is not offered as a gas model?), and at the larger end the 180B or G30B. Weight is not a consideration, I will still need a ton of nose weight.
Thanks for any advice. I have found over the years that some engines are just real sweethearts so that would trump every other consideration.
So, in the larger sizes I now have a choice of glow or gas. I know gas is more economical but it is not like I will be flying this biplane a whole lot. And I fly 90 size glow helicopters so I always have gallons of 30% nitro on hand. I would like to know more about the running characteristics and sound quality of the big singles. The smaller ones are the 125A or G21, then the 150B (which is not offered as a gas model?), and at the larger end the 180B or G30B. Weight is not a consideration, I will still need a ton of nose weight.
Thanks for any advice. I have found over the years that some engines are just real sweethearts so that would trump every other consideration.
I have a good Saito 150 you can have for real cheap.
Should be a very good match.
The following users liked this post:
husafreak (01-19-2021)
01-19-2021, 04:43 AM
Eventually have ya covering your ears when the two stroke rattle can guys show up 😯
The following users liked this post:
husafreak (01-19-2021)
01-19-2021, 04:54 AM
Thanks for your responses. I do own a Moki 180 and you are right about radials but for sport flying this little bipe I imagine a single will do at low cost with a nice sound. It’s not a super scale project for me. Sounds like glow or gas are both good options but if the glow ones run as well they cost about a case of fuel less!
Haven't fired my 250 yet. Not yet mounted it on the Stearman yet. Dr G said to run it in on the airframe instead of a stand. Which ignition do you run on the 180?
Last Moki question on the Saito thread.
Please forgive the indescression.
I also follow the Moki forum
The following users liked this post:
husafreak (01-19-2021)
01-19-2021, 06:22 PM
My first Saito was an 80, I put it in a scratch built ACE 4-60. I flew that plane from 1986 until 2006 and sold it. I remember thinking that after 15 years I should overhaul the engine. So I took it apart and to my horror the piston skirt was broken, it looked like something had taken a bite out of it! But there was no metal in the engine or scoring, etc. I called whoever was selling Saito parts that day and asked about buying a new piston, the fellow on the phone said he had them in stock but asked if the engine was running OK before I disassembled it, I said it was. He told me to put it back together and keep flying. I flew it for 5 more years! What a great engine.
I am currently running a Saito 72 on a fun fly plane (profile job) and it is also an amazing engine, dead reliable, great power, and sounds fantastic with a straight pipe. When I bought that engine the 82 was also very popular. I dare say that among the Profile brotherhood it was more popular than the 72. But the 82 was too much power for the 40 size profiles IMHO, too much torque. Also my 72 burned way less fuel than the 82, I can fly for 8 minutes on 6 oz and an 82 maybe 6-7 minutes on 8 oz. It is just much more efficient. Don't get mad at me for saying this but I think Saito discontinued the wrong engine
I still have a N.I.B Saito Gold Knight 100 and a big Moass profile for it. I need to get that done... I'll bet the 100 runs well too.
And now I'll have a 150, sweet!
FWIW I've had good luck with Saito engines, or maybe they are all good. But YS four stroke engines have given me fits over the years (not so much trouble with the 2 strokes). Like I either get a good one or a lemon, 50/50 chance. And the lemons have always turned out to be impossible to get running right, the good ones all "set and forget".
Cool thread BTW, i just wanted to share my experiences.
I am currently running a Saito 72 on a fun fly plane (profile job) and it is also an amazing engine, dead reliable, great power, and sounds fantastic with a straight pipe. When I bought that engine the 82 was also very popular. I dare say that among the Profile brotherhood it was more popular than the 72. But the 82 was too much power for the 40 size profiles IMHO, too much torque. Also my 72 burned way less fuel than the 82, I can fly for 8 minutes on 6 oz and an 82 maybe 6-7 minutes on 8 oz. It is just much more efficient. Don't get mad at me for saying this but I think Saito discontinued the wrong engine
I still have a N.I.B Saito Gold Knight 100 and a big Moass profile for it. I need to get that done... I'll bet the 100 runs well too.
And now I'll have a 150, sweet!
FWIW I've had good luck with Saito engines, or maybe they are all good. But YS four stroke engines have given me fits over the years (not so much trouble with the 2 strokes). Like I either get a good one or a lemon, 50/50 chance. And the lemons have always turned out to be impossible to get running right, the good ones all "set and forget".
Cool thread BTW, i just wanted to share my experiences.
Last edited by husafreak; 01-19-2021 at 06:26 PM.
01-19-2021, 06:51 PM
Thanks for the insight into your flying. You will love the FA100, it's remarkably stronger than a Saito or OS 91. Both the 72 and 82 do well on the right airframe. I agree, the 82 is a little much for most 40 size planes but does a great job powering the 46-55 size ones. Pulls my Phoenix Models Sbach from a hover in a hurry. Just wished it didn't vibrate so harshly. The 72 is friendlier on the needle and lower on the vibes.
The following users liked this post:
husafreak (01-20-2021)
01-20-2021, 08:42 AM
Likewise here!
As with the mighty FA-82 with it's ability to pull the larger props and make real horsepower at low RPM . Unlike the buzzy FA-72 (Of which I still have a couple that will never again see use).
I have a few planes that started out with FA-72 "power". Along the way, I pulled a 72 and just for kicks, bolted up an .82. A real eye opener. My flying style is mostly run at part throttle so it wasn't a matter of spastic 3D machination. However, the ability to effortlessly pull off smooth, graceful maneuvers with that 82 at low RPM, partial throttle settings ... YESSIR! HUGE loops, inside or out, silky smooth slow rolls with the engine purring sweetly. Yet, when wanted, slap the stick forward and stretch the speed envelope well beyond anything the FA-72 could approach.
Power for power, with a properly set carb, the fuel consumption was quite similar. Most often use an 11 ounce tank. With the 72, an average flight was 20 minutes with fuel to spare at landing. The 83, flying the same pace woul easily make 20 minutes as well, no sweat there.
So, aside from perhaps a very light airframe or a marginally constructed ARF, the 82s get deployed and the 72 sits the shelf
01-20-2021, 03:38 PM
150 "K" Compression Ratio
Dave, the combustion chamber volume on my 150 marked "K" on the lug measured 2.4cc. CC'd it 4 times just to be sure. If I use Clarence Lee's spec'd swept volume of 25.09cc it calculates to 11.45:1. If I use Mike Billington's spec'd swept volume of 25.18cc it calculates to 11.49:1. Either way it's fairly high, even with my piston pin being .25mm higher than yours. Head scratcher.
UPDATE: Reading back through some old threads William Robison had a high compression Saito FA150 marked with a "K" on the lug.
UPDATE: Reading back through some old threads William Robison had a high compression Saito FA150 marked with a "K" on the lug.
Last edited by Glowgeek; 01-21-2021 at 03:31 AM.
01-20-2021, 07:12 PM
Ah, horses for courses, I still like my 72 and I was disappointed it was discontinued, but if it ever dies maybe I’ll try an 82 on something appropriate.
and I was disappointed it was discontinued, but if it ever dies maybe I’ll try an 82 on something appropriate.
01-21-2021, 05:21 AM
Likewise here!
As with the mighty FA-82 with it's ability to pull the larger props and make real horsepower at low RPM . Unlike the buzzy FA-72 (Of which I still have a couple that will never again see use).
I have a few planes that started out with FA-72 "power". Along the way, I pulled a 72 and just for kicks, bolted up an .82. A real eye opener. My flying style is mostly run at part throttle so it wasn't a matter of spastic 3D machination. However, the ability to effortlessly pull off smooth, graceful maneuvers with that 82 at low RPM, partial throttle settings ... YESSIR! HUGE loops, inside or out, silky smooth slow rolls with the engine purring sweetly. Yet, when wanted, slap the stick forward and stretch the speed envelope well beyond anything the FA-72 could approach.
Power for power, with a properly set carb, the fuel consumption was quite similar. Most often use an 11 ounce tank. With the 72, an average flight was 20 minutes with fuel to spare at landing. The 83, flying the same pace woul easily make 20 minutes as well, no sweat there.
So, aside from perhaps a very light airframe or a marginally constructed ARF, the 82s get deployed and the 72 sits the shelf
As with the mighty FA-82 with it's ability to pull the larger props and make real horsepower at low RPM . Unlike the buzzy FA-72 (Of which I still have a couple that will never again see use).
I have a few planes that started out with FA-72 "power". Along the way, I pulled a 72 and just for kicks, bolted up an .82. A real eye opener. My flying style is mostly run at part throttle so it wasn't a matter of spastic 3D machination. However, the ability to effortlessly pull off smooth, graceful maneuvers with that 82 at low RPM, partial throttle settings ... YESSIR! HUGE loops, inside or out, silky smooth slow rolls with the engine purring sweetly. Yet, when wanted, slap the stick forward and stretch the speed envelope well beyond anything the FA-72 could approach.
Power for power, with a properly set carb, the fuel consumption was quite similar. Most often use an 11 ounce tank. With the 72, an average flight was 20 minutes with fuel to spare at landing. The 83, flying the same pace woul easily make 20 minutes as well, no sweat there.
So, aside from perhaps a very light airframe or a marginally constructed ARF, the 82s get deployed and the 72 sits the shelf
01-21-2021, 05:39 AM
01-21-2021, 05:40 AM
01-21-2021, 05:42 AM
My 72 flies the Somethin Xtra quite well. I have to take a look at it though, recently it hasn't been running well. I may need new o rings for the intake after having to replace the cylinder. Hasn't run right since replacing it. Good compression, decent idle, but it seems to sag at times and had it quit in flight twice.
01-21-2021, 05:48 AM
My 72 flies the Somethin Xtra quite well. I have to take a look at it though, recently it hasn't been running well. I may need new o rings for the intake after having to replace the cylinder. Hasn't run right since replacing it. Good compression, decent idle, but it seems to sag at times and had it quit in flight twice.
01-21-2021, 06:07 AM
No, the ring was fine, the engine didn't have but a gallon through it. It has great compression and the walls are looking good. It's probably a nicked o-ring. I had to take the carb off about 4 times for replacing bearings, replacing the head, etc. It turns nice and smooth finally, and when running good, has good peak and idle, but what happens is as it warms up it changes, and that is why I think it needs them.
01-21-2021, 06:21 AM
Actually I prefer the 82 for its ability to easily pull larger props at lower RPM. I do like a strong mid-range, the 82 has that and a stronger top end as well.
Flying an 80 inch plane for twenty minutes on a windy day, below 8ft leaves little room for slow reactions, or slow engine response.
Last edited by Jesse Open; 01-21-2021 at 06:24 AM.
01-21-2021, 02:50 PM
Actually I prefer the 82 for its ability to easily pull larger props at lower RPM. I do like a strong mid-range, the 82 has that and a stronger top end as well.
Flying an 80 inch plane for twenty minutes on a windy day, below 8ft leaves little room for slow reactions, or slow engine response.
Flying an 80 inch plane for twenty minutes on a windy day, below 8ft leaves little room for slow reactions, or slow engine response.
OK fellas. Upon closer inspection. Ever see two cyl base screws snap clean on the same side?
Anybody ever run across a torque requirement/spec for these base screws in addition to patterned securement?
My v twin motors are really happy to fail the casting boss flange at these points. Improper torque will kill them early if the castings are imported from Hell anyway (aka china.)
Just wondering. I Have never disassembled this 72 before. (Yet anyway)
Hmmm
01-21-2021, 05:32 PM
Nice looking 72 Jinx.
I have not had screw heads snap off but then I do preheat the engine before disassembly. Preheat to 350°-400°, let it cool just enough to handle with bare hands and screws come out easily.
Looks like your 72 munched a bearing seal or shield. Ouch!
I have not had screw heads snap off but then I do preheat the engine before disassembly. Preheat to 350°-400°, let it cool just enough to handle with bare hands and screws come out easily.
Looks like your 72 munched a bearing seal or shield. Ouch!
Last edited by Glowgeek; 01-22-2021 at 03:16 AM.