Glowgeek

I'm guessing it was an 20x6 APC! Bwaaaaahaha.

Jesse Open

So far it appears to have been a three blade

At least according to the tachometer display.


That would be the reading for about 2055 RPM from a 2 blade.

1200SportsterRider

It certainly would not have been an APC. I have the 66 chucked up for a run with a 13 x 7 Xoar.

Gary, maybe your very observatary nature caught me in a red faced moment. I have a couple of 8 x 6 three blades but they go beyond 12,000 rpm and I won't use em. I'll have to go back into my Note Pad and fix that and lose that image.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Speaking of 3 blade propellers, pardon me waving a red flag but what is the most efficient brand of 3 blade props? I should mention I prefer wood props.

My latest accidental engine purchase showed up, namely I offer what little I had in the R/C stash figuring I had a snowball's chance in Hades and the seller took it!! Turns out he works 14 to 18 hours a day 7 days a week and just wanted to unload it. His hobby is sleeping now. Manual lists a recommended prop as a two blade 18 X 12 so I need to go with a three blade for clearance, probably a 16 X12. These RCV turn at half the RPM a normal 4 cycle turns so they need "course" propellers (Quoting the manual here). Idle is 1400 - 1600 Max. RPM 5500. Here is a couple of pictures. I know a Saito would have been better, please don't show up with pitchforks and torches!

Glowgeek

Nice engine, Mike!

Jesse Open

Pretty cool. Just remember it is loaded with parts that benefit from some extreme pressure oul content.
Lets see it run!

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Thanks guys! I have always been fascinated by this engine and I'm glad I lucked into it. I'll need to get some glow plugs before I can even think about running it. Fortunately the recommended plug is an OS Type F. Recommended fuel is a min.10% up to 15% Nitro and oil content of 15% with castor oil of 3% to 6% with no more than 6% Castor oil. I'm one of those weirdos that actually read the manual and follow manufacturer's recommendations. It seems like every bad out the box engine I have ever seen was the results of the original owner throwing the manual away without opening it let alone read it.

I wonder how a Turbo Head muffler would work on one of these engines? the port is tight to the side so I think some sort of extension would be required to get some distance between the engine and muffler to help with heat.

I was thinking I would put it on the TF P-39 kit I have in my stash but now I'm wondering if a P-40, P-51, or Spitfire would be a better choice? I'm thinking the P-39's nose gear could cause some issues getting the correct amount of airflow to keep it cool. With the requirement for a large prop all these aircraft look great with a 3 or 4 blade prop!

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

[QUOTE]Speaking of 3 blade propellers, pardon me waving a red flag but what is the most efficient brand of 3 blade props? I should mention I prefer wood props

what's the strongest wood.?

easystar123

Earlier this morning I had to replace the old fuel tank on the Jumper 25 as its days were numbered. Once replaced, I started up the Saito 40 as it has been on that plane for a long time and everything ran smoothly I'm happy to say.

easystar123

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

[QUOTE=the Wasp;12797814]Beechwood is generally what they use for wood R/C props, it has a nice straight grain and a good balance of strength and flexibility. I've seen solid and micro-plywood stock used. I have been looking around a bit, I checked Xoar and Master Airscrew and it looks like I maybe SOL on wood. The only thing I can find in the pitch I want is a Master Airscrew 16 X 12 composite prop.

kmeyers

[QUOTE=the Wasp;12797814]I think laminated beechwood props are the strongest wooden props
When ground clearance is a problem, I choose Master Airscrew composite 3 blades.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

The problem appears to be getting the pitch I need for the diameter I need.

Jesse Open

Nice flight, gorgeous field!

Glowgeek

Very nice Aidan, thanks for the vid! A little close to that tree?......we have special trees here that will reach out and snatch our planes out of the air if we get very close.

Ireland IS beautiful, I very much enjoyed my stay there. Some of the lynx courses were very tough there and in Scotland.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Glowgeek should know he likes to fed them on a regular basis!

1200SportsterRider

Regrettably,there is no initial on either of these two 150's, there are some subtle differences. The left engine was the first 150 sold by Horizon. All it's parts are on the left. Note the connecting rod,it is narrower than the other rod and both sides of it's rod ends have been machined perfectly flat while the rod on the right has only the front/chamfered side machined flat. The upper end on the right rod has not been machined at all. I have to accept that both are the 11.24 to 1 version. Also the back plates are different and the lower rod oil holes are different.

Glowgeek

I'll tear down two 150's I purchased recently. We'll see what the differences between the high and lower compression versions might be?

With my current situation it might take a day or two. Can you wait?

In the mean time, are the pistons identical on your two engines?

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

It's not 1 but 2 DYI Saito kits! I'm green with envy!

1200SportsterRider

As the perp in Dirty Harry said, "I gots to Know" so I told Lonnie I''d check em out. Now he's going to check em out.

The two props above might be fine for your 90 SP. The Mejzlik is a 16 x 11 and the Xoar is a 16 x 10.

1200SportsterRider

The connecting rod on the right is the current version, the nicer one, (left) is the earliest version, they went backwards for some reason.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I was hoping for a 12 pitch but beggars can't be choosers! Both are beautiful props I need to price them. Looks like a big difference in cost with the Xoar being half of the Mejzlik.

I can't help but wonder why Saito changed the rod? I'm sure they didn't do it without a good reason, but a redesign can't be cheap. I'm no machinist so I haven't a clue what the difference in cost of manufacture would be, planned obsolescence maybe?

Glowgeek

Deleted text...................

Do you have the original parts list for the early version? I'm curious if the cylinder P.N. changed.

Went back and read your post again. They are BOTH early versions. I'll tear apart mine so we can compare.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Easier and cheaper to not polish the rod. And it looks to me like they moved the oil pick up hole from the rod to bearing web to the bearing carrier area. Might be interesting to mic the thickness of the rod journal as it appears to be thicker in the newer version.

Not a machinist but I used to build up engines from junkyard salvage.

easystar123

Thanks Jesse. The field is always kept well and in good shape.