FNQFLYER

Oh well hopefully I might get some comment on the following even though I am not contributing to Konrads thread any more.  Except to say come over to OZ and look at our O/T scene, you might find some interesting engines (we have a thriving "replica" industry here) especially with all the fuel efficiency and go faster mods that come out of various back yard sheds and university workshops.

NOW people I would really like some input to the following please

I have seen a number of Saito engines reviewed her in OZ that have different dimensions (specifically the cylinder height) to their older cousins.  They appear to be going "over square" in design can any one enlighten me further please.  Reason is that this could solve a problem I have with my latest scal model a Marutaka Stinson Reliant

Thanks 

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

FN, I can comment on a couple of the engines, notably the .82 being shorter than the .80, the new .40a is much shorter than the FA .40. w8ye may be able to say where the 1.15 and 1.00 fit in this mix. I havea picture of the .40a and the FA .40 side by side.

the pope

Thats pretty good advice there O.F. are you the aussie version of Dr Phill? I think Komrad bats for the other team though so hooters might be out of the question. Cheers from the pope

earlwb

yeah I was quite pleasantly surprised as to how small the Saito FA40a engines are. I installed two of them in my F82 Twin Mustang airplane.

Sharpeye22

I installed twin 56's in mine with the right one counter rotating. I just had to change out the cam gear. It flys like a bat out of .. well you get the ideal.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Which cam did you use?

mike109

G'day up there in FNQ. Have you seen this site? It has all sorts of useful numbers in it.

http://saito-engines.info/specifications.html

As you can see from Dave's photo, the latest 40 is quite a tiny little beast but they go really well. I have two I am so impressed.

What size engines do you need for your plane?

Cheers

Mike in swampy Dubbo where it just won't stop raining.

FNQFLYER

The a/c is a Marutaka Stinson Reliant that should come in at around 12 pounds, I had planned to use a 91 in it but my old mentor is laughing his head of at the moment cause he is using it (my Saito 91) in a model of similar size "to great effect" so he says. He is very happy because it is usually me that gets the great deals and he hasn't forgiven me (well alomost) for the 5 Cox 049s I left on his door step one night in an attempt to rid myself of some frustration. He got all the spares and tools enough he says to ensure Leroy's revenge will be around for a while.
But to answer you question I was looking at a 110 or 115 or my FG20. I have the cowls from F/G specialities (not impressed with them) and now I have the dummy engine inserts I'll do some more serious research.
The model is being built for next years Nationals "somewhere in NSW"

GaGeeBees

My Feedback: (23)

I've got the same plane and a pair of Saito .56's for it. Can you share details of how you changed the right engine to counter rotating, please?

Thanks in advance.

Rudolph Hart

Hey that is so sweet!

Rudolph Hart

Fnq i asked w8ye about putting a 100 or 125 head on my 82.Can't remember which one he suggested.

earlwb

He installed a reverse rotation camshaft in the one engine. Thus it then runs in reverse. so you then get the counter rotating effect.
I never bothered with having a contra-rotating engine on my twin engine planes. They all flew just fine with both engines running in the same direction.
as I remember it, only the P-38 had contra-rotating props, as they had high speed dive problem without it. Usually the military wanted to keep parts inventory and parts supplies to a minimum, so engines maintenance would be much simpler if all engines on a multi-engined plane turned in the same direction. Especially in a war, where supplies had to come from a long way off through treacherous supply lines.

earlwb

Nice twin F82 there Sharpeye22,

I had thought about using larger more powerful engines in mine. But The fuselage firewall is so far out in front of the wing. I can easily see where the plane would wind up nose heavy with no effort. So since the Saito 40a engines actually weigh a little less than Thunder Tiger 36 pro's, I went that route instead. It turned out pretty neat as the CG came right out where the instructions said it should be. So I didn't have to add any lead weight to the plane to get it to balance.
One issue I found was that the kit had 12 ounce fuel tanks included. I used 6 ounce fuel tanks instead. Those 12 ounce fuel tanks make it super nose heavy which can be a problem on take offs and landings. So I can see where folks were having nose over problems.

I also thought about going inverted on the engines too. The FA 40a engines would actually fit inside the cowl which is pretty neat. But I decided against it as trying to reach under the plane to pop the glow plug ignitor off gets dicey with a twin. I didn't want to use a remote glow adapter setup on it. I like trying to keep it as simple as possible.

spaceworm

As I remember it, at least some of the P-38 in Enland were fitted with same rotation direction engines, for the same reason of maintenance and spares as you said.

Regards, SPACEWORM, Saito Club #635

GaGeeBees

My Feedback: (23)

Thanks earlwb, but that doesn't really answer my question. As W8ye asked: Sharpeye22 - which cam did you use?

Incidentally, in your photo, the props on the plane appear to be both standard rotation.

earlwb

Yes I am using normal rotation engines, standard props.
I have never tried a twin with counter rotating props yet. All of my twins fly just fine with regular rotation engines.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

On this Sharpeye Twin Mustang, both props are right hand

Wolflord

Hey guys, just picked up my 3rd Saito.
It is a older Saito fa120 with both the intake and exhaust both on the back of the cylinder (Hemi head style)
Can you tell me what is the prop range on these older Saito's? Would a 16x8x3 prop be to big?

Thanks

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

They were more of a 16 X 6 or 15 X 8 two blade engine

It would take a 180 to pull a 16 X 8 three blade

blw

My Feedback: (3)

It would be much safer if you changed your spinner/backplate from plastic to metal for your 4 strokes. At least, use the kind that have aluminum backplates. Those are the kind I use.

Sharpeye22

Way back in this thread I asked about how to make one of my 56s counter rotating and was told it was not possible. I then checked with Horizon Hobbies and they gave me the part number and how to install a cam that would allow for counter rotating. (I am at work right now but when I get home I will look it up for you.)

The pic is from madian day and yes the engiineswere both rotating the same direction.( always take pic's on maidainday just in case the maiden re-kits my plane.)When the cam came in I installed it and found it was much easer to sink the engines and the plane does fly much better. It trackes soooooo much better.

As for the history. No the twin mustang did not have counter rotating props. The P38 did not at first but they found it would turn one way great but was difficult to turn the other. So a limited number of them were fitted with counter rotating engines that solved the problem. This was late in the war and since the US pretty much had air dominance it became less of an issue.

My plane did not need any additional lead to CG it. By moving the servos and battery around I obtained CG right on Specks. It has onboard glows and flex pipes for the exaust.

spaceworm

Hi, I have three Saito, am Club Saito Member #635 and have a few new questions to ask. Not done it before so here goes. If this is not the right way to post new stuff, please let me know.

I have the TF 60 size AT-6 ARF with a Saito FA-100, inverted. Using an Expert digital on-board part time glow driver. Questions are:

1. What size 4 blade prop would be ok for scale appearance and flying? How about a 3 blade size?

2. I am using Wildcat 20/20 with 2 oz Klotz Techniplate (syn + castor blend) per gallon for it. Is this a good fuel for the Saito?

3. I am using th stock muffler, but would like to have the exhaust out the AT-6 scale outlet position. Has anyone done this? Noise is not a major consideration and a flex pipe or a no muffler system would work as far a noise goes.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Richard, SPACEWORM, Saito Club #635

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

One problem with a AT-6 is the radial cowl.

The more scale looking prop would be a 15 X 6 two plade MAS.

Though I don't recomend it, the three blade would have to be a 13 X 8 and a four blade a 12 X 8

There is nothing wrong with using 20-20 fuel as it is. If you want castor oil put 2 oz pure castor per gallon in the fuel

FNQFLYER

When did an AT 6 fly with a 4 blade prop, every T 6  / Harvard variant I have seen only had a 2 blade prop with the exception of our own home grown product the Wirraway that had a 3 blade version 

ton2di

My Feedback: (182)

I also have a top flite at-6 spinning a 14x8 mas. I think 15x6 would be the same load too.