CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

An RCU member sent the following PM to me:


"ORIGINAL: WoodyAldrich

I have some questions for CorsairJock - I just bought a Hangar 9 Corsair, and will begin assembly soon. I was thinking of using a Saito 91.... I saw in a post that you feel that the Saito 91 has plenty of power... do you still feel that way ? What prop are you using ? Do you think the Saito 91 would turn a 3-bladed prop Ok ? How is the engine mounted (upside down, 90 degrees to right, or ?)? Was the builder of the plane able to mount the Saito 91 in the pre-drilled holes, or did he have to make new holes in the firewall ? If the engine is mounted with the head below the horizontal, do you have any problems with glow plug getting flooded at low power settings ?

I also understand that you are using the 'stock' retracts, and with addition of stronger ball joints - are they still working Ok ? or are you going to replace them with stonger ones , like CJ ?

Would you have any other comments for me ? (I'm aware of the firewall, wing, and tailwheel/rudder assembly prodcedure issues.)

Thanks a million, Woody Aldrich"


My reply:

Woody,
I've flown it another 6 times since I posted that message, and I still feel the same way: the Saito .91 is more than enough. If you read the review in RC Report; theirs is Saito 1.00 powered and they report that it has more power than needed.
Unless you intend to fly this in a very unscale like manner, the .91 works great. In fact, I would venture that the Saito .72 OR the new .82 would work well also (but with a 2 blade prop).

I have a Master Airscrew 3 blade 14 x 7 on mine, it also works great.
The engine is mounted with the jug at about the 7:30 position, as viewed from the front. This means more inverted than upright. No onboard ignition, and it has given me absolutely no problems. I set the idle at about 2,500, wich is probably a little higher than it could be, but it gives me some room for error, and has not died on me unexpectedly (except 1 time when I ran it out of fuel). The muffler protrudes from the bottom of the cowl, no additional holes in the fuselage itself. I haven't looked into whether or not the builder drilled additional holes.
I have no intention of replacing the retracts on this one, but I will continue to look into ways of improving them. They are still holding up well despite landing and takeoffs from a somewhat rough field (it has not been rolled, and is somewhat bumpy).
I have a second Hanger 9 Corsair (actually, my 1st), which I am performing extensive modifications to, including installation of CJ retracts. Thus my reason for wanting to keep the current one as stock as possible: to give the modified one something to compare it to.

As for the other issues: mine came fully assembled, and I don't want to take it apart to modify the firewall. Maybe by using the Saito .91, and not using it's full potentetial ( don't really need full throttle), it will be OK. As for the wing breakage issue: I intend to fly in a scale manner, which means no hi stress manuvers such as snap rolls.
As for the rudder: on my previous Corsairs I have found that Corsair rudders are very suseptible to damage from tip overs, and I usually strengthen them. I am sure that a violent tip over will damage (break) this one also. Such tipovers can occur when the wheels encounter a varmit hole, OR if a set screw comes loose and allows the wheel to rotate (and act like a locked brake), or sometimes even the occasional bad landing (or so I've heard).
If it happens, I will repair and strenghten, but will leave as is in the meantime.

.............Jim