EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

I just had a recent conversaion with some people in the hobby about the power plants that are chosed for ARF's and how it seems that most people go over the manufacturer specs, especially with 3D-type planes. Please let me know what you are using for power in the H9 Funtana!

Thanks for your help!!

Erick Royer
Business Development Manager
RCUniverse.com

coony2787

My Feedback: (33)

i,am running a DA-100 i wanted to be sure i had enough power to pull from a triple axle into snap roll into hovering waterfall to an inverted harrier landing [:-]

i really don't understand overpowering an airplane to an extent that the plane strecthes when you pull out of a hover.

i'am running a 72 saito in mine with more than enough power left in reserve. i would be interested in hearing why you do need so much power????



Chad

lxcoupe

My Feedback: (34)

saito 100 here. It is not overpowered... It is 3d capable. My plane with a .72 in it made 6lbs 2oz of thrust with a 13-4W and 15% nitro. The plane with the 72 weighed 6lbs 1 oz. Would it pull out of a hover NO. Would it sustain a hover. Yes at full throttle. The 100 makes just over 10lbs of static thrust with a 15-4w and 15%. It will hover at 3/8's throttle and has a very good thrust to weight ratio. The added weight of the engine did not affect the flying characteristics one bit. Have I pulled the firewall out? NO. Has the plane stretched due to repeatedly pulling out of a hover? NO. Have I put over 150 flights on the airframe since switching to the 100? YES. My next 40 size plane i think i'll just stick a 40la in it seeing as that is all they need for 3d.
Erick do yourself a favor and put a 46fx in it for your review. That way you'll be right in the middle of the road and have a really boring airplane.
Good luck
AL

TailTwister

My Feedback: (1)

Saito 72 with a 14x4W APC. Hovers at 85% to 90% power, but will pull out. 5.75 pounds with HS 525s and HS 545s. I have a 600mah NiCad in the suggested spot, and the CG is at 6 inches back. I swapped to Morris Hobbies Hot Hots landing gear to clear the prop.

I wish:

I had a Saito 100 and a 15x4W APC to try. I can still move the battery back several inches.

I had added a double bevel in the elevator, as the waterfall is too loose.

Otherwise, I really enjoy the Funtana.

lxcoupe

My Feedback: (34)

TailTwister:::
I have 65-70 degrees on the elevator without a double bevel. You may have your gap too tight. Anything more then that and I'm not sure it will help. I think CG placement plays more of a factor on this plane with waterfall type manuvers.
AL

bhall01

My Feedback: (4)

Running a Saito .80 in mine. Seems to be a good match.

BJH

Flyfalcons

Saw the Horizon demo team flying a Funtana at the Vegas show. The Saito 72 was marginal at best. In fact the pilot ended up putting the plane in the bushes - not something that should happen with a plane that has unlimited performance. They also had a Hacker powered plane that performed MUCH better than the Saito 72 - powered version.

Cheech

My Feedback: (19)

I am installing the 100 in mine. I haven't flown it yet. I am using the 100 because it's what i have. If I was buying an engine I might buy the .72. It is the LIGHTEST engine & muffler that will fly the plane well. On heli fuel it should be enough power. Here are some engine weights.

[ul][*] .100 4 stroke (Saito 100 20.8 oz)[*] .91 4 stroke (Saito .91 18.3oz)[*] .80 4 stroke (Saito 80 19oz[*] .72 4 stroke (Saito 72 16.5 oz)[*] .63 4 stroke (Y/S .63 18oz)[*] .46 2 stroke (17 oz w/muffler)[*] .50 2 stroke (17 oz w/muffler)[*] .61 2 stroke (21-22 oz w/muffler)[*] .91 2 stroke (21-22 oz w/muffler)
[/ul]

Looking at that, the 4oz weight increase of the 100 over the .72 looks like an okay trade.

-Cheech

3de

My Feedback: (6)

any tips on installing a saito 100 on the funtana? motor mount your using ect. I'm putting in the 100 this weekend.
Thanks,

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

I am just finishing up the review on this plane and I have it pretty well detailed out on the motor install. However, I can not publish it yet, until I get approval from Horizon. It might be a week. Email me offline and I can email you a picture: [email protected]

TailTwister

My Feedback: (1)

I generally put hinge gaps as tight as possible. I do not believe there is a "too tight". A double bevel allows the tight hinge line and the extreme throw.

For the record, I get 52 degrees up and down.

ChixwithTrix

My Feedback: (8)

I am going to put a Saito 100 on my Funtana, and I have a question concerning the CA hinges...Should I use the stock CA hinges, get stronger CA hinges, or get door hinge-like nylon hinges?

Hopsterguy

So you need approval for a review from the manufacturer?? Seems kind of self serving.

Simon Jones

I rather foolishly believed what it said on the box and put a 46fx in mine. Please Please don'tmake the same mistake.

The best I've had this combo to run is 12x4 standard APC (this seems to work better than the 12.25x3.75 much o my surprise) running on 20% Wild Cat Heli mix. Runs best on the days when the air temp is just above freezing. Oh and I've also reemed the muffler baffle to liberate a little more go. I can just about hover and on a cold day just pull out but not fully verically. The plane flies aerobatics really well with this set op but it falls well short at 3d stuff (well so do I but that I can work on).

Having read all the posts on this model I hope to be ordering eiher a 91 or 100 saito in the next couple of days. Need I say more.

Eric it would be nice if Horizon accepted this issue and put an update sheet in with the model to say that some pilots might want more torque for 3d and in this instance a larger motor with low pitched prop may better suit the pilots needs as long as sufficient throttle control and speed limitation is excercised. After all better to admit to a minor fudge that upset every customer who goes out and buys the recomended engine only to be disappointed with the peformance, and cursing the manufacturer for waisting their hard earnt as the have to buy a second motor to get the model to fly as it should. Just a thought.

Cheers.

sj.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Id put a Saito 100 in one if I bought one, I seen the .72 powered one at hobbyvisions also... Its margional IMO.

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

Part of the process with reviews at RCU is that the manufacturer gets the final approval on the review before it is released. What this means is that they can look at the layout and check for technical errors that the reviewer might have made. They can not change any opinions or statements that the reviewer made! They can also choose to have the review published at that time or not. If the reviewer did not have anything good to say then they may not want it published. I personally believe in this process. I do not want to publish a review of a plane that the reviewer hated. To be totally honest, out over 150+ reviews, we only had one that did not make it live so it is not a regular occurance.

In the case with the Funtana we reviewed it with the 100 and there is concern that the max spec is 72. That is the purpose of this poll. I want to see how many people are "overpowering" the plane. So far, it seems about even.

To be fair to our readers and the product itself, we decided to review it again with a Saito 72 so that we can offer a contrasting opinion on the performance of the plane with the maximum recommended engine. In the long run, I think it will make for a much better review and give our readers the full scoop on the plane so they can make their own decision. Additionally, I am planning on reviewing the plane again in a month or so with an electric system for yet another perspective to our readers.

This is where RCU really can shine. We have the ability to offer you so much more in a review. I would hate to put out the review with the 100 and get slammed from our readers that wished that we showed it with a 72 and visa versa. SO we do BOTH! :-)

Thanks
Erick Royer
RCUniverse.com

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

Simon, I thought of that as well, but here is the reality. If you say that you can use a 100 for more power, and someone does, then they fly it without good throttle management and the plane blows apart, who is liable? What if someone gets hurt? Manufacturers put a spec on a product for a reason. I worked for a company that had to get UL approvals for machines that we made. If we speced that a machine can support 2000 lbs, they required it to be tested with 3 times that amount. Our spec is 2000 but we build it to support 6000. The plane might be built to support the 100 but the reality is that it is speced at 72.

Not there is nothing to stop you from overpowering it, but the warranty specifically states that it would be at your own risk!

I'll give you another example. I am also working on a DP Edge540 project. I spoke to Dave at a show and read all the posts where people were putting 50cc engines in the plane and then complaining that they got flutter and had structural failures as a result. They spec the plane at 35cc max. Now DP took another step and assumed that people would overpower then so he put a second aileron servo bay in each wing as well as provided all the hardware to install a second aileron servo. WHY? because he knows that the reality is not always what you spec. Guys that were having failures due to flutter and such, did not heed the warnings. Our review will have a Moki 180 and a ZDZ40 so we can give performance ratings on gas and glow. Again another example of how RCU can step up to the plate and get you the goods :-)

Erick

adrian-RCU

we run a saito 91/14x6 prop - this is a great match and we have over 75 flights - stock hardware 605's all round except throttle- marvelous with over power a certain lame duck on anything less.

Simon Jones

Eric.

I know where you're coming from. Over here we're not so blame oriented so I guess I don't think of it from that angle.

Glad to here that you're reviewing with various power options. I'll look forward to reading the review. I'm particularly interested in how the electric version goes.

I trust you'll be putting 4 aileron servos in the Edge then. I can't believe that anyone would blame flutter on design, that is sqquarely down to the builder and the hardware they install.

Cheers.

sj.

EkRr

My Feedback: (51)

I am hoping to have the review online by the end of the week!

ER

Cheech

My Feedback: (19)

It was a little difficult mounting the Saito 100. I did mine this weekend. I'll have pics to share tomorrow. I did use the stock beam mounts that came with the ARF. The blind nuts in the firewall had to be relocated, accomadating the wider engine. Moving the nuts took a few minutes.

The directions say to locate the prop waser at 4 3/8 from the firewall. That's not possible with the 100. Shoved all the way back on the beam mounts, I ended up with the washer out at 4 5/8. No great big deal, but even with the cowl out as far as it will go, my gap between the cowl and the spinner back plate is more than 1/4".



The cowl gets a pretty good size cut for this engine. On the .72 you have only the valve covers sticking out. On the 100 it's the head and a little of the pushrods. The muffler is turned to stay inside the cowl, pointing down and to the side. It doesn't look bad.

-Cheech

NSSHERLOCK

Why not use the Saito 91? Same exterior size as Saito 72. Have friend with one in a U-can-do with 15x4W prop. Plenty of power and easier to install then a 100. Thet's my HO. nssherlock

GoldenEagle

My Feedback: (1)

Saito .91 is definitely the way to go. No way is this a .40 (or .70 FS) sized airplane for the use that it was intended. In an earlier post someone pointed out that H9's own photos show the designer with a YS installation that was sure to have more umph than similar sized .70 O.S. and Saito four-strokes. Installed the Saito .91 out of my UCDO without any problems. Even the batt pack is forward of the CG. Swinging a 15X4 funfly, it is a perfect match for the aircraft. No overspeed, flutter, or inflight explosions. Just Rock n' Roll! Full throttle climbs and level flight (no dives), blenders, waterfalls, are no problem. This is America - home of the big block Chevy exterminated by overachieving liability insurance attorneys. Just shut up and fly!!

Simon Jones

I'm watching a couple of threads on this topic at the moment as I'm about to order eithe a 91 or 100. Until recently the wisdom seemed to be the 100 wa top teddy, but recently the tide seems to have turned and now he 91 seems to be the motor of choice.

sj.

MMcConville

My Feedback: (4)

I've got a little experience with the FuntanaS and 3D stuff, so I thought I'd add a few comments here. Someone mentioned using a DA100 in the Funtana, personally I like the DA-150 in it.

Ok, seriously the whole notion that guys are using a 1.00 in the FuntanaS bothers (a lot!!) me on a few levels. First is the business level. Please be aware that using a 1.00 in this .40 size model voids the warranty. Overpowering it will greatly increase the chance of a failure (as it would with any airplane) if you arent very careful with throttle management. I dont want to see guys unhappy with our models.

Having said that, this really bothers me from a pilots perspective as well. 3D flying is not about flying obscenely overpowered airplanes. The best 3D model is one that is lightly loaded. The FuntanaS is lightly loaded with a .72 in the nose. The weight difference in a .72 vs a 1.00 on a small airplane like this is significant. It is not going to be as good of a 3D model if its heavier.

Power on a Saito .72 is more than enough. Use the set-up we recommend in the manual. We test fly a lot, to come up with theideal set-up. Swinging an APC 14 x 4W (3D) prop, I can pull vertically out of a hover with similar authority to my TOC model. As I said eluded to, more vertical acceleration than that does not make for better 3D.

Primary objective in a good 3D model is KEEPING THE MODEL AS LIGHT AS YOU CAN.

Hope this helps some.

Mike McConville