MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

I'm curious.

What is the most over-sized motor, relative to what the manufacturer recommends on the box, you have mounted on an ARF and had good success? What kind of balancing issues did you have and did you find that real exessive power was nicer than a little lower wing loading? Do you believe that the recommended motor was far undersized for the finished weight? Was the maximum recommended motor size enough to fly the airplane as you desired?


Thanks,
Mark

LSHMPUQIGRTIOO-SMFOFPWCT-R...remember, this means something...

McFlyboy

Have a search through the 3-d forums, there was a thread posted there on exactly the same topic.

joeb102072

My Feedback: (9)

Check out the Funtana 90 thread there are a bunch of guys that have opionions on that topic. I my self see the Funtana as a YS 110 enigne plane where the box tells you a Saito 100 is a good choice. Understanding that the Saito 100 and the YS 110 cannot even be put on the same shelf as each other, I choose the YS 1.40 sport for mine. Talk about power. So far no issues.

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

I had a .46 in several JKAerotech combat fighters. They recommend using .15-.28[sm=bananahead.gif] Has an MVVS .45 in a Superstar till the wing failed.[&:] Currently my son's Super Stunts has a Saito .65. The later is the only one I think would do better with a smaller engine, the others seemed to have wing folding issues

aaron2874

I thought the Saito 100 on my VF Edge was lacking, so I'm replacing it with this. Haven't finished yet, so you will have to wait for the flight report.

joeb102072

My Feedback: (9)

Now thats overpowered !!!!!

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

WM .40 size P51 with Saito 100, another with a G90 and another with a 61fx

Modeltech P-47 with a OS 1.08

WM Midget with a OS 1.08

DC Propjet with Jett 50

Ultra Sport 60 with a Jett .90

WM GS P-51 with OS BGX 3500

Shoestring with a G90

60 Size Voodoo on the table- no engine yet.

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

What size is the Edge with the Saito 100? (the Saito is very light weight for a 100)

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

Seeing as though the motor weighs a good deal more than a lightweight 90, how did the balance come out? Any lead in back? You should hover at about 1/4 throttle, perhaps a little less. Can you compare it to any others with smaller motors?

joeb102072

My Feedback: (9)

Considering when I got the plane I took off about 10 oz lof weight on the nose and the previous piliot had a satio 100 in it I didnt see that I was going to have an issue with weight, 2 factors that helped me were obviously swaping balence weight for engine weight and adding more power. Why add lead when you can put a bigger more powerful engine on? the actual difference in weight in the 2 engines is 13 oz. by taking the weight off the nose i am only heavy by 3oz. Next I put the tank on CG or as close to it as I could. Now my balence is as close as it would be to a saito 100 or so I can assume. All out weight with a header tank full of 9.25 lbs. It hasent seen the air yet but I am confident I wont have any issues with the increase in engine size.

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

Well Joe, with weight figures like that it sounds like you are right sizing to me. I would not anticipate any trouble either aside from a vibration increase. A gusset maybe? I'd make the same change to get the lead out.

Snoop listed his overpowered airplanes but can you provide any more information. Balance, flying?

My airplanes are generally powered at the recommended maximum or next step higher. In some cases its still doggish, in other cases outrageous I had a Goldberg Ultimate that did have YS1.20 listed as eligible and its was enormous power, then DP recommends no more than that for his 1.20 Ultimate which is nicely powered, but not excessivley so, with a YS1.40L, a Super Stinker with the recommended Moki 1.8 at exactly 13lbs is just unlimited and feels heavy. The latter is actually a case where I would drop to an O.S. 1.60 and save 1.5 pounds for a better power to weight ratio. However, in each case where I had the power I wanted, the airplane required rear stuffing and lead on the tail. I just moved the battery in a DP Ultimate 1.20 right into the tail and pulled off all but a half ounce of lead. I'm curious to see if I get a difference in veritcal pull...I only pulled off about 4 ounces.

On smaller airplanes like .46 sized, the larger engine often requires a significant amount of tail weight, resulting in a heavier and twitchier airplane.

joeb102072

My Feedback: (9)

It sounds as though you have a voice of reason. I would tend to agree with your conclusions. I will keep posted on all up flying weight and balancing and flying when I do actually get to fly it. Still tweeking things out on it as we speak and the New England weather isnt helping at all. I have run into a few guys with Saito 150's and 180's on this bird and have had a blast. Theres a video with a guy named kyle who has a 120 in his YS that is and seeing as though the 120 and the 140 are vertually the same size plus a couple of ounces prob for slightly bigger carb and piston there extremly close and the added power to me is a bonus. If you check out his video you will see there is absolutly no effect on the added weight it flys beautiful and hes is quite a piliot.

CrashBurn69

My Feedback: (1)

I am getting ready to put a OS 91FX in a Seagull Space Walker II. I can't wait to see how that does. I had one, with an OS 46, and did not like the power that well. It was really bad about tip stalling, so if I can shave some weight out of it, and the extra motor, it should be an awsome combo. I want to see it do a harrier.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

Sig 76" Sukhoi with a Zenoah G62. [X(] Needed a tad of tail weight but flew well.

BigBirdFlyer

My Feedback: (13)

[8D] A ZDZ80 in an 31% AW Edge 540T. It is advertised to fly well on a G-62 and a max of a 70cc engine. I still needed nose weight and had to make a taller landing gear. Can you say Throttle Management..... I will never need full throttle.

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

Currently, I'm in the basement finishing up a Kyosho Giles 202, .46-.60 sized airplane. The owner had only a YS.91 and its hanging nicely inverted on the nose. I have the rudder servo in the tail, elevator is on MK bearing. I plan on giving it a flight (owner's request, he trusts me :-)) and am really curious. It should not break 7 pounds even with the heavy YS as I'll open the fuse for a rear battery if need be to avoid tail weight. Its easy as the fuse is a balsa box with plenty of monocoque strength and thick walls. This should be the most overpowered airplane I have flown.

I had a 30% Extra with a 3W75. It was, um, ridiculous? Take off on three throttle clicks and full throttle was straight up very very fast until my orientation dulled at distance. Lost due to aileron servo departure (my fault, bad mounting surface). I reached as far back as I could to mount the two Rx batteries and just got the forward balance limit without tail weight.

In no case, however, would I have called my airplanes "dangeroulsy" overpowered. I guess I'm just theorizing that no motor is too much if the wingloading is kept reasonable balance is achievable without extreme measures, the airframe is solid, and the motor simply fits onto the firewall in a safe and secure fashion. The wingloading subject is a little subjective I think as some people say its heavy while others call it stable. In a bigger airplane I prefer a stable airplane that drops in an elevator with solid vertical acceleration based on sufficeint power...I less prefer the 40% airplanes in the 32-34 pound range that float like an airship over the 36-38 pound airplane that simply sits more solid and is still unlimited (the Carden's come to mind as being higher in weight but rock solid in the air).

Well, thanks for the input. I'm thinking that there is more success in wise overpowering than with underpowering. I have, thinking about it, seen quite a few nice looking WWII fighter ARFs lost on maiden flights simply because they were struggling so hard to get airborne and the pilot could not negotiate that first downwind turn (all of those little scale options can add lots of weight). And one cannot even speak of scale like power. WWII fighters had enormous rates of climb (i have seen 4800fpm listed for the P-51D) and did not struggle into the air unless loaded down with bombs. So overpowering is not only an aerobatic flyers concern.

Cyclic Hardover

My Feedback: (3)

With exception to the P-47 , they all initially came out nose heavy. The P-47 even with the OS 1.08 up front still came out tail heavy. Not much but enough to have to fix it. I find after balancing them theyare just fine. I make the usual modifcations to firewalls and landing gear blocks. I also run dual servos to the elevators.

As for the new "VooDoo" It will be either 120fourstroke or another Jett 90. We have a swap shop coming up next week and I am going to wait on the engine to see whats for sale their.


[quote]ORIGINAL: MarkNovack
Snoop listed his overpowered airplanes but can you provide any more information. Balance, flying?

robert waldo

My Feedback: (1)

I was there when he flew it, so I saw it, Profile Thunder tiger Giles with .031 2024 alum side laminations, extra ribs, 1/64 ply laminated control surfaces, fuel tank in wing, Moki 210. Original manufactures recomondation is 40-46. R Waldo

MR G

GP Extra300 .46 size and put a saito 100 in it.
Great performer and loads of fun, vertical was a little ridiculus...went up picking up speed the whole way.

mikenlapaz

error[>:]

ICE_MAN

My Super Star .40 Trainer has a ST .51

CG Tiger 60 Had a Saito 1.00(sold)

U CAN DO 3D had a Saito 1.00(sold)

25 sized Piper Cub has a OS 40 LA

Ultra Stick Lite 1.20 has a ST 1.40 (Soon to replace pitts muffler with "Smith Power Pipe Woohoo!!)

jooNorway

An Extra300, .40-size with an OS120fs...

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

I had an .61FX in a US Aircore F-18 for about 6 minutes one day[sm=bananahead.gif]. I was able to salvage the engine and batt.

MarkNovack

My Feedback: (3)

Too cool. Those .40 sized aerobats with 1.00 and 1.20 must have been some ballistic performers. Any drawbacks in flight or survival?

Mark

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

I have come to regard a .90 two-stroke as the "normal" power for a .60 sized sport plane. I've observed a pattern flyer on several occasions flying a nominally 40 size GP Extra ARF with a 1.20 two-stroke. This guy is a good flyer with a lot of experience, flying Intermediate. His flight speed is definitely zippy by my standards, but he handles it well. I would call that excessive power--more than can profitably be used for my style of flying. On the other hand, I don't do a lot of up-line snaps. I watched another guy with a DA 100 in a WildHare Extra (nominally a 50 cc gasser size). The way he handled it, it looked well powered but not overpowered by any means. It almost seems you can take the engine size on the mfr's box and double it and come out about right for 3D and aerobatic flying. It's more a matter of keeping the wingloading reasonable and balancing with component placement rather than lead ballast.