Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
06-09-2011, 03:20 AM
#26
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lacona, NY
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
ORIGINAL: Kostas1
Pete,
if you think my engine is ''too much'' please see the video, on last page of my assembly thread!
ORIGINAL: Oberst
Way too much engine. A O.S.46AX would be perfect for that plane.
I second Kens advice.
Pete
Way too much engine. A O.S.46AX would be perfect for that plane.
I second Kens advice.
Pete
if you think my engine is ''too much'' please see the video, on last page of my assembly thread!
Still, it is not advisable if it is left stock. I would re-inforce the frame and make major modifications, even then I could risk structual failure eventually. I'm still backing Ken on this one and say that it's way too much engine. If you go ahead with that motor I suggest not flying at full throttle and at a high rate of speed.
On my Discontinued Great Planes Fokker DR1 I have a O.S.91FX in it. The plane was designed for a .60, but I wanted to swing a scale prop and I don't plan on running the engine at full throttle, nor fly at any high rate of speed.
I made major changes to the DR1 including re-inforcing the frame and treating the balsa skin with ultra thin CA . When I bought the plane and drove 400 miles to pick it up from another member at RCU, the aircraft was very damaged. The plane had many stress cracks, and the stock landing gear and skid was broken do to the weight and vibration. The original owner had a 1984 O.S. FS120 (Before Surpass) on it originally.
People are going to do what they want, I'm just trying to give you smart advice from what little experience I have. Many will lead you in the wrong direction, but there are many that will give you sound advice just because you asked.
You can either go by what you want to read, or go by what your gut tells you. It's your choice and hope you make the right one. I would still not go higher than a .55ts engine.
JMHO
Pete
06-09-2011, 06:55 AM
#27
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
Pete,
do you own a GP Cherokee ;
I suggested the FA-80 , because that's what i use.
I also MENTIONED & SUGGESTED to check my assembly thread.
I have posted there EVERYTHING someone may need suring the assembly and ofcourse ANY MODIFICATIONS needed if you use a bigger than the suggested 4-stoke....
do you own a GP Cherokee ;
I suggested the FA-80 , because that's what i use.
I also MENTIONED & SUGGESTED to check my assembly thread.
I have posted there EVERYTHING someone may need suring the assembly and ofcourse ANY MODIFICATIONS needed if you use a bigger than the suggested 4-stoke....
06-09-2011, 10:01 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Durango, MEXICO
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
guys.. did you notice this thread is almost 3 yrs old? i really doubt the OP is paying attention to this anymore :P
but still, anything over a .55 4S engine is not recommended :P
but still, anything over a .55 4S engine is not recommended :P
06-09-2011, 10:15 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Durango, MEXICO
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
nice engine! but, why would you put it on a 40 size sport semi scale plane? what for? do you actually need that power?
06-10-2011, 04:33 AM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lacona, NY
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
ORIGINAL: RCVFR
If you are running petrol, you have the wrong fuel line for it.
If you are running petrol, you have the wrong fuel line for it.
LOL! Got Him!
He's from Greece, I doubt they have safety rules like we do here in the United States. If it wasn't for the AMA, going to the flying field would be much more dangerous. Now I know one of the reasons why the FAA wants to crack down on us. It's people like this who over power their planes to the max with no regard to safety, then show off on You-Tube.
Besides, isn't a Saito FS.80 equivalent to a 55ts? A FS-90 is equivalent to a .60ts and a .90ts is equivalent to a FS-120? So other words even though he tells everyone to over power their plane, his plane isn't really that over powered.
And yes, I once had the plane and I had a Evolution .46NT in it. God I hated that motor! But some of us has been around long enough in this hobby to know what is safe and what isn't.
Pete
06-10-2011, 03:49 PM
#34
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
I fly my GP Cherokee with an SK 50, APC 12X5 prop. I have also flown it with a magnum 46 XLS with the 11X6 prop to good effect. With the weight of flap servos and separate (2) aileron servos, this plane flys on the heavy side, and I would recommend against adding anymore weight than neccessary to it. It's a good windy day plane, as its weight does penetrate wind better.
06-11-2011, 05:26 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Athens, GREECE
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
Well it is obvious that kostas1 means glow and not petrol. Here is something that you may don't know. Petrol engines give way more torque. That is the reason he mentioned petrol. That is the reason he is using a 4stroke. From the pics we can all see that he is using an 80 four stroke which is a good choice instead of using ballast to balance to put a bigger engine. Like this he can turn a bigger prop and that doesn't mean neceserilly that he makes it more speedy. He might choose torque instead and definately with his choice will improve landing characteristics, and better response on the tail surfaces.
So if I were in your shoes I wouldn't be fast to judge before I taste.
Happy flyin'
J.R.
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
So if I were in your shoes I wouldn't be fast to judge before I taste.
Happy flyin'
J.R.
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
06-11-2011, 10:13 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Durango, MEXICO
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
I believe Kostas was talking about being a guy who likes to brag about his car and that stuff.
what doesn't make any sense to me, is to put an 80 4 strokes engine when the manufacturer states the plane is designed to hold a .55 4 strokes one. I think those guys who made this plane know what they're doing, and if they say I shouldn't put anything bigger than a 55 4S , then I believe them.
06-11-2011, 01:06 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
ORIGINAL: Johnnie Red
..........................
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
..........................
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
"TOUCHE" ....... lmao!!
06-12-2011, 09:51 PM
#38
RE: Is .61 too much for GreatPlanes Cherokee?
ORIGINAL: Johnnie Red
Well it is obvious that kostas1 means glow and not petrol. Here is something that you may don't know. Petrol engines give way more torque. That is the reason he mentioned petrol. That is the reason he is using a 4stroke. From the pics we can all see that he is using an 80 four stroke which is a good choice instead of using ballast to balance to put a bigger engine. Like this he can turn a bigger prop and that doesn't mean neceserilly that he makes it more speedy. He might choose torque instead and definately with his choice will improve landing characteristics, and better response on the tail surfaces.
So if I were in your shoes I wouldn't be fast to judge before I taste.
Happy flyin'
J.R.
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
Well it is obvious that kostas1 means glow and not petrol. Here is something that you may don't know. Petrol engines give way more torque. That is the reason he mentioned petrol. That is the reason he is using a 4stroke. From the pics we can all see that he is using an 80 four stroke which is a good choice instead of using ballast to balance to put a bigger engine. Like this he can turn a bigger prop and that doesn't mean neceserilly that he makes it more speedy. He might choose torque instead and definately with his choice will improve landing characteristics, and better response on the tail surfaces.
So if I were in your shoes I wouldn't be fast to judge before I taste.
Happy flyin'
J.R.
P.S. I fly in Greece too, so I would like to inform you that in Greece they have more strict rules than the AMA; since the rules come directly from FAI.
i love your warbirds.....
Back to the topic,
my FA-80 develops power similar to a 50 size, modern two stroke (....glow )
Also the weight of my FA-80 (...fully equipped ) is exactly 540gr.
An O.S. 46AX is @ 489gr according to O.S. mfg website. [link=http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg0547.html]O.S. 46 AX specs[/link] , while an O.S. 55AX is @ 404gr.
So, 50gr. on the nose is worthless even to be mentioned.
If you think my combination is way too much for you, just DON'T FOLLOW MY CHOICES.
I wanted to reply to the topic, because i have a first hand experience....
Which IMO worths more than anything else.....
Regards,
Kostas1
