FLY-giallo

Okay, Christmas time again and I now have a brand new Great Planes T-Craft kit sitting in my room. unfortunately, this has spawned a new controversy; what will power this thing? the instructions call for a 2-stroke .25-.30 or an O.S. fs-.30, forumers are saying go with a bigger engine if you want to have it move down the runway and others have told me to go with a brushless system. I'm hoping that with this aircraft, i'll be able to perform sport/mild aerobatics but also be able to pass the tests needed to become a member of FLYRC, the local club. i was thinking perhaps a .40 Saito or a .34 Super tigre might do the trick. any suggestions? this will be my first kit build and the first glow powered aircraft i will own and, being a 15 yr old, on a budget($0-$170). thanks in advance for feedback, much appreciated.

p.s. Dad is encouraging electric, so if i decide glow, it needs to be really good so i can get his support!

c550

My Feedback: (16)

I built this model a few years ago and it is a nice flying mdel. I put a Saito .30 in it and I think it was a good match. Good aerobatics not too heavy. I put the model on floats and it needed a little more pep so I upgraded to a Saito .40 and it flew very well on that. If you can find a good deal on a Saito go with it.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

Electric wins for lower operating costs and simplicity. It's also quieter. Depending on how much equipment you already have, the up front costs will be higher when you factor in a charger, batteries, etc.

Four stroke is quieter than two stroke and uses less fuel. I think they're a great choice for high wing scale planes such as Cubs, T-Crafts, etc because they sound more realistic. The up front cost of a four stroke is obviously higher than a two stroke. While they're heavier than two strokes, that shoudn't be an issue for this type of plane. Ilike the OS FS-30, Ihave a couple of them, but since you're on a budget consider the Magnum engines also. The .40 size four strokes are only a little larger and heavier than the .30s. If the plane has room, and you can swing the extra $, the extra power might be nice.

Two strokes in this size range are light, powerful, and while they use more fuel than four strokes, don't really use that much compared to larger engines. The initial cost is a good bit lower than four strokes, and the performance will be better due to additional power and lighter weight. Ialso think two strokes are a bit easier to operate and maintain. One downside is that you don't get that four stroke sound. As Imentioned when describing four strokes, consider engines from Magnum due to the lower initial investment. Also consider the .32-.36 size engine range as an alternative to the .25s, the power difference is significant, but they're only slightly larger and heavier.

Texastbird

A friend of mine built one of these some years ago and he put in the old reliable K&B 40 for a power plant. That was plenty of power for all kinds of aerobatics. So if you build it nice and light, a small four stroke would be very nice in this plane, or how about a powerhouse of a little 2 stroke?
http://www.hobbypeople.net/index.php...ngine-rnv.html

scott17

If you're new to glow and want plenty of power, ease of use and cheap entry fee, the best 25 size engine would be an OS LA46! Really! For a 4-stroke, a saito 30-40 would be great also.

FLY-giallo

first of all, i'd like to thank all who have replied to this; thank you all very much!
i think a .40 saito four stroke will be powering the T-craft, the LHS stocks them and i haven't seen or heard any negative reviews on them either. 
has anyone having or had problems with them?
c550, do you have any pictures showing the .40 mounting?  also, how long were flight times and what type of prop?
piper chuck, while i like o.s., an equivalent .40 4-stroke is $220, compared to $170 for the saito.  are there any benefits of buying an o.s. over it? thanks.
texastbird, is a k&b .40 a 2 or 4-stroke?
scott17, i think i'm hovering around having an engine which puts out 0.80hp at the most, just because of fuel costs and the type of flying i'm doing. 
p.s. as for previous experience, i've run 2-stroke nitro trucks (ae mgt 4.6) and flown electric aircraft (eflite extra 260, parkzone t-28 um, hbz champ art-tech fa-18c) and tried a gp j-3 cub 40 at the local flying field one day.  (rubber band free flight models, kit and scratch-built could also be included) This will be the first BIG rc kit and  i want to have it go as smoothly as possible. (<-haha good joke!)
once again, thanks to all!

c550

My Feedback: (16)

I still have the model-it is haging up in the garage. I pulled everything out of it to finnish another project. I think i used a 11x5 on the Saito .40 but I can't remember exactly. It flew for at least ten minutes on the tank that G.P. recommends in the instructions. It was set up per the pictures in the instructions and all worked very well. The only problem I had was that I decided to save a couple of pennies buy using econocote instead of monocote and the covering after a few years is seperating and cant be tightened. I don't really feel like recovering it hangs from the garage ceiling so use a high quality covering and learn from my mistake.

Regards,

Dave

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I noticed that the FLYRC rules include a 93 dB @ 9' max noise level. That lets out most 2-stroke engines unless they have an expensive aftermarket muffler. A .40 4-stroke with a 11x7 prop may be able to pass that test. I'd check at the field in order to find out how they run the test and what setups easily pass the test before I made my engine choice. Also, Saitos aren't cheap.

Personally, I'd go electric.

CR

asmund

Electric has one big problem, it is booooring. Might as well fly a kite, it is silent also[:'(]

c550

My Feedback: (16)

+1

A Saito .40 with stock muffler wont have any problem meeting noise restrictions its about as load as an un muffled sewing machine.

Bladejunkie

Lantz's hobbies(Wholesale Trains)has the Saito 40a for $149 right now.I've bought all of my Saitos from them good people to deal with.

Jim.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

No benefits at all, OS and Saito both make good 4-stroke engines. I've got a couple Saitos including an FA-45 Ibought sometime in the mid-80s. Ran flawlessly last time Iused it.

mike109

G'day

The Saito 40a is one of my favourite engines. I also have a very old OS FS 40 which I like a lot but the Saito out powers it by miles. The Saito is also quite a bit smaller and lighter. I also did have an OS FS Surpass 40 which was a good engine but I think it was heavier than my 40a Saitos and it was not particularly memorable.

I also have a Saito 30 and it is a really nice little motor but it is considerably less powerful than the 40a.

I have about 12 Saitos and of them I have two each of two types - the 40a and the 62. They are my most used engines.

Many years ago (about 20) I bought my first Saito second hand. It was a FA-45GK. It was a bit battered and one mounting lug was missing one of its mounting holes. Despite this I flew it for several years before selling all my RC gear. About 10 years later I bought it back. It had been used during all of the 10 year period and now needed some bearings. Apart from that, it was still running extremely well. I gave it to a young lad and he and his father continued to use it for several more years until I lost touch with them. I suspect it is still going. Saitos really do last a long time.

Cheers

Mike in Oz

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Me, I'd go with a Magnum (or other Sanye) .52 four-stroke engine. Relax, it only equals a good .32 two-stroke in useful power, so your model will fly with spirit, but not ridiculously so. The Magnum, or other Sanye .52 four-stroke, can be found for less money than an OS .32 two-stroke almost daily. It is easy on fuel (Magnum .52), not picky on how much nitro and is indistinguishable from an OS .52 Surpass once broken-in completely. It will float your model around while making a few putts, or it can climb at an impressive rate at WOT. Yes, I own several of the Sanye .52 four-strokes and several OS .52 four-strokes. You can pull one brand out and pop the other brand in its place without any adjustments necessary. It is one of Sanye's best engines.


Ed Cregger

FLY-giallo

i think, because of the suggestions and all of the positive remarks,my current top choices are: 

buzzard bait

Note c550, who said, with a Saito 30, "good aerobatics, not too heavy," and he only went to a 40 when he added floats. So how did we get to a 52 four stroke? These forums always wind up pushing people toward high power.

If the plane is built with lightness in mind, a 52 four stroke will add useless weight and probably make it nose heavy (15 oz for the 52 vs. 9 oz for a Saito 30...that's 6 extra ounces hanging in front of the firewall). A .32 to .36 two stroke will weigh around 12 or 13 oz with a Pitts muffler and get it off the ground in about two paces and take it straight up. It just doesn't need it. Keep the tail light, make sure you can fit your battery well forward in case you need to, stick to the recommended engine size, and build yourself a plane that will be a delight to fly. If you really want the power, the Saito 40a is only 10.8 oz, so you can still keep the weight down. It won't hit the ground as hard either.

Jim

c550

My Feedback: (16)

I have to agree with buzzard bait. The model will fly with a larger engine, but it will be heavier, so you will need to fly faster and landings will be less fun. On a larger model a few ounces here or there make less of a difference. If I recall I didn't need any extra weight to balance with the Saito. A cheap .25 two stroke is plenty, one of the small four strokes really makes a nice model that uses little fuel and has a very nice sound. I imagine someone could get a by with a much larger engine, and that may fit their flying style. For a high wing Cub type of plane if you keep the weight reasonable you will have something really fun to fly.

Regards,

Dave

FLY-giallo

thanks guys, for bringing me back to reality.  i think the .40 saito is my choice for now, mostly because it IS a four strokke and because it has approximatelly the same specs as a high quality .25 2-stroke.  i have seen and read about people buying the o.s. fs-30s and switching to the .25  because of power issues.  if you have ever used realflight, there is a piper cub in there, and i really love the characteristics of it.  i know, its a sim and its probably in a different scale and everything, bt being able to transition from a nice, scale high wing to an aerobatic is really cool.  also, with the current color scheme i have planned (yellow, black trim and checkered right wing), underpowered just wouldn't look right...

FLY-giallo

btw, the build thread for this is now up... 

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

You guys recommend a .32 to .34 two-stroke as being good power, but you don't recommend the four-stroke .52, which makes exactly the same power. Ridiculous! (wink)

The tiny bit of extra weight of the Magnum .52 can be easily adjusted for by moving the flight battery rearward a skosh.

I also own and fly several .30 four-strokes. While all are good engines, don't enter any greasy string contests with them, unless you don't mind losing.


Ed Cregger

buzzard bait

No one who wants power to the max needs to ask anyone here...they will do it on their own. Usually the people who are asking just want to make sure the plane will fly OK with the recommended engines. So why don't they trust the designer?

*Because people on forums like this keep telling them to use bigger engines!!*

Using a .52 four stroke means chewing up more cowl to fit the engine, more engine sticking out, and the greater length that will probably result in the engine sticking out too far, or else you have to recess the fire wall...still more weight. And then you've got a heavier engine, a heavier motor mount, and for what? Someone already confirmed the plane flies fine on a Saito 30. A .32 - .36 two stroke is not necessary, as I said.

I just don't understand why people keep pushing over-sized engines on these forums even when the people seeking advise SAY that they are looking for mild aerobatics, or not looking for a rocket, etc.

I have a couple of .26 four strokes and they are wonderful for scale flying and they will certainly pull a plane of this size through mild aerobatics. It's what I would choose for this plane. I'd use light servos and keep the tail light.

Sorry for the rant...I've just seen this happen too many times and I can't shut up about it.

Jim

PS, I use a powerful Irvine .39 in my LA Racer 40 that calls for a milder engine. It goes straight up from take off and I love it. I just don't need ALL my planes to fly this way, especially not scale models.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I don't usually recommend larger engines than a model's designer. However, the Magnum .52 isn't quite as strong as its OS sibling. So what would you put it in?

The model in question has a 56" wingspan. Gee, what size engines do other 56" wingspan models use? Ummmmm, a .40 two-stroke? That's a pretty good match for a weak .52 four-stroke.

To me, .20 to .30 four-stroke powered models should have 42 to 49" wingspans. Not 56" wingspans.


Ed Cregger

buzzard bait

I'd put a .52 Magnum in something like a Goldberg Falcon...yes, a 56 inch wingspan. But it's a bigger airplane (chord, area, airfoil, length, weight), and it's a sport model, so I would want it to fly like one. Years ago the recommended engine for a Goldberg Falcon 56 was .09 to .19. And on a decent .19, that Falcon was aerobatic. But nowadays we expect higher performance from our sport models.

Scale models are different. Don't you agree? Well, not everyone does, but then those aren't the people looking for "mild aerobatics".

Suppose instead of a 1/6th scale model of a clipped wing Taylorcraft, you had a 56 inch model of a full span Taylorcraft? Now you've got a much smaller model, about 1/8th scale. Chord is less, fuselage smaller, drag less, airfoil thinner, etc. But the wingspan is still 56 inches. Are you going to stick a .52 on that too, just because it has a 56 inch wingspan? Some 1/2A Texaco models are that size and fly on a Cox .049. And it's a scale model. Even Duane Cole's Taylorcraft had mild performance compared to our sport models. But a 56 inch Mustang might be great on a .61. So I don't think wingspan tells you enough.

Jim

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

Here are some engine weights and distance from back of engine to prop adapter for comparison:
Magnum XL 52:RFS 15.7 oz, (couldn't find distance, est 4 in from Saito .56)
OS.25 FX 10.8 oz, 2.97 in
OS .25 LA 9.8 oz 3.52 in
Saito FA-40 10.64 oz, 3.46 in

So, at a minimum, the Magnum is 5 ounces heavier than typical engines in the .25 2 stroke range and .40 four stroke range. A typical 4 cell receiver battery pack weighs around 4 ounces. Given these weights and the relative distances they would be from the plane's center of gravity in their normal locations, the battery is going to have to move back quite a bit more than a skosh to compensate for the significantly larger hunk of metal hanging off the firewall. A 5 cell battery pack would be a bit heavier, so it wouldn't have to go quite as many shoshes back, but then you'd be adding even more weight to the plane.

Now, let's assume the plane ends up at 4.25 pounds, toward the high end of the manufacturer's weight estimate, with one of the lighter engines. With this weight, the 5 ounces represents about a 7% increase. It's widely accepted that lighter is better when it comes to airplanes, so the extra weight is not a good thing, especially for relatively new pilots.

And finally, a look at dimensions. The other engines would use 9 or 10" props, 11 at the most. The Magnum prop would probably end up in the 12"range, possibly creating a ground clearance problem. In addition, the prop hub would be at least 1/2" further forward, creating the issues already mentioned in another post.

Given all of these isasues, Ifind myself wondering why such a recommendation makes sense for a 15 year old who has never owned a glow plane and is building a kit for the first time?

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

Igot to see him fly quite a few years back at an event where our R/C show team was also performing. He climbed to a high altitude, shut off the engine, and flew his entire pattern using gravity. As he got closer to the ground you could hear the delayed woosh of the plane. I've never seen another performance quite like it.