William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

I will make another comment.

If a certain Kiwi is running his engine at full throttle for the entire flight, either he has picked the wrong engine or he is running so rich the engine qill not develop full power.

Bill.

TimC

A little more testing to determine how much flight time is gained with less nitro. All conditions the same except the fuel. This time it was PowerMaster 5% castor/synthetic blend. Rpm's were peaked to 9630 and richened to 9360.The tank was filled with the same size bubble on top. Engine was started at and run at full throttle for 8 min. and 16 sec. This compares to 6 min. and 54 sec. for the 15%.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Tim, when I ran my 2.20 and a couple of other Saitos on 5% Fox I had to lean the needle in each engine about 1/4 turn.

XJet

I can understand Larry's situation -- I've got a TT91FS in a 60-sized P51 and I also spend most of the flight at full-throttle, although I do get well over 14 minutes out of a tank.

The problem with these Mustangs is that they can only go around and around, up and down, and do a few rolls. It was the boredom associated with flying such aircraft that got me interested in 3D; far more challenging and fun!

I have a Saito 100 in a Mojo 60 (3D profile) and despite the fact it's got less than a gallon of fuel through it and is still running rich, I seem to have just under 1/2 a tank left after an 8 minute flight. The fuel economy is just fine.

In a 40-sized profile, my SA82 actually gives me about 20% more flight time than the TT46Pro 2-stroke it replaced so I'm more than happy with the frugality of my Saitos.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

As you have noted, there is a considerable amount of flight time to be gained by dropping in nitro percentage, with everything else being the same (tank size, etc.). That is one reason that I enjoy flying European/Chinese engines with high compression and no need for more than 5% nitromethane in the fuel. It permits me to run smaller fuel tanks for a given amount of desired flight time. This is a serious design aid when it comes to optimizing airframes structurally and aerodynamically.

Harry Lagman

XJet, that pretty sums up the situation.

Bill, in answer to your comment, well..., the answer is no and no.

It's the right engine for the aircraft, as it balanced perfectly without resorting to special techniques to avoid adding weight. I doubt even a YS 1.10 would make this model go fast. But that's fine. It looks nice as it does a low pass over the field and is well mannered. It's definitely not running too rich either. In summary, the FA 100 is a good, reliable powerplant with good power for its weight. I like it a lot. However, in contrast to the wisdom contained in the learned scriptures of the Saito creed, IMHO it's only an average performer for its capacity.

XJet

Yes, the Saito 100 isn't a stand-out performer horse-power-wise.

My TT91FS probably has more power than my SA100.

On the other hand, if you're talking power to weight then the Saito wins hands down. That TT91FS weighs almost half a pound more!

If we're talking power-to-weight, a better comparison would be the TT91FS and the Saito 120. Heck, even the SA125 is much lighter than the TT91

lilcap232

My Feedback: (14)

I fly my UCD 60 with a 100 weekly probably have a gallon and a half through it and love it........I fly till I get bored/tired on a sixteen oz tank. and then land with fuel to spare, I have flown out of fuel once and aborted a fly by with a harrier landing after a 20 plus minute flight........to all you guys having the bad engine blues..................................I think you have JUNK engines too, therefore I am offering a buyback deal at 50% your cost.......email with names and addresses where to send payment... lmao.......... JIMMY

patzane

Well the Satio is working well for me. I have about 2 gal. of fuel through it now and it given me way more flight time than before. I can go 13 plus min on 16 oz tank running at 1/2 thro. or more. Have a 1/4 fule left in tank when land.