AussiePilot

Hey guys iam very un sure of which engine to go for i have always wanted a 4 stroke this motor is going into a 27% Cap By Great Planes,
basically i want to know which is a more powerful engine the os or saito, im looking for better performance

All your help would be very much appreciated
Steve

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

If you are 3D go with the Saito. Otherwise use the 160

AussiePilot

thats what iam not sure off, Is the saito 180 more powerful than the 160 overall>?

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

I don't think so. But if you really want a four stroke get the Saito. A friend has one and he really loves it.

What type of flighing do you do and how much do you think the plane will weigh?

Not24

My Feedback: (1)

Get the engine that balances the model the best. Both can be used for 3D, but the 180 will throttle better.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

People will argue about which of these two engines is most powerful until they are blue in the face.

The torque curves are different. Each engine has its good points.

If you want a four cycle, go with the 180.

AussiePilot

umm though over all it seems that the saito 180 is more powerful i think this is a hard decision,
the weight this model is supposed to be finished is 6.35kg)
thats what it said in a review and that was with an os 160 ( Review ) i hope that the saito is powerful enough to take me vertical
for some reason iam lead to belive that a four stroke will always be better at vertical
than i two stroke because it can swing a bigger prop and better for precision Aerobatics
what u guys think..?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

That's a pretty good assumption

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

The Saito 180 can not swing a bigger prop than a OS 160FX. Put a APC 19X8W on a 180 and see what happens.

akschu

My Feedback: (5)

Don't forget about cost of fuel. My OS 1.60 turns a 18x6w at a little over 9k running 5% fuel.

Falcon26

Sorry for jumping in like this but does anyone Know or has seen performance rating of Saito 180 vs Ys 160[]
Thanks

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

As was stated earlier, one engine is a 2 stroke and the other a 4 stroke. They are not directly comparable as oranges to oranges.

The torque curves are different. Each engine has it's good points and areas where its power stands out.

People have discussed this to death on RCU with arguing etc.

It depends on your flying style.

Basically for all out high speed the 160 is superior. But for low rpm torque the 180 is the best.

wildchild45177

My Feedback: (11)

Neither, You can get a 40cc gas for around $300. It will swing a larger prop than either of them, gets better fuel economy, runs on cheaper fuel, won't leave a slime on your plane, and is excellent for 3D.

Bob

I run a BCMA SPE40 swings a Xoar 21X8 at 6990 RPM with 20# 11oz thrust.

Flyer95

My Feedback: (1)

On stock mufflers both Saito 180 and OS160FX are very quiet and the power output is almost identical. Both engines can be used for speed, 3D, scale or whatever........The overall weight for the OS 160 is higher mostly because of the muffler .

wildchild,
There has never been one engine choice that fits all applications. The Saito and OS have a much better power/weight ratio than the gasoline engines. To match the power of the OS/Saito you need a bigger gas engine that burns almost as much fuel as the smaller glow engines so there are no weight savings in fuel going gas. The bigger gasoline engine is also heavier and most people dont like the smell of gas inside there cars and houses. Fuel cost is only a very small part of this hobby. IMO life is too short to care about the fuel cost.

Best solutions are not always the cheapest..........

wildchild45177

My Feedback: (11)

OS 1.60FX wieght without muffler 32.8oz

Satio FA180 weight without muffler 31oz

SPE40 including muffler and ignition 51oz

By the time you add a muffler to either of them that's about 6oz more.

Neither the OS or the Satio is capable of 20# thrust and the gasser will burn less fuel than either of them. Price is similar to the OS and less than the Satio.

Now, you were saying?

Bob

This is a 27% plane, and it would be a shame to put a slimmer in it.

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

I'd go with a Moki 2.10 in that plane. Glow at this size is not messy as long as you use exhaust extensions. The Moki on 5% nitro is very fuel efficient.

SigMan

My Feedback: (21)

go with the magnum 180 ! 8-9 oz heavier than saito, but a darn good motor!

Flyer95

My Feedback: (1)

Well, I dont see the benefits for going gas on such a small airframe. The wingarea on that plane is not much at all.
The SPE40 or Fuji43cc are possible options for this plane but would they be the "best" choice?, I dont think so.
They are atleast 12oz heavier than the os160 or Saito180. With the higher wingloading caused by the bigger and heavier gas engine it is not possible to use the extra thrust it produces. I am also pretty sure that the stock muffler on the SPE40 is very loud so if you have any noise restrictions at your site then it wont work. You are gonna need a cannister or quiet pipe that will add weight another +10oz so you end up to 60oz total weight + ignition battery for the engine and only 1168 sq in or 75dm3 wingarea and thats IMO just too much wingloading.

Actually, Aussie pilot said he wanted to try fourstroke and then there is only four engines for the task.
Saito 180/220 or YS 140/160

STG

My Feedback: (26)

The OS 1.6FX has plenty of torque. Mine swings a 19x7 in the low 8's on 10% and jerks my 11 pound plane out of a hover like a rag doll.

The 2 stoke is more difficult to tune for optimal performance. If you don't have them metering fuel correctly than they do not transition well and people mistakenly take that for lack of torque. If you are going to run the tank over CG I would run a pump on both of them.

Do you want the 2 stroke sound (mine sounds sweet turning in the low 8's [8D] with pitts) or the 4 stroke sound?

They are both great motors. At 14 pounds(15 pounds wet) both motors are going to be working very hard and vertical will not be outstanding.

If you want to go glow I would go with the SA220, YS160 or Moki 2.1

wildchild45177

My Feedback: (11)

The Sig Extra 300XS only has 990 sq inches of wing area. Thats what I run the 40 on and it will float just fine. 1168 sq inches should be plenty of wing for it.

Bob

JulianPugh

The Saito 1.80 is a fuel hog (big time). I have both the os 1.60 and Saito 180. The 1.60 is a lot more powerful, starts easy, sips fuel and will idle very slowly. No question which I would go with. The os 1.60 hands down.

I use 24 ounces of fuel in a 10 minute flight with the Saito and can run the os 1.60 for 20 minutes on 24 ounces.

STG

My Feedback: (26)

There are Saito experts on this forum that claim that the 180 is often run too rich (low and high needles) and that is why many have gotten bad mileage with it.

With my OS160FX I get about .8oz min on a 11 pound plane flying a mix of 3D and IMAC. Mind you--I don't fly at high throttle settings. If I wanted to run the plane fast (in my mind poor throttle management on an IMAC plane) I could burn a lot more fuel -- If you use H.P. you will burn fuel with any motor. Some experts will claim that the SA180 tuned properly will get similar millage to the 160FX on 5%.

PlaneKrazee

My Feedback: (14)

STG,

After I broke in my OS 160FX I ran it full throttle, peaked with a APC 18X6 and got 5 minutes 20 seconds on a 8 oz tank. This was on 5% fuel and the rpm was 9200.

The Saito 180 on 5% nitro will not spin that prop at that rpm but it is a great engine and is perfect on some planes.

I've been running a APC 19X8 on 5% nitro 20% oil lately just to see how the engine handles it. It runs fine and is very quite. I'll go out and tach it and report back.

rustypep

My Feedback: (6)

I am stuck on this decision too. I need to put one or the other in a Goldberg Obsesssion 3d. Low to medium speed performance is what I need. The wing area is closer to a 29% but is also 84 inches long. The plane balances fine with either but a gasser won't fit in the narrow cowl and would probably need a pound or more in the tail to balance out so that eliminates that as an option. Both of these engines have produced AUW of between 11.5-13 lbs in this plane depending on servos, batteries, etc with stock hardware and wing tubes. You would have to run a pump either way but at 11.5 lbs I am thinking either would be great. I am leaning towards the 180 but a lot of success has been had with a pumped 1.60 so I am stumped. Both seem to work well in this weight range (10-13 lbs) for 3D (depending on the plane). A Saito 220 might also be doable in the 12-13 lb range with two large rudder servos to help with balance (I think) and some carbon fiber parts. I would just hate to come out lighter and run 1/4 throttle all the time on the 220 plus it sucks more fuel so the 180 seems more ideal. What weight is roughly too much for the 180 in 3D? I know that isn't exact science since wing loadings play a factor but I am just looking for a rough idea. Is 13 pounds too high? Stock tank is 24 oz over the CG and there is room for something larger but that adds to wet and dry AUW. If I am going to spend $500-600 on engine and pump, I don't want to do it twice. I thought this situation might put a new twist to the arguement since a gasser is a non-issue. Any thoughts? Thanks!

wildchild45177

My Feedback: (11)

I'm not saying that a gasser is ideal for all situations, but a 27% Cap, it's a no brainer. In your situation where it will not fit, I would go with the 1.60FX. Simply for reliability, you just can't beat the FX series from OS. This is of coarse just my opinion. I will say this. I wish my gasser would start as easy. It takes about 6 or 7 flips cold, but does only take 2 or 3 the rest of the day. I have a .46FX, 1 flip almost every time warm or cold.

Bob