summerwind
Posts: 1242
Joined: 2/16/2007 From: fresno, CA, USA Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomCrump quote:
ORIGINAL: summerwind just wanted to point out something about this airplane and using a 1.20 four stroke..............there was one at my field this last Sunday, it had an older style OS 1.20 on it. this engine powered this thing like it was a typical sport plane............had more than enough power even at 1/2 throttle. i can't imagine why anyone would put a big gas motor on it and spoil the characteristics of the bird by adding all the extra wieght, not to mention the vibration. To each his own. Since the SS, powered with a 1,20 foure stroke, requires added nose weight, I'd prefer to add the this weight in the form of the addittional power that a gasser provides. this is totally untrue....................mine has a FT1.60 twin on it and it came out nose heavy........had to move both batteries well behind the wing. 2 others i've seen with 1.20's have balanced perfectly. several people here and 1 reviewer who used 1.20's also did not need added nose wieght. there was a post somewhere that pointed out that the added nose wieght came from using a .91 four stroke.........mainly a carry over from the manual for the military version. the point i am trying to make is that if someone that doesn't know any better reads this thread, they'll end up putting a monster of an engine in this plane when they don't need to. i too was having doubts about the engine size as well, but after seeing this plane fly with an "OLDER" version of the OS 1.20 swinging a 16x6, and no nose wieght added, i can honestly say to those thinking about this plane, to go ahead with a 1.20 and be prepared to have a blast................
|