RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/26/2005 4:00:36 AM

loughbd

Posts: 2111
Joined: 11/29/2003
From: Bremerton, WA, USA
Status: offline

Whoops should have made one thing clear. I tend to use 4 cycles mostly but all of the 2 cycles I use are OS and right now I have a little FS26 4 cycle on a 20 sized Pilot kit.

(in reply to loughbd)

Post #: 76

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/26/2005 8:39:29 AM

Flyboy Shady

Posts: 83
Joined: 12/22/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loughbd

Dr. Nitro. You are the first guy I agree with in this whole discussion. Give me the Saito any day. I run Saitos from the old FA45 with the bolt on head to the 150. I use the Same fuel in every engine I use except my YS120 which likes 20% and my gasoline engines. I worked for Hobby Shack for years and "acquired" a 50 gallon supply of their old White Lightning fuel. This is 70% methanol, 10% nitro and 20% castor oil and nothing else. Don't know what I'm going to do when it's gone. Guess it's power master then. That's who made H Shack's fuel. Your numbers are about what I try to prop my 4 cycles for. The Saito is my favorite all around engine. Between being stationed in Japan and working for H Shack I ended up with a bunch of them. The YS is a brute but sucks EXPENSIVE fuel and can't be oiled with any petroleum pruduct. Ruins the diaphragm. I purchased 11 gallons of old Cox blue can for 4 bucks a gallon. 25% nitro, 20% castor and the YS loves it.

It is with RC stuff like with car brands. Everyone cheers there own brand and bash others. The difference for me is that I have tried both. The only reason I can imagine using a 4 stroke is the sound and the low end tourque. But comparing 4-stroke to 2-stroke it is obvious that a 2-stroke is a less complicated construction and puts out approximatly 50% more horse at the same displacement. 2-strokes are also lighter and less expensive.

At my club often older guys prefer 4-strokes for the mechanical marvel aspect. But the younger guys wanting brute force, there is no substitute. You want a 2-stroke!

< Message edited by Flyboy Shady -- 11/26/2005 8:40:45 AM >

_____________________________

Fly low and fast!

(in reply to loughbd)

Post #: 77

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/26/2005 1:48:02 PM

Steve Campbell

Posts: 4191
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skypilot_one

Steve,

If you want the engine to really perform, I recommend a proper ringed engine break-in.

I know. That has been done.

<<The engine handled beautifully on the test stand.>>

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 78

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 1:27:29 PM

PlaneKrazee

Posts: 3534
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Westerly, RI, USA
Status: online

Steve,

You had me concerned when you said you were just going to run a tank or two thru it on the plane before flying. Now I understand you are going to adjust the carb for the installation.

_____________________________

KB1DTB
AMA11123

(in reply to Steve Campbell)

Post #: 79

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 2:38:19 PM

PlaneKrazee

Posts: 3534
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Westerly, RI, USA
Status: online

Robertc,

I bring mine up to peak after about 1/2 gallon for a few seconds just to measure it. Then I continue to heat cycle and lean it until I can get a full five minute run at 100 below peak without a sag. It is then run in. I would then fly 500 down from peak for a gallon or so and then go to 300 RPM down.

I also use a smaller diameter to run on the test stand so I don't overheat the engine. Running a smaller prop will put less load on the engine and be more like it is flying. I ran mine in on a 17X8 and flew it on an 18X6, 18X10, 16.5X10 three blade and 20X6. The best being the APC 18X6 for pull, power and speed required for my style of flying. The quietest was the Bolly three blade, and it gave good scale flight performance in a 14 lb. Extra 300L.

I am going to try a 18X6-10 on it to see what I get for performance in order to compare it to a Quadra 38. If I get good numbers, one of my 160's will be going in a Byron Pitts with smoke!

_____________________________

KB1DTB
AMA11123

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 80

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 2:44:09 PM

Steve Campbell

Posts: 4191
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skypilot_one

I am going to try a 18X6-10 on it...

Lots of varied opinions, pro & con, on the compound-pitch props. I too am going to try the Top Flite 18x6-10, after initial flights with a Zinger 18x6.

The weather skunked me yesterday and today. But I'm off next week, so tomorrow she flies, come hell or high water...

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 81

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 7:08:05 PM

PlaneKrazee

Posts: 3534
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Westerly, RI, USA
Status: online

Steve,

I would like to see APC try a few of the compound pitch props. Might be just the ticket for the large cowled planes.

I forgot,

What plane is the 160FX going in?

_____________________________

KB1DTB
AMA11123

(in reply to Steve Campbell)

Post #: 82

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 7:52:02 PM

RobertC

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline

Skypilot,

Now you have me curious about the engine. I was out flying yesterday (gorgeous weather we are having in Seattle!) and tried to tweak the high-speed needle upward. It would get to about 8500 RPM and then start to sag. Again, I have a little over a gallon of PM 15% through the engine. I did break it in with several tanks on the ground (proper warm-up/cool-down).

Can I expect the RPM to come-up over the next few gallons? Did I do something wrong in break-in that caused a problem? The engine seems to start and run very well-- just not at 9400 RPM with an APC 18x6W!

I also noticed that you said you were running a Bisson ST-4500 muffler. Tower shows this and the 1.60FX Bisson as different sizes. Any reason you are doing this? Does it fit without any mods? Any chance that the larger volume and/or pressure is helping your RPM?

I am running "standard-size" fuel line with the pump, any reason to believe that the larger diameter stuff would help? Could the pump be causing any problems (I never touched the set-screw; seemed fine from day-one)? The tank is back on the CG-- a good distance from the engine.

Thanks for any insight you can provide!

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 83

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/27/2005 9:30:47 PM

Steve Campbell

Posts: 4191
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skypilot_one

What plane is the 160FX going in?

H9 27% Extra first, and eventually a WH 73" Edge. If the Extra is as orgasmic to fly as everybody claims it is, I'll probably get another 1.60 for the Edge.

RobertC,

According to my research, 8500 is about all you can safely expect out this engine with an 18" median pitch (6 to 8) prop. Apparently, it is very susceptible to thermal damage from even a slightly lean run; most guys are recommending some castor to prevent this. I too run CP 15%, but I add an ounce of castor per gallon for bearing protection. After this gallon is gone, I'll begin adding TWO ounces...

I got mine up to 8000 with an 18x5 Zinger on the test stand, but it was still rich, blowing good smoke from the issue muffler. The Pitts mufflers don't allow one to gauge the smoke output reliably, so I'll tune mine for 7500 or so static (on the ground) with the Zinger 18x6 for the first few flights.

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 84

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/28/2005 1:00:08 AM

RobertC

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the comments. I agree that it seems 8500 is what I should expect out of this engine (and it is performing really well), but if it could turn 9500 then I would be ecstatic! As I mentioned, my Sukhoi weighs over 12lbs (dry) and really flys well with the 1.60... and it is really blowing plenty of smoke at full-throttle!

The Powermaster that I am running is 18% castor/synthetic mix. I guess more castor couldn't hurt, but I have been careful to use a fuel with *some* castor in it (I have also heard about "lean runs" causing problems and have been careful to avoid it).

I am no expert, but I know that exhaust systems can have a large impact on these larger engines (both glow and gas) and I am very curious to find out if the "standard" Bisson exhaust (Pitts-style) can be improved. I am running a pump and did not feel the need to "pinch-off" one of the outlets like so many others have done, but if the engine could actually perform better, well...

(in reply to Steve Campbell)

Post #: 85

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/28/2005 6:29:12 AM

Flyboy Shady

Posts: 83
Joined: 12/22/2003
From: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Status: offline

APC 17x10 @ 8500rpm

_____________________________

Fly low and fast!

(in reply to RobertC)

Post #: 86

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/28/2005 12:48:25 PM

PlaneKrazee

Posts: 3534
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Westerly, RI, USA
Status: online

The 160Fx will spin a Mejzlik 18X6 @ 9900 rpm on 15% nitro 18% oil on a 80* day @ 300" above sea level. Byron fuel. Richen it down 300 rpm to fly and you still have 9600 rpm on the ground. This is with the Bisson BGX or ST4500 muffler. The extra volume of the larger Bisson mufflers gives a more throaty sound and maybe a little better performance.

I baffle all my engines and use 80/20 oil fuel. The baffles take about 1/2 hour to install and are enjoyable to fit once you get into it. I have had accidental lean runs with no engine damage.

_____________________________

KB1DTB
AMA11123

(in reply to Flyboy Shady)

Post #: 87

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/28/2005 1:06:03 PM

Steve Campbell

Posts: 4191
Joined: 12/8/2001
From: Zachary, LA, USA
Status: offline

RobertC,

Supposedly, if one cuts a bit off the ends of the stacks on a Bisson muffler, in effect widening the opening by removing those curved-in ends, one can gain some rpm.

I agree that the exhaust plays a big role in an engine's power output. But I'm confident that this stock Bisson will give me enough...

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)

Post #: 88

RE: Saito 180 versus OS 160 FX - 11/28/2005 4:48:36 PM

RobertC

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline

Skypilot,

Do the larger Bisson's fit the 1.60 without any mods? Also, please tell me how you do your baffles. I have heard of steel-wool stuffed in the muffler but never really seen it done.

Steve,

I agree with you that the stock (Bisson) muffler gives good power. It's just that I have been (slowly) learning about the differences exhaust systems can make and would like to experiment a bit with this one. Although I'm not quite ready to make any non-reversible modifications...

Thanks guys!

(in reply to Steve Campbell)