Posts: 250
Joined: 9/8/2007 From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA Status: offline
Hi guys.
I am keen on getting the Great Planes Big Stick 40, always wanted a stick. I have a Saito FA56 without a home and was wondering if it will have enough power for the plane, I am not interested in overpowering the plane. Just looking for a nice sounding nice, flying plane that can do aerobatics with and that can slow down to a crawl when landing. I fly from a VERY short runway. And I just love the Maltese Crosses he he :-)
The reason for my question is that the manual suggests a .50 - .70 4-stroke while the Great Planes website suggests a .60 - .80 4-stroke. So I am a bit worried that the engine will be a bit under powered.
Posts: 132
Joined: 7/25/2004 From: DubboNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA Status: offline
G'day I have GP Stick 40 which I have used to test various engines and I think you will have no problems with the FA56 in it. Mine started out with an OS 52 Surpass which was fine, then an ASP 52 four stroke which flew it well, it then got an ASP 61 FS which is the same weight and size but a bit more powerful and it too was fine. At the moment, it has a Thunder Tiger 46 Pro which is faster than the four strokes but is still similar in general performance. I have a FA 56 which has been in several planes including a Vmar Apache II trainer (heavier then the Stick and it flew really well), a Sig Kadet Senior (perfect) and a Phoenix Tiger Moth Bi-plane which crashed on its first flight as it had far too much power and I suspect a rear ward CG problem. The 56 is not a heavy engine and should do the job well. Just don't expect it to have infinite vertical performance. And of course, a Saito 72 will drop straight in where the 56 was if you do decide that you need more grunt. More weight though.
Have Fun. Mike from Oz.
_____________________________
If it''s not right on the ground - it won''t get better in the air. Club Saito # 597
Posts: 132
Joined: 7/25/2004 From: DubboNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA Status: offline
G'day Glad I was able to help a bit. I learned to fly RC planes back in 1989 and all my engines were two strokes. In 1992, I bought my first ARF - a Thunder Tiger Trainer 40 - and I put an OS 48 Surpass in it. It was a revelation. It was slower in the air but pulled up hill better. I loved it and other people who flew it were also impressed. Since then, I have gradually switched from two strokes to four strokes for most of my models. I like the lower noise levels, the greater torque at lower revs and the sound. I had a pause in my RC flying from about 1994 to 2002 and when I started again, the Saito 56 was my first engine. It is still going strong (despite several quite nasty prangs) and I have just put it back in my Kadet Senior.
You will find that your Saito does not fly the Stick as fast as a two stroke would but it will do a great job at hauling the stick through normal maneuvers. And it will sound great.
Mike from Oz
_____________________________
If it''s not right on the ground - it won''t get better in the air. Club Saito # 597
Posts: 3684
Joined: 1/5/2002 From: Shalimar,
FL, USA Status: offline
I had a GP Big STick 40 that I used for years as an engine test and break-in plane. I recall I had 16 different engines on it, including my Saito .56. It is a nice combination if you're not looking for extended vertical. I used a 12-6 prop and could do all the acro. I just didn't have long, extended vertical climbs like when a Magnum .70FS was on it.
The engine in the photo is an SK 50. The extra yellow tubingon the side is for the 4-stroke pushrod. I would pull the wire out of the 2-stroke tube and insert it into the 4-stroke tube to change over. The engine mount looked like Swiss cheese. I went through a few of them.
The Saito .56 is an excellent engine, runs just great. Right now I have it on a Tower Uproar with floats, shown just touching down with the Saito .56. This is another nice combination.
_____________________________
Ed Moorman, AMA 553, KD4QBM, Revver Bro #156 R/C Report Magazine, Fun Aerobatics Column
Posts: 172
Joined: 4/17/2005 From: goolwasa, AUSTRALIA Status: offline
I Have a 40 size stik and a saito 82 in it and its just about spot on( a bit more oomph wouldnt go astray ) . I personally wouldnt go for any thing smaller but if you want to just putter about give it a shot. I haven't any experience with that size engine. Cheers the pope
Posts: 10686
Joined: 12/2/2001 From: Colonial Beach,
VA, USA Status: online
Rap, here is my newer .56GK turning a Graupner 12x6 @ 10,266 and idling below 2,000, you will be pleasantly surprised with the .56. This was on 15% wildCat/18% lube.
_____________________________
"I have gone faster backwards, upside down and on fire than most people have gone at all" Don Garlits
Posts: 4569
Joined: 3/15/2004 From: Auburn,
AL, USA Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: RappyPilot
Hello Hobbsy
Thanks for the readings :-)
Was wondering what that prop and fuel combo would achieve.
I think I was getting around 12,400 with an APC 12x6 and Omega 15%. The .56 is a sweet running engine with very good characteristics all the way around.
_____________________________
The ultimate responsibility of pilots is to fulfill the dreams of the countless millions who can only stare skyward...and wish.
Posts: 250
Joined: 9/8/2007 From: Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA Status: offline
Does altitude above sea level make any difference to such readings? Johannesburg is about 5500ft above sea level.
I am running an OS46AX on my Calmato, engine is faily new and with a 10x6 I don't seem to get more that 13000 odd RPM. When they can go up to 16000. I know prop selection makes a big diffirence. But does altitude?
Printable Version
All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Glow Engines >> FA56 for a GP Stick 40? 
FA56 for a GP Stick 40? - 
) . I personally wouldnt go for any thing smaller but if you want to just putter about give it a shot. I haven't any experience with that size engine. Cheers the pope
