Sewerdude

My Feedback: (20)

I'm about ready to start on my secong 4 Star 40. I had a OS 46 SF on the last one and it flew nice and had decent speed. Thinking of going the 4 stroke route. So I'm very new to 4 stroke and have only seen 1 fly at my field last summer.So I dont know much about them. Anway, would the 4 Star 40 like a 4 stroke? What advantages or disadvantages will I get if I go with a 4 stroke? Will it still have good speed or will it be some what slower since the 4 strokes turn less rpm. If I do go with a 4 st ,what would be the best size for the 4 star 40 and which one? Will I have to get a on board glow system? The one I saw fly last summer did. Thats why I'm asking. Thanks for answering all my questions in advance. I come on here before I try something new. Free advice is priceless. Thanks, JT

UltimateFlyer120

My Feedback: (5)

I have several 4 Strokes. Right now I have an OS 52 Surpass on my 4 Star 40. Very nice power range. The biggest issue is prop clearance. The OS 52 I have an APC 11X7. The Saito 72 would be a great choice if you want extra power. With the Saito 72 you would need a 12X8 or 13X6 prop not much of a problem with ground clearance but something to think about. None of my 4 Strokes have an on board glow system. Some where I read about getting better fuel mileage with a 4 Stroke, I have not noticed it.
If I was going out to buy a 4 Stroke for my 4 Star 40 I would get a Saito 72. I had the OS 52 from a past project. There are lots of motor manufactures I have seen them all at the field I fly at and also listen to the "Old Guys" do not waste your money when it comes to 4 Strokes. They are not the same! There will be heated arguments here about which is better! I just question if they really have what they are defending.

Dave Bowles

My Feedback: (7)

Some good choices for a 4 stroke.

Saito 56 for normal overall good flight.

Saito 72 for all out crazy

Magnum 61

O.S. 54

YS - not really sure what size they offer now.

Advantages or disadvantages are very much a matter of opinion, less annoying sound , a little less mess, the Saito 56 will do a little more run time on same amount of fuel and perform pretty close in this particular aircraft. Sense the 4* is really not made for speed you should be able to get about the same speed using a higher pitch prop .

Because of the RPM differences there is really no way to compare which is better, its a matter of what the pilot wants. Comparing the two is almost apples and oranges.

IMO it would be worth it to use a 4 stroke simply because of sound and mess, but if the 46sf is working o.k. why fix it.

Razor-RCU

My Feedback: (50)

The Magnum 52 is decent torque/power easy on $$, the TT-54 is another bang for the buck...

If you wanna step-it-up:

OS- 70 surpass

Saito 65/72

YS- anything in this class (53-63??) if pockets are deep...

Let us know what you decide and how it works! That 4* is a great little plane, mine is used as a make-shift engine test stand still (its flyin' days are long gone... )

james!

rhd-RCU

My Feedback: (36)

I have a Saito 91 on my advance 40. It loves vertical. Only a couple of ounces heavier than the 72.

bigbigjoe

My Feedback: (2)

I have a Y.S. 63 and this engine is unreal. Great power, super quiet, linear throttle responce, idles great and it is about $20. more than a Saito 72 but a much better engine. This engine on a 4 STAR 40 will turn it into a rocket. All the 4 Stars are fooler planes. They advetise them as a second plane and that they are easy to fly which is true but if you put a killer motor en them and notch the elevator halves so that you can get more rudder travel they will do it all.Flat spins, knife edge, etc. Also put on a taller landing gear.

tomr-RCU

My 4* has a Siato .56. I use a 13-5 prop and it's got great power. My total weight is just under 4#'s . It needed 3" wheels for the 13-5, but we have a rough grass runway so it needed 3" wheels anyway.

This combination is not fast but can hover and torque roll with no problem. On cold days I can knife edge loop, when it's hot and the air is thin it won't come out of the bottom without a bigger rudder. Because the .72 saito fits in the .56 mounts, and weighs minimally more that would be my choice.

If you want good performance then watch the weight. lighter planes fly better - PERIOD!. More weight with a bigger engine may not get you any better performance, and will probably give you poorer performance.

Tom

bigbigjoe

My Feedback: (2)

How did you get a 4 Star 40 to weigh only 4 pounds? Is this weight the complete plane minus fue?

Sewerdude

My Feedback: (20)

Thanks for all your replys so far. I went to my LHS yesterday . They had a OS 70 Surpass II. Nice engine, but it sure is heavy.Weighting it a 580g or 20.65 oz w/ muffler. The Saito 56 weights in at only 410 grams. Big differance. Not sure if the performance differance is worth, if there would be any. I wondering now if the ligter Saito 56 would be better than the heavier OS? Thanks JT

Dave Bowles

My Feedback: (7)

when ever you add weight you give up some slow flying ability, I have a Model Tech Joss Stik ( 66" ws 877WA) that flys great on a 4 or 2 stroke 91 , but i use a Zenoah G23 that weighs 52 oz without prop appose to a 25 oz or so 91. It flys great, cheap to run, but dosen't float like it did with a .91 . IMO the trade was worth it.

The saito 72 I believe uses the same mount as the 56 and is about the same weight.

Sewerdude

My Feedback: (20)

The 72 Saito weights in at 470 g, where the 410 g for the 56. I'm sure there is a big power boost when you jump to the 72 though.I just wonder if the plane will fly good and do great acro with the 56. I was thinking maybe the 72 is alittle over kill. Maybe not though

tomr-RCU

Getting my 4* to four pounds was easy. [list=1][*]don't use too much glue[*]sand[*]dont use any epoxy, use tite bond or elmers for plywood joints, it's lighter and so strong that the wood breaks before the glue[*]don't use too much glue[*]don't add any extra tri-stock, gussets, etc. [*]use medium CA so it doesn't wick in so far [*]don't use too much glue[*]fuel proof with clear dope not epoxy or CA,[*]Use light wheels[*]use a simple color scheme with minimal coviering overlap (transparent covering looks cool and is even lighter about 3 oz per roll)[*]sand[*]don't use too much glue[*]use the stock tail wheel it works great and is very light[/list=1]

My curent 4* with Siato .56 is very aerobatic and weighs just at 4 pounds. If i didn't mention it earlier to keep it light when you build it don't add extra stuff and don't use too much glue and you'll get a light strong airplane. I quit counting flights on mine at arund 600 flights, that was a couple years ago. It's 5 years old and the only problems I've had was cracking the leading and trailing edges (around flight 600 and the other flyers were amazed it was still together with the violent stunts I'd been doing with it for years), and recovering. Until last month it was never crashed, Last month I tried a zero roll out elevator style 3D landing and snagged the wing tip causing a cart wheel, only damage was to break off the tail feathers. They were re-attached with elmers and it's ready to fly again. Keeping it light means that it will damage less if it is crashed.

Depending on your style of flying but if I could afford the .72 over the .56 I'd get it. the .72 wasn't available when I built mine. Just put a big flat prop like a 13-5 and don't go wide open when it's pointed down and you'll have a great aerobatic plane with unlimited verticle power.

The Four Star 40 has got to be the best all around 40 size plane available!

Tom

Dave Bowles

My Feedback: (7)

You can always throttle back, Just because you have power dosen't mean you have to use it all the time.

FlyingGreg

My Feedback: (4)

I have had 4 Four stars--two earlier .60 size are no mo, but I still have one .60 and a .40 sized. I have Saito .56 with 12 X 6 APC on the .40. I enlarged rudder by 1" and get great KE and upright flat spins. Mine barely hovers--not quite enough "go" to pull out.--looks like a very slow tail slide. I noticed an earlier reply by a guy flying same engine with 13 X 5 APC--think I'll try one.

I built a set of skis out of coroplast for the .40 size and had great fun last year in the snow. Will go this year when conditions are right.

I also have an OS .52 but it does not seem to have the same power as the Saito.

IMO there are a few planes that just beg for a four stroke engine and the Four Star is one of them.

Sewerdude

My Feedback: (20)

Thanks to all that took the time to reply. I've decided to go with the Saito 56. Just got back for the LHS ,it will be here Monday. I know alot of you recomended the 72. But the 56 seems like it will fly the 4 Star and still be alot of fun. Now I have some 2 stroke fuel . Cool Power 10 %. Can I run that in the Saito with good results? Or should I go wit hte 4 stroke blend. Also should I add castor to it? Just wondering what you guys run it yours. Thanks, again, JT

tomr-RCU

the 13-5 prop I use on my 4 star is a Grapner not APC, it has a much wider blade than the APC. Seems to do better verticle than APC 13-5

Good luck with your four star, you won't be disapointed with the Siato .56.

If you want a little more out of a Siato .56 try uping the nitro. I tried mine with 35% nitro and it had no trouble swinging a 14-6 master air screw.

bigbigjoe

My Feedback: (2)

Are you using mini or micro servo's and a light weight batterey pack to get the 4 pounds on a 4 Star 40? Also what kind of scales are you using?

tomr-RCU

Standard S300 servos and AA size battery pack that come with a Hitech Focus 4 radio.

Scales I used were various as I've weighed it many times over the years. From a digital Fish scale (used for contest bass) to simple spring scales. All say the same thing between 46 and 50 oz. usually around 47.

I may have gotten lucky with wood selection in my 4* kit as I didn't have to replace any wood, but overall when I compare the same planes I build to other guys at my club mine tend to come out lighter. All the little things add up, like wheel collars. I solder washers rather than use the brass wheel collars (6 brass collars vs 6 washers adds up. If I find a piece of balsa sheet that I think is too heavy I replace it . I can build 4* with an oz of medium CA and a little titebond. I read a lot of stuff on gliders and believe it or not the color and type of covering you use can add from 1 to 8 oz to your airplane. painting the canopy and pilots all add weight. I don't go nuts in weight savings (sanding ribs thinner or cutting them out) but if you just think about weight savings during the building process and not about making it stronger and you end up with lighter planes.

Take the landing block on the 4* it's just a 1/4" piece of ply glued into some notches in the light ply fuse. If you add tri stock to beef it up you add wieght. If you put it in as designed you save weight. If the add the tri stock it is less likely to break out on a rough landing, but if you keep it lighter you'll have less rough landings (lighter plans land softer) and less stress because the plane weighs less if there is a rough landing.

Since I fixed and recoverd my old 4* it now wieghs about 4pounds 6 oz. Still flys great but I went with fancy covering and the glue to repair added wieght.

Tom

jc4me2

I've got a saito 56 on my 4 Star. I'm 3 states from home right now but I think I have an 12x7 APC. I busted out the rudder on a REALLY bad take off so I made a new and much bigger one.(which I ment to do in the first place) It has JR 507s all around. I run it on 16% castor oil 2 stroke fuel. It's the most reliable engine I've ever had. Still has the original glow plug. Oh yeah, I modified the tank area to hold a 10 oz loosly. Give about 15 min of flight time at 1/2-full throttle. Jordan

bigskyflyer

magnum .80, I have found to be an excellent engine, plenty of power, quiet, idles far better than any two stroke I have owned. Even out of the box, it required very little tweaking. Hard to go wrong with the 4*60, it is a forgiving yet responsive plane.