radiocontrol

My Feedback: (2)

I have a general question about using 2C engines or 4C engines in a 3D aerobatic plane. I am considering purchasing the Kyosho Flip-3D ARF and it specifies either a .46 2C or a .52 4C. As far as aerobatic capabilities and the ability to "hang the prop", is one engine favored over the other? And exactly what does 3D mean???

Radiocontrol

sandal

I have used an OS FS-52S and an Irvine 53 on the same plane.

The two-stroke 53 puts out a lot more power than the four-stroke 52. I know that 53 is quite a bit larger than 46, but I would still think that a 46 two-stroke would be more powerful than the 52 four-stroke.

Even though the Irvine is ported for torque, most of the power is found at high rpms. The FS-52S responds quicker, and its strength is low rpm torque. So I would say that a four-stroke generally is better for 3D than two stroke. One reason is that they have a wider power band, another reason is that the throttle response is quicker. But this is only my personal opinion and not a generally accepted truth. The OS FS-52S is the only four-stroke engine I have flown, so there might be a lot of things that I don't know.

If you go up to a .70 size four-stroke you will have an engine that has lots of power. The drawback is that you get more weight along with the extra power compared with the 52. If the plane can handle a two-stroke 46, I think it will handle a four-stroke 70 as well. (IMO)

T

SMALLFLY-

My Feedback: (19)

A webra 50, os 50 or irvine 53 vs a saito 72 or ys 63 should be your dilema. Every flier has different opinions on which is better, they both have advantages and disadvantages. If the plane is not much more than 5 lbs I would go with a saito 72. I think the throttle response of a 4 stroke is smoother and larger slower spinning props are great for hovering and harriers, but a quick spinup from a 2 stroke with a wood prop snaps a plane over in a waterfall much quicker. Buy both. Try both.