Funtana 40 Engine Question??
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (20)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Charleston,
TN
My dad has a old OS 60 or 61 four stroke with the exposed rocker arms. He was wondering how it would be on the Funtana 40??? I do not think he wants it to be a 3d machine but just to have good aerobatic capability. Or should he go with a bigger engine??
Thanks
Thanks
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New Richmond,
WI
Some claim to 3D with a SA72. Not sure if the older OS 4 stoke will put out decent power or not. If it can pull as hard as a .46FX 2 stoke then it will be aerobatic.
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Auburn,
WA
A lot of it depends on how you will want to fly it. I don't think it will do 3d well with much less than an 82 4 stroke. ( I don't fly many 2 strokes so I don't know that side of it ) I have a Saito 91 and the power is just right for me but then I plan to 3D with it and want to be able to pull out of a hover without worrying about it.
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New Richmond,
WI
ORIGINAL: JoeAirPort
A 46FX is not nearly enough power for this ARF, I have had two of them. One with a YS63 and another with an Irvine 53 2-stroke. The 53 was not enough. 45FX needs 5 pounds max, the F40 is closer to 6 pounds.
A 46FX is not nearly enough power for this ARF, I have had two of them. One with a YS63 and another with an Irvine 53 2-stroke. The 53 was not enough. 45FX needs 5 pounds max, the F40 is closer to 6 pounds.
I do not think he wants it to be a 3d machine but just to have good aerobatic capability
I agree totally if you are going to 3D it go with a stronger motor.
#7
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: LaPorte,
IN
YOUR OLD 60 WILL PROBABLY FLY IT,BUT THATS ABOUT ALL IT WILL DO,I WOULD PERSONALLY OPT FOR AT LEAST A 65 TO A 82 SAITO,NOTE THAT 4 STROKE RC ENGINES HAVE MADE MAJOR LEAPS AND BOUNDS SINCE THE DAYS OF THE ENGINE YOU DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND NOTHING STINKS MORE THAN RAKING UP YOUR NEW ARF OR KIT BUILT MODEL FOR SOMETHING AS SENSELESS AS UNDER POWERING,OR UN RELIABLE OLD UNDER POWERED ENGINES,ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE LOW BUCK,GOOD QUALITY ENGINES THAT ARE OFFERED TODAY,SUCH AS THE MAGNUM 4 STROKE LINE. SIMLE RULE OF THUMB,ITS SAITO OR NO GO
#8

My Feedback: (41)
Let's put it this way, the Funtana would fly very "scale" with the 60 4-stroke, you might need to gain energy before entering a loop etc. I would not waste your time with that engine to be brutally honest, but my intent here is to be helpful. I have logged hundreds of flights on this ARF.
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , NY,
Having over 500 flights on the Funtana (and currently four in the hangar) I will tell you that it 3D'S very well with a Saito .82. It is ballistic with an Evolution .61 with spectacular aerobatics (however, not much pull-out authority when hovering) It is very aerobatic and will hover even with an Evolution .46. So to answer your question ...your .60 four-stroke should be able to pull this plane around decently. There are some people here that feel you dont have enough power unless you can rocket straight up from a hover on the deck. Well...there are very few people that fly that way. Weight is definitely an issue...keep it light.



