I would say a 91 2 stroke or 82 as a 4 stroke.

91????????????????? This thing ain't made of steel!

A 46 will suck, and will be tail heavy. You will be adding lead weights in the cowl with your battery and reciever behind the firewall.
I have a OS 91 FS on mine, APC 15x4W, and am thinking about putting on a Saito 100 for a bit extra punch.

Brian

Why would you think they are tail heavy? My X50 has a 15.5oz webra 50 in it, balances perfect, battery behind the fuel tank. A 25+ oz 91 would be way noseheavy, and plain heavy overall. Put any good 50size two stroke and a tuned muffler and performance will be good. I tried a saito 82 and 14-6APC, and went back to the webra.

And in the meantime I flew mine at almost dark with the Super Tiger 45 and an APC 11X5. ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEMS AT ALL! I've been in this hobby 30+ years and it frosts my backside that so many people think "4 STROKE IS BETTER" in all cases. 4 Stroke is an option, not a prequisite. So people it boils down to 2 things. A plane the says "3D" doesn't always mean you HAVE to fly it as a 3D plane. Not "everyone" HAS to "hover" do "Harriers" and what not. Planes were flying LONG before these things were "invented". KUDOS to you for the Webra 50!!!!!! It goes to show you that all that glitters ain't gold and all that swings a prop ain't 4 stroke! So bottom line the Funtana 50 WILL fly superbly on a 2 stroke, and as good as mine flew, I have no intentions to adjust valves or set timing!

hi everyone. Im just putting together my new X50. Im installing a os50sx. How would you guys expect the 3D performance to be like?

For 3D it will be at a disadvantage with the 2 stroke motor. For aerobatics and general flying it will be fine.
Phillip

9757,
You are correct, a Saito will need a valve adjustment once a year. Fortunately it only takes 5 minutes. Regarding setting the timing, I'm not sure which engine you are refering to. A Saito does not have a way to set the timing. The cam is driven by gears.
Phillip

I dont agree about the 2 stroke being a disadvantage, i think if i can get it light enough it should be plenty of power. eveyone knows that two stokes have more power + are lighter than 4 strokes. But dont get me wrong, this doesnt mean i hate 4 strokes. i still use 4 stokes but not were i need some REAL power. thanks for you advice anyway Jimmy

I agree with skyzkings response on the use of 2 strokes, and as I stated, 4 stroke is a CHOICE and in some cases even a challenge. My Funtana 50 flys superbly on the 45 Super Tiger swinging an APC 11X5 and I'm going to try a 12.5X4. As I mentioned earlier, again 3D is a CHOICE, not a "must do!"

skyzking,
That's fine. You asked for an opnion and I provided mine. Some people think that electic is better than 2 or 4 stroke.
Phillip

9757,
Is this a debate about flying style or engine choice? IMHO (and many others), the Funtana S40/X50 fly's pretty good as a 3D plane and is marginal at best at IMAC type flying.
Phillip

original question was stating a supertiger 45 and prop size for power on the funtana. then i got tons of 'gotta have 4 stroke 2 stroke ain't gonna work if you're flying 3D. I never said i was going to fly 3D i'm suprised someone didn't say a 4 stroke 426 Hemi would be my best choice.

9757,
Sorry we have a misunderstanding. I was responding to "skyzking's" question in post #32. Please re-read this page and I think you'll see what I mean. You don't have to keep repeating that you don't care for 4 stroke motors and 3D flying with a 3D plane. I think we all get it.
Phillip

Just tired of all the ruckus about which is better. To each his own. finis-Bob

You're right Bob, to each his own. However a ST45 is NEVER going to fly 3D like a Saito 82. I have some of each and think they both have their place. But if someone ask what the "best" choice is. Do you really believe the 45 is the "best" choice?
Please don't think I am putting you down. This debate will never end. There will always be guys that swear by one or the other. One of the best fliers I know hates four strokes. It's funny how he gets a big grin on his face when he flies my F50x and still says he hates 4C engines.

David

Ok guys I got my X50 almost done and the saito 82 came on friday. I didnt know you had to flip the card on this when I first saw it I thought I got the wrong motor. So I got it all installed and I mite breack this bad boy in today. Can some please tell me what prop is good for break in on saito 82 I have a APC 13x7 mounted on this thing now is this ok?? Then after break in I will be putting on a 14x4w for my 3D fly.

Thanks Dave, and again without sounding to redundant, I don't plan on flying the Funtana as a 3D plane. Sport aerobatics is all I'm after in this type plane. For the record, I own quite a few planes that are strictly designed for 3D and the majority are electric. On the otherhand, I have several fuel both 4 and 2 strokes on 3D style airplanes. I didn't intend to beat the issue into the ground but my very first statment on the matter concerned the prop size for a 45SUPERTIGER for this plane, and then the ball started bouncing "you'll never fly 3D with a 2 stroke! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!" JESUS ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!! Maybe that's why the helicopter bug never hit me. If REAL helicopters could do what the RC's could do DAMN WHAT AN AIRSHOW! Same applies to 3D. Eat your heart out Patty Wagstaff!

The Funtana is a 3D plane. For sport flying, a better choice would be a plane like the Pulse XT.


You must be mixing this thread up with another one. Who said that?
Phillip

Ralph,
A 13x7 should be OK for break in. I've tried several props on this setup and found the 14x4W to be the best. 30% fuel provides about a 500rpm gain over 20%, but I've gone back to 20% because it may cause less wear on the motor and it still provides sufficent power. Break-in requires several gallons of fuel thru it before it really smooths out and develops full power. Just be easy on it and run a very rich mixture during break-in.
Phillip

A Funtana "IS" a 3D plane Mr. Hoffa? What makes it "NOT" one either? I sure didn't fly mine "3D" today...matter of fact flew it FAI style. SUPERB. Not everyone flies 3D. Not everyone doesn't either. I know one thing. I'll NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER ask what size prop to put on a motor on this thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Ya'll do remember that's what started all this right?)

I fly 3-d with my Harrier 46. I started out with the ASP 52 xls twostroke in the nose and then I tried the MVVS 49 twostroke, both of these engines would hover the plane at around half throttle and pull out nice, but then I mounted my Magnum 91 fourstroke and it would also hover around half throttle and pull out about the same. The main difference is that I have a much better "feel" of the throttle and have alot better control when using the fourstroke. It was just easier to control and maintain a hover when using 4 stroke power, plus the sound alone is worth it.

9757,
Horizon Hobby classifies it as a 3D plane. The box mine came in has it labeled as, "Funtana S40 3D. Maybe yours came in a different box?
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Articles...ArticleID=1358

Large contol surfaces with a lot of throw and the ability to easily hover, elevator, blender and do walls etc at the expense of smooth aerobatic flying. Everything is a tradeoff.

Of course they don't, but some people buy a product for it's intended use. If you chose not to, that's fine. I see a lot of Hummers with street wheels and tires.

IMHO, Ralph L asked a legitimate question.

No one one this thread has been negative about your flying preference and if you look back a few posts you will see that Iwas responding to Syyzking question about engine choice. There are quite a few electric fans that hate any form of IC engine, 2 or 4 stroke. My club has a few of them that think it's OK to have a $350 battery for a 8 minute flight because they are avoiding the oil mess. If you want a real good debate, start a thread claiming nitro is better than electic. Let me warn you, you'll have quite a few quick responses on that one. Personally I enjoy electric (small models), 2C and 4C powered planes.
Phillip

Mr. Hoffa likes to read labels. I read labels too but {cough BS} and the Chevy Silverado is "Like a rock" and the commercial shows {hack horse ****} them piling rocks in the back to some balladeer singing the same song.... yet it hauls groceries and model airplanes....On the otherhand the old saying goes "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..it must be a duck. My Funtana looks like an Extra 300 in wolfs (0r sheeps?) clothing...and it has a Supertiger 45 on it and flies like a bat out of hell. I don't give a flying **** if it hovers or not! Soooooooooooooooooooooooo Mr. Hoffa..there ya go

9757,
So, would you say that you don't like 3D flying? He He He! As to your Silverado analogy, if it's purpose to "haul groceries and model airplanes" there would be much better choices, mainly because of fuel economy.

For those that do want to fly the Funtana as intended, here's a good article from Horizon on how to 3D the X50/S40:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Articles...ID=1231&Page=1
Phillip