Hi folks, back into RC after a 10 year hiatus. I picked up a 77" Goldberg Extra 330 ARF and want to tryout some 3D flying. I prefer 4-cycle engines. However the engine types the advertisers seem to be recommending for what seems to me to be all of the 25% ARF models similar this one, is either the 1.60 2-cycle at about 3.6 HP or a gas engine in the 4 HP range. Are there any 4-cycle options and would the 4-cycle option you may have in mind support a smoke system to potentially be added to the model later on......thanks

dave in Maryland

saito 220.....gonna be hard on fuel ( to perform you will want 25% nitro i would say cool power 25% heli. 28.99$ a gallon 105$ per case; 4 gallons. ) but a 220 will be much better performance than a gas engine in this size. Gas engines don't perform well for 3d untill 50cc. They are great for flying scale, sport, or that kind of plane but for 3d performance they just dont have the power to weight ratio that you want for 3d. i would say either a 180 or 220 but if your gonna do it do it right and get the 220.

just my 2 cents. see what other people say to and take all options into consideration. i recently flew a funtana x 100 with a zenoah 20cc gas engine. it was an awesome plane but 3d performance would not be spectacular.

Stephen, thanks for the tip, have you seen the NEW O.S. 200 Surpass? I wonder if that would be a good choice? Comments?

dave in Maryland

Os 200 Surpass .................................................. ..........Satio FA-220a


Displacement: 1.98 cu in ..............................................2.20 cu in

Bore: 1.5 in................................................ ................1.49 in

Stroke: 1.13 in................................................ ............1.26 in

RPM Range: 1,800 - 10,000...........................................1 ,900- 10,000

Claimed Output: 2.9 ps @ 9000RPM.................................3.5 HP ( horse power )

Weight: 30.68 oz................................................ .........42 oz

Crankshaft Thread: 5/16—24........................................... ...M8 x 1.25mm

PRICE $$$559.99 PRICE $$$559.99

These are the specifications for both motors. Os and saito both ar very good brands, there is no difference in quality that i am aware of. for every 100 people who say saito is better there is another 100 people saying os is better so it's really personal preference. both motors are the same price.

I would probably ( by looking at the specs ) go with the os. it is 12 ounces lighter which is a big difference, and both engines will spin up to a 20 x 8 prop at the same rpm . But in the end i would probably chose the saito. horizon hobby is very good to deal with. if you have any problems they will fix it, and in pretty good time. I had an 82 which i was having trouble with so i sent it to them and they replaced the bearings in it and sent it back free of charge, warranty replacement. i do not know what tower hobbies is like, but i am sure they are also good. i just don't have any experience dealing with them.

the only os four stroke ive had was a little os 20 [8D] which was awesome and never had problems with it and saitos are good to. both are good choice.

Wow, thanks a ton, that was a great response. Also, thanks for your input on the gas engine, I have never operated a gas engine so I would have had no idea about the point you made regarding a minimum of 50cc before you get good verticle performance. I would have just assumed that since a 4.3 gas was recommened that it would have provided top performance. I know my real world experiance in the case of a 1.2 4-cycle YS/AC that I once possesed taught me that the 4-cycle swings a prop with more pitch than a 2-cycle and that is critical for vertical performance. Like my father used to say, you have to watch for what people "don't" tell you and because these manufaturers need sales I think they have a tendancy to leave out a few things in their descriptions of performance.

thanks again!

dave in MD

no problem man. the pitch of a prop has something to do with how far the plane moves forward with each rotation and with a smaller prop you need mor pitch for the engine to run the same rpm. like a 9 x 9 inch prop on a gms 47 with rpm of over 18,000 will be very very fast. by putting a longer prob with less pitch like a 12 x 4 the plane will have more control at low speeds because more air going over the control surfaces than a 9 x 9 at low speed. being in control at low speeds is good for 3d. low, slow and in control. the longer prop you get the more air will be over your control surfaces at low speeds but to get a longer prop you need to drop some pitch or the engine will not spool up. i have a ys110 and i run a 16 x 6. it is a bit faster than i like so i may change to a 17 x 4wide. which will make it fly slower and tourquier ( not real word but with more torque anyway ).

Stehpen, what size fuel tank are we talking about with one of these big 4-cycles like the 200 or the 220 mentioned above and how long of a run time? I like to have a minimum of 20 minutes

dave in MD.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with Stephen on the idea that gas engines aren't good for 3D until you get to the 50cc range. That used to be the case, but nowadays there are many 36-40cc gas engines that perform very well in 3D applications. They are getting lighter and more powerful as competition increases in the small gas engine market. Companies like Brillelli and BCMA are making a big impact with their lightweight, purpose-built airplane engines.

I have a Goldberg Extra 330 like yours and I put a BCMA SPE 40cc in it after many unsuccessful attempts at getting a Supertigre G3250 to run well. The 40cc pulled it out of a hover with authority after it was broken-in, (about 2-3 gallons of airtime). Hovering was no problem at all, and taking off straight up while doing aileron rolls would continue as far as I could see the plane.

I think that the Saito 220 would be a great match as well, but the BCMA weighs only 9 oz. more with ignition, etc. and you can carry a lot less fuel to make up for some of the weight gain. And, the fuel is a lot cheaper.

-Pat

wow...thanks for the insight. i have been going by mostly other peoples word on that and a few poeple with experience. i guess i wasnt considering the 36-40cc range and more of the 20cc-26cc range for a 90 size plane which i have heard are heavy for the power they put out. i have flown a members funtana 100 with zenoah 20...great plane but not the punch it needs....i guess its more that there might not be a good gas engine for a 90 sized 3d plane and i wasn't taking into consideration the planes between 90 size and 50cc ( which i know there are a bunch it was just a bit neglectful ) thank you for mentioning this because i did not by any means want to steer him in the wrong direction.

my opinion still stands about a saito 220 being better tho for this sized plane.

Hey Stephen, stick to your guns my friend. =) Your opinion and mine put together give him the best insight into what he may want to do. Either way, I think he'll be happy with the outcome, and hearing from both of us helps him the most. I don't think you were being neglectful in the least, just sharing your experience, which is the responsible way to post.

My 40cc pulled that Extra around really well, but not until after it was broken-in. Gas engines take a little longer to break-in than glow engines I've found, but the power increase is also more dramatic. The nice thing about the break-in period with a gasser is that you just fly it for the best break-in. I'm wondering if the Saito 220 may be overkill, but then again it could be a heckuva lot of fun. =)

I agree that a 20cc on a 90 size Funtana would be good for sport flying but not for 3D at all. I have a H9 Showtime 4D, (90 size) with a BCMA 26cc and it does great in hovers. Sure, it's a heavier engine, but I mounted a tray for the Rx battery in the back of the fuse and ended up with a great flying plane. It pulls out with plenty of punch for me. In fact, my best hovering to date has been a 2 foot hover in a cross wind with the ST/26cc combo. That plane actually ends up pretty light, so the 26 handles it well. A lot of the performance depends on the particular gas engine you go with. The Evolution, BCMA, Brillelli, and a handful of others are light enough and powerful enough for a 3D application, but the Zenoahs are notoriously heavier and expensive to boot. However, they are very reliable and long-lasting.

-Pat

i also have a showtiem with a ys 110.....great plane

Great advise all of you. Some of you may have seen this thread (see link below) where an CG Extra 330 owner bought a Brison gas engine and literally pulled his hair out for weeks trying to get it to run properly. He ended up sending it back and they sent aother out and that is where I stopped reading the thread.

Thats one thing that scares me, that I get a gas engine and there are issues left and right with regard to getting it to run properly. I think because the 2 or 3 brands of 4-cycles have been around forever, they would be less likely to have run issues than the countless choices out there for gas engines. I don't have to tell any of you that flying these things from a ground perspective is hard enogh without adding powerplant problems to the mix.

One thing I do like about gas as was pointed out is its much cheaper than fuel per gallon, that is something that is very alluring that will keep me considering a gas engine.

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3132667/anchors_3132667/mpage_1/key_goldberg%252Cextra%252C330/anchor/tm.htm#3132667]Goldberg Extra 330[/link]

dave in MD