Four*60 engine question
04-20-2005 | 03:16 PM
#26
RE: Four*60 engine question
I have a os70-fsII on my 4*60 kit but haven't had good enough weather and time to test fly it yet.
Did some research and found that most people prefer a .91-fs, but that the .70-fs will do for normal sport flying.
I'm convinced the .70 will be perfect for me. I'm not into aerobatics and just enjoy zipping around.
I figure I'd go 1/2 throttle with the .91, so why not use the .70 and go 2/3 throttle? ... Well, time will tell, but theoretically I like this combination
Did some research and found that most people prefer a .91-fs, but that the .70-fs will do for normal sport flying.
I'm convinced the .70 will be perfect for me. I'm not into aerobatics and just enjoy zipping around.
I figure I'd go 1/2 throttle with the .91, so why not use the .70 and go 2/3 throttle? ... Well, time will tell, but theoretically I like this combination
04-20-2005 | 04:25 PM
#28
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Johns Creek,
GA
RE: Four*60 engine question
Wow...digging up an old thread....
I should think the plane would fly just fine with the .70...not a power house or a 3D monster, but it should fly fine...
I have run a Magnum .91 and a Saito 1.00 in mine... and it flies (well....Duh, but you know what I mean
).......
about the only time I need full throttle is when I am pulling out of a spastic hover (well gimme a break I'm still learning)
or when I need an endless upline......
but for basic flying around, the .70 would be fine....
the plane floats very well.... takes off quickly....
Worst case..fly it with the .70, enjoy it, but if you feel it isn't enough...put a bigger engine on later......
I should think the plane would fly just fine with the .70...not a power house or a 3D monster, but it should fly fine...
I have run a Magnum .91 and a Saito 1.00 in mine... and it flies (well....Duh, but you know what I mean
).......about the only time I need full throttle is when I am pulling out of a spastic hover (well gimme a break I'm still learning)
or when I need an endless upline......
but for basic flying around, the .70 would be fine....
the plane floats very well.... takes off quickly....
Worst case..fly it with the .70, enjoy it, but if you feel it isn't enough...put a bigger engine on later......
04-20-2005 | 04:38 PM
#29
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St. Petersburg,
FL
RE: Four*60 engine question
Thanks Ex- thats pretty much what I figured too. Its just a big wing for a .72 4-stroke, and my main concern is that it wouldn't be too marginal on power. I will eventually upgrade the engine. Will be nice to hear from Test on how his flies. The Magnum .91 sounds like a great match for this plane. Saito 100...wow. I've even read about people putting 120s in it...YIKES!
04-20-2005 | 05:16 PM
#30
RE: Four*60 engine question
From my (theoretical) point of view:
1. General sportflying, basic manouvers; .70 will be OK
2. For 3D flying, better/unlimited vertical performance; .91 is the choice
This question is as much "How do you fly?" than "What's the best engine for this plane?"
I'd classify my sessions as "General sportflying" and my needs, skills and lack of interest in aerobatics/3D doesn't call for excessive power, just enough to get off the ground and cruise around with the occasional loop, roll and fast-low-altitude fly-by.
For me buying a .91 and hardly use it over 60% would be a waste of $, while the .70 would be "boring" for the hardcore 3D pilot that need maximal *omphhh*
1. General sportflying, basic manouvers; .70 will be OK
2. For 3D flying, better/unlimited vertical performance; .91 is the choice
This question is as much "How do you fly?" than "What's the best engine for this plane?"
I'd classify my sessions as "General sportflying" and my needs, skills and lack of interest in aerobatics/3D doesn't call for excessive power, just enough to get off the ground and cruise around with the occasional loop, roll and fast-low-altitude fly-by.
For me buying a .91 and hardly use it over 60% would be a waste of $, while the .70 would be "boring" for the hardcore 3D pilot that need maximal *omphhh*
04-20-2005 | 08:37 PM
#31
Senior Member
My Feedback: (15)
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clermont,
FL
RE: Four*60 engine question
ORIGINAL: Test005
From my (theoretical) point of view:
1. General sportflying, basic manouvers; .70 will be OK
2. For 3D flying, better/unlimited vertical performance; .91 is the choice
This question is as much "How do you fly?" than "What's the best engine for this plane?"
I'd classify my sessions as "General sportflying" and my needs, skills and lack of interest in aerobatics/3D doesn't call for excessive power, just enough to get off the ground and cruise around with the occasional loop, roll and fast-low-altitude fly-by.
For me buying a .91 and hardly use it over 60% would be a waste of $, while the .70 would be "boring" for the hardcore 3D pilot that need maximal *omphhh*
From my (theoretical) point of view:
1. General sportflying, basic manouvers; .70 will be OK
2. For 3D flying, better/unlimited vertical performance; .91 is the choice
This question is as much "How do you fly?" than "What's the best engine for this plane?"
I'd classify my sessions as "General sportflying" and my needs, skills and lack of interest in aerobatics/3D doesn't call for excessive power, just enough to get off the ground and cruise around with the occasional loop, roll and fast-low-altitude fly-by.
For me buying a .91 and hardly use it over 60% would be a waste of $, while the .70 would be "boring" for the hardcore 3D pilot that need maximal *omphhh*
04-23-2005 | 09:59 AM
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Edwardsville,
IL
RE: Four*60 engine question
I have the saito 100 on mine and would reccommend it in a heart beat. it weighs less than the TT .91 and will hover the airplan pretty dog -gone good. unlimited vertical.
04-26-2005 | 05:34 PM
#33
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St. Petersburg,
FL
RE: Four*60 engine question
well, Ive decided to go with the Saito 72 since I have it, keep the build nice and light, and run 20% nitro and an APC prop. this should be the most this setup could possible offer, and if Im not happy with how it flies I'll upgrade to a .75 2-stroke or a .91 4-stroke.
-ron
ps. Test --- let us know how your 4-star flies! good luck with the maiden =)
-ron
ps. Test --- let us know how your 4-star flies! good luck with the maiden =)
05-30-2005 | 03:20 AM
#35
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Thomson,
IL
RE: Four*60 engine question
Hi all,
I just ordered a 4*60 and am having a tough time trying to decide on an engine. I've read this post and have noticed that not too much was said about 2 strokes. As I'm not familiar with 4 strokes I have kinda settled on a 2 stroke. Cannot decide between an OS .61FX or a Super Tiger .75. Any help would be appreciated. I don't do 3-D and I don't need a rocket, but I don't want a slug either. I need some guidance. Thanks.
I just ordered a 4*60 and am having a tough time trying to decide on an engine. I've read this post and have noticed that not too much was said about 2 strokes. As I'm not familiar with 4 strokes I have kinda settled on a 2 stroke. Cannot decide between an OS .61FX or a Super Tiger .75. Any help would be appreciated. I don't do 3-D and I don't need a rocket, but I don't want a slug either. I need some guidance. Thanks.
05-31-2005 | 12:48 AM
#36
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Denver, CO
RE: Four*60 engine question
I fly mine with a 91 fx 2 stroker. It is definitely not overpowered, plus you have the extra muscle when you need it. Personally, I wouldn't go with anything less than a 90 in it. Just my .02$
05-31-2005 | 02:10 PM
#37
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dunlap,
IL
RE: Four*60 engine question
I've got a Tower 60 in mine and it flies fine. It will do Basic IMAC aerobatics, but it is limited on vertical. If you are just looking for a good all-around flier, then the OS .61FX will be okay. The ST .75 will give you a little more power if you'd like. Personally, I like OS engines, but for the price, I'd probably get a Tower .75. I've had good results with their 60 size engines (I've got 2), and I have a 75 in the box waiting for a home.
Kerry
Kerry
05-31-2005 | 11:52 PM
#38
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Thomson,
IL
RE: Four*60 engine question
Thanks for the input guy's. I too have also had nothing but good luck with OS engines, had a bad experience with a Tower .46, not saying they are all bad, but the one I had gave me nothing but fits. Even after having almost a gallon of fuel through it. Call me stubborn, but I was determined to get it to run right. But it finally won, and I gave up on it. I could get it to idle good, had good transition, and good top end. But get it ten feet off the runway and it would start running like a piece of crap. But back to the subject, will stay with a 2 stroke and it will be an OS. Thanks again.
