ok, need a good inexpensive engine for the seagull models .60 300s. i am looking for a .61 and need advice from whoever knows about a good engine. i promise if you suggest an engine i will look into it. or if you have an engine laying around (.61) and are looking to sell it(please make it work first), leave me a post w/your email address or email me w/information about engine. must be running great, i don't really care if it isn't the cleanest(the cowl will hide it n e way). please let me know if you can help!!![][]

i would recommend a GMS 76 I have been running one all year and havent had any issues with the engine, it isnt the most powerfull but it will pull a 7 1/2 pound with autjhority

Getting into the .60 size airplanes cheap? That sort of sets off alarms. Anyhow, I don't have any personal experience with this engine but. . .

You could look at this MODEL ENGINE COMPANY OF AMERICA page to see the GMS .61 they offer for $86
If you take advantage of the $20 trade-in they offer it doesn't seem like you would have much to loose. Gee, a nice new sparkling .61 for $66? I might talk myself into it!
[link=http://www.mecoa.com/gms/index.htm]MECOA[/link]

ok, as far as the relatively inexpensiveness, this can come from n e one selling an engine! plus i'm poor n e way. lol

thank you for the site, sounds like a great deal. i don't want n e thing too big for right now. i'm just getting back into flying low wing again. next question will surely be a not-so-expensive .91 4 stroke with a proven track record. by the way, i was looking for a gms. i've heard some good things about the company and thought i could give it a try. thank you both for the advice, and if you will leave a couple good .91s i'll look into them for later use.(much later, just found a 33% laser i'm getting soon. $900 for engine/plane/6 servo system/new ignition. fully assembled, but minus the tx. sounds like a great deal, and the plane flies awesome!

ok, seen that site, i guess i didn't pay much attention to it the first time. as far as the trade in, that kinda iffy, but yes, that is a very good price. thank you so very much, i believe i have come to a decision on an engine.super stick, i'm not ignoring your advice, i'm just looking to putter around a little for now. if you know of a good 4 stroke that can haul ***** in a .61, please leave me a post. i'm not new at planes, but i've always purchased rtf's, mostly used coming with an engine so i didn't have to worry about engine selection.

nick, keep in touch, i think you might be helpful in the future!!

supertiger g90 139 from tower...

os 91 fx same size as the 61 but ALOT MORE POWER

I second the GMS .76....that's what I have in my Seagull Extra.....unlimited vertical. It's the same size as the .61, and slightly lighter. It will be a bit finicky until fully broken-in, but the power is amazing.

Funny this thread came back to life. I suspect the youngster that started it has gone on to other things. I recomended the GMS line to him to address "inexpensive." When he started talking 4-strokes, well...

Anyhow, about 6 months ago I too bought a Seagull (on sale, as a home for my .72 Saito, also on sale.) Unlimited vertical wasn't even on my mind when I bought it but after reading various posts regarding performance I got more and more excited about the possibilities additional power would me. Being sort of stuck with my engine choice the project just ended up on the back shelf gathering dust. I'm still stuck trying to decide whether to live with the .72 and enjoy the Seagull as a general sport flyer or take my own advice and get a GMS.

Nick, when I first got the Extra I figured it would be a nice scale, sport flyer, due to the smallish control surfaces......I went with the GMS .76 just because it was the same size as the .61 and had more power........when I flew the Extra, I quickly found out that the control surfaces are very deceiving!! The plane is WILD....it's not a full-out 3D plane, but it is extremely agile and the increased power really brings out the best in it.......the moral of the story is, go with the 2 stroke on this one.

OK Mike, sounds good to me. I'm curious how yours balanced with the GWS .76, and what size fuel tank is needed for at least a good 10 minutes of hard flying.

Mine balanced great....just some shifting of the battery and Rx got the CG right.....no additional weight needed.
Without modification, the tank compartment is TIGHT. I was able to squeeze a sullivan 10 or 12 ounce flex tank into it (can't remember exactly what size).....it was much better than the stock tank. From what I can tell, the GMS .76 really doesn't seem like that much of fuel hog.....plus the plane will do so much at half thottle, you won't be using full throttle much.

You should get 10 minutes from that engine on a 10 ounce tank, if you're not flying at full throttle.

Thanks again Mike[sm=thumbup.gif]

I installed a OS61 in my 300s with a pitts muffler and let me tell you it screams,I'm glad i didn't go any bigger on the engine its quite fast enough for me being my first low wing. HOLD ON!

How would a Saito 91 do in this plane?....Bill

Maybe someone has direct experience with this but I'm guessing the Saito .91 should work fine depending on what you're after. Various 61 size 2-stokes have been reported to need at least several ounces of nose-weight to balance, and typically outweigh the Saito .91 by several ounces to begin with. Glowplug (read above) dropped a GMS .76 in his and didn't need any additional nose-weight -and probably has a full 1 hp more than the .91 to play with. Seems he should get the sensible choice award hands down in my book. -I got hard headed, reversed my decision to buy a large 2-stroke and will be using my Saito 72 just to see if I can get away with it, and get certain dubious bragging rights. Also, I hate breaking in new engines. I'd rather spend the time it takes to properly break in a ringed engine like the GMS entertaining myself by re-doing the tail group, using pull-pull controls etc. to keep the overall weight down and to avoid adding nose-weight. -There go the ARF advantages right down the tubes. what the heck.

I know, thats what i'm dealing with now. I have a Hanger 9 AT-6 Texan I built with the Saito 91. I had to add 4oz of lead to the nose to get it to CG and now it flies like a dog...I am ready to sell it and get something more aerobatic, thus looking at the Extra 300 or Edge 540 (although the edge looks heavier to start with which I certainly don't need)...Bill

Well you sure can get into tough choices with four-strokes. For some reason 2-strokes tend to jump a lot in weight when going from .40 to .60 size and it makes the balancing equation trickier. If you're willing to do the homework, it seems like 40 size planes would be the best to stuff a .91 into. It would be a good question for the engine forum. I have personally witnessed a big success using a Saito 80 on a 40 size Ugly Stick (according to Horizon, the 91 weighs 20 grams less than the 80.)

So, the difference between the Seagull Extra 300 and Edge 540 is about a pound. How much difference would that make using my Saito 91 as far as aerobatic performance?...Bill

A guy at my field had the Edge 540......had a Saito 100 or .91 on it......he thought he had it balanced, (with additional weight), but after flying, it was noticably tail heavy.....so he zip-tied a pair of pliers to the firewall to add more weight......It was balanced better, but didn't have very good performance....I think it was just too heavy with all the weight. A guy that flies 33-40% scale aerobats flew it and said he thought the plane felt sluggish and heavy. My Extra must have been AT LEAST a pound lighter than his Edge.

Thanks, thats what I thought....I just ordered the Extra today....thats been the problem with my AT6-Texan....I had to add so much nose weight, its flies terrible. I am going to sell it before I crash it and get the Extra to have fun with...Bill

CHOPPER DUDE, When balancing this plane make sure you add the weight as far forward as possible and not to use the big boxy area near the landing gear i almost made that mistake and the plane weighed a ton i started removing the weight that was above the landing gear,and thats exactly what it was weight nothing more,I ca'ed the stick on weights to the front engine mounting area it was fine after that. I also added a 13x4 apc prop to help slow it down on landings

Thanks, I assume you are talking about my new plane, the extra 300, right?