Seagull Decathlon engine
#1
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: warwick,
RI
I just picked up this aircraft at my local hobby shop and looks like a very nice aircraft. On other posts they're saying aircraft is a little on the heavy side and the instructions call for a 40-46 two-stroke engine. I like vertical performance and I was thinking of going with a little bigger engine. I was thinking of the super Tiger 51 ring engine. If anyone else is flying this aircraft would appreciate some input. Thanks in advance
Sean
Sean
#2
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , AL
That is a great plane. I flew mine with an os .61 2 stroke. I liked it but it needed more so i went for the saito .84 four stroke. Works great. Flying with a 14*6 prop. A little fast on landing with that but i am going to try it with a 13/8 three blade this weekend. There is lots of information on that plane here.
#3
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: warwick,
RI
thanks mobile for replying, you said the OS 61 was okay but you wanted a little more. What did you mean by that?. How was your takeoff performance climb out and vertical performance with that engine?.
#4

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dunnunda, AUSTRALIA
c130j it all depends upon the performance you are seeking and your personal expectations. If you want to fly it around gently like a Cub on the wing, it'll fly with a .46.
OTOH if you want to fly it like a Decathlon, then it needs more grunt. It is very heavy for recommended class and big (boxey, draggy fuselage).
In a two stroke it needs a powerful .50 to fly it aerobatically like a real Decathlon or at least or .61 if you want to fly it with the sort of power more adventurously aerobatic R/C fliers will want to. The real Decathlon and Super Decathlon aren't particularly fast, nor do they have the enormous amount of excess power almost limitless vertical performance we expect and most fliers are dissatisfied without in R/C flight.
IME, whilst a fine enough engine if you can live with its MAG carb, powerwise the Super Tigre .51 ring is a .46 dressed up in to appear stronger. You'll need a very strong .50 class engine such as a Magnum .52, Irvine .53 to do justice to fitting other than a .46. You'd probably get by with an OS 50SX or Enya 50CX, but I'd consider those my personal minimums with this ship.
A .61 is a better choice and what I have gone for being a two stroke man. Just make sure those wing braces are secure and firewall well epoxied!
Otherwise, any current generation .70 fourstoke seems a popular choice.
OTOH if you want to fly it like a Decathlon, then it needs more grunt. It is very heavy for recommended class and big (boxey, draggy fuselage).
In a two stroke it needs a powerful .50 to fly it aerobatically like a real Decathlon or at least or .61 if you want to fly it with the sort of power more adventurously aerobatic R/C fliers will want to. The real Decathlon and Super Decathlon aren't particularly fast, nor do they have the enormous amount of excess power almost limitless vertical performance we expect and most fliers are dissatisfied without in R/C flight.
IME, whilst a fine enough engine if you can live with its MAG carb, powerwise the Super Tigre .51 ring is a .46 dressed up in to appear stronger. You'll need a very strong .50 class engine such as a Magnum .52, Irvine .53 to do justice to fitting other than a .46. You'd probably get by with an OS 50SX or Enya 50CX, but I'd consider those my personal minimums with this ship.
A .61 is a better choice and what I have gone for being a two stroke man. Just make sure those wing braces are secure and firewall well epoxied!
Otherwise, any current generation .70 fourstoke seems a popular choice.



