happypappy

My Feedback: (10)

Installed an OS .46AX and found that this engine has wayyyyy more than enough power for the airplane. With this engine the plane balanced perfectly. Installed a Bisson Pitts muffler as the AX muffler is too wide to install in the fuse cut-out. Only have two flight on it so far but am waiting to see what I can do with it. The plane is definitely a performer. Typical Cub-like beast in ground handling and it definitely wants to snap if you lift off before the plane wants to fly. Once in the air it is incredibly nimble and, until you are used to it, recommend low rates as the control surfaces are extremely effective. No way would I consider a gyro as some have done. This is definitely a fun plane and hope to enjoy it for a long time to come! My H9 J3 Cub is going to get a rest for awhile.

RCVFR

My Feedback: (7)

Its nice to see some one who has figured out how to take off this plane without the need to overpower it or use a gyro to compensate for lack of flying skills. Thanks for posting.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Ditto, I love this plane and I found no need to do anything fancy to make it fly great.

happypappy

My Feedback: (10)

Thanks for the kind comments! I read literally everything I could about this plane in this forum and R/C Groups and found that most people have chosen to install larger, heavier engines....usually requiring even more weight in the tail to compensate and then saying its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I looked at the 46AX and saw 1.65hp @ 13.2oz vs the OS .61FX at only 1.9hp and 19.4oz !! Thats alot of weight penalty for a minimal gain in horsepower. My choices were the .46AX @ 13.2oz or a .50FX at 1.8hp and 13.7oz. Those two engines made sense. I have a Slow poke 40 Sport that flies great with only .8hp and my 80" J3 was grossly overpowered with a .61 2-stroke and still is with a 70 Surpass II on it. The .46AX engine pulls hard and I believe it will more than do the job.

MinnFlyer

My Feedback: (4)

Did you read my review? I used an OS 70 Surpass. and it was fantastic.

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=415]Review[/link]

happypappy

My Feedback: (10)

Yes, I did and that was my initial consideration as far as engines go. Even went as far as buying a Thunder Tiger 54 4-stroke to put into my H9 80" Cub and use the OS 70 out of that plane in the Decathlon. Love the sound of a 4-stroke in the high wingers. Fact is that the 70 is 7oz heavier than the 46 is and the 46AX puts out great power for its wieght. I think that this plane responds well with a light engine. Would love to see another article with you using this engine as well. All I ever see these days are overpowered planes and you and I are about the only ones out here that stayed within the envelope! Think about it! Would love your impressions now that you have had more time with the plane and maybe another video as (in your video) you really didn't wring it out as I know you can!

solo2guy

Uh-oh the gyro boys are certain to light a fire for that one, I feel the same way though. I have one of these planes aswell and I love the way it looks in the air just 100% different from allmost everything at the field, I only had one instence were the plane got weird on take-off but it was like driving a car when you over compensate for a corection so I reduced the throw on the rudder and hadn't looked silly in a long time.


I have a OS70fs in mine, enjoy

happypappy

My Feedback: (10)

OHHHHH NOOOOO ....... not the gyro boys! Hey, if they want to fly gyros thats cool ...I guess.
Am going to put the plane in the air again tomorrow morning as I have the day off. Will see if I can control the ground antics and enjoy the time in the air. Agree wholeheartedly that this plane as well as my J3 are great looking planes in the air, even kept the struts on as well if for nothing more than the whistle they make as they pass by...kinda like the real ones. I haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces yet and am probably not as good at doing that as most are but I sure have fun at it. Let's see what tomorrow brings!

wiz310

As with the real things, I have found that less rudder action on take off and ground roll, is a good thing. very small movments and just keep a feel of it and it all goes easy. over control and it can get silly looking.
I just smoothly power up and steer with rudder, little bit of forward elevator to lift the tail and check and hold it, let the aircraft fly off the ground by itself when its ready. works for all my taildraggers and works for all the real ones I fly.

sigrun

I'm not ordinarily an adherent to the "fit the largest capacity engine which will physically fit" mentality, but in the case of Seagull's Decathlon, there's rational justification for consideration of fitment of an engine capacity larger than as recommended on the box art.

No argument with your personal preference for a powerplant for this model if you're happy with it, but, [sm=sunsmiley.gif] ..isn't there always a but....whilst the AX "will do the job" with arguably realistic or scale like performance, Seagull's Decathlon is a 7½ to 8lb model at ZFW, and even with that big wing, to say of the AX it will "more than do the job" is, inarguably, extending to hyperbole.

Secondly, you're probably already aware, but comforting as those specs might be in presenting validating argument, we all know they aren't representative of real world performance any more than the minsucule hp figures provided for four strokes are. Well most of us do. ie: Were it so, then a 40LA rated at 1.0ps produces almost equal 'power' to an FS-70S II (1.1ps), but at under half the weight (power to weight ratio) not to mention at a fraction of the price. By your rational that should make it an obvious superior choice as a pretty close to perfect fitment seeing how good a job Magnum's FS-70 does, which is slightly less powerful (than the OS FS-70S II) in the real world. Now by any stretch of the imagination, non-one sane would seriously consider a 40LA anywhere near the performance equivalent of either of those two engines or a wise marriage with Seagull's Decathlon, yet the specs offer that impression. "Big lies, little lies and statistics", the latter of which can be manipulated to be the former.

I point this out merely for balance for those who might be easily seduced by your own 'enthusiasm'.

Of course, one must acknowledge the extra weight of larger two stroke engine such as a .61 over a .46. But in reality, a .61 such as a .61 FX fitted with a Pitts style muffler is no heavier than your typical average sports 4 four stroke 70, eg: OS FS-70S II or Magnum equivalent. Bottom line is, the .61FX et al whilst increasing the wing loading, but which that ample wing can accomodate as can be seen from the fitment of FS-70's, offers a much more usable power curve and real world power to weight ratio in this heavy model for R/C sport flying. Powerful though the .46AX is in class, even at an 'let's be generous' 7½lb, AUW (dry), its vertical performance would be considered lacklustre by conventionl R/C standards.

As for the real thing. The Decathlons would have to be one of the easiest taildragers in existence to fly or in terms of ground handling, with their only 'watchout' being wheelies for the uninitiated due to their lightish elevator control and tip clearance when establishing positve initial contact.

Regardless of chosen powerplant, I wholeheartedly do agree with your fly the model off the ground in a controlled manner departure rather than the too commonly tragic "apply full throttle and rotate it skywards" 'techique'. I believe you already understand the reasons why.

cmoulder

Obviously, I agree!

No argument at all with those who want to fly in a more scale manner with the .46 2-strokes or .70 4-strokes, but the OS .61FX really brings it to life when the throttle stick goes forward, yet is light enough of an engine that the model remains very light on the wing. A GREAT combination, lots of fun to fly!

Even with the additon of a little smoke system, with the .61FX the AUW is 7 lb 12.2 oz.