Fuji BT 43 E in great PlanesAeromaster
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: N. Charleston,
SC
A flying buddy of mine uses a G62 in his Aeromaster with great results. Another has a US 40 that flies like a dog. I'd go with a larger Fugi engine if I were you. The price difference between the 43 and 63 isn't that much

ORIGINAL: Spinner2
Has anyone used this engine in their Giant Aeromaster?
Has anyone used this engine in their Giant Aeromaster?
#3
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Clifton Park,
NY
Thanks for the suggestion, but isn't a 63 a little overkill. This size engine exceeds manufacturers specs.
#4
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: N. Charleston,
SC
Calls for up to 60CC engine. The Fugi 63 would not be over powered at all to me. My friend with the G62 is very happy with his. The friend with the 40CC engine is getting a G62. If you want it to be aerobatic at all I would go with the lager engine. It's going to be almost a 20 lb airplane by the time you get it done so you'll need all the power you can get.
ORIGINAL: Spinner2
Thanks for the suggestion, but isn't a 63 a little overkill. This size engine exceeds manufacturers specs.
Thanks for the suggestion, but isn't a 63 a little overkill. This size engine exceeds manufacturers specs.
#5
One of our club members has the GA kit with a G45. It is a 20 pound plane. It flies well but is definitely not overpowered. It will do pretty big loops but will not climb vertical forever. I guess it depends on what you want it to do. To fly the basic aerobatics that I know how to do, a G45 would be plenty.
The "benchmark" prop for the G45 is a 20x10 @ 7200 rpm. I do not know if the Fuji has similar power. Of course, there's always the argument that "too much" power really is "just enough."
The "benchmark" prop for the G45 is a 20x10 @ 7200 rpm. I do not know if the Fuji has similar power. Of course, there's always the argument that "too much" power really is "just enough."
#6

I have this combination and its under powered at my altitude (5300'). If I had to do it all over again I'd at least do a DA50. I'm not sure how you would get a G62 on the ARF without hacking up the cowl pretty good. But, the G62 would be a good option in terms of weight because I had to add six ounces of weight with the Fugi 43 to get to the recommended CG. Sure is a nice flying plane though. Thanks, Jerry.
#7
Senior Member
My Feedback: (2)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Perrysburg , OH
With the 43 the plane is powered very nicely. It will climb in knife edge and give you decent vertical lines. A 60 + in this plane may be over kill.
dave
dave
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Round Rock,
TX
ORIGINAL: Spinner2
Thanks Dave, I'm now satisfied with my choice of a 43.
Thanks Dave, I'm now satisfied with my choice of a 43.
You'll more than likely be very happy with it. Great Planes suggests it's the "perfrct combination" with the Giant Aeromaster.
I have an older kit built one with a US 41 and it's fine. It isn't a 3-D demon, but then again, the Aeromaster wasn't meant to be.
Here's a link to the GA page at Great Planes:
http://www.greatplanes.com/airplanes/gpma1225.html
BobbyG



