I'm having a big dilema and maybe you can help. Let me explain.....

Do you remember that review you did on the Seagull Edge 540? http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/a...article_id=706 I cant decide what engine to put in the one I'm building and I need to know by monday to order it. You used a Saito 100 engine and mentioned it had plenty of power,but a 110 or 120 would also work nice and have even more power. My first plan was to go with a Saito 100 or 125(couldnt decide which one). Now I'm considering going 2-stroke becuase this will likely be one of the first planes I'm going to be flying when it starts to warm up again,but it will still be alittle cold for a 4-stroke and I think I would be more comfortable with a 2 stroke then. And most of my upcoming builds will be 4 strokers,so its good to have a couple 2 strokes too even though I had my mind set on a 4 for this plane. Now I'm not sure what I want to do. If I do decide to 2 stroke it....I cant decide what 2 stroke either! I figured an O.S. .91 would be good,but I really like the O.S. 1.20 AX's. I like their size,rpm range,and the carb setup better then the FX's. But would a 1.20 2 stroke be overkill for the Seagull? Its got to be O.S. no matter what.

I'll tell you about my flying skills and what I plan to do with the plane,then maybe you can recommend something for me [8D] I still a fairly new pilot. I've been flying a Big stick .60,61" Sukhoi-31,and a Hanger 9 P-51 with a 1.20 4 stroke. I dont do any 3D yet at all. I mainly just fly around doing loops and rolls and occasionally fly upside down for a few seconds and stuff. I generally dont get too crazy because my most arobatic plane (the sukhoi) has bad engine problems when trying this stuff. So with my new Edge,I want something thats ABOVE ALL got a super reliable engine that wont give me any fits or issues so I can concentrate on practicing flying. But I want the engine to have enough power to practice hooving,knife edges etc. but not too much overkill as to give me other flying issues that a newer pilot like myself doesnt need(like my P-51 has). I just want to be able fly the heck out of this plane and worry about it as little as possible to allow me to concentrate on flying.

So with ALL that said......what engine would you or any of you other guys recommend for me? Thanks!

Considering all of your parameters, I would go with an OS 91 Surpass.

It will have plenty of power to do all you want. As far as cold weather goes, this is really a non-issue. 4-strokes work as well as 2-strokes when it's cold. In fact, they work better in the cold than when it's hot and humid.

My only reservation would be that the OS 91 would be marginal for 3-D, but since you don't want to do any 3-D, it seems to me like the perfect choice.

Plus the fact that you will have an outstanding 4-stroke for later projects down the road!

If I may suggest an OS 1.20 AX. I have three of them and they DO perform, fit in the footprint of the 90 sized engines and have much more power, easy to start, and run great. And, the price is right.

Two of them are on pattern planes, Excelleron 90 and Veuns II, and the other is on a Goldberg Tiger 120. I prop all of them with an APC 15-10, get about 9800 - 10,000 RPM on a good day.

I had an Evo 100 on the Excelleron 90 but had nothing but problems with it. So, I switched over to the OS 1.20 AX and my problems went away. All the planes have pretty much unlimited vertical and will knife edge with the best of them. Break-in was simple. Three tanks on the ground, first one very rich to the point of spitting oil out fairly heavily and sounding like a four stroke.. ran it at full throttle for about two minutes followed by about 30 seconds of idle and back to full, through the tanks. By the time the third tank was done, it was running sweet and pulled those planes along perfectly.

Each one starts up on the first or second flip when cold and starts up with a slap on the prop in the reverse direction on the first try. Sweet engine.

CGr.

Would the .91 surpass be enough once I get into some basic 3d stuff? My goal with this plane is to use it as a learning platform to not only make my flying better,but to learn some basic 3D stuff. And hopefully the plane will last long enough to get to that point and I'll need the motor to keep up,but like I said...I dont want to overkill it to the point it has bad flying charactoristics. And if I go 4 stroke,I'd really did to try a Saito,but if its 2 stroke I want O.S. Sorry if I just sounded like I repeated myself,just want to clearify that. [8D]

Jester,
One of the biggest problems with the 3D planes on the market today is the way they are
marketed. They call planes in this size range 60-90 size, with that size engine the plane will
fly and do alot of basic aerobatics. Once the pilot goes 3D with the plane the engine requirements
increase. in the majority of the planes this size 67-70 inch wingspan and 8-9 lb weight. the three
most reccomended engines are the OS 1.20 AX, YS 110 FS, Saito 1.25 FS. these engines provide
enough thrust to weight ratio to perform a wide array of 3D maneuvers.

A rule of thumb is that on a good 3d setup the plane should settle into a hover at 1/2 throttle or a
bit more. This gives the pilot room to punch out when in trouble. But with all this power throttle control
becomes very important, as with the huge control surfaces on a 3D plane the possibility of flutter
at higher speeds becomes a real threat to the airframe.

Also basic 3D and all out 3d are the same beast and the requirements are all the same. the more power
you have for learning 3D the better.

I like the Saito 1.00s They are light and have good power and are very dependable . I have 2 of them and never have had a deadstick so far.
Just watched the video of this plane with the Saito 1.00 in it. Looks like what your looking for.

I have that video icon right on my desktop and have watched it about 100 times,lol. It does seems to fly pretty darn well with the 100. Minn mentioning that a bigger engine might make up for some of the weight he had to add to the front for balancing,plus the added power might be ok is what was really making my decision harder.

Now if I do decide to go 2 stroke,I have to try to figure out what size 2 stroke would compare to those 4 strokes. I'm usually a very decisive person too....thats the bad part!

Well, Jester, you are certainly not lacking for suggestions from all of us. I'm sure that no matter what you choose, you will be happy. Stick with the good brands, OS, Saito, and so on, and you can't go wrong.

CGr.

As you can see in the video, it will do some good 3-D stuff with the Saito 100. It will probably perform as well with the 91 Surpass, but for hovering it would be marginal at best with either engine

An OS 120 or Saito 125 would be better choices, Or a YS 110 (which would allow you to move the tank back to the CG if you so desired.

As far as 2-strokes go, my conscience will not allow me to recommend one.

PS, here's an interesting piece of trivia... After that video was shot, I removed the canopy to discover that I never installed the Rx antenna. It was just laying in the bottom of the radio compartment like a rat's nest. [X(]

To be honest , I can not recommend any 2 stroke bigger than a .47 , thats all I`ve used as far as 2 strokes. I do have a ST .90 in a new 4* yet to be flown and am starting a CG Sukhoi .90 with a ST G 2300 .
I would think an O.S .75 would pull it pretty comparable to the Saito 1.00 A lot depends on how the plane is set up and how much it weighs .

I did`nt notice that Mike did the reveiw . lol It had the saito 1.00 in it and he never flys Saitos , or so I thought. When I was over at his house this summer , I happen to see a few Saito setting on the self. He called them paper weights , or something like that. lol

Saitos are excellent engines, I just make fun of them (like the Ford/Chevy thing) and nowadays I only do that off the record, like when Robbie and I are together.

But I have realized that when I am on-line, people really do pay attention to what I say and sometimes take my joking seriously, so I try to curb it.

OS engines fit my personal flying style better, so that is what I prefer. Not because they are better, they just suit MY needs better.

And true, I have a Saito 100 and a Saito 150 sittin on the shelf. I also have an OS 91 Surpass and two 70 surpasses sitting on that same shelf, Nothing wrong with any of the engines, I just don't have anything to put them in.

I used that Saito 100 in the H-9 Miss America, and the Seagull Edge 540. I gave both of those planes away (Well, I sold the 540 and gave the Miss A to my dad) but if I had either one of them back, I wouldn't hesitate to stick one of those Saitos in them.

I was just cutting up with Mike . It is the chevy verses ford kidding around. Did`nt realize it might be taken the wrong way. Doh ! I have OS too and think they are great engines , along ST, GMS , Magnum , Asp , Moki , K&B , Hmm I guess I just about like them all. lol
Sry Mike , I can`t say I have`nt opened mouth and inserted foot before. I just try not to do it too often.

Shame on you... depriving those poor defenseless engines of a home...

Chop, Chop.... get to work!

I've seen Mike's engine shelf. It would make 99% of other flyers drool with all the engines he's got sitting around not doing anything!!!

Although, I'm not one to talk as I have a similar shelf here!!

Ken

Shame on you too... I don't know what the weather's like in Okie.. But I DO know, you know how to build airplanes... So.. um... You too... get to work!

At least say you're TRYING to find homes for your engines.

I don't have homes for my motors either.. But I'm working on it! (I hope I'll need a trailer by spring.)

Actually, we do find homes for those engines on the shelves but they are only temporary homes. I have those engines set aside for use on reviews. So the engine may get installed on a plane for a review, and them will come off and go right back on the shelf until it's needed again. Sometimes I prefer to use my engines for a review because I KNOW they are broke in and I KNOW that I can rely on them in flight. What's scary is trying to shoot video on a plane with a brand new engine that is just barely broken in!! [X(]

Ken

Yep, Like Ken said, those engines were removed from review planes, and destined to return to review planes. There's not one of them that I would give up!

As for building a home for them, sure, I know HOW - But who's going to find the TIME!!!!

Although I AM hoping to be building a new Ultra Sport 60 this winter. But between work, righting RCU Reviews, and directing another show that opens in February, Who knows when it will get finished!

And Robbie, don't feel bad, I've stuck my foot in my mouth a lot worse!!!!

I have been flying my Seagull Edge for a little over a year, and I am delighted with it. I have a Magnum 91 XLS turning a 15X6 prop. Take off at 1/2 throttle, full power gives vertical as long as you want, control response is excellent. The only major thing I did different from stock instructions was to place the servos at mid ship under the canopy instead of at the tail. Tail mounting required far too much nose weight to balance. I can readily recommend the Mag 91 2 stroke, however there are other 91's out there that will perform similarly. And at a much lesser cost than a comparable 4 stroke. Whatever you choose, I think you will like this plane.

Well....I'm definetly going to go with a 4-stroke. And I think I'm leaning toward the big Saito 125. My O.S. 120 4 in my Hanger 9 Miss America mustang is really a beast and I'm kinda worried the 125 might be alot for my Edge,but with Minn saying a 100 would be marginal at best for hovering.......I might be glad for the 125 later on once I get some practice with it. I'll just have to really focus on my throttle control. My mustang flies well at about 1/2 throttle,so this Edge should be pretty close to that with a 125. The mustang might weigh a tad more though.

My mustang seems to produce most of its power from idle to half throttle,so theres not a huge difference in power from half to full like there is from idle to half. I do believe its tuned fairly well too. Is this normal for 4 strokes? My 2 strokes have a much more linear power curve from idle to full,and I always wondered if this was normal?

Also....Minnflyer,you said you wouldnt have it in your conscience to recommend a 2 stroke. I'm just curious,but how come?

Thanks guys

2 strokes have a higher rpm range than 4 strokes. they develop their power band at a higher rpm.
4 stroke have lower rpms, and the power band is at a lower rpm than 2 strokes .
I think the biggest difference between the 2 , is 4 strokes are much cleaner Go with Minns recommendations , he is the one that would know.

What robbie (insanemoondogie) said

Plus, to me, there are a few planes that do better with a 2-stroke, but they are mainly planes built for speed.

4-strokes are more expensive, and heavier than 2-strokes, but aside from that, they have better throttle response throughout the RPM range.

And of course, they sound Sooooooooo good!

I agree with you on that one. They sound great, more like a real engine and less like a toy (IMO)

Austin