|
2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Hello all.
I am new to RC flying and I have bought a SIG Kadet LT-40 which is nearing completion (What a nice kit to build ;)) Anyway, I have 2 brand new engines, a Irvine .46 ABC MKIII 2 stroke, and a Super Custom SC52FS four stroke engine. I can't decide wich one to use, I am leaning towards using the four stroke, quite simply put, I just love the way they sound, and with all the mechanical parts and things sticking out just looks cool [8D] But I am not sure if it is a good idea. After reading endless threads here, it seems that running in and maintaining a fours stroke is a lot more difficult than a two stroke. And my engine experience is limited to plaing with a Cox .049 in a control line plane ... Should I endulge myself or should I go with the Irvine? Any opinions? Marcel |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
four strokes are not as hard to run as you think. they are just slightly different. valves need adjusting every so often but I usually wait till end of season. the 2 strokes are cheaper and more durable in a crash so for a beginner that is what I would use. this is only because the pushrod guides are a little more vulnerable to an impact. for awhile there I was president of the impact of the week club and was getting very good at disassembling and reassembling a 2 stroke engine. I beleive that trainers are meant to be abused and beat up in order to learn how to fly and that when you get proficient at flying them you can always change the engine if you arestill flying a trainer or you can use it on the low wing second aircraft. This is just my opinion though
|
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Never fall in love with your first airplane, how it looks or how it sounds. It has a very important mission to perform and that is to initiate your edcucation. Folks often become so engroused in how it looks or sounds that the important factors like good preparation CG and control setups for example are neglected to the point the airplane can no longer perform its important mission.
Do yourself a favor and use the two stroke for the reasons mentioned above and save the FS for a nice airplane down the line. John |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
I've got to agree on using the 2-stroke. Even experienced pilots find a 4-stroke a little more difficult to tune when they first start using them. They are not as easy to "tune by ear" as a 2-stroke is. I new pilot has enough to worry about without having to worry about trying to get his motor tuned right for flight. And as said above, they are not as crash resistant at a 2-stroke may be. A buddy of mine just planted his plane with a Saito 4-stroke on it in a tree, and a branch broke both valve pushrods and guides. It cost him close to $60 to get it repaired. Save the 4-stroke for you next plane.
Hope this helps Ken |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
I'm going to go against the grain here, and suggest you use the four stroke.
Why? Quite simply, because you want to. :) What those above have said is certainly true...your trainer aircraft is meant to be just that....a trainer. Yes, by definition, it's more likely to be banged up, since you're gaining valuable early experience with it. And yes, certainly, 4-stroke engines are more prone to damage when crashed, and more difficult to repair. None of that, however, changes the fact that, imo, your introduction to the hobby should be as much fun as it can be. If you're willing to accept the increased risk of more likely damage/more costly repair, then by all means, fly what you enjoy and build a trainer you think is cool. :) After all...the cooler it is, the more likely you are to stay with it and learn more on it. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
i'd say that since it is not question of which you buy, but which of those that you have should you use, i'd suggest the 2 stroke for all the reasons above. it makes no sense for you to use the 4 stroke when you have a more resilient 2 stroke lying around.
although i've seen a lot of four stroke trainers recently, i still think that a two stroke is better for the following additional reasons: 1. they are lighter - for the amount of power they produce, two strokes are lighter than their four stroke counterparts so less wing loading = better trainer or much more power. the 46 will be significantly more powerful than the 52 for about the same weight. the irvine is really about the power of a Saito 82. 2. they don't have as much torque - undoubtedly you will be aborting a lot of landings. the 4 strokes tend to torque the plane when you put the pedal to the metal. but then with the 52, it may not be that different. with a 82, you'll definitely see the difference. 3. slightly shorter props - well this might not be true with the 52. but with a power comparable 82, the props will be longer and more expensive 4. everyone and their mothers have run 2-strokes so you'll get a lot of support (wanted or not!) at the field. 4-strokes tend to be less understood. but as you can tell from my handle, i'm a four stroke addict and really am running only one two stroke engine. it is also the sound and the mechanical complexity of the four stroke that won me over. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
ORIGINAL: forestroke i'd say that since it is not question of which you buy, but which of those that you have should you use, i'd suggest the 2 stroke for all the reasons above. it makes no sense for you to use the 4 stroke when you have a more resilient 2 stroke lying around. although i've seen a lot of four stroke trainers recently, i still think that a two stroke is better for the following additional reasons: 1. they are lighter - for the amount of power they produce, two strokes are lighter than their four stroke counterparts so less wing loading = better trainer or much more power. the 46 will be significantly more powerful than the 52 for about the same weight. the irvine is really about the power of a Saito 82. 2. they don't have as much torque - undoubtedly you will be aborting a lot of landings. the 4 strokes tend to torque the plane when you put the pedal to the metal. but then with the 52, it may not be that different. with a 82, you'll definitely see the difference. 3. slightly shorter props - well this might not be true with the 52. but with a power comparable 82, the props will be longer and more expensive 4. everyone and their mothers have run 2-strokes so you'll get a lot of support (wanted or not!) at the field. 4-strokes tend to be less understood. but as you can tell from my handle, i'm a four stroke addict and really am running only one two stroke engine. it is also the sound and the mechanical complexity of the four stroke that won me over. I'm going to agree with forestroke and the other pro-2 stroke posts. Yes the 4 strokes sound great so instead of risking it, save it for your second airplane. As forestroke stated 4 strokes do tend to torque the plane and when learning how to land you definitely do not want that happening. I learned to land first by doing practice approaches, then learning how to abort a bad landing before I ever made a true landing attempt. The airplane rolling left at 4 ft off of the ground when going to full throttle is not a tendency you want in a trainer. Like forestroke, I don't know how much of a difference the 52 will be torque wise but he does make a lot of other valid comments. Power will be greatwe with a .46 two stroke, you won't be worrying about prop clearance and you'll get tons of help. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
ORIGINAL: Phuzzy ..............And my engine experience is limited to plaing with a Cox .049 in a control line plane ........ Marcel |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Hey Guys
Thanks for all your input! I suppose there will always be mixed feeling about this he he :D But I reckon I will stick that 2 stroke in there, learn how to fly the trainer and when I am an ace trainer pilot, stick that four stroke on a SIG 4* or something. Marcel |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Good decision.
DaveB |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
1 Attachment(s)
When you're ready to put that fourstroke into a plane, consider the WM Rambler 30, the vintage astro hog looks and the aural delight of the 52 is awesome. but master your trainer first!!!
|
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
A .46 will over power your trainer. You'll be running at low power all the time. Save that great .46 for a low wing, second plane like a 4*40. The .52 4-stroke will be perfect.
Someone out there needs to go weigh some 4-strokes. Mine are lighter than the same size 2-stroke. OS .91FX and Magnum .91XLS with muffler-26.5 oz. Magnum .91FS 22.5 oz, Saito .91 19.8 oz. If you are talking equivalent power in the .46 range, my .46 engines weigh in the 17.0-17.7 oz. My Saito .72 weighs 18.2 oz, but it is probably that little much more powerful than the .46. The .82 is even lighter. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
A .46 2-Stroke won't overpower your trainer:eek:
I learned on a Hobbico Superstar ( which i believe is a bit smaller than the Lt) and I had a .51 2 stroke on it.. My opinion is start with the 2-stroke... The convert your plane to tailgragger and put in the 4 banger.. then buy a second airplane for your 2 stroke!. I LOVE the bigger two strokes.. Owned 1 4 stroke.. Ran it a couple times and sold it! |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
ORIGINAL: Ed_Moorman A .46 will over power your trainer ---- If you are talking equivalent power in the .46 range, my .46 engines weigh in the 17.0-17.7 oz. My Saito .72 weighs 18.2 oz, but it is probably that little much more powerful than the .46. The .82 is even lighter. BTW, my TT .46 Pro's weigh 16.5 oz with muffler & can comfortably match a Saito .72 -- they can spin an APC 12-5 at 12,000+. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
More than necassary.. But not overpowered IMHO... There's a fine line there isnt there:D
|
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
All my weights include the muffler, muffler bolts, prop num, washer, whatever it came with and all on the same digital scale.
Saito .72 18.1 Magnum .52 17.7 OS .46AX 17.2 Evo .46 17.2 TT Pro .46 17.1 Tower .46 16.9 GMS .47 16.5 You may have some kind of fantastic Pro .46, but there ain't no way mine pulls a 13-6 prop like my Saito .72 |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Ed - you can't compare the same size displacement 2-strokes with their 4-stroke counterparts. a 91 2-stroke is significantly more powerful than a 91 4-stroke. but then you already knew that :-)
as for the 13x6, it's true that 4 strokes will spin stonking props. but then are RCV SP engines the brute of them all spinning 13x13 props? try that on your saito! different props work differently for different engines and different applications. but all elses equal, 2 strokes are just more powerful for the same displacement. anyway, i agree with ed in saying that the 52 4-stroke will definitely be enough for the trainer. so if you wants to go fourstroke, so be it. but i'd still recommend the 2-stroke. |
RE: 2 or 4 stroke engine in a trainer ?
Continuing in this vein --- Ed have you tried a TT .46 Pro with a 13-6 (I haven't)? It might be an interesting experiment. I don't have a 13-6 with an un-reamed shaft hole, so I can't try it. If you have a virginal (spare?) 13-6, why not put it on one of your TT's & see what it will turn? I'm guessing about 10,000 -- what does you Saito turn it at?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:42 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.