Syssa Aircraft

No prob..

Just start it like a glow engine...except remember to flip on the ignition switch!

The choke is for people that wish to start it by flipping the prop with a stick or some other SAFE means manually.
After you run the SAP180HP for the first time of the day, you don't need to use the choke anymore.

Using the electric start has saved me quite a few props...they do get nicked after a while.

The choke can be servo activated or manually activated.

The choke does the same thing as putting your finger over the carb opening on a glow engine and turning the prop. If sucks fuel up rapidly to the carb when turning the prop over under choked condition (when it is covering the carb).

Hope that helps...

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

That is what I had to do as well. Something in that script is messing things up.

GSK

Can the Moderator do something about this problem please ?

Rcpilot

My Feedback: (78)

Script edited. I can see everything, but thats because I'm a mod.

Can you guys see everything now?

GSK

Yep all good ,though i now have to go back to the main page if i want to reply ,no worries ,thanks

soarrich

My Feedback: (98)

I know I've got a 42cc that won't trun those numbers. If this 30cc will WOW!

grant118

My Feedback: (26)

I was at the Nall and saw this plane fly on Saturday. Very impressive. It has a carb with an accel pump built in and you can see and hear the difference. This thing really spools up fast with no hesitation. It yanked the aeroworks plane around with NO problem. Impressive engine.

EdgewordMI

To ALL complaining about the price of this engine,

Have YOU spent two years doing R&D to bring this engine to market? I too am a small business owner, and I take pride that my company is often NOT the cheapest in town to provide our services. Those that want it the cheapest are obviously not the customers we strive to attract. Buy your chinese products, spend few dollars. Great idea!! Why you ask? When relations with China become strained and those products, along with every pair of shoes you have purchased, will no longer be obtainable. So with the money you save, you can NOW buy the American made products (which will increase in price and rightly so), with the money you have saved!! Is a broken chinese crank worth the price of that new 600.00 plus arf that was destroyed while in a hover? Knock off the whining. Buy quality if you truly understand it, if not buy cheap products and be happy. [>:]

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

These numbers sound great.....I've been struggling with what to put into my SIG Sun Dancer Bipe. I have a 3MM 53 CC TOC, but was thinking I might prefer something lighter but still with some good power. This may be just what I have been looking for. It would also enable me to sell the new 53CC since that would be my last 50CC application, which would offset the price for me. That would be a win-win for me.

But I'm not that familiar with the flying characteristics of the Sun Dancer Bipe yet (obviously!).... I'll have to do some research here in RCU tonight and see what they're using. Keep in mind, 3D is NOT my style, standard aerobatics with limited vertical and hammerhead stalls are my type of flying.

I wouldn't mind having smoke.

Any thoughts about this, Todd??

Thanks,

Jim

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

A follow-up post to my last one, here are the standard specs on the SIG Sun Dancer 50CC Bipe.

Wing span - 71.5 inches

Wing area - 1668 sq inches

Length - 66 inches

Flying weight 17-18 pounds

wing loading 23 ounces/sq foot.

Engine: 3.2 (50CC) to 4.2 (70CC)


Those are the specs. Knock a pound or two off, or maybe three, and it might change things. Obviously it won't have the B^lls to the walls power of a 50 or 70CC, but it has a ton of wing, so I'm weighing it out this way and that way. If it equals or can exceed the power of a 42CC then it appears it would do a fine job of flying the Sun Dancer around. It would certainly reduce the wing loading, which would in turn reduce the actual requirements due to reduced overall weight.

It sure has me scratching my head and thinking about it..... This might be what I've been looking for.

But just like when I sit around with my flying buddies, I'm interested in other opinions on this combination. Heck, that's half the reason we're in this hobby. Doing it alone would be boring!

Thanks

Jim

Jake Ruddy

My Feedback: (40)

Hey Todd,

Any thought of trying a Mejzlik 18x6 in the future?

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

Todd, I have a Mejzlik 18x6 and will be happy to send it to you, to run on your engine so that you can report the numbers here. You can send it back to me with my new engine, when it becomes available. You've got my email....just let me know.

Smacka

Hi Todd:
Very nice install (and very clean) on the J-3 Piper Cub. It looks to be 1/4 scale (??). I have a 20cc Zenoah in my Hangar 9 1/4 scale J-3 Piper Cub.

Can you offer advice on what a 30cc aircraft would be? For example, Aeroworks has a fairly good line of 35cc birds. Will your engine "underpower" these aircraft? Is your engine designed for 3D, Sport or Pattern...or can you apply it to all?

Not meaning to sound ignorant, it would be great to have a list of probable aircraft that would be a good "fit" for your gasser.

Thank you for any advice you can give on topic...oh...and I second the 18x6 Mejzlik Just love the CF props!

alpoman

RC11 and I have been talking about your new engine and it sure sounds good. The one thing I have not seen is any comment about is vibration. If you do not need to use a soft mount to protect radio gear and airframe from engine vibration that is a major cost savings. I am very excited about being able to buy a good American made pattern engine.

Take Care All

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

Yes, vibration is a very UNDERidentified problem in engines. I've got to admit, it's a crapshoot on the Chinese engines. You COULD get a perfect one....but then again....

That's an excellent point, Dave.

Jim

RCAddiction

My Feedback: (87)

For a 3D aerobat, a 72" plane along the lines of "120 sized" Edge, Extra, Yak would be perfect. There is an Aeroworks Yak this size that will come out around 11-11.5 lbs, like Todd's demo plane at Joe Nall. The 35cc AW Yak is 78" and heavier. It'd likely fly aerobatics ok on the 78" plane, but likely not have the same power one might like for 3D.

The engine, from a weight, power and performance standpoint is pretty much in the ballpark of a Saito 180. So, if you'd be happy with a Saito 180 in a plane, like a 1/4 scale cub, or 150-180 sized P51, or whatever, the SAP 180 should be a pretty good choice. You can prop the engine for the application, so a bit smaller prop diameter, with greater pitch (ie, a 17x8) for a warbird, 18x6 for Cub or 3D aerobat (or a 3D Cub!), and maybe a 16x10 or 17x10 for something fast.

Todd, please jump in and correct me as necessary!

Super08

My Feedback: (2)

I am thinking this engine would be a perfect match for the new Aeroworks Cessna 195 that will be coming out. I believe it is designed for the 26~34cc class.

planebuilder66

My Feedback: (8)

flaminheli,
Well, I see the mod has deleted my response to why it costs more than a china made engine, but the truth is chineese made products are cheaper to manufacture due to wages, this is NOT political or being RACIAL!!!! It's the truth! People don't get the fact that people can't survive in the USA on 5 cents an hour, I will plainly state that in my area I live, if I don't make at least 25 USD an hour, I can't afford to live. So I don't expect the engine manufacture in question to lower his margin to 5 cents an hour to be competitive. I also know that he is honest and will not send out junk engines that require work to get them running, so put your money where you want, I WILL be sending him my hard earned cash to buy one of these engines for my nosen citabria, I assume that only a few of you will read this before a mod will pull it for being racial, or political, but if it disappears, you know the mod has a vendeta against me. I posted nicely twice and bolth have been removed due to some kind of insult for compairing price and quality along with pay scales of forgien work. I guess the first admendment is pushed to the wayside in this fourm, nuff said, I'm done fighting someone who deletes anything that he finds slightly gray in the political or racial department. Which none of such has been written by me. Thanks, and sorry if I offended anyone except those who cannot give exact details to what was edited to explain my wrong doings.

Ray.

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

Nope. Not racial. Chinese in all references here has been nation of origin of products. And the comparisons here pretty much enhance the perspective on Todd's engines.

You have to have that contrast to truly show the level of quality. It's a fine line, but it's NOT politics. It's product comparisons. The most common competitor's products just happen to come from China. And unfortunately, labor is cheaper there.... which is a pivotal point and a pivotal part of the equation of WHY Todd's engines cost more being made in America.

But cheap labor or not, the numbers that Todd is showing here go farther than dollar-to-dollar comparisons. These are HUGE performance differences. I'm a motorhead, and I know what it takes to squeeze that much more out of an engine. Todd must be doing some great work here.

I'm looking foward to seeing what these engines do out there. There is only one thing I doubt about what I've heard. I doubt that regular gas will be what this engine likes to run best on. I'm going to guess it'll like mid-grade at the very least. Like I said, I'm a motorhead, and two-stroke performance requires some basic things. You can make it run stronger, but that makes it run hotter, and the simplest way to make it run just a bit cooler in that case is to simply use a better grade of gas. Motorhead mechanics 101.

zoomzooomzooooom!

Jim

GSK

Qoute:- but the truth is Chinese made products are cheaper to manufacture due to wages, this is NOT political or being RACIAL!!!! It's the truth!
-
I think that there is a bit more to it than that ,
To help their economy they subsidize their raw material, fuel etc
The main point is that we are placing our trust in the manufacturer to produce a qaulity product ,which we tend to do in an English speaking country like the States.
We know that anyone that has a problem will get a response in plain English ,
All the American companies/people that i have had dealings with have been very courteous and helpful,that goes a long way in this day and age.

wjvail

My Feedback: (3)

Alright... I think what is chaffing me and a few others is the assumption and insistence that "other" engines are "cheep Chinese junk". While I agree that the engine here is a "different" engine and is priced and being marketed as such, and while I also dislike the editing being done here by the moderate, I actually find it offensive some have assumed the Chinese can't produce this new .30 or that their engines are, in-fact, junk. Yes there are unquestionable differences in Government, wages and the expectations of the people producing the Chinese engines. That is beyond question. But what some have suggested is that the CRRC Pro .26 on my Stick took any less time to develop than the new engine here. The laws of physics don't change for the Asians and it takes just as much work for them to bring an engine to market as someone from California or Connecticut. Further, the CRRC is a FANTASTIC little engine! Is the CRRC Pro the same engine as this .30? Of course not. The developer of the engine is here and has told us it's not. One is less than 200 and the other is over 400. One has a cast case and the other billet. One is piston-ported and the other reed... and the list goes on. All of these differences lead to a different engine! I am very interested in the new engine but I also love my Asian engines.

This all feels like the the cheep " " cars some refused to buy in the '70s. "I'll only buy a Ford or Chevy and wouldn't be caught dead in a " " car". You are fooling yourself if you don't believe the Chinese couldn't produce this new engine or that the engines the Chinese produce now, aren't exactly the engines they choose to produce. The prejudgeses against the Japanese people in the .70's was wrong and dangerous for America. I see the same thing still happening here....

I hope we can find a way to promote the selling points of this new engine without beginning with the (wrong) assumption that the other engines are junk and require great mechanical knowledge to get them to run. Others following this thread may be fooled into thinking this is a correct assumption and be left with the belief they need to spend 400+ USD to go fly a mid sized airplane. I hope this new .30 finds a ready market and sells well to its intended customers. As I said, I'm interested too... but stop telling me my "other" engines are "junk" and stop insulting the Asian people. It's wrong and dangerous for America....

Words removed by moderator

Syssa Aircraft

Lee, you are right on..on the size of plane and performance...and that prop would be fantastic to try out...several modelers have asked me about that prop.
Texas...your plane will have about a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio...at that 17-18 pound weight.
It will fly it...but no accelerating out of a hover..

Syssa Aircraft

Super08 that would be a perfect match.

Texas...I know it gets hot where you are (100 plus)...but even in 93 degrees F with high humidity, 87 is fine...even under severe loading conditions with marginal cooling. I really took great care in designing the hemi combustion chamber, compression ratio, cooling fins, etc to balance power and reliability for long life. We have had zero detonation problems so far. Remember, higher quality fuels are not available everywhere...and I wanted to make sure that our engine will run well with no problems on 87.

93 octance was tested some time ago and we lost 100 rpm off the top. Other than that, there was no difference.

Using a higher octance gasoline, even in your typical modern automobile, is generally a waste of money. Higher octanes are designed to better resist pre-detonation, any condition that basically causes the charge or part of the charge to "fire" before it is supposed to to "fired" by the spark plug. I see most people putting 93 in their cars thinking they are doing their car a favor...or taking care of it. Unless you have a turbocharger or supercharger...or naturally aspirated engine that has high compression, you more than likely don't need any more than 87. Laugh...unless you really need 93 the only thing you are "taking care of" are the wallets of the gasoline companies...

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

First, you should calm down a little.

Second, nobody said they were junk. Certainly they COULD put out such an engine. The fact is, they haven't. That's a fact, not an insult. The Chinese have chosen their present path on product quality, and it's good enough for them. Like Todd's engines, they fill a gap in our market. They are commonly used, and so they are the typical model of comparison being used here.

I too have a CRRC engine, a 26CC on my Yak. It's a fine little gas engine, especially for what I paid for it. Will it last a long time? Long enough for me. But I'm aware of its limitations due to the metalurgy involved in the materials.

And third, you are trying to bring politics in here, a no-no according to the rules of RCU. Let it go, my friend. Our little thread here is not dangerous for America. I give you my word there is no international incident occuring here. Just some friendly banter, a little back-and-forth. It is important, especially to Todd, that you try to keep some focus here. He's trying hard to open a business and for him to do well against some pretty staggering odds he needs this thread to stay open and flowing.

I've already had my hand slapped by the Mod for getting a little too into this here, and rightly so. My focus was off.

We've all got our opinions on state of US and Chinese trade relations, but beyond a few relevent facts such as labor and productions costs it really has no place in this thread.

We're modelers, let's help the Mods by staying focused on Todd's new products. Take the other stuff somewhere else.

Jim

Syssa Aircraft

One thing I would just like to point out here...is that in our engine...there are no "off the shelf" components...not the piston, not the crankshaft, not the connecting rod, and especially not the crankcase. We even machine the reed cage out of a solid 6000 series aluminum bar. Also, anyone familiar with the development process will tell you how much more intense it is to develop something completely from scratch rather than using off the shelf parts. Each component has to be tested to its limit. Material specs have to be determined for each part...and processes developed for making each part....it is quite intense. I tried to use off the shelf parts (of course, it made financial sense) a long time ago...and simply could not get what I wanted/envisioned without compromises. The original design over 2 years ago..was literally, completely scrapped