carlosponti

My Feedback: (1)

what always amazes me is that a guy who has thirty years experience bases his knowledge on stuff done ten years ago. sure you have experience but really technology changes i assure you. they now have a 20cc engine people are putting in 60-120 sized planes. light and powerful. so still want to doubt it go ahead but some of us are not so willing to just ignore whats out there because there is someone who has more experience. i look at it like this i will take from the experienced guy until it conflicts with the change in the times. here is my problem with the experienced guys i was told that a saito 180 was too much that i needed a saito 120 until i did the math and realized the 180 is the same block as the 120 but a bigger bore. i look at the simple numbers. when a engine is 5 oz heavier than another but uses less fuel overall take off weight is less and landing weight is 5 oz heavier. i do know that this plane flies like crap when loaded to 12.5 pounds but if you can put a gas engine on it at or around 11.5 pounds you will do just fine. i did the math to see that and witnessed what others have done. i cant see how it keeps being said that the engines are too heavy. i was in the hobby store the other day and saw the Evo 26cc engine has a pitts muffler you can buy and the muffler was lighter than the plastic wrap it was packaged in.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Not very long ago (couple of months) I worked with another engineer overseas with exactly the same attitude when it came to flying. He was not a pilot nor did he have any specialized flying skills prior to this last endeavor. Whenever things would start going into the crapper with what we were flying he would proceed to tell me about the engineering principles involved with flight and how they should be applied to save the day. BTW, he's an electrical engineer. He never did figure out why the flight standards used in normal piloting would save a plane when applying all that engineering education would crash one.

Couldn't tell or teach him anything. He was an engineer and already knew it all. That has been a fairly common attitude possessed by just about every engineer that I have worked with, and there have been many indeed. Being just a lowly ex commercial pilot and flight instructor and having 35 plus years in aviation modeling I'm still open to new thoughts and methods that work. In not having a degree I believe a lot of people are actually smarter than those that do. Those that don't know they don't know it all. The others have convinced themselves they do.

As far as engines are concerned, install whatever you want. A lighter plane works better than a heavier one. The smaller, lighter engine will often provide better performance than the more powerful heavier one. I work with this and other semi related stuff every day, and watch the kids plant their highly wing loaded planes all the time at the flying fields. As for me, now I fly the bigger stuff and try to keep them as light as possible, and only lose one when I experience a structural failure by pushing the airframe too far or dumb thumb one into the ground.

3D Joy

OK, I will try to be a bit less sarcastic this time...

You bring on the subject the Evolution 26cc. Do you know the ignition module of this engine weights 5oz??? Add 3oz for battery, 1oz for switch and wiring, the bare engine weights a bit more than an OS 160 FX. All in all, the dry setup is at least 12oz heavier for the Evolution. That is a really conservative number as the Evolution has a HUGE carburetor, lots of steel parts, etc... In my book, the lightest gasser is still much heavier than the heaviest comparable glow engine.

Power is really just about the same. I have the OS and a friend has the Evolution. The OS 160 FX could easily fly on 16 oz tank and the Evolution on 12 oz tank or maybe a bit less. Not that much of a difference.

Every glow engine in this class weight about the same. OS, Saito, YS, Moki...

Also, please don't tell me I am 10 years behind, you don't even know me.

I have flown the Evolution on a H9 Extra 260. Not enough power but it proved me that it was possible to have a light plane with such a small gasser. Again, it barely hovered with no pull out at all. I am sure some have had success with this plane with an OS 160 FX, didnt see it though...

My OS 160 FX is in a 25% Cap 232 (scratch built) and at 11.5 lbs, it flies great. This is a plane that has very good power, relatively light; at least light enough to tell this plane really can 3D. I have a 20oz tank that is way too big as I make 20 minute flights with reserve. Last year, this plane flew at 12 lbs with a YS 140 DZ (more power) and the performance was still good but it is way better now!

NM_Mark

My Feedback: (8)

I'm not an engineer, not an expert (in any field, if you listen to my boss)...but I have my practical experience to back me up.

All I can add, is that I've had 2 of these planes...one heavy, and one not. I've flown these planes with a variety of motors:

Saito 180
OS 160
Zenoah G26
FPE 2.4

As you can see, I experiment a little. Out of all of these motors, the Saito 180 was the best of the bunch. And to add...the FPE was only 6 ounces heavier than the OS160...and those 6 ounces made a BIG difference in the way it flew. Even running a smaller fuel tank with the FPE since it was gas, I still could feel a difference...

What it boiled down to is the smile time...that's what I base my true impressions on. I had fun working on the planes...experimenting with this and that...what works and what doesn't.

The smile time simply flying the plane is thus...it just flew better with the Saito 180. The only thing I can base this on is the connection between my thumbs and the pleasure center in my brain...the Saito was the winner.

That's all i can say...Mark

carlosponti

My Feedback: (1)

i am sorry if i came off that way i wasnt saying you were ten years behind but those who go off of experience of ten years ago and havent tried some of the newer engines coming out cant say they have had the experience with the newer engines. So far the lightest gas engine is the BCMA SPE 26. with muffler and ignition it weighs 38 oz. compare that to the 37 - 38 ounces of the saito 180. how much is that engine mount for the saito as well. there are alot of factors both ways where weight is concerned.

3D Joy

[link=http://www.fpengines.com/html/24.htm]FPE 2.4[/link]

From FPE website, the FPE weights a whooping 52 oz including muffler and ignition. You still must add the battery, switch, etc... That computes to more than 1 lb more than an Saito 180 with muffler...

Those H9 planes were known to be a bit tail heavy. Did you have to use some nose weight to balance with the Saito and the OS??

Scott Ellingson

My Feedback: (146)

I have a buddy with this plane and he has a FPE 2.4 on it. It flies well and does not seem to land heavy at all. He is not into 3D so for him it is a great match. Flying style will have a lot to do with what works best and what doesn't.

3D Joy

Strainght from BCMA website
Not nearly as strong as any Saito 180. I think the OS 120 AX is close to that...

Sorry, still not enough for me .
No offense here.

wildchild45177

My Feedback: (11)

I was not trying to start a war. I just wanted to point out that as long as weight is within spec, and CG is within spec, gas is possible on a 1/4 scale plane with good results.

Bob

PS I do pay attention to experience, then compare it with what is now, and usually a mix of the two is best.

Yoder808

Hmm. I just read about the OS 1.60FX converted to diesel... Says it puts out as much power as a 3.2cu/in glow engine. That would be pretty sweet too, but I don't know much about running on diesel.

Yoder808

And the saito 220 weighs .5 oz less than a OS 1.60(including muffler)... Would a 220 be a good choice, or stick with the 180?

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

First, you're not really running on normal diesel fuel. It's a rather special blend that you either mix yourself or obtain as much as you can when you can because it is often difficult to find. The diesel r/c engines that I've seen run make a gawdawful mess with tremendous quantities of oil everywhere. It was so bad with at least one engine that we didn't want the owner to ground run it without a catch basin.

I'm clearly not a big fan of diesel r/c engines.

SKYPILOT

My Feedback: (9)

220 [sm=thumbup.gif]

Propwash-don

My Feedback: (37)

Boy that says a lot about the Hanger 9 CAP 232 (120 size), when we all spend all this time fighting about what's the right engine for it. I bet it's been out of production for more than five or six years now, easy. I'm the only one in my neck of the woods still flying one, and it still turns heads (just don't look to close).

Yoder808

I think its a real sweet plane, and I got it for only $50, (no gear, hardware, or instructions). But it will be my first "big plane", and I really like the way Caps fly(at least on the sim). Propwash-don, what servos do you run, and how's your elevator set up?

FlyguyXII

My Feedback: (2)

DA50 its the perfect match for the plane! Mine weighs 14Lbs empty with 5 8611A's and carbon fiber landing gear. UNLIMITED VERTICLE!!!! Its just awesome!

majortom-RCU

My Feedback: (40)

Flyguy's 14 pounder calculates to 31.5 oz/sq ft. That's on the heavy side, but also definitely flyable. I flew a quarter scale Sukhoi a couple seasons at that loading and had no problem with IMAC type maneuvers, which is all I was looking for. It did not have unlimited vertical (YS 1.20, comparable to Saito 1.50). If it had, I would have kept it. When I say no problem, I mean it didn't look heavy in the sky, didn't feel heavy in the sticks, had a nice glide at low throttle or even deadstick a couple times. No floater, but stable glide as long as you kept the nose below horizontal. Never an unintended snap, even when provoked. I'm sure it helped that I had taken care to balance laterally. So I say, if you can fly a heavily loaded plane and like gas, don't deprive yourself. If you're new to quarter scale and not adept at the finer points of balancing & setting up throws, be easy on yourself and stick with glow. Which I guess translates to: If you have to ask, the answer is glow. Saito 180 would be a good decision. 220 would not be too much, just keep your throttle under control.

FlyguyXII

My Feedback: (2)

She doesnt fly heavy she doesnt look heavy in the sky. and she will glide when you keep the nose low. And she lands like a babby easy three point every time. when you balance it at the recomended position she doesnt have any snaping tendecies on low rate but you hit high rate (which mine are set up for all you can get) she does get snappy just like any other plane that isnt ballanced for 3d move the cg back and she looses the snappiness. She flies the imac patern no problem just keep it light. When i was building mine i did alot of research and found that alot of the guys putting saito 180's in them were weighing around 14lbs

Propwash-don

My Feedback: (37)

Yoder808
You have to remember I have had this plane a long time and I just use it as a back up and bang around plane. I don't fly 3D (maybe someday). The manual calls for 4" of elevator throw for 3-D and 1 3/4 for High Rate (sport). I got the plane about 6 years ago at a flea market I set it up by the manual for low and fast rates and just about wet my self the first time out. I now use about 1 1/4" with 15% expoential. The elevator and rudder servos are hetic 605's, the ailerons are Airtronics 94322's, the rudder is a 94102 with a 9Z Trans. and Futaba PCM receiver.

rcramrod

the evo gasoline motors are junk..installed a cap 232...no hi rpm from these!!!

Neil123

My Feedback: (5)

OK Guys - Fast forward to August, 2019. I have a chance to pick up a H9 Cap 232 1/4 scale that has just been put together (built). What are your opinions of a Evolution 20 gasser in this airplane. Under or over powered or just right?