rjaym73

I have an old Saito 270, single carb, probably 10 years old. It hasn't been run in 5 years. It has good compression, seems to be in great shape. This is my first 4-stroke glow engine, and it was given to me with no manual or information, so I had a few questions. There is a fitting (fits fuel tubing) on the front of the crankcase, on the bottom side, what is this? Is 15% fuel with synthetic oil the proper fuel? I have been advised to install a glow system, what is best?

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

RJ:

That nipple below the cams is the crankcase vent. It should have a length of fuel tubing stuck on it and run out the bottom, it needs to be at least 4" long to keep the engine from sucking trash (dust) back up through the vent.

Some people prefer 20% nitro fuel, but I've had very good results using 15%. One place I differ with many though, is in the use of pure synthetic oils. The 18% is fine, but 3-4% of the fuel should be castor oil. Even Horizon/Saito recommend a castor blend, specifically suggesting Omega or Powermaster fuels for maximum engine life. My choice is Omega, but I'll admit it's because I have a good source for Morgan fuels.

If you have a supply of fuel with straight synthetic oil just go to your local food or drug store, USP castor oil is easy to find. Dump 2-4 ounces in each gallon you have, all is then fine.

Saito engines want to be slobbery wet with prime for a cold start, and they (for me) start best at about 1/4 throttle. Start with the HS needle 3 1/2 to 4 turns open, when the engine is running let it warm a bit, then go to full throttle and peak the HS needle, then richen it to get 300-400 rpm drop. Check the transition from idle, if you have to adjust the LS needle any amount recheck the HS. The LS needle (on the two needle carbs) has a large effect on the HS.

If yours isn't one of the last of the FA-270T engines it will have an air bleed carb. Saito AB carbs are different from most in that they incorporate a fuel regulator valve in addition to the needle valve, it sets the low and mid range mixture. The smaller carbs have no adjustment on this valve, the larger ones do. There's an index mark for the starting point. See pictures. Leave it on the index mark unless you can't get it running right with the use of the HS and air bleed adjustments. I'm not going to try explaining its adjustment (too long an operation) but usually it's fine at index.

HTH. At least a little.

Bill.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

RJ:

Sorry, missed one.

Using the OS "F" plugs, tuned properly, the engine should not have any need for on board glow. If you want to use it, the only thing hurt is the added weight on the airframe.

Bill.

rjaym73

Thanks for the information. I was told by my local hobby shop to use Cool Power fuel with synthetic lubricant, I was told that castor oil would gum up the bearings and valves. Personally I have always used extra castor oil in every engine I run, ball bearing or not, it makes a mess but the engines last longer. I didn't know you could use the castor oil you buy at the drugstore, I have always used castor oil made especially for model engines.

Thanks,

Jason

old-pilot

Bill R.

That is exactly what I need to know on adjusting the Saito 182T (dual air bleed carbs). My Raytek doesn't have the laser pointer like yours. As soon as our Ice Storm (Kansas City) here is over I am anxious to try your procedure. Never would have thought of the valve lash. I really appreciate the time you take to help us out.

I have never had a problem with the Saito 270 but it is nice to know about the brass adjuster for midrange that you mentioned to Jason; mine is still set at the index. Most of my flying uses the midrange.
Thanks again.


Roy C. AMA 5272 etc

maxiemac

Bill - I am interested in your theory of having the inlet and/or exhaust valves having less travel by opening the valve to tappet clearances. I presume this will allow less air/fuel mix into an already hot cylinder thus making it hotter. My theory is to give tight clearance to a hot cylinder allowing in more fuel and thus more cooling and more valve clearance to a wet cylinder thus allowing in less air/fuel mix or is there a back pressure in the inlet tubes issue here

Thanking in anticipation of your comments

Trevor - from the land 'downunder'

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Trevor:

Sorry I'm so long getting back on this one.

You have the right idea, but you're going the wrong way. The cylinder is hotter because it's working harder. By shortening the valve open duration (widening the valve lash) we lower the pumping efficiency. The cylinder gets less fuel/air mixture. Then the cylinder does less work, and cools off.

HTH.

Bill.

maxiemac

Hi Bill - thanks for your reply - your theory sounds ok and the reply timing is ok for me as I am competing at a scale event this Sunday 30th Jan. and will readjust my tappets to closer for the 'wet' cylinder and wider for the 'hot' cylinder and see how it goes - I'll let you know what happens!

best regards,[8D]

Trevor (from 'down under')

woodys3b

My Feedback: (13)

Gents,

Great thread here. I've learned a bunch. I just aquired a NIB Pilot Bucker Jungmann. This kit is 1/3.5 scale with an 83 inch wing span. This is such a beautiful kit that I am rethinking my engine choice. Was going to go with a gas engine but am now considering the OS 160 twin or Saito 180 twin as they should both fit in the cowl nicely. Do you think these engines have enough poop to haul this plane around in a scale like fashion?

Thanks
Andy

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Andy:

You may well find both the OS 160 and the Saito FA-180T a little anemic for a 1/3 scale plane.

Either should fly the plane, my opinion says the Saito would be the better of the two as it's a lot more powerful.

Have you considered the Saito FA-300T? Wouldn't go for the added expense/weight/complexity if the FA-300TTDP though.

An alternate that would really give you scale appearance and sound would be the OS FF-320 - it's a flat four cylinder, one of the very few OS engines I like. For whatever that's worth.

Bill.

woodys3b

My Feedback: (13)

Bill,

The 1.60 and 1.80 will just fit inside the cowl. Pretty sure the 3.00 would be too wide. Do you know how wide the 3.00 is? This kit was designed long ago for a 10cc-20cc glow engine. The plans show what I believe to be an old OS 120 twin but I'm not sure. The 320 four is just out of my price range.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

The Saito FA-300T is 233 mm wide, just a hair over 9 1/8" total. The narrowest Saito opposed twin is the FA-60T, it's a little more than 6 1/4" wide, the 180T is 195mm for comparison.

Bill.

skyjet1

I'm pretty new to this hobby and would like some advise on an airplane I found. I have found a Hanger 9 Cessna 182 ARF that is almost compleatly finished with servos and receiver installed. It has a Saito 182 twin installed on it. It is all new and has not been run yet. I'm not to comfortable with the twin cylinder engine due to my lack of tuning experience. I'm presently flying .46 and .61 glow and a Zanoha G-26. I'm pesently working on a plane the will have my first 4 stroke, a Saito 100. The price is $800. any comments will be greatly appreciated.

Bill Fleming

My Feedback: (35)

I have owned both OS twins and the small OS twin has been a joy to own. OS is quality!

sonsight

My Feedback: (1)

SkyJet,
I too have the very same setup as you, 17.5 pound H9 Cessna with the Saito 1.82. AND DOES THIS PACKAGE MOVE! So much so that I'm only at half throttle 95% of the time. But realize your going to be spending (breaking in this motor) about two gallons worth before she settles down, the more the better. I have yet to touch the idle mixture screws, even at our 9,500' altitude. Two years ago I set the high speed needles at 3 turns open, and that's where the have stayed to this day. The ONLY problem I had with this engine is that it will idle so low that you might have a problem getting it to stop! Just finesse the servo's EPA and you will be OK. By the way, do yourself a favor, and install a McDaniel remote plug driver, else how you gonna light the fires? Reliability? A+. It has yet to flame out on me, even with no heat on final. Vibration? Funny, I don't really notice much of it at all. Break her in SkyJet and have a blast flying her!
Jake in Colorado

canadagoose

My Feedback: (2)

I have a Magnum 160 twin and if i remember right it is able to turn a 18x6 Master Airscrew Classic@ 8300 rpm's. I would think that this it is more powerful than a 120 single 4C. It seemed to compare well with my Webra 120 Speed with that prop and the homemade muffler that i have on it. What does a Saito 150 single get with that prop? and the Saito 182 twin?

Rupurt

I have the asp160(same as magnum) I can't help thinking that maybe these engines usually end up on 1/4 scale cubs and are therefore seen as 1.20 4stroke single alternative, anyway mine runs well and is easier to start than a 120 single. Sounds cooler to

mar345

canadagoose,

Best my OS120 will do with a MA Classic 18-6 prop is 7400 rpm with 10% fuel. If you are getting 8300 rpm with the Magnum 160 twin I'd say that the twins like the larger diameter props better than the singles. Anybody else have any rpm data for 160 twins with 18 inch props ? The 160 twin might be a better choice for my H9 Super Cub than the 120 single.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

My Feedback: (1)

Japanese language is not from China, although Japanese have utilized Chinese
characters"Kanji" to develop Japanese language. Chinese characters is ideogram
that old Japanese had not.
China's irritation to Japan is caused by their belief that China should be dominant
over the world, especially in Asia.
The Communist Party is trying to look down on Japan with some fake history of
world war 2, educating the people using only one textbook authorized by the
Communint Party to make the people in China believe The Communist Party is
a legitimate government.
I don't know the old instruction manual, but I cann't beleive what you say.
Since we are not English speaking people, some japanese teacher might teach
incorrect English, but it is not intentional. My english might have incorrect word,
the same thing.
To say Japan in Japanese, we say Nippon or Nihon, but don't say "Nihan," "Nikkon," .
I can not understand what you say after, so many mistakes that I can't catch what
you intend to say.

Tsutomu Mabuchi

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Tsutomu Mabuchi:

I hold no brief for the communist government in Red China, I have not read any of the history books they have published since 1949 when the communist rape of the civil government was complete. However if you read any history books oublished anywhere in the rest of the world you can research "the Rape of Nanking" to get an idea of the way the Japanese treated other nations and races. As a later example, how do you treat the people of your northern island today? Second class citizens.

Classical Japanese writing is ALL ideographs, your language has lost the inflecftions that are a necessary part of Mandarin, but similarities are still there even though the more common writing now is "Katakana."

The character pair you pronounce "Nippon" is the Mandairn pair meaning "Sun" and "Birth." If you could see that far from Peking (Beijing) or even Pusan in Korea, then Japan would indeed be the "Land of the Rising Sun," or "Birth of the Sun." When you are in Tokyo, or anywhere in the Ryuku island chain the sun does not rise from beneath your feet, it comes up over the Pacific Ocean. That Chinese root sir, is the source of the name of your nation, and Chinese is the language from which yours has descended.

As a further note, these two ideographs (sun and birth) are romanized in the Wade-Giles system as "Jih-Pen" in Mandarin, and western usage has turned that into "Japan."

So, not only did the Japanese language come from Northern (Mandarin) Chinese, your nation's common name did also.

My qualifications for these statements? I lived in China in the 40s, on T'ai-Wan (Free China) in the 50s, and I majored in Asian languages at Yale University. Finished in 1958.

WLR.

Rupurt

I will try tach mine soon, Last time a I tached it was when it was running in, 8200rpm on a menz 16/6 it should be better now though. I am going to try an apc 17/6, the engine behaves nicely with this prop, pulls well and nice transition, unfortunately i haven't flown it yet but its promising.

V2PLUS10

Bill,

I 've been reading your comments on twins with interest. Great information. Do you happen to know if the OS 160 twin is the same physical size as the 120 twin? Is the 160 just a 120 bored a little or is it completely different from the 120? I have a project that the 160 might fit into but I'd like to test it first, and no one around here has a 160, but there is a 120 available that i could hold against the plans to test the fit. The model is a short-nosed biplane so weight is good, the cowl is very shallow so there is little room available between the front of the cowl and the firewall. I can recess the firewall to accept the mount but the cylinders must still fit between the cowl and firewall....does that make any sense?

Thanks,

Randy

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Randy:

Sorry, I've never played with the FT-120, so I'm not sure about the size comparison. The FT-160 is 4.72" from backplate to front of the drive washer, 7.72" wide, and 3.15" high. Crankshaft thread is 5/16-24. Whip out your tape measure and compare to the FT-120 in your hand.

I doubt there's a big difference, many of the parts interchange between the two engines.

Hope this helps.

Bill.

V2PLUS10

Thanks Bill,

The 120 is in a local hobby shop.....I found the online manual for the 160 but it does not list the dimensions I need. OS provides a pretty complete diagram of dimensions for the singles but I've not been able to find one for the twins. The measurement I really need is between the thrust washer face and the back of the cylinders. The engine must fit within this shallow cowl and still clear the cowl ring/fuselage uprights. The uprights can't be moved because they are where the front cabanes mount.......this is a very short -nosed biplane!

Randy

V2PLUS10

Jake,

I'm really interested in the 182T for a WWI type biplane. The OS 160 twin will fit , but i'm concerned about the power. I've found two values published for the distance from the thrust washer to the firewall on the 182T. One is 133mm and the other source lists 124mm. Is there any way you can accurately measure the distance from the firewall to the thrust washer, and also the distance from the firewall to the back of the cylinders? no one around here has a 182T so I cannot check it myself.

Do you know if the 182T can be mounted via the backplate directly to the firewall, or must the included mount be used? Or is the back plate and motor mount one in the same?

Thanks for your time,

Randy