Rudolph Hart

Thanks barry that's what i do.It usually takes me a couple of flying weekends to get the needles where i'm happy.After that it's fill it up and fly every weekend no worries.

Jeffie i'll bet you a truckload of beer that your 45 is well tuned and your 62 is'nt

rcjunky67

hi fellas, I have a couple of questions I thought y;all might be able to help with. a couple of years ago , I bought my first saito engine, an FA150s.it was new and as best I could tell, had never been run. It's one beautiful engine. and runs like the bee's knee's. my first question is, how can I tell how old it is?. I can't even find a copyright date in any of the paperwork that was provided with it. It is painted all black with chrome valve cover's. the muffler is straight , about 3 1/2 - 4 inches long, and is the type with the built in inverted cone with the little holes all around it. and it has the choke and velocity stack on the carb. in the catalogues that came with it in the black and gold box, I notice there is no mention of the 1.80 size engine.

also the recommended prop sizes are shown as 14x6,14x8.15x4,15x8 and16x6? wich I find to be very conflicting with everything else I've read and been told about it.

current available information I find say'a 16x6 to 17x6n? what does the 'n' mean. I've ran this engine a while back on my test stand to break it in, it's going to go on a GP waco ymf5-d. and was using a 16x8 ma and apc props. its had about 2 gallons run through, idles real nice and the top end is right around 9200, 400 rich with the ma prop, and the apc prop was at 9800 400 rich.

just would like some idea how old this engine may actualy be. thanks

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

This is my 1.50S from about 1991, it was one of the very first 1.50's sold. It has no letter designation on the right mounting lug indicating a first run engine. The letter designation narrows it down some if yours has one.. A 16x8 or 18x6 is about as small as you want ot go.

Rudolph Hart

Hi junky the n normally refers to a narrow bladed prop so less load on the engine.All those props you mention are to small for the 150,example my 82 will nearly rip the prop tips with an apc sport pattern 14x6 which is nearly a narrow blade compared to a mas classic 14x6.That 150 sounds interesting can you post a pic ? if it's what i think it is don't give hobbsy your address.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

OF, I've got a truck too. Make that 2 truck loads of beer. I vote for Beck's.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I don't know how many years Saito made the 1.50 with the chrome rocker covers., they made some 1.20's that way too.

hsukaria

Wait, do we know that Australian beer is any good?

flyingagin

I had Swan lager draft when I was on liberty in Perth, Enjoyed it, but did not like the brand the locals preferred.
Many visits. Loved the place and people. US Navy
Not very much a bear drinker at ll. Preferred Rum, but got to watch that big time.

Shame I did not realize I could have hunted up some flyers then.

Ken

rcjunky67

hobbsy, were all of them the same then? or did they sell an unpainted version as well?

rcjunky67

hobbsy,yep, looks just like the one I've got.

rcjunky67

thanks OF, yeah, hence my confusion with the paperwork,seems more like what the range would be for 120 don't it? but the paperwork says its a 150s
I'll try to post some pic's on saturday. thanks

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

My 1.50 was early 1990's, no paint. It was one of the HC versions that CH sold shims for. It would throw props until I ran it on gas & it broke in. Runs fine now on glow @ 5% nitro Powermaster.

CR

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

That's interesting. When I bought my 1.50, the 1.20 was still being sold too. I figured some sellers still had the 1.20s in stock & were still clearing them out. Price was ~$20 different, AIR.

CR

rcjunky67

I'm in the process of a possible trade for another saito , the fella got it in a trade and want to trade me for a j3 kit that I have. so he sent the engine to me via fed x , i just got it today.I'm on my lunch break at work and cant compare it to the 150s that I've got at home just yet. the tag on the side is missing and it's used for sure. he sent it to me so I could check it out and run it before I send him my kit. stand up dude for sure. I'm just not sure it actually is a 150. seems bigger somehow. it does have the letter 'G' stamped on the right side lug. any way to measure anything externally to tell. when I first spoke with him about it he wasn't sure if it was a 150 or a 180. but since said he'd asked the fella he got it from ,and he said he thinks it's a 150

SrTelemaster150

You can measure the distance from the back plate to the cylinder base to identify which it is.

The FA-180 is .055" taller in that location.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I reset the timing on the 1.00 to 33 dbtc, much better result


15x6 ProZinger=rpm===9,600
14x7 ZOAR rpm=======9.850
Idle================1,450

hsukaria

amazing idle, that's good performance. no more diesel rattle? must be the high compression then.

smkrcflyer

So it sounds like if your converting a Saito to C&H Ignitions the glow version is better then the gas one, is this true? I'm thinking about building a BUSA 1/4 scale D7 and using a Saito 1.80.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Sorry HS, no, no more rattle and it now runs easy like the 1.50 does. I am going to order the good stuff from Adrian then I'll I'll know it's right.

SMK, I think you could find gasoline numbers in the Gas engine Forum. I may look also. Dan could probably rattle that right off the top of his head.

SrTelemaster150

Back when Saito published HP for the gas FG-gas engines, the typical output fell about 15% when compared to the GI (glow ignition) engines.

Case in point would be the 3.5HP rating for the FA-220 compared to 3.0HP for the FG-36 which is basically the same engine geometry. Saito soon stopped publishing output specs for the gas engines, I have never seen a Saito HP rating the FG-30.

When they started development on the gas multi-cylinder engines based on the 150 bore & stroke they adapted the larger bore of the FA-180 on the 150 based stroke. This increased displacement by about 14% to make up for the gas power deficite. The results were the FG-57T version of the (50cc) FA-300T & the FG-84R3 version of the (75cc) FA-450R3.

When I have converted Saito engines to CDI/glow fuel, I have usually observed about a 5-6% improvement in power output when the same fuel is used for both the GI & the CDI versions & the CDI version was tuned for optimum power. I have never experienced a power loss when converting. In addition, I have observed anywhere fron 22-70% improvements in fuel economy for the CDI/glow fuel conversions.

Single cylinder engines are usually in the 22-25% fuel economy improvement range but my FA-200Ti, while it didn't improve as far as power output, improved fuel economy by 70% when converted to CDI/glow fuel.

In theory, there is 27% more potential BTUs in methanol compared to gasoline WHEN THE HIGHER VOLUME OF METHANOL IS BURNED in the engine at the appropriate A/F ratio. Just picking numbers out if my head, the proper (safe) A/F ratio for gasoline for maximum power is about 13.8:1. Methanol is about 7:1. That means that 2 X the amount of methanol Can be burned in an engine at a given volume of air intake.

If you extrapolate the 15% loss for gasoline compared to GI cited above X the 6% improvement of CDI/glow fuel compared to GI, you get about a 22% power advantage for CDI/glow fuel over a full gas conversion.

Further mechanical tuning such as increasing compression to take advantage of the higher relative octane of methanol will yield even greater gains.

If we extrapolate the probable power output if an FG-30 as 2.4 HP & compare it to the 3.9 HP output I achieved W/a high compression FA-180 burning 30% nitro there would be over a 60% gain in power output. This is for 2 engines that share exactly the geometry & cam specifications. The only difference was compression, induction improvements & fuel.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

May be we should measure instead of extrapolate. Could you get your friend to take off a few thou from the bottom of the jug? Not enough to mess up the valves.

CR

Rudolph Hart

That's a good point huk! but i don't reckon you've got anything to worry about i'm gonna be drinkin your becks friend ....jeffie any news on the 62 ?

Ken glad you liked perth when you were here.Was the local beer you refer to 'emu export' (they should have exported it all,like the mexicans do with corona) WOOF! is that on the nose.

Dave is the weather over your way still good enough to ride ? spent the day up in the hills dodging bushchooks (emu's) and cyclists.

SrTelemaster150

If you have followed my posts you would know that I have already "measured" & have established how much can be taken off the compression height W/O major work on the pistons for valve clearance. Do a search.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1754616

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769449

Taking material off the jug is the hard way. Much easier to take it off the case.

flyingagin

O.F. I when I got back after deployment I bought some of the beer I had in OZ. I spit it out out. the stuff ya exported was no where near what ya drank. Maybe it was pd in before export?

I did not have to buy myself bear or food over their. in fact it was almost impossible. Ya took care of me, infact almost insisted. I found the same thing in Isreal. Would give my eye tooth to return to both and fly with ya. Smell some castor burned by Saitos.

There I mentioned Saito's in the post.

Ken

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

It sure is, I'll ride it tomorrow, I'm getting some things ready for winter, I got the emergency Generator out yesterday and ran it for an hour and a half. Mostly so I can put 5 gallons of new gasoline in it and some Stabil. It's a 6500 watt Troy Bilt. I have been known to ride when it's 40 outside.

I did that while I was working on the Saito 1.00 timing in my mind, sort of overlapping..The timing bracket I made is not very confidence inspiring so I'll get the kit from Adrian and do it up right.