RVM

What would be the best in-line fuel filter to use with Saito engines? I've got a .91 with the Saito fuel filter on it, but that is kinda bulky. On my Saito 1.00 I'm running an Iron Bay regulator, so would like a good fuel filter for that. Any suggestions for the least restrictive, most effecitve for these motors and applications?

I've got a couple of the Bru-Line air filters - I want to keep the engines well protected.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

RVM:

I like the Saito fuel filters. Yes, they're bulky and relatively expensive, but when the filter can be seen from the outside there's nothing more impressive.

Now when I just want a fuel filter I get the Master Airscrew filters, they come in a pack of three for less than $2, and except for not being able to see inside them I think they do every bit as good a job as the $10 Saito filters. Put one in your muffler pressure line too - keeps some of the crap out of the tank.

Bill.

TimC

Sullivan makes a dandy:

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

--------------


The best kind is the kind that stays on the ground, attached to your fuel can. I've had more problems caused by filter problems in the air than I have ever had with debris clogging the carburetor during flight.

XJet

I've got to agree.

I have a filter on the clunk in my fuel can and another in the delivery tube.

My tanks *never* get any kind of contamination in them and I've never had any problems caused by blocked carbies or similar.

If you only fill up with filtered fuel then you don't need a filter on your plane -- and that means one less thing to go wrong.

RVM

What about the air filters? How restrictive are those? Any power loss from their use?

I have a Dubro "final" filter on my M4 fueling system that I keep on my jugs. I think the M4 has a built-in filter as well.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Maybe it's overkill, but I filter the fuel from the jug, and again from the tank into the engine. And as I said, there's a filter on the pressure line from the muffler to the tank.

RVM:

I've never lost enough power to notice from using an air filter. If there is any, to me it's more than made up in the lower fuel rate when I use one.

Bill.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


As it says in my signature, I've been flying models since the Fifties. Virtually all of those models have been powered by internal combustion engines. Most, by a vast majority, have been glow engines.

I have never lost an engine or damaged an engine due to F.O.D. (Foreign Objects Damage - USAF). This is not to say that someone, somewhere has not, but I'll take my chances with the open carb. Any air filter that would filter the air enough to make a significant difference in engine life, during normal service conditions, would be so large as to be impractical in use.

Front intake glow engines will also have a problem with the obstruction of cooling air through the cylinder fins. Rear intake engines are obviously better suited for air filter use, but again, the size of a really useful air filter precludes their use in most model airplanes.

This is just one man's opinion.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I will not say that I will never use a fuel filter in my airplane, nor will I never (already used both) use an air filter on my engines. Like most modelers, there are times when I want to load my models/engines up with accessories. You should have seen my first HB .40 PDP engine. Now HB knew how to make some accessories for an engine. <G>

Most of my flying years have leaned toward competition flying of one sort or another. Control line stunt, control line combat, rat racing, scale and then pattern and fun flying in R/C, so I have always been looking for an edge over the competition. While no one has heard of me because I was never a very active competitor, it affected how I thought about my models. Keep'em light and simple, was my motto. That approach has a lot going for it in competition and sport flying.

But, every once in a while I would break out of the pseudo-competition mode and I would go whole hog on a sport model by outfitting it with every doo-dad I could find. It was fun. I'm sure that I will do it again and again for the rest of my life. However, when it is time to get serious, the doo-dads stay at home.

XJet

I live in an area that is basically surrounded by many thousands of acres of pine forrest. Come spring, the air is so thick with pollen that it forms a yellow mist and piles up into little ripples (like sand dunes) on the ground.

Flying a model in this environment is a great recipe for a worn out piston/liner -- that's where an air filter comes in *real* handy :-)

You'd also be quite surprised at how much dust and other microscopic particles there are in the air as you get close to the ground.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

----------------------


We get something similar in pollen too, especially since the climate changed and warmed up on America's East Coast.

I'm the one that's always preaching to the newbies about running their engines up off of the ground during their normal short break-ins. Most model intended air filters will keep out June Bugs (huge flying beetles here) and pieces of gravel, but not much more.

IronCross

I run a fuel filter on my fuel can and between the fuel tank and engine.. Twice I had little peices of plastic plug up my carbs before I started using the filter on the plane.. Looked like little peices of the fuel tank... Different brand tanks both times.. I do flush my tanks out with old fuel before installing them... Real pain to unplug the carb at the field.. I use a GP fueler valve also which is locaated before the filter on my coweled planes... Recently the plunger in one of these was jammed up by a peice of what appeared to be flash from the fuel tank...

JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

Hi William,

I finally got my Saito 150 GK running GREAT My problem was as you said, to much fuel pressure.... Thanks for that bit of advice because it allowed me to solve my problem. The Perry VP-30 put out to much pressure for the engine to run no matter how far the adjustment screw was backed out. I put a T in the line going from the pump to the carb and just returned the excess fuel to the tank. The result is just about zero pressure on the carb and the engine runs rock solid stable run from Full to empty. Here is a diagram of what I did but minus the muffler pressure, and with a T fitting in line #2 venting to atmosphere since it is a 4 stroke engine. Muffler pressure is not needed and I just vented the tank line 1 to the atmosphere. Anyone thinking of using the Perry Pump, I would highly recommend this setup.

JettPilot

JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

One question for you William,

I have the Saito 56 GK which I have not used yet, but I look at the specs and I see that the Saito 82 is only 2 ounces heavier and puts out a lot more power. I am wondering if I should have gotten the 82... Horizon is very good about exchanges on unused merchandise, so its still not to late. I need a minimum of vibration and lots of fuel efficiency but the extra power would really be great, as the 56 will fly the plane im building for it, but it might be a bit weaker than I like. I figure the fuel will just about even out because the .82 could be run at a much lower power setting.

The downside is that I think that increasing the displacement and power that much with just adding 2 ounces to the engine has to result in a lot more vibration, which I dont want. What is your experience with vibration between the two engines ? I am not crazy about the plastic backplate either, is that going to cause me an o-ring problem in the 82 ?

Thanks,

JettPilot

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

JP:

Your pump plumbing is bang on. Good job.

If you want the smoothest of all Saito singles, get the FA-65. It is also the heaviest in relation to its cylinder displacement. This is why it’s the smoothest.

The FA-82, being very light for its cylinder size even though a couple ounces heavier, does have a lot higher dynamic vibration than the FA-56. mechanically, there’s not much difference. The FA-82 with its higher power naturally has higher torque peaks, this is the source of the dynamic vibration. At the same power level, again comparing the 82 to the 56, there’s no real difference. Even at full throttle the use of a semi-soft mount will minimize the effect on the plane.

“Semi-soft?” If you see an engine running on a Hyde or similar mount, you will see the engine shaking at low rpm. Other “Soft” mounts range to the point you can’t see, or feel, any movement. This is what I’m calling “Semi-soft.” The Du-Bro mounts are this sort, Sullivan has some a little softer. The J-Tec mounts are similar to the Sullivan. Take your pick.

Bill.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

JP:

Sorry, forgot to address the back plate issue. The FA-82 never had a problem, it was the FA-72 only. And that has been corrected. Since the 72 and 82 use the same back plate, the late style is also on the FA-82, making it that much stronger.

Bill.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-----------


Like you, most problems with debris in the fuel system that I have had also originated from the fuel tank. In my case, a nylon fiber from a Hayes fuel tank passed right through the Fox fuel filter that I was using. It would have passed through any filter using a mesh screen that was that coarse, not just the old (long ago) Fox fuel filter.

I have since switched to using a three line fueling system and a sintered bronze clunk. That has taken care of the fuel tank generated FOD. But you have to remember to fill the tank through the third line, or all is pointless. <G>

whaturi

hi guys. just got a 150 and fired it up tonight.. what a monster! i only have an elbow with pressure tap for muffler and it sounds evil! this is a new engine and i have a 16-6 apc on it. is this a good break-in prop? i have not run it up to full throttle yet. i want it for mainly 3d on a 9 pound plane.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I had crud in a remote needle valve that caused a 2 stroke to deadstick. I back flushed the nv and all was good. Trapped the stuff in a coffee filter. Lots of large fibrous looking stuff.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

JettPilot:

I reworked your picture, I'll use it in the future.

Hope you don't mind.

Bill.

JettPilot

My Feedback: (6)

Thats my setup exactly !!! Im glad you did it, im sure it will help some people in the future that want to use the VP 30 pump. As it does not require any muffler pressure, im sure it will be perfect for some people.

RVM

I asked this question elsewhere, but I guess here is a good place too.

I was thinking of using a Hyde Type "A" mount (probably what William would refer to as a "semi-soft" ) on my next CG Chipmunk build. I am wondering if this would prove beneficial over the mount supplied with the kit, which is super lightweight. The Hyde mount is a little heavier, but it doesn't require a nose ring. It is, however, $60 or so. I'm going to use a Saito 1.00 on this plane.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Whaturi:

For 3D you’ll probably be happier with an 18x6 prop on your FA-150.

RVM:

The lighter the airplane, the greater the benefit from using a soft mount of whatever stiffness. The heavier plane tends to absorb and damp the vibration, the lighter it is the more vibration is left to get to the control surfaces, servos, and the radio. Not to mention foaming the fuel.

On the other hand, the FA-100 is a fairly smooth engine, a Hyde mount might cost more than the benefit it would give you with this plane/engine combination.

My opinion? If the mount needs a nose ring to maintain the thrust line there’s nothing “Semi” about its softness.

Bill.

rustypep

My Feedback: (6)

Did they discontinue the Saito 65? I just went to look at the specs on Horizon's website and it is no longer listed. hmmm...

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Rusty:

Must have dropped it. I couldn't find it either. Still in the latest "Airtime" flyer, though.

Bill.