Welcome to Club SAITO !
03-19-2024, 04:47 AM
Correct
Please do not omit the fillet.
Also, if you intend to fit a spinner you can provide for the needed screw at front.
Please do not omit the fillet.
Also, if you intend to fit a spinner you can provide for the needed screw at front.
Last edited by Jesse Open; 03-19-2024 at 04:50 AM.
03-19-2024, 03:23 PM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Springfield LakesQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-19-2024, 05:34 PM
Yes but,
A radiused fillet would be a good bit better than a chamfer. A chamfer on the mating washer to just clear the fillet as well. You want to avoid creating a pressure ring between the corner of the washer and the radius.
A radiused fillet would be a good bit better than a chamfer. A chamfer on the mating washer to just clear the fillet as well. You want to avoid creating a pressure ring between the corner of the washer and the radius.
03-20-2024, 02:52 AM
Pencil and paper? A quick and easy way to communicate machining needs for simple parts.
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
Last edited by Glowgeek; 03-20-2024 at 03:15 AM.
03-20-2024, 04:04 AM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Springfield LakesQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Glowgeek;12796810]Pencil and paper? A quick and easy way to communicate machining needs for simple parts.
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
[/QUOTE
Yeah I can fall back on pencils and paper, buy maybe able to do the undercut.
What function does the undercut and fillet do in this design?
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
[/QUOTE
Yeah I can fall back on pencils and paper, buy maybe able to do the undercut.
What function does the undercut and fillet do in this design?
03-20-2024, 04:10 AM
[QUOTE=rorrock;12796814]
The fillet or undercut reduces the stress risers formed at two adjacent surfaces when placed under tension. You just don't want a square inside corner there as it will eventually crack.
Pencil and paper? A quick and easy way to communicate machining needs for simple parts.
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
[/QUOTE
Yeah I can fall back on pencils and paper, buy maybe able to do the undercut.
What function does the undercut and fillet do in this design?
That said, you need the fillet on the inside edge, at the junction of the spigot OD and nut face. Either that or an undercut, the latter which would eliminate the need to countersink or chamfer the prop washer ID. Which to use would depend on the spigot wall thickness after tapping.
[/QUOTE
Yeah I can fall back on pencils and paper, buy maybe able to do the undercut.
What function does the undercut and fillet do in this design?
03-20-2024, 04:51 AM
I did not mention an undercut here for a reason. This is not the same situation as a solid shaft. Since we are working against a hollow, internally threaded part with limited wall thicknesss.
Those internal threads create their own stress risers.Chamfer on the washer is a simple task
A fillet is easily formed and the tool is virtually the same as used for an undercut.
I could be wrong, decide for yourself.
Those internal threads create their own stress risers.Chamfer on the washer is a simple task
A fillet is easily formed and the tool is virtually the same as used for an undercut.
I could be wrong, decide for yourself.
Last edited by Jesse Open; 03-20-2024 at 04:59 AM.
03-20-2024, 04:54 AM
I did not mention an undercut here for a reason. Since we are working against a hollow, internally threaded part with limited wall thicknesss.
Those internal threads create their own stress risers.Chamfer on the washer is a simple task
I could be wrong, decide for yourself.
Those internal threads create their own stress risers.Chamfer on the washer is a simple task
I could be wrong, decide for yourself.
03-20-2024, 03:15 PM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Springfield LakesQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the advice gents, been of a massive help.
Dropping in the 7mmx1 tap and drawings today to the mens shed.
Going with the chamfer as discussed due to the limited thickness of the spigot wall.
Dropping in the 7mmx1 tap and drawings today to the mens shed.
Going with the chamfer as discussed due to the limited thickness of the spigot wall.
03-23-2024, 07:02 AM
Expert advise needed
Here is the deal I am at the point I need to choose an engine for a project the airplane is a Carl Goldberg Tiger 2 specs are 60.5" WS 50.5" long with a weight of 5.5 to 6.5 lbs. and engine recommendation of a .40 - .55 2 cycle. I have a beautiful .50 GK I would love to put into this thing but would it be too under powered to fly properly. I don't hot dog or 3D but I don't want to slow the airplane too much.
03-24-2024, 03:02 AM
Disclaimer: I'm no expert on the CG Tiger 2.
As the Tiger 2 is touted as low wing aerobatic trainer, not specifically designed as a lazy Sunday flyer, I would use my SOP and add engine weight until it CG'd without lead. Due to the long tail moment and specified weight range I'm guessing that would require a Saito 62/72/82 up front?
That said, a Saito FA-50 would fly it based solely on weight and wing area.
As the Tiger 2 is touted as low wing aerobatic trainer, not specifically designed as a lazy Sunday flyer, I would use my SOP and add engine weight until it CG'd without lead. Due to the long tail moment and specified weight range I'm guessing that would require a Saito 62/72/82 up front?
That said, a Saito FA-50 would fly it based solely on weight and wing area.
03-24-2024, 05:21 AM
Nice numbers on the 50! Thanks for the comments Glowgeek I may need to reconsider and use something else. If I had a .72 I think I would use it instead.
03-24-2024, 06:59 PM
My Feedback: (1)
I flew with a guy that had the larger T2, 71 inch'er. with a 91 4st Magnum in it, it flew very well, so I agree. 72, or 82.
btw, that Manim never gave the guy a problem.
btw, that Manim never gave the guy a problem.
03-25-2024, 04:46 AM
Consider that this plane is designed as an aerobatic trainer. Flat bottom wing aside, it is a lot like the Eagle 63 but with a low wing. Also, very similar to the Sig Four Star 40. I have a lot of time on both planes, powered by Saito FA-50 and both capable of very spirited flying. I did add a bit of tail weight on the FA-50 powered Eagle 63, even though it is configured as a taildragger. Still have that plane, a favorite.
I had three Four Star 40 over the last 25 years. The first had a FA-50, the second a YS 53, the third went back to a Saito FA-50.
Give thought as well to the tank space. Odds are an 8 ouncer may be about it. I like long flights, the 72 and 82 can take a lot less time to drain that 8 oz. Prop clearance and vibration levels are more favorable with the smaller engine as well.
Trainers have a lot going for them. Those small engines often have rewards of their own.
I had three Four Star 40 over the last 25 years. The first had a FA-50, the second a YS 53, the third went back to a Saito FA-50.
Give thought as well to the tank space. Odds are an 8 ouncer may be about it. I like long flights, the 72 and 82 can take a lot less time to drain that 8 oz. Prop clearance and vibration levels are more favorable with the smaller engine as well.
Trainers have a lot going for them. Those small engines often have rewards of their own.
Last edited by Jesse Open; 03-25-2024 at 05:05 AM.
03-25-2024, 07:25 PM
Good luck, that Tiger 2 is a very fine plane. IIRC, designef by Dave Patrick. From what I was told, When Carl Goldberg passed away Dave Patrick really tried to buy the kit part of the Carl Golberg Co. Could have bern a great move. Sadly it went to GP instead.
All Goldberg kits are in demand by collectors. The Tiger 2 is on a lot of lists.
Have fun.
Please, not pink!
All Goldberg kits are in demand by collectors. The Tiger 2 is on a lot of lists.
Have fun.
Please, not pink!
03-28-2024, 02:43 AM
Senior Member
That is the 62 on which I adapted an FG11 cylinder making it a 66. Sometimes you just have to do things to see if you can. As I remember it, that increased to bore to 27mm.
03-28-2024, 04:28 AM
Should fly strong with that setup, Dave.
My LT40 had a worn out Fox 40 2N on it when I got it. Wouldn't keep a tune so I put an OS 46AX on it. Flew OK but I wanted bigger, rounder loops and hoped for longer knife edge passes so I installed a tower tuned muffler on it. That put some giddyup in'r.
Was going to mount up a used Saito 62 on her soon, had it all tore down, cleaned up and new bearings on the way but didn't get the chance to install it on the LT40. Sadly, a radio problem re-kitted the darling. The same radio re-kitted my next plane on maiden as well. Doh!!
I tore apart the radio (72 Mhz JR 8103) and snooped around in there. Found that an SMT resistor on the antenna output had lifted off of one pad. Resoldered it and flew with that radio for a couple more years. With that fault the radio would range check perfectly but would not deliver a higher power output with the antenna raised. Doh!!
A little off topic there. Anyways, if I recall correctly your frankensaito 66 hp is similar to a 72. Should be a hoot to fly.
My LT40 had a worn out Fox 40 2N on it when I got it. Wouldn't keep a tune so I put an OS 46AX on it. Flew OK but I wanted bigger, rounder loops and hoped for longer knife edge passes so I installed a tower tuned muffler on it. That put some giddyup in'r.
Was going to mount up a used Saito 62 on her soon, had it all tore down, cleaned up and new bearings on the way but didn't get the chance to install it on the LT40. Sadly, a radio problem re-kitted the darling. The same radio re-kitted my next plane on maiden as well. Doh!!
I tore apart the radio (72 Mhz JR 8103) and snooped around in there. Found that an SMT resistor on the antenna output had lifted off of one pad. Resoldered it and flew with that radio for a couple more years. With that fault the radio would range check perfectly but would not deliver a higher power output with the antenna raised. Doh!!
A little off topic there. Anyways, if I recall correctly your frankensaito 66 hp is similar to a 72. Should be a hoot to fly.