SrTelemaster150

Are you looking for something like this?



http://www.rcspecialties.net/product...del=RCS10x1/90

BTW: If you upload your PIX to here www.photobucket.com you can copy & paste a direct link to post a picture. That's what I did W/the image above.

Cougar429

My Feedback: (3)

Without a pic going to take a guess, but I use the one on the left for mine:

http://www.espritmodel.com/saito-rig...-adapters.aspx

The other two may be a better fit for your app.

the pope

I would be the last person to ask . Ive still got my 100 twin still sitting in a box . Everytime i see a plane or a plan thats suitable I end up changing my mind . If your into piper cubs that would be ok or maybe a space walker . I would never suggest anyone to bend over , Im a man of the cloth and you know too well we dont do that sort of thing a politician on the other hand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Cheers the pope

Rudolph Hart

Mate of mine just bought a 90 with the continental/lycoming? style heads for a rv4 motor glider.Would you believe it's dearer than the newer 100? and if you are looking at utube theres a guy there flying a 4meter something version with a fg57 engine.OOOOOOROOOOOO

SrTelemaster150

There's a very good reason for the FA 90Ts being more expensive than the FA 100T. There's also a very good reason to opt for the 90 over the 100 even though the 100 is cheaper & makes slightly more HP.

The FA 90Ts is a true opposed "boxer" twin


If you look closely you will notice that the cylinders are offset. This is due to the 2 journal crankshaft & the fact that the pistons travel "opposed". They are on TDC @ the same time & travel in oposite directions thus making for a perfectly balanaced rotating assembly & an even firing order.

The FA 100T only has 1 crank journal as evidenced by the non-offset cylinders.


The pistons of the 100T travel in the same direction resulting in a rotating assembly that is not naturally balanced & although the ctrank will have couterweights, it will never be as balanced as a "boxer" twin.

In addition, the FA 90Ts is an AAC engine while the FA 100T is an ABC engine. The brass cylinder liners in the 100 will add 97gr of weight to the engine. This wieght advantage for the 90Ts will make up for the small HP disadvantage & the smother running boxer configuration of the 90Ts will cause less wear & tear on the airframe as well as the engine itself.

I would probably pay the extra $100 & opt for the 90Ts myself.

It would be nice if Saito made a medium sized 200ish boxer twin. I have a 300 TTDP dual carb boxer twin & it is an awsome powerplant that runs silky smooth. There is such a large gap between the FA 90Ts & the 300 T

The FG 57 is based on the 300 (glow) twin W/ 180 pots on a shorter stroke to lower compression for the reduced octane of gasoline. They had to increase the displacement to compensate for the reduced HP output of gasoline over glow fuel.

I am running C&H spark ignition on my 300 TTDP W/15% Cool Power & turning a 22x10 prop @ 7000 RPM making 31# of static thrust & 5.4 HP.

I would be willing to bet that's considerably more than an FG 57 will put out.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Here is the crank, for the 90 twin and the 1.00, having owned the 1.00 twin and the 1.30 I can say they are every bit as smooth as the 90TS

Sorry, can't load pic.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

That gap is filled by radials.

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

SrTelemastter et al, thanks for the input on that right angle adapter. That looks like the way to go but I'll have to confirm that with some measurements first.

On another note, while at the field today I was flying my cub (sans cowl, because I had just installed that .56) and noticed that the vent line will be crushed by the cowl when I install it - and the cowl will probably become damaged in the area where it's pushing down on the vent fitting. You can see how this could happen in the attached photo.

Is it my imagination or did someone once mention that there was a right-angle fitting for the vent for Saito engines?

Thanks in advance,

Bob

radial1951

SrTelemaster150

A radial would look stupid on a 1/4 scale Cub while a 200 boxer twin would be awesome.

SrTelemaster150

Like this?


http://www.mhzusa.com/Nipple-Connect...5-m-1591-5.htm

SrTelemaster150

Back when I purchased the 300 TTDP all of the single carb 300 twins I saw were having trouble balancing @ idle. The dual carbs take a bit of fiddling, but one can dial them in for a slow reliable idle. I get 1100 RPM idle from mine & it is very smooth & consistant.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Well, they ain't in the range you are wishing for.

earlwb

They used to have a number of Cubs with radial engines on them years ago. the Piper J3-P comes to mind.
Someone had stated that they built 50 of them too.
So yes one could built s scale Cub and use a radial engine on it.
ref http://www.taildraggersinc.com/forum...read.php?p=123 and also http://www.oshkosh365.org/ok365_Disc...0&topicid=4569
So a Saito three cylinder radial would be perfect for the scale realism.

SrTelemaster150

Unless the laws of physics have been repealed, that's simply not true.

A single crank journal twin will be smoother than a similar displacment single, but it isn't physically possible for a mass moving in the same direction to be as vibration free as when that same mass is divided X 2 & traveling in opposite directions.

Counterweights on the crank can help, but they can't totally eliminate the vibration. Auxiliary shafts can further reduce vibration, but doing that would be more complicated than just designing a boxer twin in the 1st place.

SrTelemaster150

Maybe so, but they sure are ugly.

brenthampton79

I have a 200ti and want to install it on a p-51, but not sure what plane this engine would fit with. I have a top flite p-51b ge 60 size kit that i plan to finish soon but I feel like the 100ti would be better but hear it's to underpowered for a scaled out 60. So I bought the 200 to install on it but realize it seems to big and heavy. I'd rather build a kit but feel the giant tf mustang is to big. I've seen videos of the hangar 9 150 mustang arf that flies well and looked at an esm mustang online that could be an option. I was wondering what you guys think. I really want to put this on a good scale mustang not some kinda cheap looking mustang. If I'm goin to invest that much in my powerplant I want to have a good representation of the model as well. I'd like to be able to install retracts, lights, gear doors, scale struts, cockpit and etc. The esm scared me since it's fiberglass and I dont have much experience modifying such structures but I'm not afraid to try, but this model seems like it could be better suited to the power. Do you guys think the tf giant kit would be to big? I don't need to fly it 3d but don't want it grossly underpowered. Most my models I fly are 40 size planes with a 46 not a 60 to give you an idea how I power them. I try to have them fly somewhat scale. My giant scale Giles I fly doesn't go vertical buy will hang on the prop pretty good at wide open throttle. I want my mustang to fly scale in other words I don't expect it to hang on the prop but go vertical by a smooth pull from horizontal at wide-open and loose speed. Hope you guys understand what I'm looking for and hope you can help. Thanks

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Do I hear 170R3?

mike109

G'day Saitoists

I have both a 90R3 and a 90TS. The 90TS is in a Goldberg Anniversary Cub and suits it very well. It is not as powerful as a 90 single and I guess it is about as good as a 62 or a 72. It is quite reliable and does not drop cylinders. I use my normal 10% nitro, 5% castor, 15% Klotz and 70% methanol with it.

The 90R3 is quite a bit less powerful than the 90TS. I think it is about as powerful as a 50. Initially I put it in a Hanger 9 Sopwith Camel but after running it I pulled it out as I was worried about its lack of performance and its tendency to drop a cylinder. So I put it in a Kadet Senior to give it some air time and to get to know it better. Initially I used the same fuel that I used in the 90TS but more recently I have tried some fuel with 20% nitro and the results have been much better. It is now slightly more powerful (56?) and more importantly is now very reliable and no longer drops cylinders. It will be staying in the Kadet for a while yet to get it well and truly run in. Then, if the Camel is still in the right number of pieces, it may get to go back there. It has a Saito 82 in it at the moment but I have not yet summoned up enough courage to fly it. Take off should be OK but landings in WWI bi-planes can be rather difficult. Their small rudders are not very powerful at landing speeds and completely useless on the ground.

Both are really smooth running engines, both start easily by hand and the sound they make is worth the price of admission alone. At idle they just putter but at full steam, the radial sounds like a Ferrari. Well, sort of. I guess it is all those extra explosions per rotation plus the lack of a muffler. Neither is particularly noisy. My Saito 100 makes far more noise.

Cheers

Mike in Oz

The picture is my "Zeraux" Kadet Senior with 90R3 Saito

the pope

You could always put a hat on the top cylinder. Also Im poor and live in a cardboard box so the 100 will do me just fine . Cheers the pope

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

But, you're forgetting that in the single crank engine no two components are moving the same direction by the same amount. The 90TS has rocking couple that the single crankpins don't have.

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks SrTelemaster..

re: Post 21786 That's the one!!

Bob

shaked israel

saito g57 on topfligth p47 

Rudolph Hart

Sniffle..! i told you guys this whole conversation would get ugly

SrTelemaster150

I have a Saito FA 200Ti & it fits the 83" Brian Taylor Mk I-V colw (from VICRR/C) W/about 1/8" to spare on the front intake rocker cover.