Large Saito 300's
03-25-2008, 10:41 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Saginaw,
MI
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large Saito 300's
Anyone running either of these two engines? I have a 80" plane that might see one of these engines...Midwest kit. I am a true fan of four stroke twins so any info would be appreciated.
Thanks,
E---
Thanks,
E---
03-27-2008, 03:10 AM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: STOCKHOLM Akersberga, SWEDEN
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Large Saito 300's
A guy I know was running one of these engines for IMAC competition on a 80" aerobatic plane. The power was very good and the engine is smooth and sounds great!
03-27-2008, 09:01 PM
#4
RE: Large Saito 300's
Yes, Nice motor. Had a Saito 270 and ran great with 18-6-10 prop. Sold that one and bought a Satio 300. Great motor with a 20-8 prop. I guess keep you 80" plane under 16-17 lbs and she will rock.
The best thing about a Satio over a OS is the CARB is in the back. Make a HARD landing with a OS and the carb hits the cowl/ground and cracks the case. BIG $$$
The best thing about a Satio over a OS is the CARB is in the back. Make a HARD landing with a OS and the carb hits the cowl/ground and cracks the case. BIG $$$
03-28-2008, 05:59 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
RE: Large Saito 300's
EMI,
I ran-in a 3.00, single-carb, twin today. It was an older model, I think about 12 years or so, that had never been run and which I acquired a few months ago. This was my first experience with a glow engine of this size, or with any twin-cylinder model airplane engine. So, take this for what it's worth.
1. The engine was very easy to hand start. It liked a good prime, maybe 10% throttle..or a bit more, and a back flip to start. One or two flips were usually sufficient if the engine had been properly primed. It resisted front-flipping, although I normally start (when hand-starting) my smaller Saitos with a front flip.
2. I ran the engine, per Hobbsy, for four ten-minute sessions, The rpms were increased during each session.
3. Both the HS and LS needle valves required much less adjustment than any single-cylinder Saito in my experience.. This one required no more than a quarter turn lean on either. The engine seems to make a little more smoke than my .91 single (since it is a little over 3 times the displacement this may not be a surprise). Over leaning the LS resulted in an immediately dropped cylinder.
The engine is much smoother at all rpm than a .82, .91, or 1.00 single.
4. This was all done on 15% Omega left over from the end of last season and whatever plugs Saito was putting in their engines many years ago.
5. The engine seems to be very efficient at anything less than full-throttle. The entire break-in consumed a little less than three 16-ounce tanks. This was very surprising to me as in my experience a .91 or 1.00 single will consume as much, or more, while following the same break-in protocol.
This engine is going to be used in a Sig 1/3 Spacewalker. The drawings for that airplane call for a 24 ounce tank. A 20 ounce tank would probably be more than adequate.
6. Once the engine had accumulated 20 or 30 minutes run-time and had been dialed in it exhibited no tendency to drop a cylinder. It would also transition cleanly form idle (about 1920 rpm) to full-throttle (about 8200 rpm). This was with a 20 x 8 wooden Bambula propeller.
Power was sufficient to upset, if I hadn't been keeping one foot on it, the B&D Workmate to which the break-in stand was attached. It will probably fly the SW (approx. 20 pounds or a little more) with more-than-scale performance.
It was run with the Saito flexible pipes and the noise level was very acceptable, low in fact, at all but full-throttle.
7. I suspect the engine will require a little more tuning as it acquires some more time. Perhaps a more modern plug will enable a little finer tuning also.
8. According to the Saito specifications the twin-carb version of this engine has very little more power. The fuel burn would probably be comparable. This is just my experience, but I have never seen profligate fuel consumption in a properly-tuned Saito.
9. All in all this was a very pleasant first-experience with an engine of this size and complexity.
10. There must be some people out there with more knowledge of these engines. Perhaps you will hear from them.
I ran-in a 3.00, single-carb, twin today. It was an older model, I think about 12 years or so, that had never been run and which I acquired a few months ago. This was my first experience with a glow engine of this size, or with any twin-cylinder model airplane engine. So, take this for what it's worth.
1. The engine was very easy to hand start. It liked a good prime, maybe 10% throttle..or a bit more, and a back flip to start. One or two flips were usually sufficient if the engine had been properly primed. It resisted front-flipping, although I normally start (when hand-starting) my smaller Saitos with a front flip.
2. I ran the engine, per Hobbsy, for four ten-minute sessions, The rpms were increased during each session.
3. Both the HS and LS needle valves required much less adjustment than any single-cylinder Saito in my experience.. This one required no more than a quarter turn lean on either. The engine seems to make a little more smoke than my .91 single (since it is a little over 3 times the displacement this may not be a surprise). Over leaning the LS resulted in an immediately dropped cylinder.
The engine is much smoother at all rpm than a .82, .91, or 1.00 single.
4. This was all done on 15% Omega left over from the end of last season and whatever plugs Saito was putting in their engines many years ago.
5. The engine seems to be very efficient at anything less than full-throttle. The entire break-in consumed a little less than three 16-ounce tanks. This was very surprising to me as in my experience a .91 or 1.00 single will consume as much, or more, while following the same break-in protocol.
This engine is going to be used in a Sig 1/3 Spacewalker. The drawings for that airplane call for a 24 ounce tank. A 20 ounce tank would probably be more than adequate.
6. Once the engine had accumulated 20 or 30 minutes run-time and had been dialed in it exhibited no tendency to drop a cylinder. It would also transition cleanly form idle (about 1920 rpm) to full-throttle (about 8200 rpm). This was with a 20 x 8 wooden Bambula propeller.
Power was sufficient to upset, if I hadn't been keeping one foot on it, the B&D Workmate to which the break-in stand was attached. It will probably fly the SW (approx. 20 pounds or a little more) with more-than-scale performance.
It was run with the Saito flexible pipes and the noise level was very acceptable, low in fact, at all but full-throttle.
7. I suspect the engine will require a little more tuning as it acquires some more time. Perhaps a more modern plug will enable a little finer tuning also.
8. According to the Saito specifications the twin-carb version of this engine has very little more power. The fuel burn would probably be comparable. This is just my experience, but I have never seen profligate fuel consumption in a properly-tuned Saito.
9. All in all this was a very pleasant first-experience with an engine of this size and complexity.
10. There must be some people out there with more knowledge of these engines. Perhaps you will hear from them.
