airbusdrvr

I was planning to buy a YS 110 engine for my next build, http://www.centralhobbies.com/engine...tm#YS%20FZ-110 . However, a club member has a NIB Saito 120, http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...rodID=SAIE120S, that he will sell for $150. I liked the YS pumped engine since thr fuel tank can be placed anywhere. But for a $150 should I consider this NIB discontinued Saito?

For some reason the link will not go to the page, it goes to the home page. But under support, manuals and such, is a link to the Saito 120 ad that shows discontinued.

May 7, 2008 update: See post #17 below for the decision.

Gringo Flyer

My Feedback: (18)

What is it going in? A YS 110 and Saito 120 are 2 different animals entirely. If your build needs a YS 110 you will not be happy with the saito 120 in its place.

Also, dont confuse the Saito 120 with the 125. The 120 is a relatively heavy engine (comparable to the OS or magnum 120) and is a good sport engine.

$150 is a good price. I would probably buy the saito one way or the other. If its not a good fit for this project it will work in the next.

airbusdrvr

Yes, I know the 125. I just bought one a month ago and have it flying now. I am building a BTE Flyin' King( http://www.btemodels.com/flyin_king.html ) and was going to put another Saito 125 in it. The Saito 125 weighs a bit less than 25 oz, the same as the OS 91 Surpass II. But due to fact I may place the fuel tank in the plane other than right behind the engine, I thought about the YS 110. It is a pumped engine. But then the discontinued NIB Saito 120 could be used for $150

rexracer

I agree with gringo flyer. Buy the Saito, even if you don't use it for your current project. For $150 you can't go wrong, and there are hundreds of planes that the 120 will work well in.

Gringo Flyer

My Feedback: (18)

On that plane I would definetly go with the Saito.

The YS110 really isnt a good match on that plane, it is a lot of power and an expensive engine for that application. The Saito will be a lot of power too, but at that price its a good bet and I am sure that plane can handle a few extra ounces.

You could run a simple pump to be able to mount the fuel tank away from the engine. I would even try something like a one way valve on your exhaust line to see if that would help.

Some folks might disagree with me on this but I have found my 4 strokes are not very demanding on tank location. I recently built a big trainer for my son (similar to the flyin king in fact) and was worried about tank location. It is way lower than the carb. I decided to check it out before making any drastic changes to mount the tank higher and found that the engine runs great. Idles all day without any porblems. In fact, you can disconnect the pressure line and it still runs fine.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

Not only is it illadvised to purchase a dicontinued Saito it is also illadvised to purchase a discontinued YS. Be advised the YS 110 of choice is the YS110S not the YS110FZ of which a few may still be in the pipeline.

A Saito VS YS debate is a no brainer for anyone who had ever actually used both engines and can afford the more expensive engine. And no there is no way an unpumped Saito will ever match the fuel delivery capabililtys of any YS (even the two strokes).

John

airbusdrvr

Yes, I was looking at the YS 110S. I agree with the pumped YS engines being great. I have three YS 61 two-strokes(two actively flying) and love them. They are great engines.

JohnBuckner

My Feedback: (1)

YS .45 mother load, now if I could just find some .61's too. Why oh why did I ignore them when they were still avaliable.

rlmcnii

My Feedback: (3)

airbusdrivr,

I have a Flyin' King with a Saito .91 in it. The .91 is more than sufficiently powerful for that airframe. It is rarely run, in level flight, at more than half throttle. With flaps take of run is about ten or fifteen feet, and that is in grass.

The Saito 1.20 would be a nice engine for that plane, if you like a lot of excess power. You will probably have to install the batteries aft to balance it, no trouble. The airframe will not notice the weight and you will probably have unlimited vertical. You will also need to master the use of the throttle, but it sounds as if you already have.

Flyin' Kings are fun low and slow with partial flaps, an engine with good low-speed torque (the 1.20), and a low-pitch, large diameter propeller. The more you fly it the more fun you will have. I like to hang mine on the prop (nose up) with half-flaps, put in a full rudder deflection and watch it yaw around the propeller. I call it Flyin' King 3-D.

Have fun with yours. For $150 it would be hard to go wrong with that engine.

Gringo Flyer

My Feedback: (18)

If we are talking about a high performance plane I would agree. But both of these engines easily overpower this airframe. To me it just doesnt make sense to spend over 2X as much on an engine.

I wouldnt normally buy a discontinued engine either but $150 for a saito 1.20 is a good deal.

Ken6PPC

I'd grab the Saito before the seller comes to his senses! It will be a great engine for a long time to come, and I bet you could use it for a while and still get your money back for it.

If you still want to put a YS on the new plane, that is fine too. I don't think there is anything wrong with having too many engines, or having too much power! Well, except for when I rip the wings and such off...... [sm=lol.gif]

BTW, my wife might disagreee about the too many engines part, but what does SHE know?

CustomPC

I'd get that Saito 120 too.

The 120 is very similar power to the 125 but with significantly less vibration. I'd use it a model that was designed to handle the weight of a classic 1.20 to balance properly. If i had a model which needs nose weight i'd much rather have a heavier 120 up front than to add some lead with the 125 and have the model shaken by vibration.

rc-sport

My Feedback: (12)

If you don't want the Saito I'll take it. I have Saito 120 and it's a great reliable motor

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

In my old Jersey club, the Saito 1.20 had a reputation for being a PITA to run. How? I don't know, I never ran one, but the fellows that were unhappy with it were experienced modelers whom I trust.

I stopped buying YS engines for two reasons. Yes, the first is the need for 20% and higher fuel, but the second, equally important, reason is that they change their engines and discontinue engines too often. I do not enjoy chasing parts all over the country when something breaks. Saito is quickly gaining ground on YS in this regard. I mean, how many 1.00 to 1.25 engines do you need to offer?

I'm not a competition flyer these days, so the latest state-of-the-art engines are not necessary, nor desirable for me. I like engines that just run and run until they encounter the Earth in an unfortunate manner. Then I like to be able to pick up the phone and have the parts in my hand in less than a week. If that can't be done, I'm not interested in them.

YS engines are pressurized and regulated - not pumped. Yes, there is a difference.

It is a simple matter to pressurize a fuel tank and to buy a third party regulator (Cline/Iron Bay) for ANY engine on the market today. Even a Saito.


Ed Cregger

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Ed, both OS and Saito are revamping their engine lineups right now. You can see the modernization with some overlap with the older models. OS did end the .46FX and .50SX engines quickly though. My opinion is that the .50SX should have continued.

The candidates for being dropped by Saito appear to be the .56, .72, and the 1.20 engines since newer models are sprinkled around these sizes. The .56 and .91 are great engines and I hope they aren't discontinued! I was lucky to find a NIB Saito .30GK last year for a good price after it was dropped for import into the U.S.

Evolution also has a confusing lineup with the .40 Alpha, .455 PTS, and .46NT engines.

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I have four saito 1.20's. Love them all. Two have around 70 hours run time. The other two around 20. A friend in the club has eight. His engine of choice in the size planes he flys. Mine too. I figure I'll have to buy the 1.25 at some point in time. Just dont need to yet. Just my opinion, its the easiest engine I've ever had to setup. Probably because I am comfortable with it. They all run inverted with no glow driver, idle very low and dont die when you throttle up after a long idle. When they get hard to start, its usually ready for high time cleaning. Remove the cylinder, clean all the carbon off the inside head and valves. I run 10% 2-stroke fuel and dont try to get every bit of power out of it when I tune it. Very reliable.
Edwin

airbusdrvr

Well, I have taken the advice some of you have given and bought the engine. Just picked it up and a new JTEC Isolation motor mount was included. I think even though it was not the engine I first thought about using, it was a good buy and will work just fine on the Flyin' King.

Nathan King

That's one beautiful engine you have there. IMHO, for the price you just couldn't go wrong.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

The 1.20 Saito that my friends were having trouble with was the dual plug version. That was quite a while ago.

We need to hear experiences like yours too. It is not my intention to trash any engine and especially any engine that has satisfied users.


Ed Cregger

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I've heard unfavorable things about dual plug in general. I have no experience with them but a friend that I consider knowledgeable worked on one for a club member. He wasnt impressed.
Edwin

airbusdrvr

Just a short update on the 120 and its compatibility with the plane. I now have about a dozen flights with the engine after the 40 minute recommended break-in. The engine runs great, has started the first attempt every time(even at five turns open needle valve for the first break-in run). It hauls the fully fueled 14 lb plane around with power to spare. Rarely use full power except for vertical maneuvers. Considering the good deal I got on the engine, other than the fuel mileage, this is a great motor.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-


Don't forget to gradually lean out the low speed needle as time progresses. That should improve the fuel consumption considerably.


Ed Cregger

airbusdrvr

I have just started to do the low end needle adjustment. I'm really conservative when it come to leaning. The motor was running just a bit rough at lower rpm and I leaned it an 1/8 turn. Will gradually work on on the low needle as the engine continues its break-in. My only prior four-stroke experience was with the the OS 70 Surpass II which seemed to be very miserly in its fuel use. I realize these larger(to me) engines use more fuel. I really expect as the engine time accumulates and the needle adjustments continue, the fuel usage will fall.

Edwin

My Feedback: (2)

I run my 1.20's at about 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 turns out. This, of course, is after break in. I think I have about 60 hours on my oldest. Remember, when you adjust the low speed needle to go back and adjust the high speed. They overlap a significant amount. I run 10% 2 stroke with about 18% oil (synth/castor mix). About every 3 or 4 years I clean the carbon out. You can tell its carboning up if the idle starts to get finicky. All are still on their original rings and still running good. I dont try to get every bit of power out of my engines. I prop for about 8500 to 9000 rpm for engine longevity. My favorite is the 16x8 or 16x6. Gives a great flywheel effect.
Edwin

Forgot to mention I normally run 16oz fuel tanks and set my timer for 10 minute flights. Usually have about 1/4 tank left.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Edwin, you can eliminate that "overlap" as you call it by setting the High needle at absolute peak before and while setting the LS needle. Since the seat for HS needle is fixed and the Low Speed sleeve is variable and adjustable setting the HS one will not effect the LS one. However getting the LS one too lean will effect the HS needle. So, just be aware that if the LS needle effects the HS needle, you've gone to far in on the LS one. This is exactly the same way that guys screw up SuperTigre carb settings. A safe rule for most carbs is, high speed needle first.