I prefer 2 strokes
06-12-2008 | 11:26 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Hulett,
WY
I prefer 2 strokes
My prefernce for 2 stroke engines is clearly in a minority of opinion. I choose this type of engine because of it's simpicity and greater ease of concealing the engine within the cowl of scale planes. To me, large portions of cowling removed for an engine detract significantly from a model's appearance. I fly .46-2.1 size planes, primarily warbirds, generally scale. Cost of fuel to me is not an issue when considering the plane, engine, electronics and cost of driving to the field. Sound of a 4 stroke is more desirable, but the larger 2 strokes with a bisson muffler is good enough for me. Cleanup of the 2 stroke is a pain when compared to gas and to a lessor degree 4 strokes, but not significant.
I am not trying to start an argument, nor am I saying anything negative of the alternative fuel-powered planes. The purpose of my post is one of curiosity. Since there appears to be relatively little desire to use 2 strokes beyond an entry-level, I'm assuming there certainly are a number of them being sold in order for manufacturers to continue marketing them.
Do many others feel as I do? Is the future for 2 strokes bleak? Electric surely is taking a bite out of the fuel-powered models but if I had to discontinue using my noisy, messy, 2 strokes then that would surely be the end of my modeling career.
I am not trying to start an argument, nor am I saying anything negative of the alternative fuel-powered planes. The purpose of my post is one of curiosity. Since there appears to be relatively little desire to use 2 strokes beyond an entry-level, I'm assuming there certainly are a number of them being sold in order for manufacturers to continue marketing them.
Do many others feel as I do? Is the future for 2 strokes bleak? Electric surely is taking a bite out of the fuel-powered models but if I had to discontinue using my noisy, messy, 2 strokes then that would surely be the end of my modeling career.
06-12-2008 | 11:46 PM
#2
My Feedback: (1)
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I've been flying 2 strokes from my beginning, back in the early 80's... and I love them. Ultra simple, reliable, and only 3 moving parts... you can't beat 'em.
But, I've started playing with a couple of 4 strokes recently as well, and I'm starting to have a little confidence in them and getting to like them too... But there will always be a need for 2 stroke engines in my hangar. They're just too bulletproof.
But, I've started playing with a couple of 4 strokes recently as well, and I'm starting to have a little confidence in them and getting to like them too... But there will always be a need for 2 stroke engines in my hangar. They're just too bulletproof.
06-13-2008 | 12:03 AM
#3
Senior Member
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I'm a four stroke fan. I've only got two planes with 3 strokes on them, a Quicke 500(version 1) and a trainer. All of my later planes are fourstroke powered. Why, that's the way I fly. If I want to go really fast, IE the Quickee 500, then it has to be a two stroke. Torque related flying. or just plane old punching holes in the sky requires a four stork. They sound better and the clean up aftre flying is eaiser. They use less fuel. Did I mention the sound???
The chances of the two stroke going the way of the Doodo bird isn't very high. They have a promentent place in model avaiation. Where they are king, no four stroke can chalenge them. The inverse is also true. Both engines have a place in the way we fly, depending on how we fly.
Don
The chances of the two stroke going the way of the Doodo bird isn't very high. They have a promentent place in model avaiation. Where they are king, no four stroke can chalenge them. The inverse is also true. Both engines have a place in the way we fly, depending on how we fly.
Don
06-13-2008 | 12:33 AM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
G'day I cut my teeth on two strokes way back when. (Actually I mostly cut my fingers.) For the first part of my RC career (which started 20 years ago when I was nearly 40), I used two strokes. Mostly Super Tigres because I had had a good time with them in control line back in the 1970s. But then I bought an OS 26 Surpass. And it all changed. Here was an engine that was quiet, sounded amazing, drank little and just gave me the quiet performance I was looking for. These days I run mainly Saitos but I still have a couple of TT 46s, a Magnum 46 converted to diesel (amazing) and many two stroke diesels. I guess what has happened is that I have grown older and quieter and that is how I like my engines too. But if you had asked me back when I had my Tigres screaming away I would have told you to get your head read.
There will always be a place for two strokes. They are simple and they are cheap. You can't ask for much more in a trainer or sport model. An LA46 is the perfect beginner's engine. Tough, simple, easy to tune and tolerant of bad handling not to mention crashing. And the sound of a Nelson 40 singing on its 71/4 x 7 carbon fibre prop is one of the sounds to be savored. But for me these days, it will generally be a puttering four stroke.
But not all older dudes like four strokes. I have a friend who is in his mid seventies and still flies nothing but big Super Tigres. His Kadet Senior on floats with a ST 90 is a wonder to behold. The floats hardly get wet. It is one of his small engines.
There will always be a place for two strokes. They are simple and they are cheap. You can't ask for much more in a trainer or sport model. An LA46 is the perfect beginner's engine. Tough, simple, easy to tune and tolerant of bad handling not to mention crashing. And the sound of a Nelson 40 singing on its 71/4 x 7 carbon fibre prop is one of the sounds to be savored. But for me these days, it will generally be a puttering four stroke.
But not all older dudes like four strokes. I have a friend who is in his mid seventies and still flies nothing but big Super Tigres. His Kadet Senior on floats with a ST 90 is a wonder to behold. The floats hardly get wet. It is one of his small engines.
06-13-2008 | 12:35 AM
#5
Banned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Tokoroa, , NEW ZEALAND
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I'm a "horses for courses" guy myself.
I use 2-strokes when they're the best engine for the job and 4-strokes when they are.
Where there's an overlap (such as my 3D profiles) I use some of each and fly either, depending on my mood.
They're all good!
I use 2-strokes when they're the best engine for the job and 4-strokes when they are.
Where there's an overlap (such as my 3D profiles) I use some of each and fly either, depending on my mood.
They're all good!
06-13-2008 | 07:35 AM
#6
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I'm hooked on 2 strokes. For me, the more revs, the better. I love that sound of a 2 stroke ringing it's guts out at max redline speed. I have one 4 stroke, but it's more of a showpiece than a plane puller.
I think there is more potential for fiddling and modifying with a 2 stroke than with a 4.
2 STROKES FOR EVER!!
I used to ride motorcross bikes, and this is a bit like the discussions we used to have over 4 stroke vs 2 stroke. Different strokes for different folks I guess (pun intended
)
PS- why do some people refer to 2 strokes as 2 cycle, and 4 strokes as 4 cycle engines?
As I understand it, in a 2 sroke engine, once the piston has done 2 strokes (up, then down) it has completed 1 cycle. Same as for a 4 stroke, once it has gone up then down, then up and back down (4 strokes) it has done 1 cycle.
I think there is more potential for fiddling and modifying with a 2 stroke than with a 4.
2 STROKES FOR EVER!!
I used to ride motorcross bikes, and this is a bit like the discussions we used to have over 4 stroke vs 2 stroke. Different strokes for different folks I guess (pun intended
)PS- why do some people refer to 2 strokes as 2 cycle, and 4 strokes as 4 cycle engines?
As I understand it, in a 2 sroke engine, once the piston has done 2 strokes (up, then down) it has completed 1 cycle. Same as for a 4 stroke, once it has gone up then down, then up and back down (4 strokes) it has done 1 cycle.
06-13-2008 | 08:05 AM
#7
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Dubbo, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
G'day The original names for these engines I am told is "four stroke cycle" and "two stroke cycle" - that is, the complete cycle is either two or four strokes of the piston. This has been shortened in common usage to "two stroke" and "four stroke" most commonly or two (or 2) cycle or even even shorter (by Enya for example) to 4c for "four stroke cycle" which is quite a mouth full. We just love to abbreviate things and Australians are particularly good (bad?) at it. Biscuit becomes bickie., kerosene becomes kero, metholated spirits becomes metho (denatured alcohol) and carburetor become carby. I could go on forever. We just like to shorten things. Oh yes, and Mossie for Mosquito - my all time favourite aeroplane.
06-13-2008 | 10:16 AM
#9
Senior Member
My Feedback: (16)
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I love my engines. Don't make me choose, but I have about 16 4-strokes (Enya, Saito, OS) and 27 2-strokes (Enya, Super Tiger, OS, Cox, CS). I just finished a Force One with my 25 year old Enya 40XTV on it, and it screams and sounds so nice! But I love my 4-stroke also.
06-13-2008 | 10:19 AM
#10
My Feedback: (1)
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I'm planning on building a GP SuperSportster 60 this fall/winter... and I'm planning on hanging a Saito 100 on the front of it... I'm predicting that the way it handles the SS will determine my real feelings for Four Stroke engines... With the SS's, I started with a 20, then built a 40 and flew it forever, until a failed crystal brought it down (I've still got it though, and it *might* be repairable, but I don't know if it would ever be the same again...) and now I'm going to build the 60... I have high hopes! The 60 will be the first 4 stroke powered one... and my first 4 stroke powered airplane that I built. If the Saito will make it do (probably after some considerable propeller experimentation) what I know my OS 61SF or SuperTigres will do with it... I'll be happy.
. Yes, I switch engines alot
06-13-2008 | 10:45 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (14)
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
That's why I try to use an Edson Universal Adjustable Engine Mount on my models when it will fit well and when I can locate one. They let you fly any engine from .19 to 1.40 just by adjusting the width of the jaws (engine bearers). I wish they would resume manufacturing these wonderful engine mounts.
Ed Cregger
Ed Cregger
06-13-2008 | 11:52 AM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Garland, TX
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
We have several guys in our club, who have been flying for many years, who only use two strokes. Some of them have big planes with 1.6 (or bigger) engines and they go through a lot of fuel. They like the simplicity of two strokes.
06-13-2008 | 08:00 PM
#14
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I've been flying for over 10yrs. I have owned exactly two 4-stroke engines. I sold one and wrecked the other one. Never bought another and don't plan too.
I have 2-stroke glow engines from .46 too .75 size. Nothing bigger in glow. Too expensive to run on glow fuel and the carbs suck.
I have a BUNCH of gasoline 2-strokes. Some of them have never been flown. I got more engines than planes and money, but I love my gassers. Biggest one is 110cc conversion from a Stihl demo saw. It's an animal!! The biggest one that I'm flying right now is a 75cc conversion engine. I got Zenoah, BME, Fox, all kinds of different weedies and chainsaws. I've had ZDZ engines in the past too.
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
4-strokes are for guys who like to tinker.
Don't give me that horse poop about "more torque" for 3D. I got 40 size 3D planes with 2-stroke engines that do perfectly fine.
"4-strokes will rev quicker because of the low end torque " blah blah blah blah
Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so..........
Give me a 2-stroke ANY DAY. [8D]
I have 2-stroke glow engines from .46 too .75 size. Nothing bigger in glow. Too expensive to run on glow fuel and the carbs suck.
I have a BUNCH of gasoline 2-strokes. Some of them have never been flown. I got more engines than planes and money, but I love my gassers. Biggest one is 110cc conversion from a Stihl demo saw. It's an animal!! The biggest one that I'm flying right now is a 75cc conversion engine. I got Zenoah, BME, Fox, all kinds of different weedies and chainsaws. I've had ZDZ engines in the past too.
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
4-strokes are for guys who like to tinker.
Don't give me that horse poop about "more torque" for 3D. I got 40 size 3D planes with 2-stroke engines that do perfectly fine.
"4-strokes will rev quicker because of the low end torque " blah blah blah blah
Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so.......... Give me a 2-stroke ANY DAY. [8D]
06-13-2008 | 08:28 PM
#16
Senior Member
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I've had both and i'm a lot like asmund, I tend to switch camps often. My current flavour is 2-stroke and i blame the OS AX series of motors for swinging my preference that way.
There seems to be a general shift away from the high revving 2-stroke towards the higher torque engines and these are the engines that appeal to me now. Partly due to economics of engine price and fuel costs, and partly due to the simplicity of operation.
My AX engines are serving me extremely well (i have .55, .75 and 1.20AX's) and i'm also keen to get my hands on one of the european .91s like the Webra .91-P5 or MVVS. Those engines are brutes and deliver power in a different way to what we've come to expect from 2-strokes.
I briefly costed the feasability of going all electric but the cost for an electric setup to match a 1.20AX is 400% more than glow power. I'd have to burn a lot of fuel to make it feasable on an economics basis.
There seems to be a general shift away from the high revving 2-stroke towards the higher torque engines and these are the engines that appeal to me now. Partly due to economics of engine price and fuel costs, and partly due to the simplicity of operation.
My AX engines are serving me extremely well (i have .55, .75 and 1.20AX's) and i'm also keen to get my hands on one of the european .91s like the Webra .91-P5 or MVVS. Those engines are brutes and deliver power in a different way to what we've come to expect from 2-strokes.
I briefly costed the feasability of going all electric but the cost for an electric setup to match a 1.20AX is 400% more than glow power. I'd have to burn a lot of fuel to make it feasable on an economics basis.
06-13-2008 | 09:10 PM
#17
Senior Member
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
A tight buget keeps me from buying 4-strokes, but I like
my 2-strokes anyway. I don't buy into the "have to have
a 4-stroke" thing. My .40 size sport models fly great on
AX .46's. My concern is with small two strokes leaving the
market.
my 2-strokes anyway. I don't buy into the "have to have
a 4-stroke" thing. My .40 size sport models fly great on
AX .46's. My concern is with small two strokes leaving the
market.
06-13-2008 | 09:22 PM
#18
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Newton,
KS
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I started out with 2 stroke engines, got out of the hobby for a while and when I got back in I went to a 4 stroke engine just to try something different. I've since bought a gas engine and I'm learning about it, so far so good. I like the electrics except I miss the sound and I think it's kinda funny to see speaker kits so the airplane makes noise. I guess it depends on the application and what you like to do. My Ultra Sport is great with my old OS 61. To me fast planes need a screaming 2 stroke. I like my (retrainer) Ultra Stick with my Saito 100. It reliable and has no problem at all pulling the airplane. It's not too fast but some days you just don't want to be fast. My new 36 gasser I'm learning about, so far I'm liking it. It swings a big scale looking prop and you don't need too much for equipment to go fly. Gas, radio airplane and go fly for 45 minutes on a tank of fuel that you'd be refilling in 15 minutes on a nitro engine. As bad as gas prices are, gas is cheap for RC. Try buying a gallon of 15% for $4. I don't like the smell though, I can't really bring the aircraft into the house to work on it without stinking the place up. Electric is something I'd consider if it was cheap. If I could buy an engine cheap and 5 or so lipo's for $10 a piece and fly a .60 size plane, I'd get into it. but $200+ for a big pack is out of my price range right now and I don't want 10 - 15 minutes of flight time and 30 - 45 minutes of charge time maybe more for the big packs, I don't really know.
There's my .02
There's my .02
06-13-2008 | 09:57 PM
#19
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Cincinnati,
OH
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
I LOVE my 2 strokes!
I LOVE my 4 strokes!
I LOVE my gas engines!
Actually, now that I think of it, if I had one that I didn't think pretty highly of, I'd probably put it up for sale.
OK...... I LOVE ALL my engines!
I LOVE my 4 strokes!
I LOVE my gas engines!
Actually, now that I think of it, if I had one that I didn't think pretty highly of, I'd probably put it up for sale.
OK...... I LOVE ALL my engines!
06-13-2008 | 11:23 PM
#20
Banned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Tokoroa, , NEW ZEALAND
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
ORIGINAL: Rcpilot
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
Yes, they are expensive. Yes they have more moving parts but, surprisingly, they are usually cheaper to fix and less likely to get damaged in a crash than their 2-stroke cousins. Cubic-inch for cubic-inch you are right when you say that 2-strokes are more powerful but it might surprise you to know that weight-for-weight, quite a few 4-strokes are actually *more* powerful than their 2-stroke cousins.
Just compare a 22oz Saito 100 with the equivalent 22-oz 2-stroke and you'll see what I mean. And the YS 4-strokes are stronger again!
As for needing "more maintenance", that also is true but you make it sound like they require a *lot* of maintenance, which they don't.
My Saitos get a valve-clearance *check* at the start of each flying season and for the last two seasons they didn't even need adjusting. That's it full stop. No other "maintenance" required and you can check the tappet-clearances in about three minutes so it's not exactly a bgi overhead for the entire season's flying.
And let's face it, the fact that 4-strokes are far more tolerant of mixture settings than 2-strokes means most people spend far more than 3-minutes tweaking the needles of their 2-strokes every weekend while my 4-strokes don't need to be touched from one year to another.
4-strokes are for guys who like to tinker.
Don't give me that horse poop about "more torque" for 3D. I got 40 size 3D planes with 2-stroke engines that do perfectly fine.
If you don't then you probably don't really appreciate why 4-strokes excel in this area.
Lots of folks think "3D" is all about flips, loops, hovering at 30 feet and a bit of knife-edge. Sorry, that's *not* hardcore 3D.
"4-strokes will rev quicker because of the low end torque " blah blah blah blah Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so..........
Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so..........
Take a any 22-oz 2-stroke and compare the time it takes to hit full RPMs with a Saito 100 when they're both turning a 15x6 prop. THEN you'll see why 4-strokes have this reputation.
And if you note carefully, most models say something like (0.40-0.50 2-stroke, 0.65-0.82 4-stroke) so even the kit/ARF makers acknowledge that it's not about direct cu-in for cu-in substitutions.
Give me a 2-stroke ANY DAY. [8D]
06-14-2008 | 11:29 AM
#23
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
ORIGINAL: XJet
It depends very much on what you fly and your flying style as to whether 4-strokes are for you.
Yes, they are expensive. Yes they have more moving parts but, surprisingly, they are usually cheaper to fix and less likely to get damaged in a crash than their 2-stroke cousins. Cubic-inch for cubic-inch you are right when you say that 2-strokes are more powerful but it might surprise you to know that weight-for-weight, quite a few 4-strokes are actually *more* powerful than their 2-stroke cousins.
Just compare a 22oz Saito 100 with the equivalent 22-oz 2-stroke and you'll see what I mean. And the YS 4-strokes are stronger again!
As for needing "more maintenance", that also is true but you make it sound like they require a *lot* of maintenance, which they don't.
My Saitos get a valve-clearance *check* at the start of each flying season and for the last two seasons they didn't even need adjusting. That's it full stop. No other "maintenance" required and you can check the tappet-clearances in about three minutes so it's not exactly a bgi overhead for the entire season's flying.
And let's face it, the fact that 4-strokes are far more tolerant of mixture settings than 2-strokes means most people spend far more than 3-minutes tweaking the needles of their 2-strokes every weekend while my 4-strokes don't need to be touched from one year to another.
Well in my case, 4-strokes are for guys who like to fly. My Saitos really have been "fit and forget" engines. They start instantly *every* time, don't deadstick, are very tolerant of different mixture settings and prop sizes. There's no tinkering required at all.
But do you actually fly hardcore "down on the deck" 3D?
If you don't then you probably don't really appreciate why 4-strokes excel in this area.
Lots of folks think "3D" is all about flips, loops, hovering at 30 feet and a bit of knife-edge. Sorry, that's *not* hardcore 3D.
Once again, you're comparing cu-in with cu-in when the most valid comparison is weight for weight.
Take a any 22-oz 2-stroke and compare the time it takes to hit full RPMs with a Saito 100 when they're both turning a 15x6 prop. THEN you'll see why 4-strokes have this reputation.
And if you note carefully, most models say something like (0.40-0.50 2-stroke, 0.65-0.82 4-stroke) so even the kit/ARF makers acknowledge that it's not about direct cu-in for cu-in substitutions.
I'll take 2-stroke, 4-stroke jet and wankel they're all good!
ORIGINAL: Rcpilot
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
4-stroke? [sm=lol.gif] Who needs 'em? Not me. They are expensive. They have more moving parts. They aren't as powerful as a 2-stroke. They need more maintenance. Shall I continue...............? [sm=lol.gif]
Yes, they are expensive. Yes they have more moving parts but, surprisingly, they are usually cheaper to fix and less likely to get damaged in a crash than their 2-stroke cousins. Cubic-inch for cubic-inch you are right when you say that 2-strokes are more powerful but it might surprise you to know that weight-for-weight, quite a few 4-strokes are actually *more* powerful than their 2-stroke cousins.
Just compare a 22oz Saito 100 with the equivalent 22-oz 2-stroke and you'll see what I mean. And the YS 4-strokes are stronger again!
As for needing "more maintenance", that also is true but you make it sound like they require a *lot* of maintenance, which they don't.
My Saitos get a valve-clearance *check* at the start of each flying season and for the last two seasons they didn't even need adjusting. That's it full stop. No other "maintenance" required and you can check the tappet-clearances in about three minutes so it's not exactly a bgi overhead for the entire season's flying.
And let's face it, the fact that 4-strokes are far more tolerant of mixture settings than 2-strokes means most people spend far more than 3-minutes tweaking the needles of their 2-strokes every weekend while my 4-strokes don't need to be touched from one year to another.
4-strokes are for guys who like to tinker.
Don't give me that horse poop about "more torque" for 3D. I got 40 size 3D planes with 2-stroke engines that do perfectly fine.
If you don't then you probably don't really appreciate why 4-strokes excel in this area.
Lots of folks think "3D" is all about flips, loops, hovering at 30 feet and a bit of knife-edge. Sorry, that's *not* hardcore 3D.
"4-strokes will rev quicker because of the low end torque " blah blah blah blah Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so..........
Really? Has anyone ever put a 14-6 prop on a Saito 91 AND a ST .90 and used a stop watch to see which one hits full RPM faster? I didn't think so..........
Take a any 22-oz 2-stroke and compare the time it takes to hit full RPMs with a Saito 100 when they're both turning a 15x6 prop. THEN you'll see why 4-strokes have this reputation.
And if you note carefully, most models say something like (0.40-0.50 2-stroke, 0.65-0.82 4-stroke) so even the kit/ARF makers acknowledge that it's not about direct cu-in for cu-in substitutions.
Give me a 2-stroke ANY DAY. [8D]
Do I fly hardcore 3D down on the deck? Not with my big gassers. No guts. [sm=red_smile.gif] But I DO fly pretty hard with my .46 size 3D planes and all of them have either a Magnum .46 or a TH .75 2-stroke. I am quite familiar with the 4-stroke argument for 3D. I just don't believe they are any better than a 2-stroke. A properly tuned 2-stroke with the right muffler/can/pipe and prop combo will go from idle to WFO in the blink of an eye. I've never been m id throttle in an inverted harrier and needed power but couldn't get it fast enough. It only takes a blip of the throttle to maintain altitude or use torque to turn or roll. It's not like we go from idle to WFO to idle to WFO all the time. Most of my 3D flying is done right in the middle. A few hundred RPM up or down is all the range I need. As long as it runs good in the mid-range, it'll work.
I disagree with your method of comparing weight to weight instead of cu. inches too cu. inches. In my mind, it's always bee about how much work can X number of cubic inches do. I guess we'll have to - - agree to disagree on that one.
06-14-2008 | 11:58 AM
#24
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Hulett,
WY
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
Thank you all for your response. Very interesting listening to other's discuss their opinions of the different power options we have. While I believe 2 stroke power is the clear answer for me, others feel the same of their 4 strokes, others for their gassers and last but not least for electric power. Several embrace most/all fuel power. I am certain we all believe there is no general clear-cut answer to this debate for all. I find it interesting to hear the opinions of others regarding their pet power because I have a tendency to find an answer for myself and then close my mind to alternatives. Not a good thing, and with things changing in our r/c world, it is always good to hear from others.
So, thank you.
Dick
So, thank you.
Dick
06-14-2008 | 03:57 PM
#25
Senior Member
RE: I prefer 2 strokes
ORIGINAL: pilotchute
Electric surely is taking a bite out of the fuel-powered models but if I had to discontinue using my noisy, messy, 2 strokes then that would surely be the end of my modeling career.
Electric surely is taking a bite out of the fuel-powered models but if I had to discontinue using my noisy, messy, 2 strokes then that would surely be the end of my modeling career.
ORIGINAL: XJet
I'm a "horses for courses" guy myself.
I'm a "horses for courses" guy myself.
ORIGINAL: longdan
I used to ride motorcross bikes, and this is a bit like the discussions we used to have over 4 stroke vs 2 stroke.
I used to ride motorcross bikes, and this is a bit like the discussions we used to have over 4 stroke vs 2 stroke.
