<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: larger;">I'm new to this process, and R/C flying. I'm assembling a Kadet Senior ARF, and trying to decipher a ton of input regarding engines for it. I've heard everything from 46 to 61 and all the in between. I've read reviews on OS, Super Tigre, Thunder Tigre, Magnum, GMS, and so on. I'm on a limited budget (just retired), but don't want to buy something cheap that I'll have to replace in a few years.

I'm looking for opinions.

Thanks,

Wes
</span></span>

Wes, my recommendation would be a SuperTigre .51, it will work many other planes after you tire of the Kadet. Its a proven engine, I have two, one very old and one very new.

I'd would suggest that you get an OS or Thunder Tiger engine. As a new pilot most likely you will find them extremely user friendly. Any of the engines these 2 companies make in the recommended range would be fine for that plane, so you can compare pricing and decide what you can afford. Both OS and Thunder Tiger engines will last for years. While I have nothing against ST engines, I see novices all the time having great difficulty or needing a lot of assistance getting them to run right, a frustration you don't need just starting out. Get an OS or Thunder Tiger and you'll be up and running easily.

Wes, Since I have great respect for Hobbsy's opinion and I would never disagree with him but since you state that your new my opinion is that you should stick with the OS or Thunder Tiger 46's or the OS 55 and leave the Super Tigres to the more experienced tuners.

Any of the good ballbearing 46's would fly your Kadet Senior just fine. A word of warning about your plane. I have personally seen two that had the wing fold during normal training flights. The glue failed and the wood separated cleanly around the box for the dihedral brace in the wing. It would take major work to reinforce the area so if I were you I would be very careful and not stress the airframe with unnecessary high G maneuvers.
Fred

I'd recommend finding a good OS 70 Surpass II(like this one, http://cgi.ebay.com/OS-70-4-stroke-e...item1c0db11283 ). They are very economical to operate and last a long time. After you have been flying for a while you will learn that OS engines may cost a bit more, but rare is the person that doesn't have good luck with them. It so often happens that when a someone is having difficulty with an engine it turns out to be an Evolution, Thunder or or Super Tiger(Tigre), etc. The OS fliers just start up and fly.

WES as far as reinforcing the wing go out 3 or 4 ribs and remove a small amount of covering on the bottom( rectangle to expose it make a rib of 1/16 ply and just glue in against it you can then glue a small block to it just use a piece of covering to cover the hole you now have a mount to accept a screw make up a couple of struts one end to to fus the other to the block in the wing this works quite well martin
also a OS46LA will give you more than enough to power the plane and not too many $$ very easy engine to use

I seriously doubt that he'd have trouble with a .51, it is a start it up and use it engine, requiring very little break in.

Well, I guess the new Senior Kadet ARFs are built a lot heavier than my old version of which I had to build up myself. it only needed something like a 35 or 40 engine to fly. it was more like flying a powered glider. I flew it for a long time as a electric using a Astro-Flight geared 40 motor with three 6 cell car nicad packs in series. Later after it hit some power lines and went in, I repaired it and switched over to glow fuel power with a O.S. 60 FS engine (exposed rocker arms). I wound up using a big prop to slow the motor down and only needed 1/4 to 1/2 throttle to take off and fly it around.
But at the flying field somebody has a Senior Kadet plane, installed ailerons, and mounted a 60 or larger engine on it. Sheesh.
I still have it too, but it needs to be recovered as it has gotten pretty raggidy over the years.
So you should be fine with a 45 size engine, just remember you have a throttle, it flies best when you back off the throttle and just tool around in a sedate manner.

yeah the ARF must be heavier as SIG suggests a 40 to 46 engine with the ARF and on the kit SIG suggests a 29 to 40 engine.
So there you have it right from SIG's own information.
A 60 four cycle would do nicely too.

The majority of Kadet Seniors I've seen had 70 - 91 four strokes with a few old ones with ST 60's.

At the local field a guy had a old kit built one with a OS35FP, It took forever to get off the ground but up in the air it moved right along. He did some dives and got it to loop. This one didn't have ailerons

I've found that OS engines hold thier value better than most. If you find that R/C isn't for you you'll get a decent price for a well taken care of OS engine. Nothing wrong with buying a good used R/C engine from *bay or here on RCU.

I've had good luck with the OS engines that I've bought. Customer Support and Service is very good if you ever need it. (I've never had to send an OS engine back for any warranty work or service)

Whatever engine you decide on, use a good quality fuel with some oil in it...

G'day Kadeters. My first one was built in 1991 from a kit and is still flying. I started it with a Saito 45s and then sold it. Its new owner flew it for about 10 years with an Enya 46 four stroke and then it returned to me. I then put an elderly OS FS40 in it. What fun. It had just enough power to take off and would then float around indefinitely. Loops needed a small dive but were quite neat and landings were a total non event. Next came some real power - an OS 52 Surpass and even a Suprass 40 (not a great deal better than the FS 40 and then a series of ASP and Magnum four strokes in the 52 and 61 class. These were cheap and ideal for a serious trainer. They taught several people to fly and then take off and land.

Since then I have built several more from kits for my self and even one ARF. All have had Saito four strokes ranging from 50 to 72. My current three Kadets have a 56, a 65 (this one is an ARF) and a 72. I find the four strokes make excellent training engines as they are happy to plod around all day at half power or less and leap into life if more power is needed.

My current project will be Kadet Number 8. It is getting a Laser 70. Total overkill I know but Lasers are just such loverly engines and with our AU dollar rising against the UK pound I could not resist.

If I had to power a Kadet on a budget, I would use either an ASP/Magnum 52/61 four stroke or an OS LA 46. Both are reasonably priced and reliable. The OS in particular is a very easy engine to use.

But for total satisfaction and long life it would be a Saito or OS four stroke. Probably in the 56 to 72 range to keep the weight down.

The one in the picture had a FA-62 at the time and now has a FA-72. The 62 was needed somewhere else.

i have had one for 2 years its the arf version, been flying it with a os 46fx, always had enough power to fly in any conditions

I learned to fly on a Kadett Senior with an Enya 4C 53 installed. It was a two axis airplane, no ailerons, just rudder and elevator and throttle. I regretably sold it, I wish I still had that plane. It had been built for cross country, had a Cline system installed and at one time had a rather large fuel tank in it. When I got it the big tank was gone but the Cline was still there. Worked great and flew great.

Cheers,

Chip

Chip, you just can't top the way an engine runs with a Cline on it.

I assembled the Senior at the beginning of the summer and put an OS 61 FSR-ABC in it that I have had for 28 years. I used a 12x5 APC prop. It flies great, has good power but not over powered. With 12x5 it slows down nicely for landing but I can easily do large loops with a straight and level entry. Even with a 1300mah NiCd move all of the way forward, I still had to add a couple of onces of weight to the nose. I also replaced the nose gear with a Fultz nose gear because the original gear was too weak when side loads were applied (cross wind landings).

One thing to watch out for is some Senior ARFs have had a problem with the wings folding in flight. You should check the wings at the root after each flight for any sign of separation. I have had no problem so far.

Over all I would say it is a big, lazy, nice flying airplane with a low pilot stress factor and high fun factor.

Bruce

I very recent times the Kadet Senior ARF examples are falling apart because of bad glue. The fuselage becomes a bag of sticks.

I have been flying a kit built Kadet Senior for over a year. It has a Super Tiger .51 engine with a Perry carburator, mounted horizontally with ST silent muffler and a twelve ounce gas tank, three channel operation, set up per kit instructions but converted to tail dragger landing gear. It is a pure joy to fly on calm days and even wind up to 10 mph. Slows down to feather light landings and touch and goes, flies mostly at near idle speeds and my best flight in early morning calm conditions is 63 minutes. Most flights are 50 minutes long. The engine shows a nice smoke trail running at all speeds. It has great transition and runs smoothly for the whole flight. I think the kit built Kadet Senior with Super Tiger .51 and Perry carb is a great combination for relaxed flying on the wing. Great to fly at the field sitting in a lawn chair.
Andrew
AMA 10287

I fly my Kadet Senior with a Saito .50... it's a perfect match (IMHO)!

Do ya mean like this?

http://home.comcast.net/~jbwebst/KS1.wmv

They're also a nice platform to stick a digital camera on for a shooting pics and aerial video!

-Joe

All great information; Thank You.

Airbusdrvr, thanks for the link to the os .70 4 stroke.

Wes

Any more than a good .40 is too much. I had a TT .46 on mine and it needed way too much down trim unless the engine had a good stack of washers pointing the engine down. Switched to and old K&B .40 and it was just fine. I would suggest a TT or ST .40.

Or if you prefer a four stroke, then a .52 to .60 four stroke.

G'day Sport Pilot. You have hit the nail on the head. The Kadet Senior is a large airframe with a light wing loading and overpowering it actually makes it less useful as a trainer.

This is why mine have all had small four strokes which have power in the range of a good 40 two stroke.

One of mine has a Saito 72 but only because it was the only engine I had spare. It is about the power of a good 46 two stroke and it very definitely over powers the model.

I trim my Kadets to fly level on about 1/3 to 1/2 full power. Then if I fly faster, I have to hold in quite a bit of down elevator. The main advantage of the larger engine is simply in making very short take off runs possible which makes it possible to take off across our strip if the wind is coming in the wrong direction.

For use as a trainer, I would recommend an OS LA 46 (cheap, simple and long lasting usually), or a small four stroke in the 50 to 61 size range such as the OS Surpass 52, the ASP or Magnum 52 or 61 or the Saito 45, 50 or 56.

Another small point with overpowered models. If you trim the model for full power, you will be dialing in quite a bit of down elevator. Then when you reduce the power to land, the model will put is nose down quite a bit and you will have to hold in lots of up elevator to make a tidy landing.

My oldest Kadet is currently on the operating table having some additional fuel proofing done around the engine bay area. A good coating of epoxy in this area when the model is new will stop a lot of problems later on.

i would buy the gms.47
its cheap, reliable and powerful.
the gms engines i own are very reliable. i wont buy another .40 sized engine other than a gms. they run just as good if not better than a os at half the price (what more can you ask for)

but in general any 40-55 2 stroke or 52-824 stroke will work

IMHO the gms.47 is the best bang for your buck

if you could catch a magnum .46 on sale those work fine as well.

ringed engines such as the gs-51 or 40 are good engines and will last a while but they require more attention during breaking which i wouldnt recommend for a beginner get a abc or abl (abc is better) engine

I had one with an old K&B 40 tooBuilt it from the kit years ago. Flew great and was very rugged.(I tested the durability several times.)

I gather the ARFs are heavier and less durable though.

jess

See, now you have a clear answer .

Welcome to the hobby Wes, and like many things in life, there may not be a definite right or wrong. People have been recommending what has worked for them, so if you try any of the above suggestions, chances are you will do well. The key is to ensure you are part of a club, and ask for help. This will make the learning process much more enjoyable, and cost you a lot less in the long run.

Let us know what you decide on.

Don't cha just love the forums?

Everybody has an opinion, and theirs is right one, just ask them!