Hi, i was unsure where to post this question, and since it relates to plans for a future scale(ish... i think) build, i'll put it here.

I've been looking at the great planes .20 size t-craft kit for a while, as it looks like it would be a fun bird, and a good excuse to break into 4 stroke engines without breaking the bank. but as i get to looking around at my engine options, i find that OS only offers down to .30 in 4 stroke (which is the highest the plane is rated for in 4 stroke). and saito only has 4 strokes down to .40. am i missing something? not looking in the right places? or is a 4 stroke with less than .3 displacement a figment of the designers imagination?

There's a small Japanese company that makes a really small (but not the world's smallest) 4-stroke. I can't come up with the name right at the moment.

I guess you could call it a horsepower race. The OS .30 started as a .20 that jumped to .26 in the same case. At the small sizes, the engines dont make much power, so they started making them big enough so they could pull their own weight. I believe Saito did make a smaller engine and the HP .21 is out there too.

What TFF said. I owned an OS 20 4 stroke for a while & while it was cute & a great runner it wasn't very powerfull, about the same as a sport 15 2 stroke.

My way of thinking is for a scale model fit the largest 4 stroke that can fit in the cowl. The best noseweight is aluminium & you can always throttle back. - John.

very true. except my idea was to save a bit of cash on a smaller "nose weight". i hate putting a $250 engine in a $70 plane. but i guess i can get over it. haha

And $200 worth of electronics!

Here id my OS .26 4c.


I'ld look at model swop meets there are usually one or two of this type engine there. why pay full price for next to no power.

One of the problems of the small 4 strokes is that they are not much cheaper than the bigger size engines up to the .52 range, so you dont save much. Material cost are about equal and so are the machining cost, so the bigger engines are actually cheaper for the horsepower or more profitable. Swap meets are the way to go unless you just have to have new. I remember a review of the T- craft with the .26. It was well liked, but because of the small engine it was very prop sensitive for good performance.

true! but, i already have a box full of working servos and receivers, all i would need is another rx crystal on my frequency, and a receiver battery, and electrics are covered!



I decided to just go with the OS .30 4 stroke, i've had great luck with their 2 strokes.

i might actually just go with a 2 stroke for the sake of not having to carry around a different bottle of fuel.

Hi!
I don't agree about putting " the- largest-engine-that -fits -in the cowl" idea! Some newbies that have only flown 5-10years maybe think so but this is not the way of doing it if you want a good flying (scale) model.
The best way of doing it is to first build extremely light and then put in as light engines as possible.
I use two OS FS.26 four strokes in my DC-3 . Weight is 3,6kg...flies like 2m span sailplane.

Magnum engines are a good alternative to the OS. I have a couple of them and they run well.

I read somewhere (it may have been a rumor) that a disgruntled former OS designer either started or works for the company that makes the Magnums. They are very similar in appearance to the OS's and as I said, the ones I have run fine. I have a .52 and a .30.

I run the .30 in an old timer (Buzzard Bombshell) that I fly amost constantly at idle. When I throttle up, sometimes after 10-15-20 minutes, the engine perks right up. It is very reliable.

I have a couple of OS four strokes and two strokes too and they are also excellent, reliable engines.

http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/210842.asp

At $136 I'm surprised at the price for a .30 size engine! I was imagining something under $100 (and maybe around $50). Guess I'm really out of touch!

The OS is nearly $170.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...?&I=LXCNA5&P=0

I guess I remember buying my Magnun 52 (for the EIII) from Hobby People for less than $150 and figured the 30 would be much less. But as TFF said, the manufacturing costs would be almost the same.

This is what I call the 'free flight mentality'. 'Lightness is everything' seems to be the thinking in free flight, of which I flew scale for many years. And for just floating around at the local field with a scale model it way seem to be the answer for some.

But one thing 25 years of scale competition has taught me is competitive scale models have to fly like real aeroplanes, not '2m span sailplanes'. My 110 inch B-36 flies like a 3m span sailplane, even capable of thermalling with the engines shut down. But it's not competitive in scale competitions because it flies like a glider, that's why it's been a rally only machine for the past 13 years. - John.

The magnums are indeed an option. but ive been thinking, since the great planes t-craft kit isn't 100% scale, and its a smaller airplane (the size my buddies call "bull****in' around scale"), i'll just go with a $60 2 stroke .32 for some peppyness. i'll save 4 strokes for the 1/4 piper cub i plan to get some day soon and go all out on.

I checked out the Taylorcraft kit on the Tower website, sure is a cute model.

For me, any small model I build now is electric. The lack of mess & fuss, no cylinder or muffler hiding problems, the long life of the models & the ease of finishing without worrying about fuel proofing has won me over & in the smaller sizes electric power is now more than price competitive. Charging smaller systems like you would need would not be a problem either.

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbycity/store/uh_index.asp#

are a good source of lower price items. I'm of the opinion that a lot of products from 'big name' hobby distributors are the same products with different labels & huge mark ups. The Taylorcraft would be a fine flyer on electric & like you say, spend the money later on a bigger 4 stroke when you finish '****ing around'. - John.

Yeah, the inexpensive 2-stroke sounds like the way to go on this model. And while I appreciate all the conveniences of small electrics, to me that's the ultimate in "****ing around scale." Might as well slap a Toy R Us label on it!

Oh, Abu! Get with it man! Your propulsion opinions are sooo last century (abut 1914 - 1918 would be my guess!) - John.

Im not really a fan of electrics. had my share of electric helicopters. i find that you can never own enough batteries, and they quickly add to the expense. plus i have all the nitro support equipment, sold all the heli support equipment, so i would have to reinvest in chargers/packs, etc. not worth it for just one plane. but thats just me.

i will admit, that for a park flyer, or yard stik, or something else with a wider variety of flying sites, electric is a great option. but when you meet up with your friends a few times per week at a field thats a good 20 minute drive from your home, and you already drag 2 nitro burning planes with you, a third doesnt hurt much.

nitro is messy, but i like the freedom of just taxing up to my fuel caddy, killing the engine, topping off the tank, starting, and going up again, as many times as my fuel supply will allow.

Just call me a problem solver. - John.

I suppose it's all a matter of how one wants to spend one's money. Fuel or battery packs. The RC industry's got us no matter which way we turn!

lol. so true. i guess another good thing about electrics is you dont have to worry about deadsticks anymore, those are fun... especially on a sorta windy day during the climbout after takeoff (the plane is still in one piece fortunately. haha

guess when i get down to it, i just like the noise. also, im a bit old school, i dont really want to believe that an electric can be as strong as a nitro motor, even if i already know they are. same reason i refuse to buy ARFs. i learned the hobby on kits. and now that i get back into it 10 years later, its hard to find a decent kit.

Here you go!

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8132568/tm.htm

Unfortunately many people will justify the ARF's on the basis of them being cheaper than a kit plus the goodies needed to finish them.

They put no value whatsoever on the hours of enjoyable work actually building something. I suppose their pride is different, they take pride in just owning something rather than taking pride in creating something. I have a couple of ARF's but they leave me feeling a little empty, unlike something I build which gives me a sense of achievement every time I fly one. - John.