Welcome to Club SAITO !
My Feedback: (1)
yes, 4.50, my MVVS was a 2.10, but a smelly 2St LOL... it would have needed, somewhere around a 270 4St to be equal
https://www.towerhobbies.com/conversion-calculator.html
I say search YT for the Saito 4.50 and see what people are putting it in.
Jim
https://www.towerhobbies.com/conversion-calculator.html
I say search YT for the Saito 4.50 and see what people are putting it in.
Jim
Senior Member
A few days ago on these pages, someone asked about the former Bowman piston rings. Now, RMJ Machine Worx, yesterday AM I ordered a ring for a Saito 56 and for a Saito 82. I ordered them gapped at .001". They will be here Monday, that's good service.
https://rmjmachineworx.com/online-st...tegories/saito
https://rmjmachineworx.com/online-st...tegories/saito
Last edited by 1200SportsterRider; 09-11-2021 at 02:42 AM. Reason: Add content
A few days ago on these pages, someone asked about the former Bowman piston rings. Now, RMJ Machine Worx, yesterday AM I ordered a ring for a Saito 56 and for a Saito 82. I ordered them gapped at .001". They will be here Monday, that's good service.
https://rmjmachineworx.com/online-st...tegories/saito
https://rmjmachineworx.com/online-st...tegories/saito
Senior Member
My take on that is that more oil gets past the piston ring than goes through the gap. On two of the up strokes,(compression and exhaust), and one of the down strokes, (combustion) there is pressure above the ring. That's mee thinkin anyhoo.
I'll report and do a before and after with the 82-b.
I'll report and do a before and after with the 82-b.
"IF" this helps, I had a PAM 82" span GeeBee Y with an MVVS 35cc in it, it weighed 15 pounds and it was a very good set up, a 40cc or 45cc would have made it real fast, but I saw a guy on the net with one and he had a Moki 60cc twin in it.
the MVVS 35cc weighs right around 3.4 pounds with ignition/less battery.
I have seen scale ships on YT with spans of 92" and over with 5 cylinder radials in them.
Jim
my plane.
the MVVS 35cc weighs right around 3.4 pounds with ignition/less battery.
I have seen scale ships on YT with spans of 92" and over with 5 cylinder radials in them.
Jim
my plane.
Similar design airframe, similar size. My plane is well constructed from a framing standpoint scratch built.
My concern is with a similar size single the vibration would grenade the framing either immediately or over subsequent flights. A 77 cc radial is roughly 60% of the power comparison between a single gas two stroke.. So I am thinking this would be similar to like a forty cc single in power. With a much smoother and forgiving power band.
Thanks for the input.
Aaron-
Nope. The R5 has a nice home on a lightly constructed GP 72 inch Super Stearman. The arf weighs in at 12.5 pounds motorless. Many hours and hundreds of flights. Landing gear suffers with crappy landings but the airframe has been able to stay intact with this 53 cc radial.
BUT I am a half throttle radial nut. The full size engines usually turn 2200 rpm at cruise, and usually didn't exceed 4000 in engagement. Usually for a short time as well. I typically dont leave the ground anywhere near full throttle. Back off to less than half once on the circuit. Then cruise low and slow to enjoy the sight and sound. My Saito 450 is on a larger heavier bipe, also well constructed from scratch. The three cylinder is MUCH more powerful at 77 ccs. Weight of motor and ring very similar. It pulls the 24 pound airframe like a rocket. It's cruise is close to an high idle with a 24/10. Super torqued with that prop, loads the motor and tones the torque down nicely.
Spoiler alert. Probably actually intending to install my Seidel 77cc seven clyinder on this plane, didn't want to get the moderators blood pressure up being off topic again. The more the cylinders the smoother the power band. (In my experience any way)Lol the mystery ship was a racer, it is begging to go faster and like the Gilmore and gee bees, had a bigger radial than the pilot could see over. This plane is begging for one of my collection. Half tempted to put my Technopower 90 cc nine cylinder on it for static display. It is American made which matches the airframe. But not very practical to run due to many known issues with these Tek-no-power radials. lmao
I just can't decide what to do with Dave's plane Gary. The gasser needs to go. And it begs for the original radial power plant. It's such a nice plane. Should probably sell it to someone who is ok with gas two strokes. It starts and runs like a clock. And has NO chicom trinkets or batteries to make it spark....
My Feedback: (1)
Does anyone know on the FA 180 if the muffler size changed in any way compared to the newer 180 B version? I need to get a muffler for the older 180 and want to make sure I get the right one.
Last edited by Glowgeek; 09-11-2021 at 07:20 AM.
My Feedback: (1)
Thanks for the info. But I guess I do not understand what you mean by "threading on the side". Would a new muffler thread onto an old header, or would I need to replace both?
New style muffler
Old style 180 muffler
Last edited by Glowgeek; 09-11-2021 at 07:23 AM.
Diectly interchangeable. In some cases the early exhaust pipe works out well with the later, cast trash can style silencer. Also vice-versa. The exhaust pipe threads being identical.
The following users liked this post:
vertical grimmace (09-11-2021)
My Feedback: (1)
Thanks Jim
Similar design airframe, similar size. My plane is well constructed from a framing standpoint scratch built.
My concern is with a similar size single the vibration would grenade the framing either immediately or over subsequent flights. A 77 cc radial is roughly 60% of the power comparison between a single gas two stroke.. So I am thinking this would be similar to like a forty cc single in power. With a much smoother and forgiving power band.
Thanks for the input.
Aaron-
Similar design airframe, similar size. My plane is well constructed from a framing standpoint scratch built.
My concern is with a similar size single the vibration would grenade the framing either immediately or over subsequent flights. A 77 cc radial is roughly 60% of the power comparison between a single gas two stroke.. So I am thinking this would be similar to like a forty cc single in power. With a much smoother and forgiving power band.
Thanks for the input.
Aaron-
they made that GeeBee Y with a 92" spread, people were putting 50s and 60s in them. I will try to find them on YT
Jim
My Feedback: (1)
here you go, hear you go, a 95 incher GeeBee Y with 5 pistons and 10 rocker arms,
and a 92 incher GeeBee Y with a, whopping 3-W 75cc in her. the same brand as my 82 incher
Jim
and a 92 incher GeeBee Y with a, whopping 3-W 75cc in her. the same brand as my 82 incher
Jim
here you go, hear you go, a 95 incher GeeBee Y with 5 pistons and 10 rocker arms,
https://youtu.be/ufYhQsH1Jno
and a 92 incher GeeBee Y with a, whopping 3-W 75cc in her. the same brand as my 82 incher
https://youtu.be/QS_EgEm0A_A
Jim
https://youtu.be/ufYhQsH1Jno
and a 92 incher GeeBee Y with a, whopping 3-W 75cc in her. the same brand as my 82 incher
https://youtu.be/QS_EgEm0A_A
Jim
if that was yours and you flying it... I am inspired. The power managed approach was flawless. I have been practicing that landing approach this summer. There was a great series of articles in the AMA rag by a flying coach. Turned a light on for my marginal willy nilly landings. People don't have to sigh auggge nearly as often now lol.
absolutely beautiful set of planes. Loved the missing cowl over the radial! As Gary may say of me. That's my kind of stuff right there.
Thank you!!!
Perhaps, most likely just an optical illusion. Due to the grinds of both the cam lobe and tappets, as well as angles between the two, the tappets don't ride across the entire face of the lobe. With normal wear that leaves a dark spot in the middle of the lobe and shiny worn areas at the edges of the lobe. Once the lobes become shiny (worn) all the way across the cam is worn out.