w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

No bronze on that one

johnfly

ok... thanks so much.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Make sure there is no excessive play or gawling and that the bores are smooth

Vertical3-D

My Feedback: (20)

the .82 should spin the same 13x8 that a .91 would, so I'd say it will spin a 12x9, and possibly that 13x9, I usually experiment with props, start with one, see how it flys, then make subtle changes and see how it affects the performance, it's not just about matching the prop to the engine but the prop to the engine and the plane and your flying style,

WMB

My Feedback: (1)

I had an 82 on a 40 size Midwest Zero, about 5lb, 10oz. Started with an APC 12x9 when it was barely broken in. Good speed, good pull- fast outa sight verticle. I think the 12x10 would have been ideal for that bird and what I was looking for.
82 now doing duty on a 4.5lb 3D profile with APC 14x6. Just learning the 3D stuff, what a blast!

[email protected]

Hi me again , Bob A here , maybe I'm a dummy but I still don't know how to become a club saito member and how to get a number , can any one help me out thanks Bob

Vertical3-D

My Feedback: (20)

All I did was say what Saito I owned and ask...then they should give you a number, w8ye's suggestion to put it in your signature is a good one, then you'll always have it

mike early

When I had the .82 on a 3D profile, I liked the 14x4W prop. A lot.

mike early

Well, I have a 13x8 on my .72. It's a powerpoint TF prop, so it doesn't have the load than any other 13x8 would have, but it's the perfect prop for that engine for speed.
I have seen a large differenced between the .91 and the .82 when trying the same props. The .82 will simply not turn some of the props the .91 will.
My .91 turns a 13x8 3-blade like it's nobody's business. The .82 can only muster the 12x8 3-blade.

The days when I could by a bunch of props and just pick the one I liked best are on temporary hold.

The APC 13x9 might be too much of a load on the .82. The 12x9 might be not enough load. I just don't know.

Vertical3-D

My Feedback: (20)

my .91 was really happy with the 14x4W prop on my Cub which spends most of it's time just over stall speed doing some bush flying, my suggestions were based on my expirience with my .91 and the .82 was supposed to be comparable in power, but maybe the smaller displacement leaves slightly less torque...and I know what you mean, any decent prop is all but 10 bucks now so till you get 4-5 of them you get a lot tied up in props...hopefully someone else will chime in that has a bit more knowledge on the speed side of things since most of my flying in of the low and slow variety

Jimmy Hoffa

My Feedback: (3)

It would seem logical that an .82 will not provide the same power as a .91. I recommended a fuel change in another thread and I still think that is the variable you are omiting.

mike early

Well, I have a lot... of 15%. I've made that bed and now I lay in it for a while.

It's just a warbird for flying around in (fast) circles. Decreased fuel economy and Increased price would probably benefit 3-D flyers more than they would me.

Jimmy Hoffa

My Feedback: (3)

We will never know.

mike early

One day. One fine day.

mike early

I am re-installing my cam box with a new cam. There is a bushing, Very Thin. I memorized which side it goes on, but let's make sure.

There's 2 ends of the cam. One is crimped and one is smooth. On which side does the thin bushing belong?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

There are two little thin stainless washers that act as shims for end play on the cam. There should be one on each end of the cam.

mike early

One on each end? Mine only came with one. Or I lost it. dang me. Saito .91.

mike early

I see them:
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...rodID=SAI30S37


http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...odID=SAI125A37



None of the engines listed are the .91?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Those don't look stainless? maybe mine were just new and regular steel?

They are thin and one may be stuck on the end of the cam or still inside the case.

At one time, they had whilte UHMW ones but these were thicker and in some applications there was not room for both of them

mike early

This is an old engine. It was in the gold box. But why are some engines not listed as applicable?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I think Saito has had different opinions over the years. I've seen some engines with no shims on the cam also. I don't know if they came that way or someone removed them?

I working with a lot of Saito's, there seems to always be room for two thin washers.

I don't like the idea of the cam oilite bushing rubbing directly on the cam cover but it doesn't seem to be a problem area?

BTW, these are hard to install. You need a little grease on them to hold them in place.

mike early

Well, I got it together. With the bushing on the side it was originally. The guy I bought it from would never have opened up an engine. It was never even ran when he sold it. From looking at the inside of the cam cover, one can tell which end had a shim and which side didn't. You are right about there is room for one, for sure. I just received my new crank and cam. I could order the shims, but they are out of stock, and no expect-date. Just the ability to back order. I presume the cam-pin for the Saito 40 is smaller, which they have in stock. I think I will fly it tomorrow after work and see what happens.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

I'm sure it will run fine

[email protected]

Hi Bob A here , I have four Saitos , a 56 , 65 , 72 , and a 91 , my signature would be Bob A 6862 . If I need any thing elsr please let me know . Email is [email protected]

thanks Bob

Cherokee Flyer

Bob, this is copied from post 18440:

Bob,

Go back 9 posts. You are member #705.

L.