w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Saito and Zenoah stuff was hard to get from Horizon long before the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan.

I figured it had more to do with Horizon themselves and their MOQ's than anything that Saito or Zenoah did?

Many items would be on back order for months at a time. At times a part would be on back order and all the items would be sold long before they came in.

I had a landing gear on back order from Horizon for nine months recently. I eventually got it.

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

I never said they were easy to get before. It's much worse now.

I haven't seen a company anywhere that isn't cutting back on stock-on-hand, I doubt that it's any different with Horizon. Right from the start, Horizon has been trying to compete with Tower/Great Planes, and it's been a game of catch-up right from the start, and no doubt they overextended themselves at times, along with a fairly long list of unscrupulous and outright illegal things they've done to get ahead more quickly. I won't discuss any of those here in the forums, but they're a factor.

But limiting the discussion to specific causes of the Saito parts shortage, the situation has been directly exacerbated by the tsunami.

Jim

hsukaria

Some of the recent Hangar 9 and Seagull ARFs have been priced very competitively, got my attention. I think I'm going to take advantage of those prices.[8D]

turboapache

Just got email that backordered rod has been shipped. Thanks

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

Seagull ARFs are often heavy. Hangar 9 ARFs need to be double-checked for structural weaknesses, but most folks (including me) find the flying characteristics to be very good. The Pulses are terrific flyers, but have a problem with tails folding and separating under certain stresses. This can be solved with flying wires for the tail, the Kevlar ones that you glue in are the easiest. And using hinges other than the CA types.

Jim[8D]

hsukaria

I agree that Seagull ARFs tend to be on the heavy side. I have 2 of them that were a bit too heavy. I have never owned a Hangar 9 ARF [X(]. But they have some new ones that are reasonably priced, I will try one of them.[8D]

Rudolph Hart

My only hanger 9 arf is a taylorcraft with a saito 182 flat twin fitted,excellent hardware quality.I have a few seagull kits and don't find them any heavier than any other arf kit.What i do find from long use is how tough they are an example being my three year old weekend flyer.It's a seagull 65" decathlon with a saito 82 fitted,nice vertical performance and it's done hundreds of touch and go's.

hsukaria

Well, I have to modify my earlier statement. I just bought my first Hangar 9 ARF ever, a Sundowner 36. What would be a good Saito engine for that, a .56?

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

I had a Seagull, an Extra 230, I think, and it turned out extremely heavy, and I was careful. It was a pretty plane, but it handled like garbage. To say it was unstable would be a massive understatement. You had to land it like it was on fire, or it would just FALL.

I had a couple of others, and I sold them all.

A T-craft has a lot more wing, perhaps it flies better than the other scale birds.

I wouldn't buy a Seagull model on a bet.

Just my two cents.

Jim[8D]

Sharpeye22

Seagull may well be heavy or not. It depends on what is considered heavy. When I compare any ARF to a kit built plane like a Topflite or Royal or Sterling I always find the ARFs to be much lighter, and less durable. Yes compared to other ARFs they may be heavyer but I find them to be just as good flyers. (But then I do not do 3D and none of the planes could do 3D because my weight to thrust is not suited for it. I have their SparrowHawk, Gee Bee, and Spacewalker II. All three land as if they were buteriflies with soar feet. The Great Planes Shoestring I have though land (How did you put it) like it were on fire. It comes in so fast that the wings are making wind noise. I would not call it heavy just very thin wings. My kit built warbirds on the other hand would have to be making a good clip if not for the flaps. They are not overly heavy just higher wing loading then any of my ARFs.

PacificNWSkyPilot

My Feedback: (19)

What part of this doesn't indicate TOO HEAVY ??

How's this? The box said 7 lbs max. The plane came out at nearly 12. Is THAT considered heavy?

What extras did I add? A Sullivan tail gear, and a few extra pieces of checkered Monokote. I used a Saito instead of a two-stroke. Figure a whole pound for all of those extra items, and then tell me where the other 4 pounds came from.

Seagull planes are heavy. TOO heavy. Other seasoned pilots in the clubs I belong to all experienced the same thing. We bought them because they were pretty, and then learned they were heavy.

Go with the Hangar 9 models, they're not perfect but most of them fly well.

Avoid the Seagulls, and remember that misery loves company.

Jim

P.S. - In reference to the Shoestring. The Golden Age racers were built for speed, with MINIMAL wing to create minimal drag. Gee Bees were the same. Those are SUPPOSED to land and take off at higher speeds, because the wing area simply isn't there. The Shoestring is a Golden Age racer. If you buy one of those, expect it to fly the way it was built to fly. Fast. Very fast.

hsukaria

Well, maybe my expectations are too high (low weight). I have 2 Seagull ARFs, a Harrier 3D 46 and an Ultimate Biplane 46. They are not extremely heavy, but the Harrier 3D is the same weight as my Great Planes U Can Do 3D 46 but with a lot smaller wing area. My Ultimate 46 is around 7 lbs also, but other brands make their Ultimate 46 about the same size but weighing around 5 lbs. I believe the reason for the extra weight is that Seagull makes their planes to be 2-piece wings and with removable canopy hatches even on their smaller 46-size planes and using heavy hardware.

I still fly them and enjoy them, but can't do unlimited vertical due to the weight.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Let's get back to talking about Saitos.

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

I'll second that......

Bob

mike early

What saito did you decide for the Sundowner 36?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

The Saito 40A would be about right

If you have an old Saito 50, it would work but be heavy in the nose.

Rudolph Hart

Would a 62 be overdoing it?

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

A 62 would be a lot of power out front

hsukaria

I did not decide on the engine yet. The Sundowner is intended to be a racer, so it would need more top end power instead of low end torque (Hangar 9 recommends a 9x7 prop for 2-strokes). The landing gear is quite short, so the prop diameter can't be more than 10 inches. The engine would need to be light also. I figured that Saito would be the 4-stroke engine to be light and rev up fast enough for a racer. I think an engine that weighs 14 oz. max with muffler is the upper weight limit.

jg95762

My Feedback: (2)

I have a Saito 40 that I am breaking in - what idle RPM is normal for a 40? I have a 10x6 prop (wooden) and am running 25% nitro. Is 10x6 a reasonable prop size for sport flying with the 40?

earlwb

The Saito .40 works well with props in the 10x7, 10.5x6, 11x5, and 11x6 range.
The 10x6 is probably OK, but it depends on the plane and how much drag it has. It is just a little bit on the small side.
Saito advertrises that the engine turns some kind of a 10x4 prop at 10,500 rpms, but that is a static run on the ground though.
But inSaito's tech specs the benchmark was a 11x5 prop of which it turned it at 10,600 rpms on the ground too, so their info looks to be in conflict.
The rpm range tops out at 12,000 rpms, so you want to choose a prop that keeps the engine under that rpm when it is flying in the air.
Idle speed after break in would be around 2,200 to 2,500 rpms.

cubfloater

My Feedback: (5)

My friend has a H9 Mustang with a Saito 125 on it and tried an 18-6 and I think a 15-7 and neither would fly the plane fast enough he thought. Which way should he go to get more speed? Oh and he was getting 8200 rpm with the 18-6. And he was using Master Airscrew. I told him first thing I'd try is an APC. That's all I use on my Saitos. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks,'
Jim

hsukaria

I have been using an 18x6 on a Saito 180. So, it sounds like he should use a smaller prop. For more speed, he needs to go smaller diameter and higher pitch. I don't know exact numbers for a 125, never owned one, sorry.

earlwb

Saito suggests using a 15x6, 15x8, 16x6, 16x8, 17x6 prop on  a Saito Fa-125 engine.
If you want more speed then a 15x8 or 16x8 prop is likely the prop to use. Especially with a more streamlined plane like a P51 Mustang.

jg95762

My Feedback: (2)

Funny how this worked out. I had spent a hour or two tinkering with the needle settings with my Saito 40 in the plane and could not get it to idle. So I took the engine out and put it on my test stand. One change to the idle needle to richen it (1/4 of a turn) and it idled great. I thought it might be my inverted mount so I held my test stand upside down - the little Saito continued to tick away. I then put it back in the plane and it runs great there too - probably closer to 3000 but the plane is not moving and I figure it will drop once I get it broken in. Lesson learned - get it running right on the test stand.