Tarasdad

I re-tune my engines every flight session and check them before every flight to see if they need tweaking. I know others who follow the Ronco "set it and forget it" method and who are always complaining about poor performance. While I agree that castor can save an engine it is no substitute for basic good tuning habits (no pointed fingers or the like, just a statement of my own beliefs - heck, if I was to point fingers I'd have to start with my own dumb self).

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I flew my 56 for almost 2 years without touching the needles. It gave good rpms in winter and hot, humid summers. A broken in, well tuned Saito will always be close once you get there. Any adjustments to the needle valves should require a trip around the traffic pattern a few times so you can listen to the engine. Land, adjust, test fly as necessary.

There are a number of things that can make an engine suddenly run lean. An engine running on 10% synthetic may not stand a chance if a pinhole develops. Minimum chances of it happening, but it does. Just another small reason for a little bit more protection.

Mike, filling the crankcase and cylinder with glow fuel helps too.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

But you ran Omega fuel

FNQFLYER

I wonder how many people here use tachometers (tacho's to us here in OZ). 
How many people have read the Saito instructions re oil type and content for the 56, not many I bet.  With O/t at the comps we have CD supplied fuel and the bun fights over having 20% synthetic as per Saito) for the 56 still rage.  Most CD's still like to mix castor in their fuel.
Me I follow the manufacturers recommendation, use a tachometer for tuning and my ears, though they are failing in the mid range (common fault with baby boomers and aircraft engineers in particular).
However competitions are different where one is out to extract the max performance possible to beat the pants of the "Mexicains/ Cockroaches", then all bets are off.
BTB for the Ozzies, blue skies little wind and typical FNQ weather for this time of the year.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

Jim, yes I did run only Omega with a couple oz of Morgan's castor.

StangFlyer

My Feedback: (17)

Oh my... a thread right up my alley. I have owned many types of RC engines. Started with O.S. and soon went to Saito. I have also owned a Quadra and a ZDZ inline 80cc Twin. I am currently fixing to get a monster motor for my Monster Don Smith Mustang. However staying with the thread, my O.S.'s were good, but nothing compares to my Saito's. Well, Except for my O.S. Gemini 160 Twin and my O.S. Pegasus 320 flat four. My Saito's have consisted of a Saito Radial 450, (2) 180's, (2) 150's, A very awesome running 72. Do you think I could get Saito to make me an inline 880, (four 220 jugs) for my Don Smith? Now wouldn't that be sweet? What a nice little thought huh?
Happy Modeling Everyone. And remember, If'n ya ain't inverted, Ya ain't doin' it right!!!
Hangar 9 150 Mustang, Saito 180
Goldberg Sukhoi, Saito 180
40 year old Top Flite Mustang, Saito 72
Matt Chapman Cap 232, O.S. 70
Oh and many others too.... :-)

radial1951

*
Hi Stangflyer,

I really don't think four Saito FA220 cylinders will be man enough for that job.

Saito don't make anything over 75cc, so you're out of luck for a decent engine for your monster P-51. Or are you...?

Well this one's a bit noisy, but it's ok... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmYbW4o5PRk

If the above won't do the job, then you should talk to Detlef about one of his Phoenix V-4s.

http://www.rcscalebuilder.com/forum/...40&PN=1&TPN=70

The perfect replacement for a Packard-Merlin...

Regards, RossG
radial1951
_____________

SRQFlyer

My Feedback: (17)

Hi All,

I just picked up a Saito FA45 [marked as series "G"] intending to use it - maybe in an oldtimer. Well, I was surprised to see that it appears to have never been run or even mounted. There is absolutely no gum or soot anywhere on the valves or at the exhaust port. The plug hole appears to never have had a plug in it also. There is some very slight rust on the prop washer, nut and shaft and on the inside of some of the bolts' sockets.

I like to run my engines, especially all my Saitos. I thought that maybe a "collector" might be interested in this one, considering the condition? There is no box or paperwork or tools. Let me know (PM best) if anyone wants it for display before I "test" it!

Thanks,

Jim

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I recon it looks like this one, its a keeper but probably not a collector yet. Nice find.

Woops, ignore the fact that this one has the rocker covers removed.

SRQFlyer

My Feedback: (17)

Hobbsy,

Yep - that's the one. If I decide to run it - maybe a wide-blade 11x6 prop? If I remember right, these weren't real powerful.

Thanks,

Jim

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

It has more power than the .40 than you would think. That 11x6 should be perfect.

orthobird

My Feedback: (1)

hello
i need help
advice
i have a saito FG 36 that was, yes, i said, was
on a DYnaflite super decathlon.
today was its last flight,
RIP
it was, however, the best flight to date.

over 6 minutes of flight before dreaded nose dive into farm field.

i shut engine down right before impact.
during the CSI and autopsy,
i have removed the engine and ispected it.
i do not see a bent valve pushrod cover,

however, after removing the spark plug, it is very difficult to turn the crankshaft, i still can, but it is not smooth

i do see both valves do open (not at same time) as i rotate the crankshaft.

does anyone have any advice.

this is a video of the flight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPU_L...hannel&list=UL

earlwb

It is very likely that the crankshaft was pushed back slightly within the crankcase. When the engine is hot from running, it is easy for it to happen. You need to disassemble the engine some, then heat the crankcase to expand it but still have the bearings more cool, then reseat the crankshaft forward. You'll likely need to reseat the drive washer and collet too. While you are at it, after reseating the crankshaft, check the crankshaft tip to ensure it didn't get bent on you too.

orthobird

My Feedback: (1)

ok earl

thank you so much

it seems to me like that is it

the crankshaft itself was not bent
as the plane went into earth exactly perpendicular to the earth.

i will do it

thanks again.

i will update you on progress

Mein Duff

In watching your last flight video... I wonder also if your model was tail heavy or you weren't using adequate rudder in your turns?
Also it seems you were flying quite a distance away while doing wild manouevers....not a good recipe

Good luck fixing the engine, Earl's advice is a good place to start.

orthobird

My Feedback: (1)

thank you all
the engine is fixed.

1. cleaned engine thoroughly with WD40
2. wiped it down clean
3. removed the muffler
4. removed the spark plug
5. removed the carb intake
6. removed crankcase cover
7. upon doing so, the crankshaft moved freely.
8. placed engine in heavy duty vise
9. used heat gun to heat rear aspect of cranckase, directly over crankshaft
10. after 20 seconds or so, i used a large tamp, and gently gave 2 blows, and the gap in between the crankcase and shaft taper collet, immediately was restored.
11. cleaned it all up and put everything back together.
12. thank you all

regarding the flight:

this plane is very difficult to control, i was not trying to do wild maneuvers, this is just the nature of this plane, it is wild. most difficult plane i have ever flown, but this was by far the best flight it had, over 6 minutes, until its death.

the plane was balanced front to rear and the CG was at the recommended area. you should have seen this plane on its first flight. it was really tail heavy, it was a miracle i was able to land it. since then, i had moved all servos as far froward, and placed two battery packs directly under gas tank. with this, i was able to remove the 16 ounces of extra weight i had placed under nose of bird after the 1st flight.

this airplane was a major learning experience for me, this was the 10th plane i have had. but this one, i built myself from a dynaflite, and one mistake was that i built plane on a cheap plastic fold down table.

i have just purchased a 10 foot long work bench table from a company in california with a solid thick wood top that should be very flat.

i have learned that a true and straight bird begins on the bench, and the one i had to build at first was a bad one. this plane was never true.

thanks again for all comments, now i have to find a new bird for this engine, i was thinking of getting the RC guys sup decathlon.

Tarasdad

Yep, a straight build makes flying a whole lot easier.

Glad to dee your engine is back in working order. I really love the sound of my Saitos and would love to get some of their gassers but just can't afford 'em. I know if I did have one and it ws in a crash like that I'd be a wreck as well as the plane![:'(]

mike early

That plane might have had too much elevator throw or something.

SrTelemaster150

That's what I was thinking too much control surface throws.

I like to program in some exponential. It helps eliminate the control sensitivity but still allows positive control if you need to get out of a tight spot.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

You made the effort to build it, so don't knock on your hard work. It looked pretty good in the video. It seems to me that the model was unstable and on the verge of snapping out of control all the time.

mike early

Good point. Less throw and more expo perhaps.

Rudolph Hart

Maybe true.To me it looked like the pilot flew it one minute and not the next.The fg36 sure sounded good.

FNQFLYER

I had a model, my first build in Malaysia (a Pilot Zlin as I remember) and it performed the same way with almost the same result, it landed flat and rekitted itself.  When we checked the engine thrust line we found 2 degrees up thrust (and that was assuming the firwall was installed in true vertical.  Made for an interesting flight and an expensive purchase of an ajustp jib for futire building, no further troubles in that area in the ensuing 20 + years.
A good solid bench with flat surfaces to build on are first the building blocks to good models.
I have noted that bit about the crak shaft, haven't done it that way but I will definitely check it out shoud the situation necessitate it

the pope

The ground did that plane a favour . I would have landed that thing straight away , flying around while its flying like that aint good . Reminded me of a dog that drags its @rse on the groung . Good luck with the next one, cheers the pope

Homer712

My Feedback: (17)

Quick question to those of you that have a lot more experience with Saito then myself. I have two Saito engines, both less then a year old. An FA-62 and an FA-72. In the manual, both engines are listed as having a 7 mm prop shaft. If I use my Fox metric prop reamer and ream out an APC prop to 7 mm, the prop will fit perfectly on the 62, but will not slide onto the 72, even if I try to force it on with the prop nut. To get a prop to slide onto the 72 I need to ream it out to 5/16". Any one else run into this? Is there a misprint in the Saito manual?