 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / November 2003OS 70 Surpass 4-stroke and 4 Star 40...?
Hi all, I am looking for some opinions here: After an unfortunate series of events with my Cub (that started when the wheels left the ground this afternoon... ), I am left with an orphaned OS 70 Surpass II 4 stroke. Coincidentally, I have a Sig 4 Star 40 kit that I have been holding on to, and never built. What do the people familiar with the 4 Star 40 think of the combination of the 2? I know the specs call for a .40 - .50 4 stroke, so this is on the large side... I am NOT an aggressive pilot, so this isn't to over-power the plane, just to make use of the engine and kit and get a new plane back in the air sooner. I was eventually going to buy a Saito .56 for the 4 Star, but haven't been able to yet (which is why I still have the kit laying around! :-) So, what does everyone think, or even better, has anyone tried it (and the plane lived to tell about it? My other option is to build another plane for the 70 4-stroke - I was considering the GP Ultimate Bipe (specs say 70 4-stroke will work). It is more aerobatic than I need, but it would be fun to build and fly a biplane (I think)... Thanks! John >What do the people familiar with the 4 Star 40 think of the combination of the 2? What do I think? Absurd. The Four Star 40 is overpowered by today's .52 Surpass! My opinion is that you won't enjoy it with a 70 Surpass, especially if you're not an aggressive flyer. Buy an Astro Hog and put the 70 Surpass in that instead. Makes a good excuse to buy another kit and the Hog and a 70 Surpass make a wonderful combo. Terms of Reference: Flown Four Star 40 with Enya .53 four stroke and seen a gazillion of 'em fly with Saito, OS and Enya fitouts (my own has a Super Tigre S40K in it, the Enya CX45 was tested and considered overkill) and the Hog with a 70 Surpass. Hear all the usual crap about how "you don't have to use full throttle"....yer...right...uhuh! >I was eventually going to buy a Saito .56 for the 4 Star, but >haven't been able to yet (which is why I still have the kit laying around! :-) Saito 56 is more grunt than you'll require in the Four Star 40. >My other option is to build another plane for the 70 4-stroke - Sounds the smarter move to me. Plenty of subjects to choose from. Hog et al. p > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > John I've just (as in two days ago) finished my 4 Star 40 and use a 52 four stroke. I had to move the battery and rx back a fair way to balance the model, so I think they'd be near the tail with a .70 up front. It's been too windy to fly here, not to mention to small problem of having to work until dark, but based on previous experience with similar size models, I don't anticipate any shortage of power with my 52 powered version.  SignatureDave S, Kuusankoski, Finland. My return address requires modification before use. It would work ok. If nose heavy, just install the elevator servo in the tail. John VB > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > John I would also check the ground clearance; I was running-in the engine on mine today and with an 11" prop there isn't much clearance, the last time I flew my .70 I using a 12.5x6, which wouldn't clear the ground on the 4 star. SignatureDave S, Kuusankoski, Finland. My return address requires modification before use. > It would work ok. If nose heavy, just install the elevator servo in the > tail. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > John Use a 3 bladed 11x6 all in all it will be heavy and thus you need to keep it a bit more up to speed. That goes against the idea of the plane..... > I would also check the ground clearance; I was running-in the engine on mine > today and with an 11" prop there isn't much clearance, the last time I flew [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > > > John I flew my 4 * 40 for about 3 years with a Saito .65. I liked the combination plenty of torque but not overpowered. I had to use 3 1/4" wheels to get prop clearance for the 13" prop. Awhile back I switch to a Saito .56 to be honest the plane flies better now. It was always nose heavy with the .65 The .70 should work ok. >Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >John A friend in our local club tried to run his 4*40 with an OS 70 and wasn't happy with the result. He felt that he didn't have sufficient rudder area to always deal with the torque it created. In the end he went back to a 46 2 stroke and finally a 52 4 stroke and is much happier. Chris > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > John I flew my 4*40 with an OS 40FP believe it or not and it flew just great and would still be flying just great if not for pilot stupidity. Mind you, it didn't bore holes in the sky but it was a joy to fly, easily got off a rough grass field and did great snaps. If I had put a 46FX in it, I'm sure it would have kept going straight up. > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > John I've been flying my 4 star 40 with an ASP .52 four stroke and the power suits the model well. It isn't going to climb vertically very far, but there is enough to get most standard aerobatics out of it, and there is a lot of pleasure to be had from nursing a model through the manoeuvres rather than point and squirt flying. SignatureDave S, Kuusankoski, Finland. My return address requires modification before use. > I flew my 4*40 with an OS 40FP believe it or not and it flew just great and > would still be flying just great if not for pilot stupidity. Mind you, it [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > John |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.