Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / February 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

4-stroke

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mike Laible - 24 Jan 2007 05:54 GMT
I haven't written to this group in awhile, but thought I would try and get
some info.

I am currently building a Don Smith B-24.  Its a joint project on building
time and funds.

My question is what engine:
Saito 100 or the OS .91 Surpass pumped.

I have done the research and like the Saito 100 for power to weight.  My
partner thinks the pump would be good for reliability.  I have read some
threads that indicate a problem with the pump.

Anyway, any solid first hand experience you can share.

Mike
Ted Campanelli - 24 Jan 2007 13:52 GMT
Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
so great) words of knowledge:

Go with the Saito.  If you, for some unknown reason, are still concerned
about "reliability", add Perry pump(s)

> I haven't written to this group in awhile, but thought I would try and get
> some info.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Mike
BobH - 25 Jan 2007 01:06 GMT
> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
> so great) words of knowledge:
>
> Go with the Saito.  If you, for some unknown reason, are still concerned
> about "reliability", add Perry pump(s)

I would definitely add the Perry fuel pump on the Saitos. I have flown
three of the Saitos and with the Perry pump, they are really solid. They
do take a little time to break in, so I would run them for a couple of
tanks on the ground or fly them in another plane for a bit before the
first flight.

Bob
Robert Scott - 24 Jan 2007 22:30 GMT
>I haven't written to this group in awhile, but thought I would try and get
>some info.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Anyway, any solid first hand experience you can share.

I don't have any experience with the pumped O.S. four-stroke, but I do have
several Saitos and one O.S. Surpass II.   I'd say the pump is something that
could REDUCE reliability....

I would not hesitate to fly a twin powered by two Saitos (or non-pumped O.S.
four-strokes).

Good flying,
desmobob
ahdofu - 28 Jan 2007 15:57 GMT
Have both engines. My pumped OS surpass 91 has never failed & given a
one engine database I'd say it has been quite reliable. The Saito was
finicky epecially when new. In my opinion if it's reliability that is
important to you then OS would be it but for weight and power
considerations Saito should be the powerplant.

> I haven't written to this group in awhile, but thought I would try and get
> some info.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Mike
Mike Laible - 29 Jan 2007 01:59 GMT
Thanks everyone.

I believe I will go with the OS pump.

Mike
>I haven't written to this group in awhile, but thought I would try and get
>some info.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Mike
Ed Cregger - 29 Jan 2007 02:27 GMT
> Thanks everyone.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>
>> Mike

----------

The Senior Pattern Association's most competitive and permitted engine is
the OS FS-91 Surpass II/P (pump) engine. The fellows using them claim that
they are the best powerplant for powering their planes (30% nitro fuel
too!). These fellows are older modelers, on the average, and many are ex
pattern pilots. If anyone is critical of an engine, it is pattern pilots, ex
or otherwise.

I just bought two of them from Tower myself for SPA usage.

Ed Cregger
ahdofu - 29 Jan 2007 04:51 GMT
30% nitro! I've tried nitro contents up to 20% with my OS 91pump and
I've not seen much of a performance benefit beyond 15% nitro. So I
ended with 15% nitro (18% oil Power Master fuel) for my flying. I'm
curious whether the "Senior Patten Association" have any rpm data with
the 30% nitro fuel that they're using. I typically use a Master
Airscrew K-series 14x6 prop and my highest recorded engine speed
(ground, static) has been 9400 rpm.

> > Thanks everyone.
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Ed Cregger- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Ed Cregger - 29 Jan 2007 04:58 GMT
> 30% nitro! I've tried nitro contents up to 20% with my OS 91pump and
> I've not seen much of a performance benefit beyond 15% nitro. So I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Airscrew K-series 14x6 prop and my highest recorded engine speed
> (ground, static) has been 9400 rpm.

--------------

I am just repeating what I have been told. The claim is that throttling is
significantly enhanced and the extra nitro lets them pull larger than normal
props, although I wouldn't swear to it.

I did buy a case of 30% heli fuel just to try it for myself, after break-in,
of course.

Ed Cregger
Mike Laible - 30 Jan 2007 04:43 GMT
Ok,

I sorta agree with using 15% max.

So, 14x6 at 9400.  I guess a 14x6 3-blade would get 9000.

So 4 os 91 pumps with 14x6 3 blade, 15% nitro 18% oil - common fuel.

I'll keep this group informed on building progress of the Don Smith B-24.
Almost got the tail group complete.

Mike
> 30% nitro! I've tried nitro contents up to 20% with my OS 91pump and
> I've not seen much of a performance benefit beyond 15% nitro. So I
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>>
>> Ed Cregger- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
ahdofu - 30 Jan 2007 05:13 GMT
> Ok,
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
PowerMaster fuel (18% caster/sysnthetic, 15% nitro is quite common in
my neck of the woods). I don't think you can get 9000 rpm for a three
bladed 14x6 prop and unless you're after looks why would you? If you
need more static thrust you could try a 15x4 wide APC prop instead. I
think a three bladed 14x6 prop will bring the rpm way down for the
engine to be as effective as it needs to run in the 9000 rpm range.

Ed - please post your findings once you've taken data with the 30%
nitro fuel that you have.
Mike Laible - 02 Feb 2007 03:19 GMT
Yah,

I agree.  I will do a static test on the right props.

Just thinking a three blade would look nice!!!!  Actually 4 - 3 blades

13x6?

I will be posting a a build forum on RCuniverse.

Mike
>> Ok,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> Ed - please post your findings once you've taken data with the 30%
> nitro fuel that you have.
 
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



©2012 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.