loughbd

That's exactly what I was getting at. A 10x6 is TOO small. I have been running 4 cycle engines since the first OS FS60 (of which I own 6 ) and know how to prop one. All I was saying is that the Saito instructions are wrong. I also have my own copies of the 60T instructions as I own one of the engines.

ghendrix01

My Feedback: (1)

loughbd,

OK, you own one, what prop do you use? That was all I was trying to find out. You never mentioned having a 60T or what prop to use. A 45 single and 80T is all you mentioned. Whether Saito is wrong or not is not the question. The fact that they have two recommended prop ranges for this engine is what is confusing. Here is the scanned other manual page. Now which one is correct based on your experience with your 60T.

Thanks,

George

loughbd

When I used it, it was on a Goldberg Cub and I ran a 13x6 or 13x5 on it. I try and prop most of my 4 cycles at about 8500 rpm. I have at least 20 Saito 4 cycles from the original 30 open rocker to the FA120. I have 3 of the FA80T's and an FA90T among that wad of engines.

boxbeam

My Feedback: (188)

Speaking of the FA-90T, I have the MKII version that has never been run. Being an "odd fire" engine", will it be hard to keep it at a low idle? Never had or run a twin before, just curious.

loughbd

They idle just fine. Mine will idle at 2400 on a 14x7. If the plane lands and won't move on the ground the idle is plenty low. You can't tell a 90T from and alternate firing engine unless you are really looking to hear (?) the difference. Odd fire is a term Bill R made up. Harley Davidson Motorcylce engines fire the same way and they don't call them "oddfire" engines.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I think that Bill simply used that terminology to describe the twins firing order to someone.

loughbd

That's exactly what I said and now because he said it it will be the official term used forever more on RCU.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Bruce:

Odd fire? Not a term I coined. If you go back to 1959 or 1960, when Honda introduced the Benly 125cc and Dream 305cc motorbikes they described those engines as "Odd firing" with the stated aim of a higher torque peak, as opposed to the common alternate firing twin which was "Even firing."

So, while I appreciate credit I deserve, this one isn't mine to claim.

Bill.

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

Just to muddy the water a bit. The Odd fire Saito 90T, Harley Davidson and Lawrence C3 are radial engines. Whereas the 90TS is not. BTW, I like the odd fire description.

OK, as the Judge says, strike out the Harley and Lawrence reference.

w8ye

My Feedback: (16)

Lets keep the topic Saito. Don't be venturing off into who knows where?

Jim - Moderator!

loughbd

the honda 305didn't come out until 1964 and it wasn't called odd firing. I had one in High school.

More HP

My Feedback: (2)

Hey George, how's your 60T running now?

What #'s are you getting these days?

ghendrix01

My Feedback: (1)

Hi More HP,

The new right cylinder helped but I never got more than 9100 with a 12-6 prop. A 12-5 didn't do much better. After much investigation, I found the ultimate problem with the original right cylinder was an incorrectly machined seat for the exhaust valve. I have given up on using the engine on the GP Cap 232, it just does not have the power for the plane. It will fly but just barely. Mushing around the sky is not fun with a plane that is intended for aerobatics.

I have been looking for a FA80-T for some time. I think the 90TS would be too much for it. The only reason I would consider a 90TS is it would bolt directly to the bolt pattern I have on the plane and it is more available. Using the 80T will require changing the bolt pattern in the firewall, but that would not be the end of the world. Finding one that is not too expensive has been my problem since not many seem to be available as it is no longer available new. It was replaced by the 90T then the 100T. I guess I could get a 100T (new) as it is less expensive than the 90TS (new). Then the plane would have more than enough power.

George

rcdude7

My Feedback: (264)

I remember eyeing a 60T that sat in the LHS display case for a long time. Such a pretty little twin, too bad it's performance does'nt live up to its looks. I think my Enya .46 4CII is slightly more powerful.
I'll bet the 60T would be okay in a .40 size cub, Maybe?

Leo

This Saito 60T-powered Christen Husky has been flown off water for two seasons. Underpowered like a Cub, but great fun on calm days.
12x6 prop. 82" wing span, 9,5 lbs.

davehansen

any advise as to what plane the 60t saito would go on? seems to be underpowered for how heavy it is. had it on a Kadet senior and was underpowered. thx

Jesse Open

IMHO With a Kadet Senior, if it gets off the ground, it has enough power.
The personal preferences often expect more power. My 1981 built Senior was built very light, no goofy ailerons and very light covering.With a Saito open rocker 30, it did get into the air.
Made many demands of the pilot for sure! The more I flew it, the more I learned. That said, I too wanted a bit more power as I wanted to fly low and slow on very windy days. With a three channel plane, making turns with wingtips skimming the turf, you often find immediate need for a healthy dose of instant thrust. With that in mind, plus the weight gains of re-covering and thirty seven years of flying, that plane ultimately wore a FA-65.

Anyhow, those boxer 60s are sweet but marriage to the perfect plane can be tough.
A 4 Star 40 perhaps or maybe, better still a Sig Seniorita with a shortened nose to improve balance.
Maybe even a Sig Smith Miniplane but do keep it light!

706jim

When I bought mine I wanted to put it into a Cub. The Sig Cub is quite light and it would fly that plane just fine. I felt that the cylinders were a bit "wide" for the scale look of that plane. I put mine in a Goldberg Cub on floats and it flew OK but the 90 TS is a better power match IMO. Four Star 40 would be fine also. As for balance, just put the battery close to the tail and it should balance in any of these airframes.

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

I had an OS61FX on my 4 Star 60. and my ShoeString so I would think with the smaller 4 Star 64 would fly nicely with a 60T

Jim

Jesse Open

Dunno, he figured his Kadet Senior was underpowered. How does that equate to an adequate power level for a Four Star 64?

I ran Saito 91 and YS .91 on my Four Star 60s, but would call that grossly overpower for the Kadet Sr.
Likewise, a Saito 62 would be near marginal on a Four Star 60, yet great on the Senior.

the Wasp

My Feedback: (1)

well the 64 is a much more efficient plane than both the 60 and larger Kadet senior

Jim

706jim

Power of the 60T is comparable to a 40 Surpass.

Jesse Open

I understand but I can fly the "inefficient" Senior on a Saito 30 open roch ker. Doubtful that engine would pull a Four Star 64 or 60 off the ground. The OP already said the 60 tein was not enough power to fly the Senior like he wants. Doubtful it would do any better on a Four Star 64 or 60.
A Four Star 40 maybe......

Jesse Open

Exacly, and they even have a similar two strokey sound.
A good engine for a Four Star 40 or A Senior or Seniorita but a bit anemic for a Four Star 60 or 64 IMHO


An engine that wont fly a Kadet Senior to your liking is probably even less impressive on a Four Star 64.