Saito .40, what size plane?

[Gerald Schamp]

Would like to know what size plane would a Saito .40 carry comfortably. I'm looking at a 630 sq. in plane, (my copy of everbody elses) with a built up fuse. Should it be configured also so that the engine is side mounted. I'm hoping for a 50 ounce, I repeat hoping for 50 ounces. Thanks, Gerald Schamp

[proparc]

Would like to know what size plane would a Saito .40 carry comfortably. I'm looking at a 630 sq. in plane, (my copy of everbody elses) with a built up fuse. Should it be configured also so that the engine is side mounted. I'm hoping for a 50 ounce, I repeat hoping for 50 ounces. Thanks, Gerald Schamp

Myself, Bob Reeves, and Bob Zambelli own 40A's. They are 550 sq. class motors. The difference is that they have a hell out a lot more torque than a comparable size 2 stroke. I am serious about this,the thing has more torque, size for size than my 72. Shoot for a 550 class ship with a thicker airfoil. At 630sq, with built up fuselage,I would go for the 56\62 Saito.

Bob Reeves is the resident expert on the 40A. If he tells you different,listen to him.

[Bob Reeves]

Myself, Bob Reeves, and Bob Zambelli own 40A's. They are 550 sq. class motors. The difference is that they have a hell out a lot more torque than a comparable size 2 stroke. I am serious about this,the thing has more torque, size for size than my 72. Shoot for a 550 class ship with a thicker airfoil. At 630sq, with built up fuselage,I would go for the 56\62 Saito.

Bob Reeves is the resident expert on the 40A. If he tells you different,listen to him.

Think you pretty well covered it...

I am flying a 576 sq/in airplane with a Saito 40 and that is about as big as I would want to go. Rule of thumb is the Saito 40 will fly anything the LA 46 will fly and I wouldn't even think of trying to fly a 630 sq/in airplane with an LA 46.

[Gerald Schamp]

Thanks guys,  that is what I wanted to know. I had thought the Saito .56 might be too much engine for a 630 Sq. In. sized plane, but there I go thinking again. What about the inverted mounting versus the side mount, does it matter that much? I'm just asking as I don't know, and from what I have read here some say it doesn't matter and so on. My Saito .40 is on a profile and it runs fine.   Plumbing the fuel lines would be a problem in a built up fuse, as this is not a control line version engine, its merely has the insert in the carb with the nylon choke screw. It runs fine. This is basically all experiance I have with 4 strokes, other than an OS .26 on a Ringmaster and that one had the carb replaced with a regular venturi, by Bob Zambelli. It runs really good, so far my experiance has been good, but not with a bigger plane, or with the engine in a built up airframe.  I've run 2 strokes all the time, so forgetting what I know about them, really shouldn't be that hard........but, some good ideas and help would be greatly appreaciated.

[proparc]

Bob thinks it matters, I don't. RC guys mount Saitos in virtually all of a 360 degree circle and they all run like stink. That's where Saito gets it's long continued dominance, it just plain runs period.

I've propably spent more time talking to RC guys about there engines than most people here, and while the OS MAX 4 strokes are certainly good quality-the stories about the headaches and aggravation in getting them to run the way you want were endless.

I've personally flown mine upright,inverted and it made no difference, it just simply ran. The Saito 4 stroke may rank as one the worlds best powerplants in terms of flexibilty of setup. It ranks right up there with the Hungarian Moki and British Lazer as one worlds top powerplants for ease of installation.

You have to remember, the Saito was not designed for our level of expertise. It was designed to perform well with people who have considerably less. Thats were it gets it continued popularity-it performs extremely well in very varied installations for sport flyers with minimal knowledge.

[Bob Reeves]

I've posted this before but guess it doesn't hurt to say it again..

I run my 4 strokes side mounted because....

I believe they oil better, more oil getting to the valve train = longevity.

Less weight added to the wing tip, ya it's small but it's still dead weight that can be eliminated.

The tank is located inboard of the intake, we fly in circles fuel is being forced to the outside of the tank. The faster the airplane goes the more the fuel is forced to the outside. Think about that a bit... Built in speed regulation, airplane speeds up, fuel head increases, engine gets more fuel and slows down.. Airplane slows down, fuel head decreases, engine gets leaner mixture and speeds up. Yes, the same thing happens with the tank at the same location as the intake (inverted installation) but with the intake outboard the effect is more pronounced. Might help to think about how much 1/4 inch tank height change effects the engine run from upright to inverted then realize how far we are moving the intake outboard on a side mount.

It's a real pain to redesign the nose for a side mount but for me it's worth the effort.

[Gerald Schamp]

Thanks Bob, I appreciate your patience, knowledge and help. Gerald Schamp 

[David_Ruff]

Just coming here for the first time and wanting to know about running 4 stokes on CL.

Help me out...do they make a 4 stroke with a single speed venturi or do they all have RC carbs?

Sorry for the dumb questions.  But I would like to try the 4 strokes

[55chevr]

Saito makes constant speed venture.  Bob Reeves mod's the RC carburetors for control line.  Check his posts.  I have one on a Saito 40 in a Smoothie.  Runs  like a Swiss watch. I only put in 3 oz of fuel or it would run for days.

[Bob Reeves]

Just coming here for the first time and wanting to know about running 4 stokes on CL.

Help me out...do they make a 4 stroke with a single speed venturi or do they all have RC carbs?

Sorry for the dumb questions.  But I would like to try the 4 strokes

This is a link to an article I posted on our club web site on how to do the carb mod and run a Saito. The example is a 56 but the same principals and methods apply to all Saitos from the 30 to the 72.

http://www.tulsacl.com/SaitoCarb.html

[wwwarbird]

 630 squares does sound a bit large for the .40. FWIW the larger model in these photos is the original design "Challenger 575". It's 575 square inches with a fairly thick airfoil, an excellent combination with the Saito .40.

[SteveMoon]

I used to fly my Imitation with a Saito 40. The Imitation has 630 sq. in.
of wing area. It does build very light, though. The 40 had not trouble
at all with this plane, and in fact it was a very good combination.

Steve

[Mike Alimov]

I definitely agree about side-mounting the 4-strokes.  Pretty much a must in my book.

[Emanuel Hille]

Hello all,
I have an Oriental plus kit that I thought to equip with a 4 stroke... Which engine would be the better fit : the Saito 40 or 56?

I saw some posts stating that Dee Rice actually did convert his Oriental plus to Saito 40 but I also saw references to a Saito 56. I would guess that the RO JETT 40 plus pipe would have approx the same weight as the Saito 56.

What would your recommendation be ?

Thxs
Emanuel

[Bob Reeves]

Not really familiar with the Oriental Plus but am thinking it was designed for a 60 in which case I would for sure go with a 56 or 62.

[bruce finley]

I put a Saito 56 with a Reeves style carb setup on a profile pathfinder as an experiment....  Gasp!  it was so overpowered it was just not that fun to fly.  Put a la.46 on the bird and now more like normal.

These 4 strokes will pull!  IIRC (I have the plan somewhere), the O plus is much larger and the 56 should work fine.  Don't forget to consider the weight of the motor and possibly shortening the nose.

Bruce

[Carl Cisneros]

I have a new Saito 65gk with one of Bobs modded carbs.
What would be a good sized plane for this motor?

Thanks