I don't get it..

Just got in from putting first flight on the Score/Saito 56 combo and the thing is like a tractor. Just growled around and didn't change, no wind up, no sag, plenty of overhead line tension, same speed going up, down, overhead, upside down, rock solid.

My Sore ended up tail heavy and I was doing 10 foot eights like a combat plane and it just went.. No slow down, no stall the Saito just growling away asking for more. Felt like I was flying an over powered 35 size stunt ship instead of a 677 sq in 63 ounce monster, confidence level through the roof. I really believe this thing will go anyplace I might ask it to.

Admittedly I have never owned a piped ship but I just can't imagine anyone wanting for anything better than this thing ran. What am I missing??

Hey Bob; Sounds great. What is your setup? Prop, tank, pressure, uniflow, fuel, and are you using the carb. or have a ventura? Hard tank or plastic?

As a sidebar to this discussion I've wondered about the value of the vaunted 2/4 break. Many fly 2 strokes pretty much at one speed. Often it looks like that to me. When I saw the big Ro-Jett 90 doing it's thing, it flew at a pretty constant speed in a 2 stroke's 4 stroke mode. A very even, very useful chug. Regulating where a break comes in during a pattern can be one more element to tune, one more element that varies with temperature, barometric pressure etc. Do we really need the break? How useful is it? I think the break helps to keep a flight in rhythm, keep the pilot coordinated moving from figure to figure and into different parts of the figure. The extra pull at a critical moment could also help. But isn't that another variable in which to work, as the pattern is flown. Look at electric. Definitely a coming trend for some. One speed. Governed electronically. Probably the most accurate one speed propulsion available to us at the moment. Mike Palko says, when he flies electric, he doesn't have to listen to the engine, hear the changes in the engine tone signifying differences in pull. (I think that's what he means.) Mike feels his flying has improved since moving to electric because he can concentrate on flying the plane, not having to deal with engine fluctuations. The motor power consistent and constant. (Does slow up a bit by the end of the flight, just a bit, but that's a very gradual transition.)

Thanks for all the enfo Bob. Sounds like a good place to start if I ever get around to flying mine.

"Admittedly I have never owned a piped ship but I just can't imagine anyone wanting for anything better than this thing ran. What am I missing??"


Well, the easy answer has already been given. You have never owned a piped ship.

To each his own, but back-to-back flights with a proper piped setup and a proper four-stroke setup are quite illuminating.

The problem for many seems to come in obtaining the former. And without a good benchmark, it's a tough act, admittedly.

While I have in fact gone back to a two-stroke (RO-Jett BSE 61 on a Big-Blooey pipe from Richard), in general I enjoyed my time with the Saito 56 and don't regret the effort.

Point of fact, I suggest to some--but not all--of the locals that for their specific application a Saito 56 will be quite good as they can concentrate on flying and trim while the engine just spits out mindless power.

An example is my buddy Rick Cochran, fixin' to get into Advanced PA this next year, building his first real PA model, an Impact from one of UHP's kits. I sold him my entire powerplant, from props to intake to tank. It will work fine for him, especially as he has a lot of other stuff to work on.

But even here he is covering his bets. A second Impact is in the works, and if he hasn't bought one already, his intention is to get a RO-Jett BSE 61 for that model.

Dan
 

Bob,

As I said, the answer seems only to come with back-to-back flights, one known quantity against another known quantity. I have come to the conclusion that well and truly proper piped two-strokes are more unusual than any of us would like to admit.

I have tried numerous times to describe the differences between the best four- and two-stroke runs. Words fail me is all I can say with any honesty.

On a personal level, I had been leaning toward finishing the 2006 season with my Saito 56, converting to the RO-Jett this winter. The convincer, the I'm-gonna-do-it moment came in Vancouver, B.C., Saturday afternoon. I went from flying Dirtmobile II w/20FP in some pretty good wind while five us were flying Pukey Profile to tuning up the Impact and the Saito for Sunday's flying.

I comparison, the Impact was really a handful to fly while the Dirtmobile had been, as usual, quite easy to fly. In fact, I didn't much notice the wind when flying PP, as it was not a factor in the performance of the model.

Different story when switching to the four-stroke in a pretty fair Impact.

And so it comes down to personal tastes, varying experiences with a butt-load of different engines and airframes.

For my applications, wanting to score higher in 2007 than I did in 2006, I had no real choice other than to go back to a two-stroke with pipe and believe I did so with a really excellent powerplant.

Dan

I don't have my notes with me, but Pat Johnston manifold, one direct from Pat--ditching the carb is real important for consistent runs. O.S. venturi, .281 I.D., PA NVA. YS 20/20 fuel. Always had some 30% helicopter fuel with me for those times when enough grunt just wasn't. Stock Sullivan 4-ounce tank. No muffler pressure. Two-blade, CF Berringer prop, albeit a Chris Cox/Alan Resinger piece which was on loan from PW. I used an Eather 12-5 three-blade as a back-up, but the Berringer piece was generally a little better. I fiddled some with ground settings, ended up using 8400 to 8500. I didn't care for runs which began with a ground setting over 9000. YS four-stroke plug (made by O.S. for YS, just different markings on the body--functionally identical plugs). All flight settings made with a tach. And patience, especially the first run of the day--lots of metal to get heated. I would find a peak, it would generally be a false peak. I would then find the real peak and simply back it off 50 to 100 revs. I had no luck with simply listening to the engine, but Randy Powell sets his by ear, so I know it can be done. My first Saito 56 plugged into my first Impact, which was oringinally built around an ST 56. Second Impact built for a Saito 72, retro-fitted to a second Saito 56.

As I have said before, a per-plans Impact with a Saito 56 is a good combination, one I have suggested to several as being appropriate for their specific needs.

The only real issue here is whether or not the above is the best for my specific application, going into 2007. And clearly it is not.

One of The Tests: When you get to the fourth corner of an inside square, does flying the model still feel like slow motion, assuming it did in other parts of the pattern?

Another Test: Same deal, third corner of the triangle.

And another: First loop of the four-leaf clover; are you sure you couldn't use just a wee bit more grunt? If so, that one-speed motor ain't never gonna be able to deliver.

And that is one of the things I personally don't like about the Saito 56: Too much of what I at one time thought might be a Good Thing, that one-speed charateristic.

Dan