4-stroke

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

Reply to
Mike Laible
Loading thread data ...

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)

Reply to
Ted Campanelli

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

Reply to
Robert Scott

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

Reply to
BobH

Reply to
ahdofu

Thanks everyone.

I believe I will go with the OS pump.

Reply to
Mike Laible

----------

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

Reply to
Ed Cregger

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...

Reply to
ahdofu

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

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

Reply to
Ed Cregger

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.

Reply to
Mike Laible

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.

Reply to
ahdofu

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 post>> Ok,

Reply to
Mike Laible

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.