Saito 45

My server is VERY slow downloading ng's.

Ng was the name of my trigonometry professor in college. Couldn't understand a word that guy said.

Generally saitos tend to be gas hogs. Maybe you should try an OS 40 surpass. The original surpass line had pretty good fuel economy.

I am running a Saito .56 with a four oz tank. I have not timed the duration, but get sufficiently long enough flights that I always land after a satifying flight with fuel left in the tank.

Somehow I suspect you never owned a small Saito. My first was a .45 that I still have. In a 4-40 I got 10 minute flights out of a 6 oz tank and landed with fuel to spare. I have an .80 in a Cloud Dancer 60 that I've yet to run out of fuel after 10 minutes of aerobatics. I run them both on 10% two-stroke fuel.

CR

Robbie and Laura Reynolds wrote:

I run a .56 on a 8 ounce tank and fly it HARD for 12 to 14 minutes. I suspect the .45 will be more miserly since the carb updraft tube is smaller and the venturi passages are not so generous. But I suggest you bolt it to a test stand and supply it with the tank you are going to use and simply run it WOT with a stop watch.

Wondering where you got that information or what fuel consumption tests you are refering to. For my $.02, I have found my 3 Satio engines to be good running engines, never had the feeling they were 'gas hogs.' Andy

We can make a box of wood.....FLY!!

Same here and goes for any other 4 stroke... FredD

They do run well. I have always taken great pleasure in running a saito engine because it is a fine piece of machinery. But the question was about fuel economy, which I believe is a relevant point. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the saito 45, but in my experience Saito engines tend to consume noticeably more fuel than OS engines of similar displacement.

For instance: A few years ago when Saito introduced the new 30, I ordered one. I put it on a plane and was surprised when it died in flight. I tried to restart it, but it wouldn't go. I finally figured out that it was out of gas. Some quick testing confirmed that this engine would run through a

6 ounce tank at an alarming rate. Having been a long time fan of the OS 26, which has great fuel economy, I was not happy with the Saito 30, which didn't even provide a power advantage over the OS for the added fuel consumption. I started talking to other guys on the net, and they all agreed that fuel consumtion was a problem. One guy even ran an OS 26 side-by-side with the saito 30 using the same prop, same fuel, and the same RPM. He claimed that his OS burned 6 ounces in the same time that the saito burned 27. That's pretty significant, and I found it hard to believe that the difference was that severe, but my personal experience with the saito's poor fuel economy was enough to make me want to sell the engine on ebay, which is what I did.

I have also had personal experience with saitos in the following displacements: 65, 80, 91 and 120. They all used fuel at a greater rate than comparably sized OS engines and had no significant power advantage, if any at all. I had the 91 on a Big John biplane with a 14 ounce tank and even though I ran the engine at much less than full throttle half of the time, the fuel would run out before I was tired of flying, which is the opposite of my usual experience with the collection of fuel efficient engines that I typically operate.

I don't want to get into a ridiculous saito mud slinging match. They are great engines, a true pleasure to operate. They are better looking than OS engines, and they are reliable and powerful, and they sound good. But if I had a small space to put a fuel tank, I would get an OS. Actually, I'm a cheapskate. I would mount the engine that I had on hand and if I found it to be annoyingly inefficient, I would trade it for an OS.

I have found that a Saito will run well even very rich. Perhaps poor mileage may have something to do with this.

John VB

You may have hit the answer. One user may run it richer than another. Maybe richer than necessary. There goes the old fuel economy. (G)

CR

jjvb wrote:

Yeah, that's the ticket. I probably just don't know what the hell I'm doing.

By the way, when you say "running rich" are you talking about the little turny thingy on the pipe thing on the back of the motor?

Heh heh! I almost swallowed my pipe. :o)

Marty

That's it, baffle us all with science!

======================================

I hope the other message wasn't intended as an insult to your tuning skill. I run the engine on my trainer [TT61-Pro] very rich. It goes plenty fast at

1/3 throttle, so I see no reason to wring every available RPM from it. Some folks believe running rich makes the engines last longer, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of fuel economy for the extra longevity.

AND, at the speeds I currently fly, I get about 30 minutes of run time per tank [12 or 14 ounces?].

I just hate fiddling with the needles all the time. We can just start and fly my plane in any weather [without adjusting anything] with it set the way it is. When/if I get a plane that needs a finer tuned engine, I guess I'll have to do some needle tweaking.

I would say that running "very rich" may not make your engine last any longer, but will certainly use up fuel faster. I advocate running the engine a "little rich" as there is less mess to clean up and less chance of flameouts.

Running a Saito rich has undesirable long term results. The exhaust valve will carbon up sooner and that is a real problem. Lean it down for peak RPM and then richen it up 300 to 400 rpm and you can use the throttle stick to control the use of that power.