Welcome to Club SAITO !
Senior Member
If one would take an DFG-57T/FG-61T crank & put it into an otherwise stock FA-300T, it would increase displacement to 3.10 cu in & more importantly, raise the compression height by about .020". That should raise the static compression ratio by about 1.5.
If the base bolt centers are the same as the FA-150/FA-180, the FG-61T cylinders could be swapped into the FA-300T case too. If not, the FG-57T cylinders would be an easy swap.
The FA-300T & FA-450R3 do not have the "step" in the case like an FA-150 so no machine work would be required for the FA-180/FG-57T cyinder swap.
The FA-180 cylinders bolt right onto theFA-300T/FA-450R3 case, but on the FA-300T there is a right & left cylinder to orient the intake/exhaust port top/bottom respectively. The FG_57T/FG-61T cylinders would have the proper orientation & a bolt on manifold could easily be fabricated to allow the FA-220 12 mm carbs.
If CR was high enough, an FA-372 would approach an output of 7 HP.
If the base bolt centers are the same as the FA-150/FA-180, the FG-61T cylinders could be swapped into the FA-300T case too. If not, the FG-57T cylinders would be an easy swap.
The FA-300T & FA-450R3 do not have the "step" in the case like an FA-150 so no machine work would be required for the FA-180/FG-57T cyinder swap.
The FA-180 cylinders bolt right onto theFA-300T/FA-450R3 case, but on the FA-300T there is a right & left cylinder to orient the intake/exhaust port top/bottom respectively. The FG_57T/FG-61T cylinders would have the proper orientation & a bolt on manifold could easily be fabricated to allow the FA-220 12 mm carbs.
If CR was high enough, an FA-372 would approach an output of 7 HP.
My Feedback: (102)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 20,370
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
I'll just have to be satisfied reading about yours, I have no plane large enough for a 3.00, in fact I just placed my SuperTigre 4500 for sale, it never saw fuel. I still want a Saito 1.30 though.
The Rascal 168 is rated at 50cc-65cc, so the FG61 should be plenty to fly it. Its got 14 feet of high lift wing after all. Not really meant to be a speed demon either.
Senior Member
Wing loading is significantly (30%) higher than the Rascal 110. 20 oz/ft compared to 27 oz/ft 110/168 respectively.
I have an FA-300T that I bought for a 22# SIG Spacewalker & that is about right for that weight. Even with more wing area, the FG-61T will have about the same HP & as I said, it would fly, but it wouldn't have enough power for anything beyond scale J-3 cub aerobatics. The thrust would be about 30# which is only about 66% of the all up weight and that is IF the all up weight comes in within the maximum spec, which I would be willing to bet it will exceed by several pounds.
You're right, the Rascal isn't a "seed demon", but it is capable of some impressive aerobatics & with only 66% thrust to weight ratio, it will have no vertical performance.
If you would be satisfied with scale J-3 Cub performance then it will work.
Well hell, I guess I will just slap the DA100 on it and be done with it. A DLE-61 is less expensive than the Saito, but it sounds like a damned chain saw. Maybe it will be less expensive to go electric, but I hate having all those batteries around. I have a bunch of 3S from 3300-8400 mah sitting in a can that I haven't touched in a year and a half. I really want to have a scale like looking engine on it, with the rockers sticking out.
Senior Member
Well hell, I guess I will just slap the DA100 on it and be done with it. A DLE-61 is less expensive than the Saito, but it sounds like a damned chain saw. Maybe it will be less expensive to go electric, but I hate having all those batteries around. I have a bunch of 3S from 3300-8400 mah sitting in a can that I haven't touched in a year and a half. I really want to have a scale like looking engine on it, with the rockers sticking out.
I just don't see a 5 HP twin being adequate for a 44# + aircraft.
Last edited by SrTelemaster150; 09-13-2016 at 11:16 AM.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (6)
An idea, the next time you are out at the field a club mate is flying his diesel slip a little gasoline into his fuel container and help him get it all fired up! after all what are friends for? ;-)
My Feedback: (6)
Senior Member
Patience is a virtue.
This will probably be available before the Rascal 168
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aXsrTY5Qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_9OM8eCGV4
Last edited by SrTelemaster150; 09-13-2016 at 12:59 PM.
My Feedback: (6)
Great sounding engine but I would have to rob a bank to afford one and I don't think the 20 years in the pen would be worth it. Itr would cut into my building time too much!
Senior Member
Senior Member
Here are the predicted (fantasized) maximum all up weights & wing loading of the Rascal 110, TF GS P-47 & the rascal 168
- SIG Racsal 110: Weight 13# (mine came in at 14# 6oz) wing loading 20oz sq'
- Top Flite GS P-47: Weight 21.5# 37oz sq'
- SIG Rascal 168: Weight 44# 27 oz sq'
Now compare the Rascal 110 at less than 1/3 the weight & about 75% of the wing loading of the Rascal 168, it would seem reasonable to predict that that the larger bird would need more than 2 times, closer to 3 times the power output to perform similarly..
I think that the FG-90 hanging out of the cowl of the Rascal 168 would look INSANE! (in a good way) And it would probably perform in a similar fashion to the Rascal 110 with the power plants at the upper end of the specifications.
The Rascal airframe is so capable, IMO it would be a shame to under power it.
My Feedback: (102)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colonial Beach, VA
Posts: 20,370
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
25 Posts
Pete, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday when I inspected the APC 16x6, the holes is not .25 as Towers specs state but is a perfect fit on the 1.00 crankshaft. Also the hole is straight and centered. It only took one tiny drop of thick CA to balance it. The Xoar 16x6 is as always, perfectly balanced.