Francis Fernand

Does anyone have the SIG Extra 300 XS with a ZDZ-40B engine?.

I'm new in big birds and I need your advise of this item.

SIG recommends F.P.E., but I don't know.

F.F.

WalkerBoh-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

I have the sig extra with the FPE 2.4. Great combo. Unlimited vertical and still getting stronger. The ZDZ would also be a good choice. I have the RV-L 40 in a 27% edge. Both are great engines and will be fine.

-Aaron

Francis Fernand

WalkerBoh,

What is the total weight of both engines including Ignition, Muffler, Battery and Switch ?.

Who's cheaper with all these things?. ZDZ-40B is UD$475.00 with Pitts instead of SideExhaust Mufflers and all the other things.

Mike Rojas

My Feedback: (2)

Gas engine on this plane=BAD IDEA

WalkerBoh-RCU

My Feedback: (3)

The engines are VERY close in weight. That's the reason I chose the FPE. I wanted something different than my ZDZ. I love the ZDZ, but I've had an idle problem with it that I'm still working on. The FPE is a great little engine. ALWAYS starts with the same # of flips, and only flameouts were my fault (REPLACE THE INCLUDED STOPPER!!!!!!).

As far as a gas engine on this plane being a bad idea, no freekin' way. I've had 2 of these planes, one with a Saito 1.80 and now with the FPE. They fly close to the same, but the FPE has quite a bit more power. Yes, they come out a little heavy, but if you want a competiton machine then you're looking in the wrong place anyway. It's a GREAT flying plane anyway you rig it. Do a search for this plane and these engines and you will find a wealth of information.

Aaron

Vince

My Feedback: (1)

That's news to me, and about a hundred other participants to this forum. A smal gas engine is a blast on this plane. What logic leads you to make such a statement?

Vince

Mike Rojas

My Feedback: (2)

If you want to burn holes in the sky,make blazing low passes,or do simple aerobatics then it may be fine,a tank,but fine.If you want to 3D,real 3D,not just hover,then the gas engine is way wrong for this or any 25% aerobatic aircraft.It's been proven over and over again,but the mysterious lure to a gas engine seems be too hard to overcome for most.If you want to fly 3D with a gas engine,then get a plane designed for it.I still stick to my original statement"BAD IDEA"
MIke

Vince

My Feedback: (1)

There was a saying back in the sixties. Opinions are like Mustangs, everyone has one. There is another saying, but it's not too socially acceptable for this forum.

Not everyone who purchases this plane is a 3D nut. A lot of us go gas to forgo the excessive cost of glow fuel associated with large glow engines. I myself have certainly seen gas powered versions of this plane that will perform any and all 3D maneuvers exceptionally well.

Vince

Mike Rojas

My Feedback: (2)

I'd doubt that,I have flown many 25% aircraft with Gas engines and none of them preformed 3D well,with the exception of hovering,3D was terrible.There is another saying "two each his own".If you choose gas,good luck,just don't expect the plane to preform good in the 3D catagory.Check out what Dick Hanson has to say about this combo
http://www.concentric.net/~Dhmodels/workshop6.htm

Vince

My Feedback: (1)

Whatever.

Vince

Mike Rojas

My Feedback: (2)

I agree "whatever"
Mike

krayzc-RCU

My Feedback: (31)

Having owned the Sig 300 with a satio 180 on her back in the day, i would say that leaves a lot to be desired. With low nitro and a 16 x 8 apc it was an imac/burn holes in the sky kind of plane. On 20-30 % nitro she was great at IMAC. I would say this is not the Sig plane of choice as far as 3d goes, that would have been the Sig Cap 231. I do 3d, not everyone does or care to it and thats their choice, at the same people may want a war bird of which i love to see fly but have no desire to go build up a collection of them. Some people will and have not desire to do 2/3/4/5/6/7/8 ect point rolls, stall turns, harriers, elevators, t-rolls, blenders, walls, ect. Now back to the story at hand i would think even with a few extra oz the Sig 300 will fly well for most with a zdz 40 or comparable gas motor with a smaller gas tank as the Bird should still balance quite easy with that set up as the glow motors are on the light side for the conservative 4 3/8 starting point CG with out lead (2-8oz) depending on how much epoxy was put into the tail end during assemble.

Forgues Research

My Feedback: (7)

Not everyone has to do 3D flying to have a good time at it. A lot of guys are flying the IMAC instead.

Did anybody ask the guy that started this thread what kind of flying he intends to do?

DUCATI996

He wants to do some aerobatics, including Torque Roll.

Regards,

GL

Gregolot

I have been flying a 1/4 scale Edge 540, first with Saito 150, and now with MVVS 160. The plane flies the same with both engines, except Mvvs gives me much more power. With Saito, I had five strips of lead weight up front and now I only have one. I understand it is the same story with Sig Extra 300 XS - it needs a heavier motor in order to balance without lead. Go gas!

bdtsr

My Feedback: (5)

Gas or glow you can't go wrong with this plane! I was JUST out flying mine (ST2000). Yes it's light on power, but a blast to fly. It will do what I want from it and then some. Would I try gas? Sure, what a way do get your thrills but only cheaper!

springcreek

My Feedback: (3)

I had a Sig Extra 300 XS with a Zenoah G-38 up front. It was by far my favorite airplane to fly. No, it wouldn't do some of the more power demanding 3D manuevers like harriers, torque rolls, waterfalls, etc., but it would do the most beautiful inverted flat spin. Unfortunately, it was so beautiful, one could almost get hypnotized watching it spin around and around getting lower, and lower, and lower. (But, you don't want to hear about how I botched the recovery on the best flat spin I've ever done.) It would also hang on the prop, but not do an actual torque roll. I think with an electronic ignition, one would save weight and extract a little more usable power from a gasser. The biggest advantage was the savings in fuel costs. I could fly 6 20 minute flights for about $2.25 as opposed to $17-22 depending on the type of glow fuel and where it was purchased. At a difference of around $15 per gallon, the difference was quite noticeable. Clean up was easier as well.