Saito 30 or 40 and ARF Nobler

Has anyone tried this combo yet? Surely the 40 would have enough power, and probably the 30. But will it fit?

Larry:
I would imagine that the .30 would tote the ARF well.....it does a terrific job with Zambelli's Brodak Nobler.

Neal Beekman, of the 45 ready to go plane fame, just stuck a Saito .40 into his previously Fox .35 powered ARF Nobler.... and reports that it is terrific! Here is the banter that went on on the Z-man's 4 strokers deal:" Hello, Strokers! Well, it had to happen. Neal Beekman put a SAITO .40 in an ARF Nobler. Read the praise below.

Bob I removed my Fox 35 from the ARF Nobler and put the Saito 40 in its place. I expect to fly Wed. Will let you know how it Flies. The 40 is exactly the same as the Fox 35 mounting holes, no drilling . The weight I think is good - I had about 4 1/2 Oz added with the Fox now it ballances about right .I didnot put the cowel on as i really like the way a Fox Flies it, maby if it flies better i will adapt the cowel. Will you
Bob flew MY SAITO 40 TODAY , WHAT A FLYER !! THE MOTOR RUNS ARE FANTASTIC IT PURRS, POINT IT AND IT GOES. I DID NOT SHIM THE TANK AND IT RUNS AS GOOD EITHER INVERTED OR RIGHT SIDE UP.. I NEVER BROKE IN THE ENGINE AND IT RUNS GREAT. HAD TO ADD 1 OZ NOSE WEIGHT, IT WAS TURNING A LITTLE FAST. ITS GIVING ME A 5.5 LAP AND RUNS 7 MINUTES ON A 4.5 OZ TANK, I KNOW THIS WILL GET BETTER AS THE ENGINE WEARS IN. CAME HOME FROM FLYING AND FITTED THE COWEL TO THE MOTOR, NOT MUCH LEFT BUT IT LOOKS BETTER THAN WITH NO COWEL . THE STARTS ARE FANTASTIC , NEVER HAD TO TURN OVER THE PLANE TO START, AND I HAD 8 FLITES. THE ONLY PROBLEM FROM GOING TO A SAITO 40 FROM A FOX 35 IS ABOUT 1 1/4 INCH BETWEEN THE COWEL AND SPINNER, IT JUST DOES NOT LOOK GOOD BUT I DONT CARE, I JUST FLY IT TO PIECES, NEXT ONE WILL BE BETTER. BOB CHAMPIONE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY IT RUNS - SURE BEATS HIS DOUBLE STAR 40. WELL I WILL SEE YOU ON SUNDAY,
REGARDS NEAL."

Neal may not be able to spell cowl very well, but he sure thinks that the .40 is the cat's meow!

See Ya

Hmmm..... So what does it take to run a Saito .40?

Where do you get a venturi?

Do you run them on pressure or forced air uniflow or what?

What fuel?

I saw mention of shimming the tank.... what is this and why would it be necessary?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Mike,

I would direct you to the Ultra Hobby homepage were you will find Brad Walker's excellent story about four strokes. http://www.egpworld.com/ultrahobby/

The Saito .40 is a very nice and smooth running four stroke. I would recommend a little bench time first; mine was a little hard to set the needle at first.

To my knowledge, no one makes a venturi for it yet. The Saito carb and intake pipe are a single cast unit, making it hard to do a simple carb replacement. Most of us simply wire the throttle open, but Pat Johnson has replaced the carb barrel with a straight tube and seen good results.

Use the O.S. F plug, 20/20YS fuel - 20 percent nitro, 20 percent Klotz - NO castor (try Powermaster or Wildcat). You can do the full pattern on less than three ounces of fuel.

I run everything from an 11-5 to a 12-6 on mine. Look for something in the 9500-10000 rpm range. It all depends on your plane, it's weight, lap times, your style, blah, blah, etc.

Enjoy

>To my knowledge, no one makes a venturi for it yet. The
>Saito carb and intake pipe are a single cast unit, making it
>hard to do a simple carb replacement.

UHP has one in the works. Dirk made a new tube out of brass tubing. Other than that it looks like the one for the big one.

As far as lap times, remember the 4 stroke is different animal. I have found that the ideal "finding the back side of the torque curve" requires a slightly quicker lap time. Sure, you can set the engine up for slow laps and "boost" into the manuever, just like a Fox 35, but this will result in a less than optimum setup in the wind. The ideal (ala Paul Walker) is letting the engine find the "top" of the torque curve (this may actually be the HP curve) as soon as the nose is pointed up. This means that the engine is peaking in torque (which a 4 stroke has a lot of) but cannot provide any further torque on the down legs.

After I returned home from the Nats I was bound to make some changes in my approach to running the 4 strokes. My setup had always had a very "conventional" run, which was boosting into the manuevers similar to 4-2 break motor like a ST 60. This does work very well, but I like the "pipe like" run much better. Apparently, everyone who sees me these days must agree, because I haven't heard anyone say I should go back to the old setup. I certainly do hear a lot about how "fast" I fly (as everyone around seems to have a stopwatch these days). Some guys who have flown my plane have come down and said "oh now I get it".

I continue to experiment, so nothing is final, but my lap times are between 4.9 and 5.15 (69 foot lines) depending on where I set the needle. At 5.1 my patterns are the most consistent and I have the best shapes, but at 4.9 I can literally fly in a hurricane, so both speeds are useful. I may lose a few shape points at 4.9 but I can cut through the crud with no fear at all. I feel I fly manuevers slower than most pipe guys do at 5.3 to 5.4 laps. I simply do not waste any time flying level laps.

I flew another Saito 72 rig this weekend and I really liked it. He was running his engine almost exactly the same way I was. We had him at 5.0 laps. I thought, if anything the manuevers were a little slow. Once the engine goes "over the top" it really locks into the speed, and the bottoms are the same speed as the tops. That's when I can really get "on" and hit some good shapes. These engines are simply not like anything else out there except maybe a 2-2 break pipe motor when run in this fashion.

Funny thing is, I also have to tip my hat to Randy Powell, as his approach seems to maybe trump them all... let you know in a couple years. Brett and Ted too...

I feel I fly manuevers slower
>than most pipe guys do at 5.3 to 5.4 laps. I simply do not
>waste any time flying level laps.

Really??? hmmmm....

>I feel I fly maneuvers slower
>>than most pipe guys do at 5.3 to 5.4 laps. I simply do not
>>waste any time flying level laps.
>
>
>Really???....

Geez... here we go.

I can set the engine to literally crawl in the maneuvers, all I have to do is open the needle. I simply don't like it. If the engine is set so slow that the airplane is flopping around, I have no use for it. That leads to line oscillations, and all kinds of weird stuff. I prefer to have the lines dead straight all the time. I also prefer the acceleration in the corner (most of the time-depends on how nuch sleep I get).

I watched the other Saito 72 rig this weekend, it was 5.0 lap. Didn't look fast to me... Flew a little slow I thought. Never flew fast anywhere that I could see.

Everyone that flew it seemed to fly it real well, huh? In fact, I heard the word "better" bantered about.

>Geez... here we go.

Where are we going...???

>I watched the other Saito 72 rig this weekend, it was 5.0
>lap. Didn't look fast to me... Flew a little slow I
>thought. Never flew fast anywhere that I could see.

You are right about the other Saito. A plane that big s never going to look fast. At 5.5 it looks slower than mine at 5.9.

Anyway his plane has alot less poop in the maneuvers than your does. Also his plane is alot larger the drag is WAY more. Therefore when he goes over the top of the curve in the maneuver his slowdown is much much much much much much more evident than yours. You also run your motor with more power setup than his.

You want to know the real reason I think your flying has gotten so much better over the past month? Well I will tell you anyway. It is because you have gone away from this over the top type of run. Your maneuvers, from outside the circle, resemble your laptime speeds much much closely than the other Saito we flew or any other 4stroke I have seen. This works to your advatage. Personally I have always seen this over the top lean out torque curve thing as HUGE minus for the 4 stroke. But your testing as of late is getting closer and closer to resolving that whole issue. Having your laptime and you maneuver speed pretty close is a good thing. Having the maneuver slower than the lap in my opinion, which isnt worth much, is a bad thing. It means you have a prop that isnt right for the conditions or you are not getting the power. If the model is making full power in level flight but goiing over the hill and losing power on the way up what good is that? Truth be told your maneuvers are faster than they have been in a long time and they are much much much much much better than they ever ever ever ever ever have been. Why, because you are getting the motor to stay on power in the maneuver and not letting it fall on its but by going ovet the top of it power usage. I heard a few people ask me this weekend if you looked fast to me in the maneuvers and I said faster than I like for me, but look at his shape it is much better.

So if you fly fast who really cares? I dont. I just time you because I time everyone.

>
>Everyone that flew it seemed to fly it real well, huh? In
>fact, I heard the word "better" bantered about.

Better than what? His plane flew better yes. His plane was a flat out blast to fly. I wanted to fly it again. But his motor wanst making the ponies. At the end of a square eight it was hot and in need of fuel. Yours doesnt do that. And it does cause your maneuvers to stay up on speed. Which I think is a good thing.

Why, because you are getting the
>motor to stay on power in the maneuver and not letting it
>fall on its but by going ovet the top of it power usage. I
>heard a few people ask me this weekend if you looked fast to
>me in the maneuvers and I said faster than I like for me,
>but look at his shape it is much better.

I am faster than you? Of course I am. Except for maybe Todd Lee, so is everyone else on the planet. Especially with the Nats plane. Holy crap is that cool. I simply have no idea how you do it, and I fly with you... I was really enjoying seeing you mess with a little higher pitch with the little plane. It looks really good and very aggressive (which I like). Then you brought the big plane out again, put the 5.9 lap on it, and man is that cool...

>So if you fly fast who really cares? I dont. I just time
>you because I time everyone.

I know, I know.

>>Everyone that flew it seemed to fly it real well, huh? In
>>fact, I heard the word "better" bantered about.
>
>Better than what? His plane flew better yes. His plane was
>a flat out blast to fly. I wanted to fly it again. But his
>motor wanst making the ponies. At the end of a square eight
>it was hot and in need of fuel. Yours doesnt do that. And
>it does cause your maneuvers to stay up on speed. Which I
>think is a good thing.

Nice smooth ponies, I thought.

I will keep dropping the pitch. See what happens. Weird thing about a 4 cycle is that if you drop the pitch you drop the load, then the thing kicks into a higher gear. Slowing it down with the venturi works but severly limits the output and the ability of the engine to breath. I like the engine breathing and burning the fuel, and expelling the oil.

I guess the 4 cycle is JUST LIKE ANY OTHER ENGINE. If you load it more, it will get hotter. If you reduce the fuel and air, the load is going up (in effect). I guess what I am going for is more of a free spinning run. There is however, a point where too little load makes for some weird tendancies too, like revving and a tendancy to want too rich or be needle sensitive.

I guess Randy, Frank Williams, and Al have always appeared to have the right idea, it is just a matter of degrees. As always I will continue to fiddle.

Bob,

Try an 11-3 APC. OR an East Texas 3 blade, if you can find one.

Hey Smasher,

I am not sure I am understanding what you are saying. This past weekend I set the Saito 40 with a tach, backing it off just a hair from the peak to make sure I was on the rich side of the needle and it preformed great. However it did run something like a fox with a little speedup when the nose was pointed up. We didn't have any wind so can't tell how it will do on a windy day but I sure felt like it could handle itself if wind-up wasn't a problem. It was doing just over 5 second laps and didn't notice any great speed changes in maneuvers.

So what exactly did you change to go from where you were to where you are now? Prop, fuel or just the needle setting?

BTW: Speaking of slow, Saturday I flew a Magnum with a Stalker .61 doing 6.5 second laps. No wind to speak of and I did have to dance around the circle a few times to regain line tension but it made it through the complete pattern.. Everyone watching was pretty amazed and so was I.

I sent Bob Z and email asking if he could find out what prop and fuel Neal was using. I stuck a Saito 40 on the TwistMaster with a RevUp 11-5 and it was an animal. The thing was doing 4.5 second laps, steady as a rock just too fast. I tried an APC 11-4 and the results were not much different.

Mike,

The hot ticket for 4 strokes is an RC plastic clunk tank plumbed with conventional venting. Just like the diagram that comes with the tank. As far as I know, no aftermarket venturi is available for the Saito 40 yet. Most of us just wire the RC carb wide open and run it. I use a spring to hold the throttle open just because I feel it puts less stress on the throttle arm. Fuel reports vary from 10% nitro 50/50 22% oil to YS 20-20 four stroke fuel.

The Saito 30 I had on the TwistMaster did great on YS 20-20 but I wanted a little more power for the windy days. Wow did I get it with the 40.

Since Neal has a lot of experience with the SATIO .30, we discussed the installation into his ARF Nobler. Since I did not have the ARF, I decided to experiment with my Brodak Nobler. It first flew with a Fox .35 and it was fine. Then an OS .26 4S - OK just for calm days. Next the SAITO .30 and it was the best so far. Since the .30 is going into my Argus, I decided to try the SAITO .40. With the .40, it flew so much better that I could not believe it was the same plane. I used the plug that came with the engine, a 10-6 Top Flite wide blade wood, 5% nitro, 22% 50/50 Powermaster and a simple 3 ounce brass tank with non-uniflow muffler pressure. The weight is just under 44 ounces. The total weight gain was less than one ounce over the Fox setup. I do not believe that there is any need for a venturi - it ran perfectly with the carb wired wide open. I bench ran it for around 1 hour before flying it.
In the meantime, Neal decided to try the .40 instead of the .30 and as you can see, he is really enthusiastic about the results.
Bob Z

Neal with the ARF at the GSCB event Sunday.....

See Ya

I'd like to see the tail weight box on the back. Do you know how much weight had to be added? Just curious.

I've been flying mine with a Brodak 40, but I also have the Saito 30, 40, OS 40 Surpass, Magnum 36, TT 36,...well you probably get the idea--to paraphase Fred K., too many engines, too little time! Actually pretty happy with the B40, but now that contest season is over, it is fiddle around time!

I don't want to pick on Ron King, but earlier in this thread Ron mentioned that YS 20/20 fuel is 20% Klotz, no castor. While I do not believe any castor is in this fuel, there is certainly something other than Klotz used for lube. I mixed a small batch of home-brew fuel, 20% nitro, 20% Klotz, balance methanol. Have not used it, as the color is WAY off when compared to real-deal YS 20/20.

In the next day or so I will do some searching on this subject. The RC Pattern guys haqve been through quite a controversy concerning fuel mixes, YS 20/20 included, and some interesting--or so I am told by a Pattern friend whom I am converting to CL Stunt--data surfaced as to ingredients used in various fuel mixes.

> The RC Pattern guys haqve been through quite a
>controversy concerning fuel mixes, YS 20/20 included, and
>some interesting--or so I am told by a Pattern friend whom I
>am converting to CL Stunt--data surfaced as to ingredients
>used in various fuel mixes.

I spoke to the Powermaster guy at the Nats. He said YS 20/20 is a blend of two synthetics. I think it is UCON and something else.

Hey fellas, Thanks for the advice. After thinking things over I've decided to stick to my original plan and go with an Enya 40SS ABC I have. I just need to order a venturi from Altech. I still crash way too much and don't really know the whole pattern. The object of the Nobler ARF was to keep it simple and emotional free. A new $180 engine would not be the ticket.

I was surprised, well not really, that you guys are running YS 20/20. Its a good fuel. However, If you like PM YS20/20 you might want to try some Morgans Pro-Pattern 20/20.

Several years ago I discovered PM YS 20/20 fuel and started using it in everything. From my sport planes to my competition helicopters. I have some older nearly used up sport engines, one of 'em being an OS .40 Surpass, and I found that the 20% nitro perked them up yet the 20% oil prevented any damage. I loved it but the owner of the hobby shop that carried it passed on and so did the shop. The only other shop would only bring in Wildcat which didn't work too well around here. To get the PowerMaster we had to make trips to Phoenix or San Diego. That got old fast so we stated looking around at mail order places. It turns out that Morgans has a mail order outfit called Mach7, http://www.mach7fuels.com/ , so we ordered their Pro-Pattern 20/20. Its a funny blue color but found that it works even better than the PowerMaster. A competition airplane pattern flier tried some and switched as well. We found our engines ran smoother through the throttle range and had a little more power. The pattern flier noticed improved vertical climbing.

I'm not sure if this would apply to control-line but I've been playing with fuel mixes and have settled on 20/17multi-vis fuel. The trend in helicopters is to reduce the smoke produced while hovering. I was talking with some other competition heli flyers and Morgans had a prototype fuel that some of them were trying. It was 30%nitro with a 14% high-viscosity oil. The oils previously used were a low viscosity which was the reason for so much it. The typical 30% fuel had like 22% oil. It works great but smokes like a fog machine. The 20/20 has a low viscosity oil. Works great but it still smokes pretty good especially when run really rich. I guess those guys ran the 30/14 for a few years but in the end Morgan decided not to produce it. One flyer told me that the margin for error in engine tuning was just too narrow for those with limited tuning experience. Another flyer told me straight out that if he didn't have an engine sponser he wouldn't run the fuel. Also, now that the FAI has allowed up .91 displacement engines 30% nitro fuel is no longer needed to get good power like the .61s needed. Fuel development continues but one the guys I was talking with also preferes the 20% nitro fuels and mentioned that he thought the perfect mix would be a 20%/17%. Morgans doesn't make a 20/17 so he was going to play around. I got to thinking about it and noticed that I had several gallons of Morgans "Super Tigre" blend fuel for the big quarter scale two strokes. Its 10%nitro/12% high-viscosity oil. I had also bought some of 30%nitro/22% low-viscosity oil "heli" fuel to get more power out of some sport 3D helicopters I have. If I mixed the two fuels 50/50 I'd get the 20/17 my friend postulated would work. When I ran the idea past my friend he pointed out that I would have a multi-vis oil package. I would have the benefit of enough oil without the smoking side effect of straight low-viscosity nor the "lubrication drag" of straight high-viscosity. So, about two months before this years NATS I mixed up the fuel and gave it a try. Bingo! I didn't think I would find a better fuel than the 20/20 I had been using but the engine runs butter smooth on this stuff. Throttle response and needle setting were improved. It still smokes but not as much as the straight 20/20 does. I haven't run it in any planes yet but I think I've found a new fuel.

A couple of points about several posts:

1) It appears that Neal Beekman's ARF Nobler has a bunch of noseweight in the form of the spinner nut and double nut thingy. If there was a balance issue (like there should be), I would sure get rid of all that double quick.

2) The Enya .40SS is advertised as being a cast iron piston/steel sleeve. If Mike has an ABC version, that's interesting and would like to confirm that. After seeing Thunder Tiger boxes all saying "ABC", when they are really ABN, I'm always skeptical.

3) The Magnum XLS .36 is on sale ($10 off) this week for $59.99 from Hobby People. Everybody I know that has tried Magnums has been very happy with them in CL form. Unfortunately, there is no official CL version available, but Leonard can provide the parts to convert them. This could be a sweet combination with the ARF Nobler. http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/210640.asp Steve

Steve:
Neal's ARFBLUR does, indeed, have the nose weight that you mention...he likes it that way, and thinks that it flies just fine, as does a famous (just ask) former National Champione.

OTOH, Doug Bennedetti's Fox .35 ARFBLUR seems nose heavy...he figures that removing the muffler should do the trick. It also appears to fly well.....go figure.

See Ya

>A couple of points about several posts:
>
>2) The Enya .40SS is advertised as being a cast iron
>piston/steel sleeve. If Mike has an ABC version, that's
>interesting and would like to confirm that. After seeing
>Thunder Tiger boxes all saying "ABC", when they are really
>ABN, I'm always skeptical.
>

Steve,
The new re-introduced engines are iron-steel. I seem to remember that when the SS series was first introduced they were of ABC construction. I bought this engine slightly used a while back under that assumption although I have not taken it apart to verify it.

Dan,

Sorry to confuse you. I have been mixing my own fuel for thirty years and simply used the "YS20/20" label to avoid confusion. I use Klotz because it has always worked well for me. I would use UCON if I could get it.

The problem with most of the good synthetics is they are designed to mix with gasoline and do not mix with methanol. I learned the hard way that Bel Ray worked great in my motorcycles, but not in my models. If anyone has more info, I would like to learn about it.

Klotz is red; my nitro has yellow dye. When I mix a 20/20 batch, it comes out slightly orange. I don't know if it matches anyone else, but it runs great for me.

As far as other secret ingredients, I've had lots of success with Lubricin N-1 over the years and put one percent in the pot. In my older Pattern days, we really dropped the oil percentage, but I'll go along with the crowd and keep things at 20 percent or higher for CLPA.

For some information on Pat JohnsTon's carby conversion, see this thread of two weeks ago (how quickly they forget!). Randy and I had an argument going over which prop was used, which Pat swears was an APC 11.5 x 4, sometimes trimmed to 11", sometimes not. It would have been nice to find out the venturi bore, but I don't think that came out. I'm sure Pat would be willing to provide more info. Steve
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID1/6136.html

NEAL B. THE PROP IS A 10/6 TOP FLITE ,AND THE CARB IS WIRED OPEN. JUST A GREAT COMBO.WILL FLY IT AT GSCB ON SUNDAY.

David - we did quite a few flights on "The Plane" with the Surpass .40 and the SAITO .40. From a power standpoint, the OS has the edge but at a cost. It consumes more fuel and is much more temperamental. The SAITO is around 2 ounces lighter and is much more user friendly.
After "The Plane", I put the OS on my old Euclid. It weighs just over 57 ounces dry and at times the OS seemed to be too much engine (It was on 64 foot , .015 lines). I then flew it on 68 foot, .018 and it was fine at all points in the flight. Only problem was it would drink the 4 ounce tank dry short of he clover leaf no matter what I tried. Also, I had to design a special shaft extension/spinner backplate to keep the prop on. The SAITO has NEVER tossed a prop.
As an all around choice, my favorite is the SAITO. It really amazed me when I put it on the Brodak Nobler.
Bob Z

Since the OS has more power, drinks more fuel, and is more temperamental, I am wondering if the carb choke area is larger. What would happen if you reduced the throttle slightly?

For that matter, what happened to the earlier set-ups where people could simply dial in the throttle amount that they wanted? This was the "poor mans" lap time adjustment.

Somehow "poor man" and 4 strokes seem a little contradictory!

(ok ok, I know "serious" PA engines are more expensive than the 4 stroke!)

>Mike, I don't know what engine you are running this stuff
>in, but I do hope you have an engine sponsor.

No I don't have an engine sponser but if you must know I've been running the fuel in an OS.50, YS.61, YS.80, YS.91 and have plans to run it many other engines both two and four cycle.

The OS.50 and YS.61, when in idle-up mode, are governed to maintain ~17,000rpm. The YS.80/.91 somewhat less at about 14,500 due to the torque curve. I've been running them this way for several years on 20/20 fuels and since about April on my new 20/17 mix and they haven't skipped a beat.

> You
>definitely do not want to use 17% oil on any two stroke
>engine,

Sure I do (see above).

> and don't fall for the low viscosity, high viscosity
>bunko.

Whats bunko about it??? It is what it is. There are high and low viscosity formulations each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If you think viscosity formulations are bunko go tell that to Jerry Conely of Wildcat fuels and get ready for an ear full.

> Castor oil is a very high viscosity oil, and yet you
>do not bring it down to 14%. Synthetic will burn when it
>gets too hot.

The fact that Castor is high viscosity does not in itself make it comparable to specifically forumlated synthetics so your comment is a complete logical falicy. Castor does not have good enough lubrication properties so it must be run in copious amounts, either alone or supplimented to maintain lubrication.

When looking for a more smokeless fuel it is my understanding that Morgan determined they would try the obvious solution and limit the amount of oil. But they knew what would happen if they did that with their current crop of oils so they developed a stickier, higher viscosity version that could maintain lubrication with lower quantities of oil. I think this is the same track Wildcat took. However, just this year Morgan determined that the 14% experiment was too borderline to make a fuel for the general market so the fuel will no longer be produced. I didn't know it but this fuel was available to their test pilots for the last several years. But the point of fuel development is to make a sellable fuel not just something for a few select pilots.

>
>And, yes, if you replace oil with methanol (cheaper) you
>will get more power--that is until your engine burns up.

Okay whatever...... ~17,000rpm almost every weekend since April and they haven't burned up yet.

> I
>blew a new engine on one run of Morgan's synthetic that he
>"guaranteed" me would not hurt my engine.
>
>That "smoke" you see coming out of your engine is the price
>you pay for lubrication. If nothing is coming out of the
>exhaust, just think of what is happening inside your engine.
> It ain't purty, I can tell you that much.

I didn't say "smokeless" just less smoke than current fuels. Beleive me there is still enough smoke to annoy the judges. I have looked in my engines and there is plenty of oil left in them after a flight.

In any case, one thing I noticed as I worked through this was that you keep saying the same things that I heard about synthetic oils ~28years ago (when I started). Do you really think that oil development has ceased to exist???

Everybody hold up their hands that beleives that synthetic oil development ceased to exist sometime in the mythical past!

Dan,

I am often easily confused. In retrospect, I should have just said "synthetic oil" when I was talking about the YS20/20 fuel. I have not seen the Powermaster version, but have seen and tried the Wildcat version and it works well.

Blue dye. Cool. It's the same color as 100LL avgas. Now I know why Cool Power is green. I know the dye is put into the chemical so you will know if it has been tampered with or mixed with other compounds. My nitro barrels all said what color dye was added on the label, I'm sure your barrel had a similar label.

Incidentally, my ex-wife is a chemist and we had a lot of fun analyzing the various fuels I used in model aviation while we were together. She would run a sample through the chromatograph and list all the compounds.

Thanks for the tip with Henry. I used his engines for RC pylon racing a long time ago (in a galaxy far away).

Ron,

Sorry, it's a joke. I have always understood that nitromethane has an ingredient which (intentionally) turns the mix blue should the nitro become shock sensitive. Having never been blown up by nitro which has been smacked into exploding, I cannot verify this.