Saito 56 left at altar?

It seems many people wishing to try the world of 4 stroke stunt had a brief romance with the Saito 56, but ditched her in favor of the big-sister 72, who's getting most of the attention lately. For those of you who've tried both, what was the major attraction in moving up to the larger motor? What didn't you get from the 56 that you felt the 72 could give? Who still likes the 56?

Also, what specific differences have you noticed flying the pattern with any 4 stroke over a pipe?

> It seems many people wishing to try the world of 4 stroke
>stunt had a brief romance with the Saito 56, but ditched her
>in favor of the big-sister 72, who's getting most of the
>attention lately. For those of you who've tried both, what
>was the major attraction in moving up to the larger motor?
>What didn't you get from the 56 that you felt the 72 could
>give? Who still likes the 56?
>
>Also, what specific differences have you noticed flying the
>pattern with any 4 stroke over a pipe?

I think the Saito 56 would be a WISE choice for those of you who might be considering campaining a 4 stroke IF YOU CHOOSE THE AIRPLANE WISELY.

For a HIGH ASPECT RATIO LOW drag platform I am not sure the Saito 56 might be superior choice to the Saito 72. I know that the Billy GEO winged airplanes do not seem to require as much thrust as the 72 can offer. Also, the weight is less, which makes exsisting platforms easier to transistion leaving the CG in place as intended). This would include many of the low drag piped airplane platforms. I believe the Saito 72 is best suited to a HIGHER DRAG platform (fat wing, larger flap, low aspect ratio wing, more weight). This allows the use of more pitch, which lets the Saito 72 breathe a little better.

Jerry,

I sort of went the other way. I tried the 72 and ditched it for the smaller 56. I don't have any idea why the 72 is preferred. The 56, as I've set it up, has plenty of power, runs smoothly and is quite predictable. Now, I've messed with a couple of other 4 strokes. The RCV, YS63 and more recently, an OS 70 Ultimate. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 56 is definately not broke.

We might arrange a trade. I have a brand new .56.

Howard,

I sold my 72 on ebay. Still have the RCV and the OS. You may see the OS at some point. Then again, maybe not.

I actually prefer the Saito 56. I have tried the 72 in a couple of planes, but actually like the 56 better. For my tastes, the 72 jsut pulls too darn hard. It seems as if I am spending just as much time concentrating on just holding on as I am on trying to put in a good pattern.

I used the 56 in my Sportster last year and am using it again this year in my Hughes H-1. Both these planes are light and really don't need the additional power of the 72. Now, I did fly Al's BBQB (Barbecue Bearcat, wink, wink) last year with a 72 in it, and liked it very much. It was very easy to put the plane right where you wanted it to go.

Our brief analysis is, the 72 pulls that 8oz overweight 56 model a lot better..!!

Good flying

You may
>see the OS at some point. Then again, maybe not.

You could donate the OS 70 to the GZ 4 Stroke Research Consortium.

It's tax deductible (not!)

GZ,

I've been messing with it a bit. Tried a couple of things over the past couple of months. I'm not happy yet but I think I may be...eventually. Sometime this summer it will get mounted on my testbed plane and we'll see what we have...if anything. I suspect the plumbing will be, ah, interesting in the end.

> It seems many people wishing to try the world of 4 stroke
>stunt had a brief romance with the Saito 56, but ditched her
>in favor of the big-sister 72, who's getting most of the
>attention lately. For those of you who've tried both, what
>was the major attraction in moving up to the larger motor?
>What didn't you get from the 56 that you felt the 72 could
>give? Who still likes the 56?

It should be obvious from the responses that the choice of 56 or 72 is personal need and preference. What seems to amaze me with the 56/72 comparo's is that folks tend to compare them at all! Nobody debates the need for either the Supertigre 46 as opposed to the Supertigre 60. They serve different purposes. The Saito 56 and 72 are NOT similar engines. As I see it, there are 3 CL stunt players in the Saito lineup, the Saito 40a, Saito 56, Saito 72. I do not see them as interchageable. I would not substitute the Saito 91 for the Saito 72; the 91 is not similar! It appears as if the new Saito 82 may be TRULY interchageable with the Saito 72. Along time back, I said on this forum that the Saito 56 is better suited to 650sq class ships such as the Trivial Pursuit, Impact, Legacy, SV series etc, and the Saito 72 is better suited to Patternmaster class ships. We know what the 40a is used for.
I like Saito motors, and I would not hesitate to use anyone of them depending on NEED!!
>
>

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-04 AT 02:51 PM (CDT)
 
Proparc,

Well, I had a 56 in my 75oz, 680sq inch 7.5 to 1 AR toad-mobile and the engine was never the problem. It pulled the thing through howling winds without an issue. The design lacked a lot and was way overweight, but the 56 pulled it's porky hind quarters without a complaint. Never even thought about power as an issue when it pulled the thing over the top, into the wind, with great line tension.

The new plane is a svelte (after trimming) 62oz on about 700 square inches. The 56 has more than enough power. In fact, in my latest trimming effort, I've detuned it a bit so that it doesn't charge quite so hard through the pattern. smaller venturi and less nitro than I had been using. Still has plenty of power with a pretty good reserve.

I've watched Gordon and Paul fly their 72 powered planes and they are definately awesome. Regular freight trains. It just wasn't my style, I guess. Maybe later I'll convert, but I'm pretty happy with what I have right now. I'm just starting to really understand the 56. What makes it go, what messes it up, and how to fix stuff that isn't right.

I guess it just depends on your needs, perceptions and preferences.

And how nuts you are with aspect ratio.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-04 AT 04:29 PM (CDT)
 
Howard,

>>And how nuts you are with aspect ratio.<<

Yea, yea, yea. I'm afraid you'll be disappointed this year.

edit: typo

"I'm afraid you'll be disappointed this year."

Not if it's as pretty as last year's.

>Proparc,
>
>Well, I had a 56 in my 75oz, 680sq inch 7.5 to 1 AR
>toad-mobile and the engine was never the problem. It pulled
>the thing through howling winds without an issue. The design
>lacked a lot and was way overweight, but the 56 pulled it's
>porky hind quarters without a complaint. Never even thought
>about power as an issue when it pulled the thing over the
>top, into the wind, with great line tension.
>
>The new plane is a svelte (after trimming) 62oz on about 700
>square inches. The 56 has more than enough power. In fact,
>in my latest trimming effort, I've detuned it a bit so that
>it doesn't charge quite so hard through the pattern. smaller
>venturi and less nitro than I had been using. Still has
>plenty of power with a pretty good reserve.
>
>I've watched Gordon and Paul fly their 72 powered planes and
>they are definately awesome. Regular freight trains. It just
>wasn't my style, I guess. Maybe later I'll convert, but I'm
>pretty happy with what I have right now. I'm just starting
>to really understand the 56. What makes it go, what messes
>it up, and how to fix stuff that isn't right.
>
>I guess it just depends on your needs, perceptions and
>preferences.
>
>Randy

Hi Randy. As a rule, I am not one to take threads in a different direction, but you do seem to be the "high aspect man." Ever since you posted your pics of your prior planes, I noticed a pattern of high aspect ratio ships. Whats up with that and what has been the results. Dennis Adamisin, if memory serves me correctly was exploring this realm quite intently.

PS. I am trying desparately hard to post pics of my ships, but the jpeg compression software thing is kicking my #$#%^.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-04 AT 04:38 PM (CDT)
 
Proparc,

Brief thread tangent.....................................

Well, there's good news and bad news. Like anything, you try to take advatages of the things it does well: great turn (really great turn), good handling in the wind, very clean hard maneuvers and generally very good handling. And minmize the things it does poorly: Really bad suceptability to turbulence, uneven control feel and reaction to input.

Overall, I managed to reduce the uneven control response and feel to the point that it was a non-issue and also managed to reduce (at least some) the ridiculous sensetivity to turbulence while keeping the turn and wind ability. But in reality, the thing is just not getting it when it comes to fielding a competition plane. It's just not consistent enough. Bringing the AR (among other things) down to the point that it fixes the problems entirely looses the things you did it for in the first place.

Still, I'll probably take another crack at it at some point. I'll need to cogitate on the problems for a bit. Likely a long bit. But I'll tell ya, it's hard to forget that absolute killer turn.

Jerry,

As you are not one to idly ask a question merely to be entertained for a couple days, I am assuming you are considering buying either a Saito 56 or 72.

Unless you're going weird on us with really big models, at this time I am in suggesting the the 56. While you may not have seen it, my latest Impact has a 72, and of course the older model has been packing a 56 for a couple years.

The high-profile guys (Godzilla, PW, Gordan, etc.) are liking the 72 for various reasons, few of which apply to our specific needs as local guys attending local contests.

For example, Paul has mentioned that the 72 has a greater tolerance for funky needle settings in that it has enough extra grunt that it doesn't really care. This might be really, really important at one or two very big contests per year and probably for only one flight in marginal conditions. You and I can just take an attempt.

Howard,

My 72 is still a very low-time beast. I will soon be trying my 56 in the new model. Let's talk in a couple weeks. Uh, does your 56 have the older exhaust setup or the new-and-devolved unit?

Yeah I've been leaning a little towards a 56. I have the UHP manifold and I found some YS fuel Tuesday in Salem. (Thanks Paul) A 56 would probably be very adequate if I can get one that pulls like Randy Powell's. Just launching that thing made my arms tired. Randy needs to walk out to the handle a little faster. I'm a delicate creature, you know...

Jerry,

Yea, it's go a bit of juice.