Saito 82 in Tony

Brad,
The 82 saito has lots of power,It was plowing though the wind like in was calm. Unfortunately on my official flight the da-------------thing was vibrating so bad it broke the flap horn,Yes the flap horn on the second outside loop.It pulled out upright and flew for three laps and gave me time to run too the grass it did 5 more laps before dropping the nose to about 35 degress and hit. Tour the engine out.

Gordy

Gordy,

Sorry to hear of your misfortune. That was an exceptional airplane. I hope it won't be too hard to repair.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 10:54 AM (CDT)
 
Gordy,

I am interested in your vibration problem as it seems to relate to a four stroke engine. I don't understand intermittent vibration. Either an engine vibrates or it doesn't. Intermittent vibration is usually loose engine mounting screws, weak nose structure or a prop balance problem. If your have had a history, even a short one, of satisfactory operation, it would make me doubt the engine as cause.

If your engine mounting screws were tight after the crash, it leaves only the possibility of a weak nose slowly failing when the engine is operating or a prop problem.

I guess it is possible that a prop might begin to delaminate if flight and vibrate or throw enough blade to cause an imbalance.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Al,
The prop didn`t come apart all.The vibration began on the first official flight on wed.That night I took the cowl off and checked the bolt and fuel filter.Everything was in good shape.On Thursday the vibration got worse with each flight. I talk to Brad Walker and he said he had the same problem.The more he ran it the worse it got.The nose on the Tony is very beefy. It has an internal fuse which goes back to the spars on the wing with an outer fuse to get the shape of the tony,which ties into the internal fuse.Evan after impact the nose was still in tacked.It tore the mounts apart on impact.The up right on the flap horn broke off. It was .078 steel.Never have lost one till now.It was good to see you at the nats.And thanks for the video`s you sent me. I`ll get them back as soon as I look at them.

Gordy

Was the vibration a result of a mechanical failure or just too much vibration inherent in the Saito 82? A while back, on another post, I mentioned that the "hot rodded" Saito's seem to vibrate more. That is, the 56 seems to vibrate more than the 50. The Saito 82 seems to vibrate more than the Saito 72. Among RC flyers the consensus is almost unanimous, the Saito 180 has significantly more vibration then the Saito 150. The exception here, appears to be with the Saito 1.00 which seems to be quite smoother than the Saito 91. It is important to remember that, 10,000 RPM with say, a 12x6 prop on a 4 stroke is not the same as 10,000 RPM on a 2 stroke. The Saito 4 stroke is firing every other stroke. Each one of the "bangs" has to be pretty strong to get the same 10,000 rpm. Larry Renger, AKA "Designman"'s Saito 30 has a difintely stronger "pulse" than Derek Moran's OS Max 25 2 stroke. The motor mounts; in fact, the whole nose of my Saito 72 Backfire's are significantly beefier then what I would use for say, a ST61. Simple compensations like this, for me, have yielded problem free results.

Gday Gordon, Sorry to watch that tony go in like she did. I honestly thought you would save it.

Can I suggest another aircraft?

Are you farmiliar with the "frank" ?

Would look sweet with a HUGE Saito radial cowl?

Is there something about the Saito 82 that causes increased vibration as the engine builds time.

Maybe its time for Gordy and Godzilla to send those engines back to Horizon for evaluation and repair. The engine seems to be off to a lousy start in the CL Stunt application. There must be a reason. Once understood, it should be correctable.

What are Paul's thoughts about his 82?

I fly a large enough airplane that it might benefit from the power of the 82, but for now, would I risk my airplane? NO way, until it is resolved.

>Is there something about the Saito 82 that causes increased
>vibration as the engine builds time.
>
>Maybe its time for Gordy and Godzilla to send those engines
>back to Horizon for evaluation and repair. The engine seems
>to be off to a lousy start in the CL Stunt application.
>There must be a reason. Once understood, it should be
>correctable.
>
>What are Paul's thoughts about his 82?
>
>I fly a large enough airplane that it might benefit from the
>power of the 82, but for now, would I risk my airplane? NO
>way, until it is resolved.
>
>Al

This wahat I suggested to Gordy. i do believe the problem increases with time. The new 82 runs vibration free, but gets worse every run. It is however, a much better source of power if Horizon could get the bugs worked out.

There are no bugs to work out. As with any engine after the motor really settles in it begins to make it's "real" power. With a 4s that can take only one or two flying sessions. The 82 housed in a case the size of a 72 which in turn is not THAT much larger than a 56 is going to really vibrate like a bastard when mounted into a plane that would be better suited for a 61 2s in the RC world. Remember the motor you are talking about is designed for large RC models. Not CLPA models.

Al I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested the nose was slowly failing and this in counjunction with motor coming in sent the whole thing to hell in a handbasket fast. Brad went through the very same thing and his plane is significantly smaller in frontal area and wing area compared to the Tony. Only Brad's problems happened almost immediatley. Brad's plane is an Impact dirivative and it was designed to hold a VF 40! I know Brad beefed it up, he doesnt use maple beams he uses a double laminated plywood crutch(I think maple is way stroger... and he knows I think this too..), it still doesnt matter in the end. He is talking about going to a carbon crutch like Windy does. This would help maybe and maybe not. Carbon is hard as steel and will transfer all vibrations to the plane. Paul learned this on the b-17. Carbon mounts gave him horrible engine runs. Back to wood or softmounts and it worked fine. So the plane better be up to the vibratrions of a really hopped up motor or it will be in trouble.

Al your plane could handle it maybe for a little while. But maple beams ending at the wing arent going to hold onto it forever. I bet you get less vibs out of a 91 than you do an 82 just because of the shear size of the case.

Craming larger engines into smaller cases is done everywhere. I had a friend who built a 350. After it was all said and done it was 421. It was the strongest SB I had ever had my hands on. However the car fell apart around it. It was a nightmare to keep it stable. When it was on it was mean. I had a standard bore 454 and it had about 1/10 the problems and ran so much smoother. My car had no troubles with it, well a busted u-joint from time to time and clutches going everywhere but that is a different problem. You have a larger motor in a small case it will vibrate and the plane should have a large frontal area to take that kind of a beating. Think about it that 82 weighs just over 16-17oz.. It is actually less than that of a 72. The case being thinner and lighter just is not going to hide the pounding. The plane will have to take it. And so far none of them have done it.

I would be very interested to see how much it vibrated if Gordy or Brad put them on their test stand and ran them again. I would bet they were smooth. The stand having much more beef than that of a +size 60 stunt ship, in Brad's case a standard sized 60 stunt ship.

It's not the motor. It is frame in which it sits.

I don't know anything about four strokes and vibes but I stopped what I was doing immediately when I heard the Tony take off! It had a sound that was unique and the plane was fantastic. I met Gordon this Nats and let me tell you, he can fly! I hope he gets it all back together so everyone can see and hear what we saw of this combination before it piled in. We'll need to come up with a better adjective- "awesome" is inadequate. Best regards, dale gleason

>It's not the motor. It is frame in which it sits.

I think it's the motor.

Afterall I seized the first one on the second or third flight.

I think something is wrong wrong wit hthe rod bushing. I told GSO to take his apart and look for galling on the crank pin.

I could be wrong too. I never said my nose would handle a Saito 82 in the first place. I have already said that I may go to a molded carbon fuse with a carbon crutch like the Typhoon.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-24-04 AT 08:57 AM (CDT)
 
Doug,
I don`t think you have all the info on my Tony. It has a fuse inside the outer fuse which is tied together.It also has 1/2by/1/2 maple motor mounts.Even after the crash it was still intach. It rip the threaded incerts right out of the maple mounts.The rest of the plane was not hurt.It had two holes in the covering where the gear mounted.The gear was still intach.The engine was about 40 to 50 feet from the impact area.So I don`t thing the nose of the plane had any problems with the engine. But the vibrations did get to the flap horn. The new one will have two uprights on it with the ball links between them.I will do the test run on my test stand to see if your right.That is if I can get it started. Has no compression now after the crash.Thanks for your imput.

Gordy,

PS. Dale Thank you for your kind words.

I'd have to agree with Doug on this one. Sounds like the plane sadly wasn't strong enough to withstand the vibration. The simplest way to dampen vibration is simply mass(like a high speed milling machine) but that doesn't work too well on a plane. Trying to predict where the vibration will resonate in a "thin stiff" structure like a plane is very difficult. Carbon fiber is supposed to dampen vibration and shock better than most materials. Maybe try a molded carbon fiber front fuselage?? Anyway, it will take some experimenting to build a copy of the same design that doesn't have the same vibration problems. I'd try some .04 wall carbon fiber tubes as longerons to carry the loads back to the wing and dissipate the vibration.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-22-04 AT 08:41 PM (CDT)
 
Gordy,

RIP the machine that was known as the TONY! What a monster.

I loved it. And yes it kicked #####!

However there was somthing wrong. Something somewhere along the way was letting go and the vibes killed it. I looked at the plan on CAD. It looks plenty strong to me. However it stops at the wing square and that is your stress point. If it were to tapper back and flow into the fuse aft the wing then that would not be the issue, MAYBE. 1/2 X 1/2 beams are really strong I agree. However after closer inspection of your plan you have them ending early and they are not tied into the nose ring. You just fill from there to the ring with balsa. In my own experience I have found this weaken the nose considerably. Bob Gieseke always told me from the begining tie the beams into the nose ring in order to create a box for the motor to sit in. However could mean nothing since your nose stayed intact. Just an observation. But if the support wasnt adequete than they(the beams) themselves arent going to hold up. I like you would think a double fuse would be able to hold it just fine but you never can tell.

Personally I find it hard to beleive it is the motor. Now if one of the 82s did this then I would say yeah the motor is screwed. But Brad and you and Paul all said it was vibrating pretty bad. Yours so much it ripped up the plane. Brads so bad it broke the fuse. Pauls so bad he took it out. Three motors same exact problem. In similar sized models.

You said there is no compression. I wonder what happened to it. It is ringed right? Shouldnt have much anyway. My 56 had hardly any.

I hope you figure it out and let us know. I would really like to hear how it runs after you get it on the stand.

I could be totaly wrong.

>Gordy,
>
>RIP the machine that was known as the TONY! What a monster.
>
>I loved it. And yes it kicked #####!

According to Gordy, it will live again.

>
>However there was somthing wrong. Something somewhere along
>the way was letting go and the vibes killed it. I looked at
>the plan on CAD. It looks plenty strong to me. However it
>stops at the wing that is your stress point. If it were to
>tapper back and flow into the fuse aft the wing then that
>would not be the issue, MAYBE. 1/2 X 1/2 beams are really
>strong I agree. But if the support wasnt adequete than they
>themselves arent going to hold up. I like you would think a
>double fuse would be able to hold it just fine but you never
>can tell.

Doug, I hesitated to enter into this discussion, because it's Gordy's plane, but here goes. When we were laying out the engine mounts we recognised the need for more stregnth to handle potential vibration from the large 4 bangers. I was, and still am positive that the stregnth is there with the way the mounts are constructed. You may have missed Gordan saying that the mounts didn't fail. The motor ripped out the threaded inserts on contact with the ground. This did, in fact, split the maple mounts ahead of the firewall, but that, again was from contact with the ground.

The stress riser at the wing juncture with the inner and outer fuse did not let go, even in the crash, which seems to indicate that it is capable of handleing more stress than was involved in the contact with the ground.

What did happen, was that the vibration was transferred to the flap horn. The fuse, mounts, wing, and all other connections transferred the vibration, and the weakest link was the flap horn, which failed.

I am rather proud of the solution we found for handling the big 4 strokers. It is basically 2 triangle sections that is designed to transfer, and in a small way, absorb, the vibrations from these big engines. The weight gain was minimised with this solution, and I feel that this sad accident has actually shown us that the structure is more than adequate for the purpose. I'm sure that there are better solutions available from some of the much more proficient engineers in the hobby, but so far, I believe that the mounts were not the problem, and this structure, is the best available at this time. Unles one might say that they transferred the vibration to well.

Actually, the inner and outer sections that make up the mounts, wrap around the leading edge of the wing, contacting at four seperate joints with the wing, rather than only two for most designs.They continue back to the high point of the airfoil. The maple mounts also extend to the high point of the airfoil

I believe that Gordy has focused in on where the changes need to be made, ergo, a stronger flap horn. When one thinks of it, the sheer size, weight, and stress may be more than the average flap horn is designed for. You saw how it turned a corner. Those are pretty big flaps, and the loads may be more than the flap could handle.

>
>Personally I find it hard to beleive it is the motor. Now
>if one of the 82s did this then I would say yeah the motor
>is screwed. But Brad and you and Paul all said it was
>vibrating pretty bad. Yours so much it riiped up the plane.
> Brads so bad it broke the fuse. Pauls so bad he took it
>out. Three motors same exact problem. In similar sized
>models.

I'm not trying to pick any fights Doug. I am offering my thoughts for us all to ponder, and learn something to help us build stronger, lighter, stunters, but, I would feel that if one .82 did this, I might think it was a fluke. Since three of them have shown this tendency, and in the hands of some pretty good engine men, I do suspect the engine.

I plan to finish the Tony I started at the same time Gordy started his. I will not be changing the mounting system, but I will be using a flap horn with more substantial construction. I also don't think I'll even consider the .82 at this time. I thought it flew fine with the .72. I'll have to shave some weight. Not because Gordan's was overweight, but because where we fly, at 4300 feet, It wasn't as crisp as it was closer to sea level. This is one of the reasons Gordy installed the .82, and at this altitude it made the machine a real killer. It made more power at Muncey than it ever did up here, and that also may have a bearing on the problem.

Let's hope that once this all gets sorted out, that Gordy is finally able to really put his Tony high in the rankings where they both deserve to be.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

>I'm not trying to pick any fights Doug.

There will be no fights here. That is for sure. We are simply discussing planes and figuring out how to handle bigger motros. Alot of good info will come from this thread.

I am still not fully convinced I am totaly right but I am still leaning towards the plane.

However it is a bigger disp. in the same case as a 72. It will vibrate more. It has too. There is no case to handle it. So it may never run as smooth as I was saying before. But knowing this going in would help to better plan for the motor.

This motor is designed for larger RC models right? I have a model here that it would be perfect for. An Ugley stick 60 and friend of mine built for me. It has no plywood in it less than an 1/8 thick. Fuse sides are 1/4 not sanded at all. The Wing is thicker than my goe bolt by almost two times. It has a lite ply ribs, all of them are lite ply, in the wing. It has a 64" long fuse. It is a total hoss! It has a webra 61 on it now and has the verticle perfmance of a jet! It is a large model with tons of area to handle this kind of a beating. Could it take it? I have no idea.

I am offering my
>thoughts for us all to ponder, and learn something to help
>us build stronger, lighter, stunters, but, I would feel that
>if one .82 did this, I might think it was a fluke. Since
>three of them have shown this tendency, and in the hands of
>some pretty good engine men, I do suspect the engine.

On the other Tony thread it was said that the motor makes 20% more power. It is in the same case. It is going to have to be a real beast to keep it from rattling apart.

About the plane and the vibes. I heard from Brad, and Gordy will have to verify this, that the motor started out life in the Tony real smooth. However by the time the officials came the motor was shaking so much the needle was not even visible. This is where I would disagree that the nose held up under the vibes. If the needle is shaking s hard you cant see it but the motor is still tight in the mounts then that means the hole nose is shaking. Gordy also said he used 30 min finish epoxy. There is no way that stuff will not delaminate under those loads. That stuff just isnt that strong. For larger models it is a good idea to get the West systems epoxy or EZ Lam and use it the motor area and at the wing joint. Just a thought. I use this stuff and the epoxy called Proset. Proset is cool it hardens in the sun after it has already cured it still hardens as it is exposed to the sun for its first few hours. Kind of like baking it. I have alos had very good luck so far with quik cure 5 min epoxy. I have only had this delam on one plane. And that was my fault.

Very good stuff in the this thread.

Keep us updated on your Tony!

Hi Doug

Yep, I think it's getting narrowed down with more inspection.

I believe you are right about the inherent vibration with the larger .82 on the small case. Hopefully, since one of the best engine men, and most elusive, in the country lives here in Salt Lake, Glen Dye may be able to figure out a way to smooth the engine out without losing the extra power.

I'm convinced that the nose is strong enough, and the structure is designed to handle more vibration, but you have to have glue joints that will hold up. That seems to have been the problem in this case. Wrong type of adhesive used on the motor mounts/doubler joint. All other indications are that the system handled the stress well, even the crash. I can assure you that a better adhesive will be used in the re-build.

On the unfinished Tony in my shop, I used 15 minute epoxy. It will be interesting so see how it holds up, though I most likely will never be good enough to fly in those conditions.

Speaking of conditions. It may be entirely possible that even with the vibration from the loose mount, the plane might have handled the stress, at least long enough to finish the Nat's had thge flap horn not failed. There is a question, in my mind whether or not the fault was from the vibration, or the stress to the horn from manuevering in those winds.

In either case, Gordy's re-build is going to address both possibilities. I just finished laying out a new nose ring that incorporates the mounts into the nose ring. I'll wager my unfinished Tony that there will be no laminating epoxy on the mounts. I'll be at his house tomorrow, and I plan on spending some time with the horn design. I believe the double horn he's contemplating will be the type of solution that will be used.

The best part is that He's going to re-build it, and will be compwting with it in the future. Once all this is sorted out, I'm positive that enough of the bugs will be worked out to give us all a better idea on what needs to be done to handle these awsome .82's

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

Doug and Brad,
I took the 82 apart and what a surprize. There are no bushing in the rod at either end. What I did find is the wrist pin in the piston had a ton of play just on one side.Doug this 82 had so much compression you had to put the prop on to turn it over.Now I can do it with the rear drive washer.I then took the 72 two apart and it was tight on the crank pin and the piston end. Thanks for all of the input.It helps to get others opinion.Sometime I get in a rut and can`t see past my nose.Ha! One more thought though.I had 45 minutes on the stand and two week ends to fly about eight flights before Muncie.Had four more before officials.

PS. But I think the airframe was plenty strong.Since it stayed in one piece.Well almost one piece.

Gordy

LAST EDITED ON Jul-24-04 AT 02:21 AM (CDT)
 
Has it escaped everyone attention that..

At the time of the tony exploding into tera firma, Gordan was flying in close to 25 + knts winds?

perhaps.. just perhaps, this had a small roll to play in flap horn failure...

There were a few others who's models hit the ground due to the flaps flattening out due to the force of the wind over the flaps and im sure Gordon "beefed" up the control surfaces, stiffness wise. So this has to transfer the stress elsewhere.

I think you will find that ,His tony would have survived 2000+ flights in regular conditions. I think Vibs didnt help, but Dont go looking to the motor for the source of all the problems.
It ran flawlessly. Murphy is to blame here.