New Saito 62

There's a new Saito engine being released. It's a 62. It will
be interesting to see how it compares to the 56.
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=SAIE062A

The following is from Horizon's website:
------------------------------------------------------------------
FA-62a AAC w/Muffler: Al

Key Features

Unitized cylinder and head
Integrated head transfers heat more easily and evenly
Unique champagne color drive washer
Only 5 grams heavier than the FA-56A
Backed by a full 3-year warranty
Installs easily in all .40–.72 models
True chrome AAC cylinder lining
1-piece cylinder head allows engine to run cooler
Turns an APC 13 x 6 prop at 9900 rpm
Golden Knight version also available


Overview

The Saito FA-62A is a lightweight 4-stroke glow engine brought to the market to bridge the gap between the .56 and the .72 displacement sizes. The FA-62A engine is only 5 grams heavier than the .56, offering a better power-to-weight ratio for modelers interested in glow engine power systems. This engine will be offered in both the standard flat aluminum and chrome finish and the popular Golden Knight version with a black and gold finish. And like all Saito engines, this engine is backed by a world class, full 3-year warranty.


Specs

Type: 4 Stroke
Displacement: .62 cu in. (10.21cc)
Bore: 26.2 mm
Stroke: 19.0 mm
Cylinders: Single
Engine (Only) Weight: 469 grams
Crankshaft Threads: M7 x 1 mm
Prop Range: 11x7 thru 13x7
Fuel: 10% - 30% nitro - Synthetic Oil
Mounting Dimensions: 137mm x 53mm x 102mm
Muffler Type: Cast
Cylinder Type: AAC
Carb Type: Barrel - Two needle
Crank Type: Dual Ball Bearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they will stop production of the 56?? [photo not recovered: cry.gif]
Anyone tried the 62 for C/L yet??

Stan Bidowski
The Winnipeg Perfect Circle Flying Club
http://www.mts.net/~salton/

Interesting... Must be something wrong with the 56 I just broke in, it will turn an APC 13-6 just under 10 grand at about 2/3 throttle on 11% nitro. Checked with two tachs one of which is a TNC..

Good to know they added a step between the 56 and 72, 0.2 ounces heaver than the 56... Cool...

Cool. Appears to be a bored-out .56 (same stroke, same carb part no).

More power with almost no weight penalty... we can use that!

>Cool. Appears to be a bored-out .56 (same stroke, same carb
>part no).
>
>More power with almost no weight penalty... we can use that!

I'd be weary to jump in. When they bored out 72 to 82(?), the new motor shook like five Fox35's with unbalanced props.

I believe that was a major jump to incorrect conclusions left un-checked. If you are speaking about Gordon, he has since found the true source of his problem somewhere in the airframe, and I understand it runs fine now. I also have anecdotal evidence from the Smith brothers bringing one out to the field that I have launched personally, and theirs ran smooth as silk. If anything I thought it was even smoother running than the 72.
Any engine can vibrate given the right(or should I say wrong?) airframe.

>I'd be weary to jump in. When they bored out 72 to 82(?), the
>new motor shook like five Fox35's with unbalanced props.
>

EricV

I am just about to get my next Saito, (I am really starting to rack them up). I once took a calculator and added 56 and 72 and divided by 2 and thought, that would be the perfect size for most stunt ships if they could hold the weight to the 56. I always wanted something more powerful than the 56 but lighter and a little smoother than the 72. I will hightail it over to the site pronto!!

As to the 82, I am glad to see the Gordon has solved his problem, but I have personally run the 82 and the SOB vibrates. Even the RC boys are complaining about it's "excessive vibration". That said, the motor is selling very well to say the least.

Just to keep things in perspective, the Saito 120 is regarded as the smoothest running single Saito. The 180 has a reputation as a bone shaker, but it outsells the 120 and the 150 hands down. Go figure!

Update. I looked at the motor and the first thing that caught my eye was Saito is not using the new, lighter more efficient cam housing on this motor. This looks like a straight "bore job" to me. I would bet my 40A that this motor is going to run rougher than the 56.

My feeling is that they should have gone the whole nine yards and redesigned the whole thing to incorporate their latest cam technology. They could have had the opportunity to make the motor significantly lighter and just as smooth as the 56,(a 15oz Saito 62). Right now my gut feeling is to pick up another 72.

>Just to keep things in perspective, the Saito 120 is regarded
>as the smoothest running single Saito. The 180 has a
>reputation as a bone shaker, but it outsells the 120 and the
>150 hands down. Go figure!

Not too surprising, really. The local RC gang seems intent on cramming as much engine into any given ARF as they can. Manufacturer recommends a .60? Put a 1.2 in it.

One day we'll have dial-a-displacement, then you'd buy the prop you want, and dial the engine to suit..

I think the history of engines is tweaking them to provide more with "less". A complete redesign would be pretty costly and not make a lot of sense for an engine between a 56 and 72 (maybe we need one every 0.01 cubic inches of displacement!).
At some point the "less" dominates negatively and it's time for a new design. Since no one even has this engine in their hands, I can't see how we can make up our minds about it so fast.

Alan I completly agree, wished I had the money to buy one, would love to swap it out for the 56 on my Score (after I get it flight trimmed) to see exactly what the difference is.

I can`t see why you would go to the 62 saito when it weights the same as a 72. As far as the 82 is concerned mine still vibrates more than the 72 I am no longer using the 82.In fact I have a RO-jett 65 in my Tony right now.

Gordy

>I can`t see why you would go to the 62 saito when it weights
>the same as a 72. As far as the 82 is concerned mine still
>vibrates more than the 72 I am no longer using the 82.I fact I
>have a RO-jett 65 in my Tony right now.
>
>Gordy

It is not the same weight, Gordon. There is about a 50 gram difference. Of course, the 72 might have sufficiently more thrust potential to still make it the engine of choice. On the other hand, your 82 weighed less than the 72.

But out of curiosity, how do you like the 65 two-stroke compared to the 82 four in the same airplane? How do they compare in power delivery and performance?

Lenord,

Not according too the spec sheet that comes with the engines. The 72 was 1 gram heavier. The 82 was the about 8grams lighter.I was going off what he said the 62 weighed. I`ll have to assume his post was incorrect.

Gordy

PS. I went down and weighed the 72 with muffler it is 470grams. The 82 was 8 grams lighter. The spec sheet said it weighed 470 grams. Len as far as the 65 in the Tony I think it has the power but I need to find the right prop. It does need a smaller prop and a larger venturi. I only have about 4 or 5 flights on it. But now I need a larger fuel tank. The 65 is lighter than the 72 and makes the corners alittle tighter.

From the Saito web site..

56 - 410g
62 - 420g
72 - 470g

62 is 50g lighter than the 72 (1.76 Ounces)