SrTelemaster150

If one would take an DFG-57T/FG-61T crank & put it into an otherwise stock FA-300T, it would increase displacement to 3.10 cu in & more importantly, raise the compression height by about .020". That should raise the static compression ratio by about 1.5.

If the base bolt centers are the same as the FA-150/FA-180, the FG-61T cylinders could be swapped into the FA-300T case too. If not, the FG-57T cylinders would be an easy swap.

The FA-300T & FA-450R3 do not have the "step" in the case like an FA-150 so no machine work would be required for the FA-180/FG-57T cyinder swap.





The FA-180 cylinders bolt right onto theFA-300T/FA-450R3 case, but on the FA-300T there is a right & left cylinder to orient the intake/exhaust port top/bottom respectively. The FG_57T/FG-61T cylinders would have the proper orientation & a bolt on manifold could easily be fabricated to allow the FA-220 12 mm carbs.

If CR was high enough, an FA-372 would approach an output of 7 HP.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

I'll just have to be satisfied reading about yours, I have no plane large enough for a 3.00, in fact I just placed my SuperTigre 4500 for sale, it never saw fuel. I still want a Saito 1.30 though.

acdii

The Rascal 168 is rated at 50cc-65cc, so the FG61 should be plenty to fly it. Its got 14 feet of high lift wing after all. Not really meant to be a speed demon either.

SrTelemaster150

A 2-stroke 50cc gas engine will make about 10% more HP than an FG-61T. Given that is the bottom of the recommended engine envelope it would seem to be marginal. With glow, the power ratio is about 30% more power/displacement for 2-stroke over 4-stroke.

Wing loading is significantly (30%) higher than the Rascal 110. 20 oz/ft compared to 27 oz/ft 110/168 respectively.

I have an FA-300T that I bought for a 22# SIG Spacewalker & that is about right for that weight. Even with more wing area, the FG-61T will have about the same HP & as I said, it would fly, but it wouldn't have enough power for anything beyond scale J-3 cub aerobatics. The thrust would be about 30# which is only about 66% of the all up weight and that is IF the all up weight comes in within the maximum spec, which I would be willing to bet it will exceed by several pounds.

You're right, the Rascal isn't a "seed demon", but it is capable of some impressive aerobatics & with only 66% thrust to weight ratio, it will have no vertical performance.

If you would be satisfied with scale J-3 Cub performance then it will work.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Man am I shocked, I sold that 4500 in less than 2 hours. Now to find a 1.30.

acdii

Well hell, I guess I will just slap the DA100 on it and be done with it. A DLE-61 is less expensive than the Saito, but it sounds like a damned chain saw. Maybe it will be less expensive to go electric, but I hate having all those batteries around. I have a bunch of 3S from 3300-8400 mah sitting in a can that I haven't touched in a year and a half. I really want to have a scale like looking engine on it, with the rockers sticking out.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Put a Detroit Diesel on it, that way you could have a two stroke with rocker arms. Oh, the rockers don't stick out.

acdii

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Good one.

SrTelemaster150

An FG-90R3 would be interesting. Then you would have 3 sets of rocker covers showing & enough power to make it really dance!



I just don't see a 5 HP twin being adequate for a 44# + aircraft.

SrTelemaster150

You know what they say, science is real whether you believe it or not!

SrTelemaster150

And the little old 426 cu in 238 Jimmies made nearly as much HP as the 883 Cu in 250 Cummins.

acdii

Only thing I can find like that is the FG-84R3. The rest I find are Aussie/

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

An idea, the next time you are out at the field a club mate is flying his diesel slip a little gasoline into his fuel container and help him get it all fired up! after all what are friends for? ;-)

acdii

No diesels at my field, just DA and DLE, and a few electrics. I'm actually the only one who flies glows.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

So your the flyer who's above average at your field!

SrTelemaster150

Patience is a virtue.

This will probably be available before the Rascal 168
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7aXsrTY5Qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_9OM8eCGV4

acdii

OK, now that I heard that, I need one like that in my P-47.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Great sounding engine but I would have to rob a bank to afford one and I don't think the 20 years in the pen would be worth it. Itr would cut into my building time too much!

SrTelemaster150

And I'd bet that Rascal 168 will outweigh your P-47 by 20#s!

acdii

Probably, I haven't weighed my DLE30 powered P-47. The Rascal will be 40-44# when completed.

SrTelemaster150

If the Rascal 168 is anything like the Rascal 110 it is engineered for carrying batteries & if care isn't exercised in the build & components shifted forward, (like the elevator servo) it will come out tail heavy & require lots of nose ballast. Even with several lightening measures such as moving the servos forward & using lighter servos/hardware, mine cam out about 1 1/2# heavier than predicted & I used no ballast other than increasing the size of the ignition battery pack & shifting the Rx packs forward a bit.

Here are the predicted (fantasized) maximum all up weights & wing loading of the Rascal 110, TF GS P-47 & the rascal 168

• SIG Racsal 110: Weight 13# (mine came in at 14# 6oz) wing loading 20oz sq'
• Top Flite GS P-47: Weight 21.5# 37oz sq'
• SIG Rascal 168: Weight 44# 27 oz sq'

When considering that the Rascal 168 is more than 2 x as heavy as the P-47 and has nearly 75% of the wing loading, I think it would perform best with more power output. It isn't about speed as much as thrust to carry the weight & increased drag from the LARGER airframe.

Now compare the Rascal 110 at less than 1/3 the weight & about 75% of the wing loading of the Rascal 168, it would seem reasonable to predict that that the larger bird would need more than 2 times, closer to 3 times the power output to perform similarly..

I think that the FG-90 hanging out of the cowl of the Rascal 168 would look INSANE! (in a good way) And it would probably perform in a similar fashion to the Rascal 110 with the power plants at the upper end of the specifications.

The Rascal airframe is so capable, IMO it would be a shame to under power it.

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

Pete, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday when I inspected the APC 16x6, the holes is not .25 as Towers specs state but is a perfect fit on the 1.00 crankshaft. Also the hole is straight and centered. It only took one tiny drop of thick CA to balance it. The Xoar 16x6 is as always, perfectly balanced.

Rudolph Hart

Thats because apc props don't behave like prostitutes..we're special

Hobbsy

My Feedback: (102)

The way you guys brag on the APC's I am expecting the 1.25 to turn the APC 16x6 at 1,000 rpm faster than the MA Classic 16x6.