View Single Post
Old Oct 14, 2012, 08:13 AM
bogbeagle is online now
Find More Posts by bogbeagle
Registered User
Joined Mar 2007
1,481 Posts
The Saito 1.80 was running straight glow fuel and was augmented with glow and a fuel pump. I didn't run that engine with any spark ignition. In that configuration, the engine did 32 hours of general flying, without any failures.

I did some fairly extensive testing of spark ignition, using an Enya .60, with an RCExcel unit, running petrol ... and the same engine running glow fuel. The engine retained its glow fuel carb.

The Enya .60 ran very noticeably better when run as intended, but fortified by a pump and glow-driver (at low rpm).

As far as the Saito is concerned ... it achieved 100% reliability over those 32 hours of its use. That can't be beat by any engine, 'cos it is 100%. Maybe, if I was to test it over 1000 flying hours, I'd have experienced problems ... who knows?

I did score around 200 flying hours with a Zenoah 23, fitted in a Stampe. Deadsticks were not unknown, but I didn't log their occurrence,then. Nowadays, I would make a note of a deadstick.

Not much point in arguing about this, since neither "side" can produce definitive information. I haven't claimed that glow is "more reliable" than spark ignition, but I do claim that they are comparable ... but only with glow augmentation and a decent fuel pump.

With respect to power output, I confess that I don't have much opinion, since I never had any means of testing, save engine rpm. I do have the figures somewhere, but I can't remember them. I don't recall there being much difference in performance.
bogbeagle is online now Find More Posts by bogbeagle
Reply With Quote