I would just pull it out and look at it. If it doesn't look bent, and if the engine turns over smoothly then I'd run it.

Of course, if you have dial indicator and drill press or something you can check it a little more accurately.

Originally Posted by wickedpissa

.... because if it is bent the engine is junk, if not then I will rebuild,

Not always so. Believe it or not, slight crank damage is repairable . More likely than not the crank is OK. Checking the crank is a bit more involved . Using a simple dial indicator directly on the threaded portion will not give a satisfactory result . One simple method involves using a piece of feeler stock between the threads and the indicator tip. You rotate the crank position and check at a few points to get an idea of runout. Another method involves a concentric bushing over the threads. There are of course other methods but these two yield usable readings for your purpose.
Straightening a bent shaft is best left to a skilled operator.

I know you are right but what I meant was that I really did not want to spend any more money on it, as the cost of repair will begin to out way the value engine. I do not have dial indicator, but I will try the feeler stock method. thank you, for you quick replies i will let you know what I find

I like this Saito 65 so much that I am thinking of getting the 82 AAC.
How have this engine been holding up? For the F4U .50.

The Saito 65 is in a class of it's own IMHO. Compared to some other Saitos , the 65 is a bit overbuilt. It is in a fairly large case for a 65 and runs like a sewing machine . The mild state of tune adds to the fine operating qualities of the 65. The 82 is a powerhouse of an engine and a somewhat different animal. Still has the Saito qualities but not in the same proportions.

Gary, I've never owned a .65 but can see where the smallest in a series of engines, for example the Saito .65, .80 and .91 are in the same case. The smallest could very well be the sweetheart of the group. The .50, .56 and .62 differ in that each is a sweeetheart in it own way.

So I should look for the older FA 80 or FA 91
Sounds good, I will have to watch E-Buy

The older Saito 80's are excellent engines...They'll outlast most of the airplanes that we put them on. I read back in the thread, but I didn't see what model you were interested in using this on.

The Hanger 9 F4U-1D .60 size, they say Saito 82, But I would go 80.

I have a YS 110 but that is going on my BH P-40 in place of the 91 Magnum.

I have an .82 on a Four-Star 60...I probably have put over 200 flights on it over that last 5 years & it's still going strong. It clearly has more power than the .80, but both are great running engines....either one would be fine on your F4U...start shopping as see what comes along for the best deal.

There was a subtle design change over the years....if you look at the older engines, the case drain is a fitting in the middle of the back plate on the engine. In newer models, they put the drain at the bottom of the back plate & I think the excess oil (along with other ugly residue) drains more efficiently. It might be better for the bearings when the engine is in storage. Sorry to throw a wrench into your decision process, but I do think it was a design improvement. If the engine is mounted sideways then that change doesn't make any difference (not sure off hand if you can rotate the back plate to compensate).

Dan

The case vent at the front is far better . In fact we were doing that for years before Saito caught on ! The vent on the rear cover allows for the blowby residue and moisture to collect in the bearing/cam area. Not a good spot. It also tends to inhibit efficient oiling up front. We noticed a huge improvement in bearing life, less rust and less cam, gear and lifter trouble. The front location makes an excellent location to introduce some after-run oil as well. It flushes the nasty stuff away and gets some fresh oil onto the bearings.

A worthwhile modification for many of the earlier models with the rear vent.

Actually Dan, the vent on most of the back plates is positioned so that it os in the same relationship when rotated 90 degrees. Of course some are in the center and the position makes no difference. No matter where the vent is the same amount of oil resides in the crankcase. This is my 2.20 which I have since sold, the oil is from WildCat 10% with 18% syn/castor blend and is actually not the red in real life, somehow my camera does that.

The issue is not so much about the amount of oil in the case. It is more about where the oil migrates, how easily it migrates and how well the moisture is drawn away from the critical bearing/camshaft area. By moving the vent towards the front all above is much improved over the rear cover location. Some fellows like the convenience of the rear vent but the front functions a lot better IME .

I've never experienced a failure because of where it is located, in fact I haven't had a Saito failure except for a new .50 I bought that had a casting flaw that let compression leak around the intake valve. I sent that engine to Horizon on Wednesday and had it back the following Tuesday with a new cylinder. The 2.20 I had had a place on the cam box for a vent but the vent was on the backplate.

Didn't say they ALL failed just that the overall success rate is far better. We got to see a good cross section as well as a lot of very high time engines that had a good variety of running conditions. Overall there was quite a noticeable difference in gear/cam/ and bearing life once the vent was moved up front. The corrosion level was consistently lower across the board. The front vent is indeed an improvement over the rear one more often than not.

It seems Saito agreed since they too saw fit to move the vent. No doubt to help with warranty claims.