Seagull Super Tucano

[Pilot Ben 28]

So I came back to the South after a long gliding holiday in the highlands of Scotland and found that everyone had broke out their wallets and purchased new models. it's been a while since I bought one and since I didn't have anything scale I thought this might be the right time to get something. I was looking for a warbird of some sort but didn't want the cliché of a spitfire or mustang, and I came across the Super Tucano made by Seagull, seen here at TJD http://www.tjdmodels.com/seagull-super-tucano-91-inc-rtrk-sea124-p-3773.html

All the models I've owned have only ever been up to a .46 size 2 stroke so I am plunging into the unknown with the recommended 91-100 2 stroke / 100-125 4 stroke. Several Tucano's have flown using a DLE-20 and others have flown with the ASP 1.20FS 4 stroke. The ASP 1.20 2 stroke is half the price of its 4 stroke counterpart but I really wanted a 4 stroke for realism. I know nothing about these large (for me) powerplants so thought I'd seek advice from my fellow more experienced modellers. 

Could anyone point me in the right direction for choosing the engine? I like the idea of petrol power but is it much simpler or cheaper to get nitro? Are there any other engines I should consider? Will I find it easier to run a 2 stroke as opposed to a 4 with my limited experience? I want to cut as little of the tight cowl as possible so wondered if nitro engines need more cooling than petrol or 4 strokes need more cooling than 2 strokes?

The kit includes a set of mechanical retracts but would it be better to upgrade to a set of electrical retracts such as E-Flites product?

I also wondered if I would need to join a club with a longer strip (Sevenoaks/Caterham) as I do know that to land a trike you need a tad more space and with what I've seen on youtube the Tucano is pretty fast and wondered if our strip is long enough to take it?

Any other advice is also appreciated as this is also the first time I've dealt with retracts, flaps and a ARTF that is a bit more complex than a cougar 

 

Thanks guys,

 

B

 

 

 

 

[Pilot Ben 28]

I also wondered about cowl filling to avoid the cowl becoming an oven? Any details about this please?

[shanemarsh28 11]

What a fab kit .. looks great! 

As far as it goes for engines, (Funfly) James introduced me to the Laser 70 and it's an AMAZING little engine. I put it in the Bullet, started it, ran a single tank of fuel through it and in the air it went. Sturdy and faultlessly reliable - I've not even needed to alter the mixure. If you're looking to venture into 4 strokes I can't imagine any engine that's easier than that. The instruction manual for the Laser is also excellent. It comes with a lot of information on how to cowl it properly and ways of mouting the engine within different shaped cowls avoid overheating. The 70 is the smallest four stroke they do so maybe the Laser 100 or 120 might be better for the Tucano: http://www.laserengines.com/product-category/products/single-cylinder-engines/. Worth a look.

As far as landing it at Fickleshole, my gut says it will be fine. I've seen plenty of larger/heavier planes than the Tucano happily land on the strip without issues. 

[Pilot Ben 28]

Hmmmm... the 100 and 120 are both out of stock on Laser's website and I can't find it anywhere else. I think I'll keep looking for it there must be a few somewhere!

[Trevor 25]

All Laser engines show as out of stock which is unlikely.  I suggest you try the "Ordering" tab and contact them.  I agree with Shane the Lasers are excellent probably the easiest to own though a little bit more expensive than ASPs.  They generally have good resale value too.   I own several ASPs and they are quite reliable too (except my .80FS one which just wont tune for some reason)  Never owned the 1.20 though.

[Pilot Ben 28]

Thanks Trev I'll try that. See you tonight,

 

B

[Bravedan 106]

Love the fact that the TJD website shows a 91 2st and a 91 4st on the Tucano page like they are equivalent power for it. Helpful - NOT.

In principle, and these are sweeping generalisations:-

Petrol - Cheaper to run, more difficult to install, more difficult to keep noise down to limits (std exhausts usually rubbish!). Was trendy a year plus ago.

Methanol - Considerably dearer to run, more awkward starting and tuning requirements. Less likely to suffer "heat in cowl" issues. Known type to you so used to handling

There are SO many "but if's" though, for example, why install an engine that will run for 30 minutes plus on a tank if you never fly more than 10 without needing a break? How many hours per year will you fly it to make the running cost differences truly significant?  Are you going to be happy with mixing oil to petrol in correct measures, etc. Are you going to carry both fuel types back and fore?

Lasers are excellent. I don't like model 4 strokes, don't see the point in throwing away half the power strokes for an allegedly "better noise", but my Laser is good enough to ALMOST make me change my mind and they largely negate the awkward tuning comment above!!   However, they are certainly not the most powerful engine for their capacity.

LOT of rubbish about all types of engine on Internet and in clubs, esp from the brigade who won't leave the damn needle alone for five minutes or allow the engine to come anywhere near operating temp before tweaking it expecting it to idle slowly forever and respond instantly to snap openings of throttle.

Also lots of rubbish spoken re: taildragger or tricycle. Adopt the right set up, CG and technique and there's little or no difference in result. Should be OK at the field as it'll be light for its wing area.

Finally, and continuing the Devil's Advocate process to the bitter end, what on earth is "real" about a 4 stroke model engine, they do not actually sound remotely like a real warbird engine, esp in the case of the TURBOPROP Tucano.................. 

Got to go, there's some Gliderists over there to annoy..............................

On 30/08/2017 at 10:06 PM, Pilot Ben said:

I also wondered about cowl filling to avoid the cowl becoming an oven? Any details about this please?

Hot air expands, the exit needs to be significantly bigger than the inlet (people constantly get that wrong!). Airflow needs to be routed over and in line with fins.

It's not rocket science, you'll be fine!

[Pilot Ben 28]

I did look into getting a turbine turboprop but let's say that for the price you could probably get a second hand Ford Fiesta

 

Thanks so much as usual Dave I really honestly don't know what I'd do without you! 

I think that's decided I'll go for nitro and I need to look into noise because if I were to get the 2 stroke I'd want it screaming and that may be over the limit. Bearing in mind though that my budget really is being stretched 

Are there any differences in setup/running between 2 and 4 stroke?

 

B

[Bravedan 106]

On 01/09/2017 at 10:36 PM, Pilot Ben said:

Are there any differences in setup/running between 2 and 4 stroke?

B

Basically, no. There are four stroke plugs which cope better with the long delay between firings, but the carb still has the usual adjustments so the inveterate fiddlers can still twiddle and cock it up!

 4 St tend to prefer (or should that be tolerate! ) lower nitro levels than 2 St . I tend to run all my 2St on 25% but 4 St on 10%. These days the manufacturers recommendations/instructions are much better at advising than they were so I suggest you have a think, choose a few right sized engines in your price range, go read the instructions from the manufacturers website, and that will give you a decent grounding and help you decide.  When bought follow their advice initially regardless of others (inc me!) and carry a sharp knife in case anyone wants to fiddle!!

If you don't have a engine running in/test stand you can borrow mine on its workmate. PM when and if required.

As an addendum, IF you decide to buy 2St (and that is YOUR decision, I'm not necc advising that route!) the trick with them is to buy a little bigger than needed so they fly at less revs.

My Panic with SC91 and a large dia low pitch prop is very quiet in flight as it just does not need to use revs, and that is where the normal noise test process fails, as it is never ever run as a noise test states.  Its even quiet when prop hanging. The down side to this method is that the power available from a large prop is sufficient at fully safe idle to fly the plane and landing requires a little thought, namely setting up Idle Down to reduce idle thrust (you don't set this low for normal flight as its more likely to dead stick the engine in extreme moves when throttle suddenly cut). There still has to be prop to ground clearance though, esp for tricycle gear planes!!

Having any engine "scream" is never going to meet noise requirements, neither is it the best way to get flexibility and good throttle response.  Reducing the delay in throttle response with a larger dia but low pitch prop enables fast changes in airflow from the prop over more of the flying surfaces for better control at low airspeeds (such as landing).

Many years ago now I had an 8cc rear disc crankcase induction 2 St engine (early Schneurle ported) that developed 1.25hp at 14, 500 rpm, the prop was more like a toothpick and it took near half a lap of the pylon course after a horrendously wobbly near stall hand launch to get up "on the prop" when it instantly became a warp drive machine, literally a blur, but the day for that engine in our current noise climate has LONG GONE!!

[Pilot Ben 28]

Thanks Dave I may take you up on that offer but that said I have an old foldable bench that I could convert into a test bed..

Hope ur well,

 

B

 

[Bravedan 106]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/model-engine-test-stand-/362087810400?hash=item544e1d8560:g:YE4AAOSwOsBZnvy1

[Trevor 25]

My tuppence worth, 4 strokes occasionally need valve gaps adjusting which 2 strokes don't. This is a straightforward process involving a feeler gauge, screwdriver and small spanner.  Otherwise they are very similar to set up and run.