Can your Homebuilt Aircraft have Too Much Power?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Experimental Aircraft designers specify guidelines for the size of the aircraft engines to be used. What happens if you use a larger (more HP) engine than is normally used? What effect does this have on flight characteristics? In this video, we show how 3 builders of the same homebuilt aircraft ( Zenith CH701) have installed larger engines and examine the results of their choice. (ULPower, Aeromomentum, Viking Aircraft )
Past Tip of the Weeks: www.homebuilthelp.com/Tip_of_W... - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Some years ago I built a RV4 and installed a high compression io360 making 230 hp and included a controllable prop. The RV4 was designed around a fixed pitch, 160 hp powerplant. A “stock” RV4 is an impressive design with sea level climb rate around 1800 to 2000 ft per minute. My RV was airborne by the time the throttle was home and could do 3000 ft per minute. With the heavier prop, the balance was perfect. I had about 700 hours on this aircraft when I sold it (it is still in service} and I can say every hour was a delight. I never once regretted installing 40% extra horsepower.
No issues with torque shear on the frame or engine mounts?
This should have been titled "engine options for the CH701"
Agree. They never approached the "too much" category by a thousand yards. The title of this video is CLICK BAIT!
All this vid does is state the obvious. Of coarse more power reduces TO distance, but what else does it do? Zero knowledge gained, nothing new to see here.
How about balance of weight, center of gravity, frame reinforcement, fuel consumption, landing, etc cetera...
not gonna lie, the thought of having a honda civic engine in my plane is pretty attractive...
I just did the math, and the 500lb LSA that I fly (Ekolot Topaz) has about 2/3 the engine power of my car (Suzuki Swift).
Fair to say, that little plane doesn't struggle for power. :-)
Is swap it lol
@@Finallybianca They've actually been doing that for about 10 years prior to your comment lol!
@@yourmomsbestfriend8922 I know it’s just the de facto car culture answer lol
@@Finallybianca Yes, I know.I was just saying they're really LS swapping planes too lol!It's crazy...I saw an LS swapped generator the other day!
When you throttle up and the motor detaches from air frame
... then you know you should have tightened all these bolts.
.... you love this puzzle: Finish This Sentence.
@@voornaam3191 it was a joke like in a cartoon , obviously if the airframe supported the motor so it was structurally sound , in a cartoon then the motor would detach from the air frame .they a limit the frame can hold and power to weight of the motor
@@voornaam3191 Or supply an engine that is not powerful enough to tear the airframe apart.
Lol
Thanks for another great video! Good information for builders and pilots. We do need to point out that, contrary to the end note at 7:36, the designer does not "bless" engine selections. As you note, we recommend a power range for the aircraft (in this case 65 - 100 hp, up to 185 lbs. installed) as a guide for builders to help them choose an engine for the aircraft they are building. As pointed out by others in the comments, the size (hp and weight) of the engine will affect performance, specifications and flight characteristics of the aircraft. Also, the weight and balance of the aircraft may be adversely affected by different engines, and the original fuel system may not be adequate or suitable for some engines and installations, and most alternative engines will require a custom engine mount and cowl. It is the owner's responsibility to operate the aircraft within its design limitations (most notably gross weight and Vne when adding a bigger engine). As an airframe kit manufacturer, Zenith Aircraft Company does not manufacture or directly support engines nor their firewall-forward installations.
Remember too that the high-lift features of the design give the STOL CH 701 its excellent short take-off and landing capability. The light all-metal two-seater was designed to provide excellent STOL performance without the need for a lot power. More about alternative engines for the Zenith STOL: www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-engine.html
An old saying about the F-4 Phantom. It's proof that with enough power you can make a brick fly.
And the F-16 does not need power at all. It always flies well. Pilots love it.
@@voornaam3191 Retired USAF Bronco, Phantom and Viper mech here and F-16s need and use plenty of power, from either P&W or GE depending on their Block. F-15 is far superior but was too expensive to replace the entire Phantom fleet so the F-16 was developed as a NATO point defense fighter and grew the mission from there. If cost were no object there would be no F-16s. They are easy to maintain (vital to sortie generation) and of course fun to fly but they don't carry near the variety of ordnance and other systems Phantom did. Phantom was the most versatile jet fighter ever built. F-15 is a continuation of that concept and of course carries more bombs or missiles than F-16. F-22 is a continuation of the F-15 air dominance mission and blows all its predecessors away. BTW if a Phantom lost an engine (a typical cause of fighter Class A's) it could still fly home. All a 16 has is the JFS and APU to buy some time.
@@obfuscated3090 Thanks for this summary. I made a joke, of course. It's a reminder of the F-104 paradox: without any payload it was a fantastic plane, but more and more ordnance turned it into a high speed coffin.
Yeah, there is so much to know about planes. They are all designed for a specific role, but some are brilliant, some are just a flying bus and some are dangerous. And politics is involved, imagine the USAF flying Mig-29's with American weapon systems and avionics installed. That airframe is quite good and not that expensive. What's wrong with the engines? But those conservatives don't buy it. I thought this world was modern and open minded. Nope.
How I heard it was: "The Triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." ;)
One time I threw my paper airplane real hard and it just went into the ground (no survivors). They said it was pilot error, but I know it was just too much power. Too much for the airframe to handle.
More horse power is always the answer.
What was the question.
100% correct
Crap. The words of an amateur ... I suppose you think you can never have too much fuel ?
@@williampotter2098 ??
@@williampotter2098 I mean you cant have too much fuel until you do...
@@benjaminowen6181 When people tell me that, I tell them you have too much when you are sliding off of the end of a runway because you are overweight or if you are on fire. In jet aircraft and even larger prop planes, fuel planning is critical and must take runway length and climb rate into account ....
NO Background music .. NICE video !!!
Meanwhile, Patey adds a 250 shot to his 13 Liter.
😝😝 Only because he didn’t have an extra 300 shot and a bigger airboat prop laying around !! Baaahhhaaaaa !!
Twisting or distortion of the air frame over time is likely if the horsepower exceeds the design limits which would lead to unknown flight characteristics and in a split second decision moment could have unintended results.
The ME 109 fighter plane had an engine that causes the tail section to completely sever itself from the airframe
STOL pilots after a few:
Pilot1: "That was the shortest runway I have ever seen"
Pilot 2: "Yeah, but you gotta admit, it was the widest!"
THEN you never seen Draco take off before its untimely demise
@@Ken-rk3by to be fair he did get tossed across the runway by gusting winds.
And honestly I can't wait to see him rebuild that!
@@warrenholmar1129 I meant previous take-offs. DRACO may live again or maybe not but I want to see SCRAPPY FLY !!! SCRAPPY TO THE MOON LOL
@@Ken-rk3by all the same it is gonna be great to see him re-build DRACO
@@warrenholmar1129 I do hope he rebuilds Draco but I have my doubts since he bought another Wilga.
Never too much power... but you can definitely have too much “ego”!
Actually you can when landing. 1) Too high of an idle making it hard to land and 2) too much torque creating rudder problems in gusty conditions upon landing... Bane of every STOL aircraft. More power, increase that fin area.
Just like presidents. Some should have no power at all.
Disappointed! I tuned in in the hopes of seeing some crazy Kiwi's turbocharged GSX-R powered ultralight, and the ensuing torque reaction. Please try harder to find the real looneys...
Same here. I was hoping to see examples of some guy with a 200 hp turbocharged monster in a 701. :-)
Head over & check out Mike Patey. Draco (RIP) was a monster, but Scrappy will be equally out of this world. 700hp in a Carbon Cub is just flat nutty.
The real looneys simply add two counter rotating props. Problem solved. Next problem, please. How stupid are you, exactly? I suppose you know that solution? Many turboprops have those double props. Any idea why? Think a bit harder, please. Can you find one weighing 185 pounds? No? Buy a turbofan. It is all for sale. No turbofan? How about full electric? Those silly planes are a bit light for those batteries. But if you kick out that second fool in the cockpit, you can fly to Australia on one battery. But I guess you got that electric plane and the turbofan Rutan EZ and the Beech Bonanza in your private hangar. So you know it all far better. Don't you?
czcams.com/video/kZGXCTqXa_M/video.html Close enough :)
Mike Patey: Hold my beer
Was looking if anyone thought of it! you nailed it!!!
Why? His plane didn’t take off near as quick as these do.
Adam R I know it’s confusing Adam but the comment only refers to Mike Patey putting big engines in little planes. Plus it sounds like you haven’t heard of scrappy yet. Just chill bro.
David Allen People have been doing that for decades. My Stinson has more than double the stock output and it was done in the 60’s. That’s nothing at all new. Or anything to do with Mike needing someone to “hold his beer.” This may be tough for you to understand, but the world existed before youtube, and everything has been done before.
1. Clearly you don’t know how the hold my beer meme works.
2. Clearly you don’t know anything about Mike Patey who is just a cool down to earth guy who is doing amazing things for the aviation community.
3. Clearly your name is not Adam...it’s Karen.
4. My post was peaceful in every way and you are just nagging and picking at straws trying to find somebody to argue with. I pity you sad little man. By Falicia 👋.
I was taught, the only time you have too much fuel is when your on fire.
Bahahahaaaa
Charlie Brown
That was good too. I'll remember that! Check out the end replies of the one above. :)
The Fairey Swordfish of WW2 is said by many to have been obsolete. But in reality it was an early STOL. It had a big engine and the biplane gave excellent lift. It was one of the few for the time that could operate from carrier decks heaving about in Atlantic swells.
Have a look at Mike Patey and what he's doing with his 500+hp Carbon Cub and the amount of changes he's making to make it safe.
Never too much power, as long as you know what you're doing and make supporting mods.
Sweet 🌻
You can NEVER have too much power, you can always throttle back!!
The question isn't weather the pilot can handle the power. The question is whether the airframe design can handle the stress ...
Yes you can.
A heavy power plant and structure eats into useful load and range and endurance.
Aircraft are designed like Lotus cars.... something that can destroy something with double or triple the power with a Toyota engine.
Corn cob in a kit fox might be too much. ;)
No, sometimes you can't. Throttling back can put you in bad harmonics on some engines. Also, you really don't want an airplane that can fly past or even near Vne in a straight line. Flutter will kill you.
@@akschu1 how bout you flutter these nuts
Too much power is like having a wife that’s too good looking.
Indeed, a recipe for disaster...
As long as you don't over stress an airframe.
Or too much bacon!
@@williampotter2098 Trouble is, inevitably most people will do exactly that. That is why we have recommended specs.
Incident investigators are often being criticized for overapplying "Pilot factor" in verdicts, but the frequency if "I was just going to..." is shocking.
As in the late Daryle Singletary's Too Much Fun
Good to see engines other than Rotax. I feel too many designers have designed for that 185 pound range resulting in a perhaps unintended monopoly with only one engine manufacturer. Cost of engines are driving out many home builders and i personally feel this cost has hurt certain aspects of the home building culture. Safety and reliability cost money many will counter. When light Sport Aircraft tickles 100k, it causes me obvious to question why almost half of that is engine cost driven. Kudos to those who are working hard to provide engine options. Designers should allow for a broader engine weight range. Just saying.
The corollary to your point (with which I completely agree), is that the FAA needs to extract its cranium from its rectum, apply real world results to the bureaucratic malaise in which it wallows, and increase the specs all across the board for Experimental/LSA/103 categories!
There is NO valid real world reason, given EFIS reliability, availability, and cost, that Constant Speed props should be precluded from the E/LSA categories. Same thing for engine power (both in certified and non-cert aircraft); 200hp should be the maximum for the categories, along with matching speed maximums (200kts).
Sadly, the Experimental/Kit Builders paradigm has nearly been murdered by 'high end' "too rich for their own good" pilots and "leading" industry proponents. $250,000 for a Carbon Cub? Really? $150,000-$200,000 for an Amphib?
Those are NOT 'Kit' aircraft and don't let anyone try to tell me that they are actually 'affordable' for average folks.
Average Folks are why the Experimental platform was created! People who couldn't afford to buy a Cessna, Piper, etc, much less pay for the Certified Upkeep! Then came the folks with health problems (such as myself) who are fully licensed to drive a 4,000lb to 20,000lb rig down the road at 70mph-80mph, but NOT be allowed to fly a 1200 pound Experimental aircraft?
Yeah, right, that makes a world of sense: but only to an FAA bureaucrat or a Career Politician.
Landing gear improvements during the last 15 years for Retractable Gear are another area that needs to be seriously looked at for the Exp./LSA reqs: more and more WWII Kits are now available, and there is keen interest in them.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The bottom line is that the FAA demands that everything be so 'safe', that the very mindset itself has become dangerous and highly limiting. Theories are great, but Real World Empirical Evidence is what should guide protocols and policies, not some theoretical demands that cannot ever be met by real folks living in a real world.
Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY
PS. I must also note that the sheer himalayan amount of narcissism coming from 'professional' well known pilots these days has also truly become part and parcel of the problem: the elitism and arrogance which they exude with their words and attitudes do just as much damage as the FAA paper pushers.
Yeah same here, no bloody way I'm going to pay $30-40k for an engine with technology decades out of date...
@@rocketsurgeon4876 I understand what you are saying and I believe that some, including myself, trust the old tried and true mechanical paths more so than the electronic ones. I know that argument does not hold up with today's advances. Never the less I understand mechanics far more than I do electronics. Its what I grew up with and what I know.
Continentals, Lycomings and Franklin engines are just simple as can be, tough as nails with surprising accuracy in manufacturing. They are the pinnacle of the mechanical world and they had to be.
So what advantages are you looking for in a more modern engine?
An engine that can run so hot because of having to run at high RPMs to get the horse power, engineers had figure out how to cool the heads plus push cooling air over the cylinders too? Having to deal with both of those cooling issues at once? Thats not advanced... thats a fix. Thats poor engineering.
Yes the electronics are there and we can see the little red light come on telling us we are over boosting. Its a pretty busy video-game like-cockpit and I dislike it very much. The instruments are jumbled and in many cases tried and true human instrument scan, tried and true scanning techniques are very challenging because there is no consistency in instrument layout.
My red light comes on thinking about spending 37K on an engine which has not quit evolving.
My apologies. This has turned into a rant of dislike of newer over price engines plus apparently a glass cockpit.
Oh well thanks for reading... I feel better now. lol
@@crawford323 My dream engine runs on jet-A, is direct drive with port injection EFI and redundant brain boxes that fail full rich if both die. There are blueprint engines that claim to be this that will likely never see light of day because certification costs with the FAA are outrageously expensive.
Tried and true is all well and good but the horse and buggy was tried and true as well. If you want a mechanical engine because it's what you understand well then sir this is America.
@@rocketsurgeon4876 I'm with you brother.. Im retired and broke but very determined. I will be flying in front of a Lycoming 0320. I hope to have things spinning by the spring. So for me right now, my engine is old style and very used. I truly wish I could afford new. This very used engine my be a friend or it might be a very expensive foe. So many of us only have one shot at getting back into the air and we lament the rising cost of the effort. Someone though has to push the envelope. The Wright Brothers did their thing Nov 11th 1903 and a mere 65 years later, we walked on the moon. That's just staggering. Jay Carter with Carter Copter showed we can fly past the limit of retreating blade stall. His effort lead to all sort of side advances including gear and propeller. So push that envelope and all of us will benefit. There is no doubt in that. The FAA allows experimental aircraft to be built because of the thirst for education. That then has to be your path. I like how you think. BC
The answer is simple. As long as the CG is good, no, there isn't such a thing.
One of the things I want to do is LS swap a small light aircraft/homebuilt. 600+ HP no problem. *I want unlimited vertical...*
When you can fly your plane like a helicoptor...power is just about enough.
Great insight to the motor power for an given airplane . Thanks...
So nice watching a video about aircraft by someone who knows what they are talking about. Very refreshing
I was wondering about the additional horsepower exceeding the flight controls, particularly the ailerons and rudder. I was part of a project many years ago that replaced a Continental 100 HP engine for a Lycoming 150 HP in a Cessna 150. The rudder trim tab had to be greatly increased in size to maintain controllability of the aircraft.
I used to fly a 150 with the 150 horse Lycoming. Nice for short fields. Main problems were keeping the prop from clipping grass and extra rattling from cowling touching engine occasionally. Fun airplane
Good video..also not mentioned is the excessive torque effect when full power is applied. In some cases this over rides the rudder and ailerons ability to keep the aircraft controllable during max performance take off. The results if this occurs need not be explained to most watching.
My Tailwind is powered by a Continental 0-200A. Adequate for most ops. I had a Sonerai II that needed cautious use of throttle on take off for the above mentioned reason.
Yeah, I kept waiting for the P-factor discussion, but then the video ended. Hmmm. Disappointed.
@@TopDedCenter1 We don't really see discussions on P factor or Torque effect. That is a major player in any engine and propeller combination.
P factor on takeoff was an issue for every warbird.
@@TheDuckofDoom. Warbirds often had a substantially higher amount of both rotating inertia in the driveline and just way, way more power. More than 10 times the power of the planes in this video.
@@islandfd3s Shade heavier too I would think.
Wow interesting discussion ! Thanks for the Tip
Thank you for putting this video together.
Well, you said the magic words, "density altitude". My home field is at 6600' MSL. Up here, a 130HP airplane is a 100HP airplane, and a 100HP airplane is great for looking at. There is also the small matter of greater fuel consumption, but that's the price you have to pay.
Yup.....I'm in Central WY and the elevation out my front door is just under 4700'. There's a Bluegrass Festival in Casper every year, up in Bear Trap Meadows, and it's appx 8500'.
I get SO TIRED of Sea Level folks in Florida and the West Coast acting as if anyone wanting 130hp-150hp are abject idiots or seem to have a personal failing in some area or another! I've lost count of the times that I've heard of, or seen, Sea Level Folks (SLFs) fly into Casper in a 65hp-80hp rig, during Summer, with 90F-100F weather for that week, and then, next thing you know, they're trying to figure out WHAT BAGGAGE they can LEAVE BEHIND, because those 'great engines' (and at Sea Level they are quite fine) just don't provide the power for enough Lift, to get them off the ground at 5260' at 90F-100F with the loads they carried into Casper.
'One Size' does NOT 'fit all', and the sooner people get OFF their proverbial Tall Equine, the better for us all; that's why there are SO MANY DIFFERENT aircraft makes, models, and then the thousands of variations possible across the spectrum!
Personally, while I love the Rotax and UL motors, neither my budget nor my conscience would ever allow me to PAY the prices they want for them. Aeromomentum will be my choice, once I choose the make and model I will build: affordable to buy, great performance on multiple platforms, and affordable to REBUILD when the TBO is reached.
Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY
@@jrbailey3208 I'm from the lowlands, and I certainly haven't an issue with more power!
@@jrbailey3208 Exactly and its a shock the first time you can't get out of ground effect or have to fly around a mountain rather than over it! Then there's the wind that often exceeds recommended operation for light airframes.
Fuel consumption is a problem pull the throttle back.
@@ohwell2790 And make less power in the process, thereby defeating the purpose of having a more powerful engine.
This was a interesting video. I’m not really a plane guy so my knowledge is limited as of now but being a car guy my buddy showed me pictures of a light aircraft like these with a Chevy LS V8.
Which goes to show given a long enough timeline everything gets a LS swap.
This is a really cool video! Thanks for making it and sharing!
Yay for opening with a Corvair engine starting! Thanks- I miss mine.
Excellent spectacular.
Saludos desde Buenos Aires Argentina.
👍😎
For your next video, take the radial engine from an Antonov An-2 and put it in a Piper Cub! :-)
Thank you for this very informative video.
Thanks for the great, informative video.
Those are some absolutly amazing takeoffs at just 80 and 100 hp. I dont know why you would want more power on takeoff than that
Being able to take off in a few feet can be a huge benefit to a brush pilot and the entire reason these aircraft exist. The 80 was taking almost a normal amount of runway length and the 100 while able to get off quickly still had to travel a fair way first. The 130 hp were leaping off the ground.
Great video! If the airframe can handle it, then by all means, enjoy the power. It’s always a trade off between power and range.
Determine what you want from your build, and make it so.. you will never find a STOL kit that can go long distance at high speed. Just like you will never find a great cross country cruiser that is also a stol plane.
Understanding the difference is the key. They are two separate animals.
Then how do you explain DRACO? Haha just teasing.
Interesting video , thanks for the effort .
Great video.....Nice info.
When the wings fold or tail falls off as you exceed Vne, you might have too much power.
This seemed more of an "701 engine options" video since they seem to be approved for use.
Yeah. There's got to be some real downsides to having too much power. I was disappointed he didn't describe any of the real problems.
It was still a fun video.
Very interesting indeed.
One thing I’m wondering about is where the propeller actually gets to its limits (if it’s the same one).
Guess all horsepower on earth won’t help if the propeller is at its limits.
it isn't a 'thing'. ie you cannot tell what it is except based on BET Blade efficiency theory or momentum theory, which is based on many variables such and blade design, efficiency and even then only based on air conditions, everything from humidity to density of other variables. in a general sdense propellors come with a efficiency rating by the manufacturers generally in the range of like 7-9, which used in conjunction with token thrust gives a idea of induced airspeed in the streamtube.
A simple answer, without nerdy words, is: search Tupolev Tu-114 on wiki, google, youtube, or whatever. That is the fastest prop plane. Find out why, yourself.
Its very very good video with excellent learning.
Super informative!
The usual american approoach: "more power, more power, more power, more ...."
"YIKES , who placed that pole ther ..."
Lol accurate🤣🤷🏾♂️
Didnt see any poles hit.....? Just nice takeoffs
Lol my friend was trying to impress his girlfriend that worked at a local store. He wasn't paying attention and hit a light pole 😁
when a helicopter soul trapped in fixed wing airplane
No doubt!
Good info!
Nice video - my first thought on this when reading the title was a story my father told. He as a Navy flight instructor in WWII . He instructed in Stearmans - problem they had was if it was throttled up to fast you could roll the plane on the ground.
Torque induced rollover that no amount of control input can overcome?
I may have missed it, but I didn't hear you indicate the HP of the Aeromomentum 1.5L engine. I know they make it in 100hp, 117hp, and 147hp........so which was it?
117
Bigger engine has a greater fuel burn rate (less range). Weight of engine may also reduce the amount fuel, persons or baggage available. MTOW - max take off weight, remains the same. Big motor does not increase cruise speed as the Vne (never exceed speed) is the same. Big motors allows options like skis or floats and safety. Having said that, I fly an over engined plane at the cost of an extra 2 gallons/hour of fuel.
So when is cruise speed ever near VNE ? Cruise speed will increase for sure. How much. depends. Take the popular 150Hp 150 Cessna mod.50 hp increase did very little. Everything you mention comes into play. Never get something for nothing !
Paul Van Tries. In a GA certified aircraft, manufactures will pitch the propeller to engine and airframe to prevent or lessen the chance of exceeding the Vne in level flight. Home built aircraft it is pretty easy to over engine / prop an aircraft. Leading edge wrinkles in the wings and fuselage are a pretty good indicators of Vne being exceeded. Airframe break ups are rare but ultra light's a prone to being abused by those wanting to go a little faster. Most plane manufactures have a significant buffer between Vne and break up for turbulence reasons however if the plane lives there the chance of bending the airframe due to aerodynamic drag in even igentle turns is real - called manoevering Speed.
@@pilotblue6535 Home built & ultralite can happen for sure. Hp more than prop will determine top speed. I had a tailwind N31039 with a 125 in it. It never flew as well as a C90 in a well built tailwind . Gets into the dog chasing his tail thing. Bigger always adds weight. Your points are taken !
Not only that, but in high performance planes you have to watch out for flutter at high altitude. The airspeed indicator may well be within the limits for indicated airspeed, but your true airspeed is much higher. Flutter onset is related to true airspeed. For the Van’s RV series, this is the main reason why they strongly advise against installing a more powerful engine than recommended in their airframes.
Well explained thanks
An old test pilot for Lockheed here in Burbank,Ca. Stated he liked to see a min. 1hp /Cubic Inch. I like water cooled over air for longevity and noise as long as the extra Hp offsets the extra weight.
Thought I was going to see a Zenith with a shoe horned Rolls Royce 450 hp turbo prop installed.
I was expecting a TIO-541
I've noticed the effect of excessive power at the fuel pit.
It takes 8 times more horsepower to double your speed. The force required to overcome drag equals 2 x 2, plus x2 for doing it twice as fast = 8.
I'm flying a helicopter so speed is not a primary concern
@@skymaster337p It's not so much about speed as it is about acceleration. There's never too much acceleration available at hand.
@Terry Melvin LOL, I don't think strong enough bolts are a problem nowadays ;)
That may have been an issue in the bronze age, before we were able to smelt iron ;)
I am not 1 to own a aircraft any time soon, but I liked your video. It seems like I could take off right out of my driveway and clear the house across the street. Good stuff any way.
Amazing video
The limit of Power is reached, when Momentum of the Prop cant be controlled by the steering controlls of the plane. Like the P51 Mustang and another powerful aircrafts. Rooky pilots often lost control at the start run, or landings with wrong poweradjustment.
3:20 that would be cool to go and vacation anywhere
I was a crew chief on a C-130 E and we used TIT ( 977 C max take off ) and 900 C for cruise or less depending on weight and range etc. On later models such as the H ( 1170 C TIT ) they where torque limited on take off. They could fly higher than we could and faster. My airplane was 64-1799 146th TAW CA ANG.
Awesome!
Regardless of the horesepower, this kind of ultra steep takeoff is lethal should the engine quit early on the climb. The stall is almost inevitable and the huge nose down input required to try to get flying speed back has one pointed earthward, still with little airspeed but enormous vertical speed that cannot be arrested at the bottom.
Lost a good friend this way. There is a risk with this type of departure.
There is risk with life, stay in the basement.
@@asherdie Basement? I operate an aerobatic business in winter and fly a Single Engine Air Tanker on the fires in Summer. I do not have a basement.
Take risks if you want grumpybill, just do not do it in ignorance.
Cheers
@@lauriejones3198 cool flight sim story brah.
@@asherdie I have nothing to prove to you. Why do you make the assumption I am lying about what I do? You have no intention of admitting your own deficiencies and I sure am not going to be baited into giving you enough info to troll me, like I get the feeling you would.
Cheers
@@lauriejones3198 I am super deficient, but I'm not the subject.
Why the diversion?
Dude it leaps off ground from a standing position! You should totally fly it off a canoe or something!
And that's why Mike Patey's scrappy sis an engineering marvel. 500 horse in a cub🤯
It would be good to hear how it effects the handling. It seems to me that surely it would be a trade off between take-off performance and pleasant handling.
More power more fun..!!!!
A plane that can literally take off ´´on the numbers´´ is too cool.
I saw seen a U2 take off from 0° to 90° in almost the same runway space.
@@bille.2266 So have I. Then they go vertical to 80K feet and level off. Like a rocket. That is why the Airmen´s Barracks always face the runway! No sleep for us.
thx for sharing. long and prosper life.
Thank you. This was a wonderful presentation.Very informative.
The biggest issue is TOO MUCH WEIGHT by installing a more powerful engine. The Ed Fisher Zipster is a prime example. It is designed for PPG engines but you could install and fly it with a 2 cyl Rotax. You might die but you could do it. Ed would go NUTS if you did. Low weight trumps high power every time.
Yeah, up to a point.
I learned to fly in Casper, WY, MSL 5260' and when Summer rolls around, we REGULARLY get 90F-100F days, so those low hp engines just don't cut it; it's NOT just about weight, it's a combination of weight to power ratio, AND Flying Conditions!
During Summer, Sea Level pilots flying into Casper are REGULARLY seen leave baggage BEHIND, because their 65hp-80hp engines just simply can't provide enough power to get the job done, for the amount of load they are carrying, not with those flying conditions.
Try flying in the Rocky Mountain Region States for a while.........you'll quickly understand what I am saying.
Can't imagine what would happen if I upped my horsepower from 19 to 38 !!! Things would be totally out of hand and with a 25' ground roll.
I've been watching a Belite ultra light Cub with 50 hp Hirth and this seems to be better than the 20 something or 30 something range!
Nice Video
Good info 👍
In the RC airplanes we always put more than the recommend power is your friend
Most RC pilots don't operate at minimums because they love their rigs. Aircraft operators have minimums and regulations. If you operate at minimums with too much power I'd be worried about torque.
Im guessing if you asked Mike Patey he would say, No! Back To Work!
Yeah😂🤛back to Work!
Lmao
@@theworshiptraveler6709 love the timing, Mike Patey just said a 500 hp. World record holding engine isn't enough for his carbon cub! Lmao I agree!
Same engine but 500 hp is not enough! The engine holds a speed record btw, and he is putting it into a carbon cub
@@nickarganbright7218 AND because it's NA, adding an up to a 250 shot of nitrous! Just for high density altitude and heavy load kind of flying......
Very informative, thanks for sharing I subscribe to you thanks again 😎
Ok, will check out that Zenith.
Mike
You can see the torque steer in the takeoff
Just like the old P52s
1:17 - you've got mail. ;)
Lol. I actually checked my phone!!
I asked Tim Taylor and James Pumphrey about this, they responded with some grunting and 'Mo powah baby!'
Glad to see the 701 alive and well :)
Yes u can have too much power.. WWII spitfire mk19 with almost 3000hp. Firewall the throttle on takeoff and see how that works out
What!! No one has tried to put a turbo prop on a Zenith?! Imagine a mini Draco. Mike Patel: "I got this".
I have no idea how I got aircraft videos recommended to me, but the Google algorithms have clearly chosen me to be the future "that guy" 😸
A friend has a very light single seater which was originally designed for an RD250 engine 30HP and it still used to fly OK but he decided to strip it down to take off an extra 40 pounds and replaced the wing spar with a stronger but lighter (and much more expensive) option. The balance was checked with an RD350 engine in it with the cooling system just rear of the cockpit with two small air scoops. That gave him an extra 20HP or 65% depending which way you want to go. He could also then use some slightly bigger wing tanks (6 litres each). Then someone bought it off him when they saw how it flew.
Flew banners for a while. Towed the same panel for the same time in a Pawnee 235 and used less fuel than the guy in the Citabria Scout. Flew O-2 s for a while. Could fly the same route, same altitude, same time in an O-2 with an IO 550 on each end for less fuel than when I flew the standard TIO360 model. Quieter too.
Too much power impossible !
3:05 wow can just take off from backyard, or even the driveway lol
Density Altitude in your general flying location/s is the important point here for engine choice consideration.
Me : Put a 915 in a Zénith 701
NASA : Want to know my location.
Wow who needs a helicopter, I can take off from my driveway
Zabama Z landing is a little more tricky. You need the garage door open.
So basically it's ok to throw just about anything into those planes and you're good to go ?
Matt W. Looks like it. Even a one cylinder weed whacker will get it off the ground.
Thank you for sharing the knowledge.....you are legend.....I'm not pilot or engineer but interesting 😁😁😁😁😁
Liked last one. Perfect
It is just like having too much money.
I was disappointed to see that the effect the added HP can have on the aircraft structure was not addressed. A 130 HP engine in an aircraft designed for 100 HP is going to put more strain on the engine mounting facilities than it is designed to handle. What are the risks that the engine may depart the aircraft when one of those parts fail?
He did say at the end that the builder had the blessing of the designer, so I assume any structural concerns were made if needed.
i wonder if crankshaft rotation and torque from the prop can adversely affect the aircraft performance.. i know you can trim it out but can it cause dutch roll? , or put too much strain on the control surfaces just trying to keep from spinning about the propeller .. having a large crank trowing about in a single direction puts a gyroscopic force on the aircraft, (think they use boxers to eliminate some of this, as well as perfect primary balance), if you could install 250 hp in a c701 without too much weight.. via a piston engine, would it work? or do the aerodynamics of the aircraft eventually become un able to handle the twisting forces the aircraft puts on it.. ?
Cool!
2000 16 valve Ford be ideal best engine ever made
NOBODY....NOBODY.....ever complained about having too much power.
D Thirteen maybe to much fuel burn
All taht powah and no torque but? Torque be more better for approaches and runway rotations. Go diesel/Jet-A.
No mention that the first demo of the 100hp had considerable headwind component, as did the other samples. Not a fair comparison....
Awesome👍《☆》A RR Merlin would be fun😁⛾A little tricky on the W&B🖖😎💛