Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 126

  1. #76
    Moderator blw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Opelika, AL
    Posts
    8,550
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    Speed doesn't cause flutter. Most flutter can be prevented for almost any speed by sealing the gaps along hinge lines. If you don't cover over the gaps, make sure the control surface is very straight and has even spacing all along the hinge line. There should be no slop in the linkage.
    The ultimate responsibility of pilots is to fulfill the dreams of the countless millions who can only stare skyward...and wish.

    "It's a new day for Auburn" - Gus Malzahn

  2. #77

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Phoenix , AZ
    Posts
    100
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    i do it just so people can write a 3 page thread pissing and moaning about nonsence. Its amazing what people will complain about. The moderators will remove this im sure but they should remove this whole thread so new people to this hobby dont happen on to the home page, and see all the most popular topics are ***** sessions.

  3. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    1,853
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: Tony Iannucelli

    ''SOME IS GOOD, MORE IS BETTER, TOO MUCH IS JUST RIGHT.''

    Amen. let the followers follow the directions fo the kit manufacturers...

    Gerry

  4. #79

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    1,853
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: karolh

    Back in the early 90's I built a GP Big Stik 60 and powered it with a stock ST60. Shortly after I switched engines to a ASP. 61 with a Mac's tuned pipe and on the very first flight when the engine came on the pipe the increased performance scared the living daylights out of me, not to mention that it gobbled up the 14 oz. of fuel onboard in no time flat.

    Karol

    My Giant Stick 1.6 electric on 10 cells is lighter than it was with the Z26 it had on before, and all the sudden it is a load of fun... Still, it can crawl around the airspace w/o using the flaps...

    Gerry

  5. #80
    MTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Whippany, NJ
    Posts
    4,762
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: Bob Pastorello

    +1Β* [img][/img]

    *usually identifiable by inability to taxi.Β* They must place the motor/propΒ*with itsΒ*mounting device on the runway before blasting off.
    [img][/img]
    Bob,

    Great to see you posting again....

    You wanna see something powered just right, how about my now deseased Extreme Flight 78" Extra. This 30cc model was a test bed for 30cc engines, 38 cc engine, 40 cc and finally a DLE 55, all piped. The best and scariest combo was the DLE55 on pipe. 12 pound airplane with about 35 pounds of thrust. Just right!!!

    BTW the EF Xtra died from a bad Spektrum 9ch RX that was supposed to be full range. Not!!

    The next best power to burn combo is a Neu F3A geared motor driving a contra drive on a 9.89 gear ratio and 10 cells. The props are 21x22 and 20x21, front and back. This 11 pound model's expensive props (about $200 each) simply are not allowed to spool up with the plane on the ground. So the typical take off is full up elevator and throttle up when ready. It blasts off in about 6 inches....Just Right!!!!

    If you think I'm bragging, You're Right!!!! LOL
    Regards,
    MattK
    (Rcmaster199@aol.com)

  6. #81

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    York, ME
    Posts
    682
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    There's no replacement for displacement!

  7. #82

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Herington, KS
    Posts
    30
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    I have all types in my 25 airplane collection but the one that is most overall fun to fly is a Hobbistar with an OS .61 FS on it. I use it to train with and you can fly for an hour with the throttle back on cruise. Students do not need an overpowered model to learn with, it just gets them in trouble and kills their confidence. I have the others also but for learning and just scale-like, every once-in-a-while, relaxed flying for perfecting touch and goes, slow, lazy loops and rolls, this combo can't be beat.

  8. #83

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    palm harbor, FL
    Posts
    2,175
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    i understand what you are saying and over many years always ask why.but that being said many pilots will increase the planes power.if its done right thats fine.done right meaning you have beefed up critical areas to ensure the wings wont fold etc.but just slapping a big kick ass motor with no appreciation for the consequences is never good.likewise however I wonder why people chose to underpower a plane as well.why struggle to keep it flying and telling someone "its scale".baloney it's senseless. so as far as speedI feel the need sometimes but my model of choice is one designed just for that.and I do go with the bigger recommended motor and use throttle to control things.

  9. #84

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Inverness, FL
    Posts
    780
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    HI
    Performance is always a POWER to WEIGHT RATIO !
    All my info will be for two cycle glo power,building and flying RC for 21 years
    My advice would be to put as much power into your airframe as is "REASONABLE "
    For a 40 size airframe i have learned not to go any higher than most 51-53 cc engines ,like the ST 51 a lot
    Engine weight being the biggest factor ,more weight than that -you will be adding tail weight to balance and kill the wing loading
    With to much wing loading the plane will take off fine ,fly in the air fine-,but will be difficult to control nicely on final and landing,kills the glide
    If you do not perform a good landing ,it ruins the flight in my opinion
    I have used 60 and 75 size engines in 40 size airframes,they drop out like lead ballons on landing-,learned the hard way here reduces the fun of the flight
    For 60 size airframes my favorite to date is an OS 75 AX ( prior was a 75 ASP-with an os 7D carb ) halls my 60 stik to unlimited vertical (all my planes do unlimited verticalmy goal some will roll going up )
    I have an OS 91 FX in my 60 Ultrasport the 91 fx is a bored out 61 and the same weight as the 61,so that works great (all of the bored out engines designs work well for the same reason ,lite )
    I fly it just above 1/2 throttle and have the rest of the power to pull me out or thru anything I desire
    Power will get you out of trouble and prevent some kinds of stalls -,take off for example -,-getting out of the lawn
    Do keep in mind if adding more power to an airframe there are a few things to consider
    One is the additional fuel the larger engine will require-,therefore a large tank
    Two you will need additional prop clearence to turn a bigger prop,taller landing gear
    Three you will need to reinforce the fire wall,the wing center section ,go to a bigger bigger motor mount-,all considered before the build starts
    I have put an OS 1.08 FSR into my 60 stik -,as i saw that combo ,go unlimited vertical ,slide backwards and go vertical again
    That was about 17 years ago just when the very first fellows at my field were starting to do 3 D stuff
    I did go to a 75 ASP at that time and enjoyed the plane a lot more,especially on landing
    Those are my been there done that TIPS from many years of experimintation with increasing power
    Just like to ad nothing worse than flying a plane that has marginal power ,either from a smaller engine OR a poor engine adjustment (bad tune )
    Your plane will ONLY FLY as well as your engine is running-,so you need to learn tune well
    ALWAYS use an engine on the high side of the kits instructions ,or a bit more
    Fly the new plane if it does not perform to you liking you can change the engine,shorten the wing,increase the wing size,change the landing gear- ETC
    On an average it takes me 5-10 flights to work out the BUGS after the maiden flight and to get my planes to do what i require
    Best Regards TONY
    \" The power and performance glo fuel , 15 % Morgan Omega \"

  10. #85
    MTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Whippany, NJ
    Posts
    4,762
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    You guys still run glow stuff? Go gas for anything larger than a 90 glow, you will love the extra beans.

    No need for larger tanks with gas. 16 ozs flies the DLE 55 for 16 minutes. 16 ozs flies an OS33GT for 22 minutes....long enuff
    Regards,
    MattK
    (Rcmaster199@aol.com)

  11. #86

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, JAMAICA
    Posts
    5,958
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    +1. Six ozs. flies my G20 for 25 mins.

    Karol
    When inverted always remember that down is up and visa versa

  12. #87
    SrTelemaster150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY
    Posts
    2,864
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    ORIGINAL: MTK

    You guys still run glow stuff? Go gas for anything larger than a 90 glow, you will love the extra beans.

    No need for larger tanks with gas. 16 ozs flies the DLE 55 for 16 minutes. 16 ozs flies an OS33GT for 22 minutes....long enuff

    Go 4-Stroke glow engine W/electronic ignition on glow fuel W/moderate amounts of nitro & get even more power.

    My Saito FA 300 TTDP W/C&H ignition running on 15% Cool Power mnakes 7200 RPM W/a 22 X 10 Zinger.

    That blows away the Saito FG 56 & is right there W/a G62.

    Ignition converted 4-strokes on glow fuel don't get quite the fuel economy of a gas engine, but typically get @ least 25% better fuel economy than glow ignition on a similar displacement engine.


    I'm still working W/E85 to get the HP advantage of alchohol W/O the drop in compression ratio needed for gasoline W/the resulting HP loss.

    My Fa 150 ran 15 minutes on about 1/2 of a 16oz tank of E85 @ WOT. It spun a Dynathrust 18 X * @ 7500 RPM.



    Club Saito #785 - FA91S, FA150, FA180, FA180HC/BBC, FA200TI, FA300TTDP: All with CH Ignitions CDI/Glow fuel
    SIG BH #41
    - 1/3 Spacewalker, Rascal 110
    CUB BH #231 - Wings Maker 1/5 J-3 Cub

  13. #88
    wyo69cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cody, WY
    Posts
    751
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: Charlie P.


    ORIGINAL: dignlivn




    Bob,

    I over power with 4 strokes, because I can .

    Would you buy a Corvette with a 6 cylinder engine??


    Bob
    Not a chance.Β* #1 it's a Chevy and #2 it won't carry a gas model to the airfield.Β* ;-)

    Now, if they made a nice turbo wagon that would get 30 mpg,Β*carry three planes at once (one IMAA legal) and still do over 140 mph or handle twistry back roads equally well . . .

    [img][/img]
    I don't know about the 30mpg part, but it will get your planes there quick! CD CTS V wagon test
    Crashing my way to being a better pilot!
    Saito Club# 679

  14. #89

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bourbonnais , IL
    Posts
    528
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    One could ask why some have an obsession complaining about people who "over power" their airplanes? Different strokes for different folks! If it is dramatically overpowered usually takes care of itself with a destroyed airframe and or destroyed engine. If it works out ok for the power hungry pilot so be it. Most of us love to see if not also fly fast aerobatic planes, as well as the nice scale stuff, there is room for both.

  15. #90

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Klaukkala, FINLAND
    Posts
    266
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    Amen to the above. I will ALWAYS over power my planes sometimes even drastically. Thats my way and I like it. No, I love it.

    And I dont start complaining if someone in our field or in the internet wants to use recommended engines or underpowered ones. I did that once and that candy tasted BAD and cost me a plane. That was a Saito 90 radial.

  16. #91

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    salem, OR
    Posts
    1,211
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    The only way to ensure you have enough power is to install an engine at the top or greater than the high end of the manufacturer's recommendations, then throttle back if you have way too much. If you install at the lower end, you are likely going to be full throttle all the time just to make the plane fly adequately. I rather throttle back than have to buy and change to a more powerful engine, likely with different dimensions that mess up the firewall and cowl. Just my 2cents. Jon
    Carl Goldberg Ultimate 10-300 Brotherhood #01
    Club Saito #707
    P-47 Thunderbolt Brotherhood #97

  17. #92

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    327
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    Lots of good, interesting posts.
    For those who thought I was complaining, please don't read that into my initial post.
    I could care less what people put in their planes. I just have never had the desire to do so, but I wouldn't complain, piss or moan about anyone who chooses to do so.
    As many have stated, we do the things we do because we have fun doing them and because we can!
    I have a BN Citabria that originally had a Fox .78 R/C engine in it. This plane has a nine foot wing span. It can, and did, fly with it but I'm retrofitting it with an O.S. 1.20, so I guess I am "overpowering" it by quite a bit (according to BN, anyway!)
    Have fun. Life's too short not to enjoy it.
    Bob
    AB Bob
    Cub Brotherhood #75
    Flying on the wing!

  18. #93

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Keller, TX
    Posts
    2,025
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: AB Bob

    Lots of good, interesting posts.
    For those who thought I was complaining, please don't read that into my initial post.
    I could care less what people put in their planes. I just have never had the desire to do so, but I wouldn't complain, piss or moan about anyone who chooses to do so.
    As many have stated, we do the things we do because we have fun doing them and because we can!
    I have a BN Citabria that originally had a Fox .78 R/C engine in it. This plane has a nine foot wing span. It can, and did, fly with it but I'm retrofitting it with an O.S. 1.20, so I guess I am "overpowering" it by quite a bit (according to BN, anyway!)
    Have fun. Life's too short not to enjoy it.
    Bob
    I bought that very combination around 1980 or so. I foolishly sold the plane kit but kept and ran the engine for many years. I'm guessing that if the OS 1.20 were available back then, that Bud Nosen would have recommended it!

    About 15 years ago, I flew a 1/4 scale Laser 200, first with an ASP 1.08, then with a Magnum 1.20 2 stroke that seemed the perfect power for the plane. I had to remove the engine due to a rod failure and put on my MDS 1.48. The MDS was heavier, much stronger, but the plane just seemed to lose its magic with the heavier, stronger engine. It just wasn't the joy to fly as with the 1.20. I'm convinced there is such a thing as the "right" engine for a plane and that bigger is not neccessarily better.

    Sometimes, things are exactly as they appear to be.

  19. #94

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    White Oak, TX
    Posts
    2,147
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?


    ORIGINAL: RCVFR


    ORIGINAL: AB Bob

    Lots of good, interesting posts.
    For those who thought I was complaining, please don't read that into my initial post.
    I could care less what people put in their planes. I just have never had the desire to do so, but I wouldn't complain, piss or moan about anyone who chooses to do so.
    As many have stated, we do the things we do because we have fun doing them and because we can!
    I have a BN Citabria that originally had a Fox .78 R/C engine in it. This plane has a nine foot wing span. It can, and did, fly with it but I'm retrofitting it with an O.S. 1.20, so I guess I am ''overpowering'' it by quite a bit (according to BN, anyway!)
    Have fun. Life's too short not to enjoy it.
    Bob
    I bought that very combination around 1980 or so. I foolishly sold the plane kit but kept and ran the engine for many years. I'm guessing that if the OS 1.20 were available back then, that Bud Nosen would have recommended it!

    About 15 years ago, I flew a 1/4 scale Laser 200, first with an ASP 1.08, then with a Magnum 1.20 2 stroke that seemed the perfect power for the plane. I had to remove the engine due to a rod failure and put on my MDS 1.48. The MDS was heavier, much stronger, but the plane just seemed to lose its magic with the heavier, stronger engine. It just wasn't the joy to fly as with the 1.20. I'm convinced there is such a thing as the ''right'' engine for a plane and that bigger is not neccessarily better.


    I'm also guilty of upping the power but suffering the loss of good flight qualities with heavier wing loading so now am more careful.

  20. #95
    jeffie8696's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Muscatine, IA
    Posts
    5,060
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    Ihave done a lot of messing around with different wing loadings on the same airframe, easy to do with an electric, you just increase the battery size and have always found the lighest wing loading a more pleasurable flying experience given "proper" power. Just my opinion.
    That said I do like she smallest lighest most poerful combo for my glow engine planes. for example Ihave an Irvine .25 which is a very strong runner on my Sonic while Icould easily have gone with a Thunder Tiger GP25 which while being a very reliable engine is not as high an output engine.
    Club Saito # 677-Team Boca Bearings-Star Collectibles Muscatine-Glowhead Brotherhood #19

  21. #96
    WaffleMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DeLand, FL
    Posts
    233
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    When you buy a plane that is underpowered, you fly it at full throttle all the time. When you fly at full throttle all the time, you wish you didn't have to. When you wish you didn't have to, go go out and spend even more of your precious money on a bigger engine. Don't spend even more of your precious money on a bigger engine. Buy the big engine at the start instead of the small one and be a happy pilot who still has money.

    ^^^that is my philosophy on the subject.^^^
    Trees have a tendancy to grow a few feet when airplanes try to fly over them.

  22. #97
    AmishWarlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Indian Trail, NC
    Posts
    2,929
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    No, the guys that put .60's in planes designed around 4-stroke .40's also tend to be the type that run wide open the entire flight.

  23. #98

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Frostproof, FL
    Posts
    486
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?




    depends on what one considers overpowered. I always go by whether I can slow her down enough to land. If you can slow it down enough to land, then it is not over powered. and also, that lever on the left side! i think that controls the amount of power being generated? Am I wrong on this??


    aa2dd
    Bruce

  24. #99

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    272
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    I don't care what engine people use in what plane, but for me, I tend to want to use WOT most of the time (except when deliberately poking around). It seems a bit pointless to me having an engine that you never need to exceed half throttle on take-off or any manouvere. I assume that most people with big engines want to go fast and extreme a lot of the time, and that is the way they like it.

    Having said this, I get impatient when driving stuck behind a slow driver with a V8 who will only ever use a fraction of the power. I say use it or loose it.  

  25. #100

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , MD
    Posts
    260
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: Why the near obsession with over powering airplanes?

    I can think of at least one airplane modelers commonly overpower - the most common high-wing, scale airplane in use at many flying fields today - the Piper J-3. Those that seem to be less knowledgeable use the mentality of: " if more is better, then too much is just right". Those that fly this airplane with engines in the upper ranges are missing something and may never experience the rewards of "flying on the wing".

    A Cub just doesn't look right flying at a bazillion mph. Look at the full-size fly by some time. You almost can't fly a model of one slow enough to justifly realism. Power management with this mentality is also usually nonexistent and many don't even use the left stick (mode II) hence no coordination w/ rudder in turns. If you think that: "if I only had more power, I wouldn't be picking up pieces", then you need to learn how to fly. The larger engine in this case equals more weight and the airplane can never, ever fly the way it was meant to - even at reduced throttle settings...


Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.