Posts: 166
Joined: 10/21/2005 From: Paris, AR, USA Status: offline
Alot of the planes we fly now were designed 10+ yrs ago and the bigger engines were not available at least in the lighter versions we have now.I agree that if a guy is adding a ton of tail weight to put a big engine on the nose,then he isnt gaining anything.If the bigger engine can be had with little or no gain in overall weight , you have the cash to buy it,and the discipline to use the throttle stick,why would you not?Everything we have today is overpowered for the job it was intended.Any vehicle will run 55mph,some get there faster and with less effort,I use dial up internet,my buddy has dsl, we get to the same sites,he gets there faster than me,24v cordless drills vs 9.6 drills,both drill holes,etc,etc......
Posts: 1129
Joined: 5/14/2003 From: Moore, OK, USA Status: offline
in some cases the engine that is overpowered is lighter than the recomended engine. take the saito line of engines. they have saito 120, 150, and 180 120 being the heaviest and the 180 being the lightest. in the 90 - 100 range the 91 is heavier than the saito 100. i have a saito 72 that is heavier than the newer saito 80. on 120 sized planes i would rather put the saito 180 than a saito 120.
Unless I missed it somewhere ,not a word was mentioned about altitude.Way back when Hector was a pup and I was learning this hobby my instructor told me the same as several others have here .At my altitude you need to go with the larger size engine rated on the kit box or maybe larger if it won't harm the wing loading .There is nothing to me thats more of a mess to fly is someones plane thats grossly underpowered .There so proud of there new plane and expecting great things from it ,when in all actuality it takes up the whole run way just to get air born and will stall if you breath on the stick. See this can go both ways ,Now ask yourself which plane would you consider more dangerous? The one that barely flies or the overpowered one that can fly at 1/3 stick. Just my 2 cents
< Message edited by Cyberwolf -- 6/29/2006 7:00:36 PM >
_____________________________
I've learned that you cannot compare yourself to others -they are more screwed up than you think.
Posts: 403
Joined: 1/14/2005 From: Naples,
FL, USA Status: offline
Wow, this argument is still going?
Well, I'll put my $.02 in too.....
I've been flying RC since 1979, and have always used at least the largest engine recommended, and usually more. I have flown pattern, scale, sport, electrics, ducted fans and dabbled in helis for a while. There is little to no downside when overpowering a model airplane, unless you have to put a lot of weight in the tail. My first DF model was waaaay underpowered with the recommended power, and it was on the edge of the wing the whole time it flew. It would depart with the slightest hint of up elevator, and was overall not a lot of fun to fly. In the hands of an inexperienced flyer, it wouldn't have lasted much past rotation. It looked great in the air though! I flew a fellow club members much more powerful Tom Cook Phantom, with 2 OS .77's in it, and it was pure bliss. You could actually make a 180 degree course reversal sans spin recovery!
Whether or not an aircraft will be successful when overpowered depends on a lot if things. Wing loading, airfoil and balance are probably the biggest ones. A .25 sized plane with a strong, semi or fully symmetrical wing will respond much better than the same plane with a flat bottom wing. An underpowered, high wing loading airframe is more dangerous than the same plane with too much power.
My first effort in overpowering was with a Midwest Little Stik. I won the kit at a club raffle at the ripe old age of 16. I had 2 Ugly Stiks by this time, and loved the way they flew. I only owned 2 RC engines at the time, a K&B .61 and a K&B .40, so I didn't have a .25 sized engine to put in the Little Stik. I decided to reinforce (shear webs, thicker tail surfaces and liberal use of triangle stock and fiberglass) the Little Stik and put the .40 in it, and it was awesome.
Soon after finishing it, I took it to a club meeting for show and tell, and was amazed at the disparaging comments I received. Not about the covering job or craftsmanship, but about the horrifying choice of powerplant (which was probably equal to a modern .30)! I was told that it wouldn't last the first flight, and that it would vibrate the servos too much etc. and that I should change it immediately or the world would come to an end.
I flew that plane for many years, in fact, it was the only plane that I had flying for a while. I took it with me to college, and I finally retired it after 9 years, as it was fuel soaked and just getting ratty. I built another one to replace it, but that one was short lived due to a radio glitch.
I built the "Stik from Hell" in the late '80's, and it was also grossly overpowered. It is a plans bashed GP Big Stik .40, powered by a Rossi .61 RE with pipe left over from my pattern days. It flies great, in fact it is my "go to" plane to this day. It goes where I point it, will accelerate straight up, and with the throttle back and throws cut, it still flies like the trainer it is. In fact, I am getting ready to solo my son on this plane. I had to replace the Rossi recently, since I was getting too many comments from some other guys at the field about speed and noise. I put an Enya .60X III with a regular muffler, and it is almost as fast and just as loud, but no one comments on it. Hmmmm, maybe it's the PERCEPTION that is the problem, and not the speed/noise? There is a new housing development going up near our field, so I am slowly switching over to electrics and 4 strokes, but this will be my last hold out.
As for the ARF situation. I am a total newby to the ARF world, and have only built a few. I can say that I wouldn't fly most of them with the smallest recommended power without going through them and reinforcing, or at least checking, the key areas.
This hobby is supposed to be fun........ as long as others aren't endangering your life, WHO CARES if their plane is over or under powered, they are flying around in circles at 20 mph, accelerating vertically, flying 3d etc etc etc etc....... Life is too short to worry about what the other guy is doing all the time.
< Message edited by Tripower455 -- 6/30/2006 4:37:56 PM >
Posts: 114
Joined: 7/29/2002 From: st. charles,
IL, USA Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: wildnloose
While you have every right to voice your opinion....it is just your opinion.
Who are you to tell me how I should fly. As long as I fly in a safe and secure manner, and don't break any club/AMA rules, then you don't have any say (or go say it to someone who actually cares). I like to fly all types (3D, speed, pattern, sport). I always try to do it in a safe manner. I keep in constant communication with whomever I fly with. If I want to buzz the runway at high speed, I let the other fliers know, they return the courtesy by staying up high, and the blur of a 150mph plane whipping by them at eye level does not startle them. If I want to do a 100ft loop with my warbird, I let everyone know. If I want to 3D, I let everyone know and I do it at the end of the runway (not in their face). If they want to make a low pass (or land) they yell out and I get out of their way. Common courtesy....sharing the air and looking out for one another makes a pleasant experience for everyone...
Now, in reply to your other statements: If I want to put a .75 engine in my .40 sized plane.....its my business (none of yours).
If I put a .100 or .120 on my Hog Bipe because I want to hover it....its my business (none of yours). And no, you don't have the right to tell me to go fly helis, its none of your business what I do...I do what I want...
And yes, a lot of people do try to compensate for a lack of flying skills by using larger engines. But its their business, not mine.
And yes, for 3D flying its ideal to have 2:1 power/weight while keeping the wing loading to a minimum. Some people don't know about the wing loading, but you should not keep them from experimenting.
And yes I will agree, RCU is a wonderful place to share ideas.....but you also have to look out for people passing bs around. If you stay here long enough you will be able to figure out if someone knows what they are talking about.
Now, IMO, the good and bad of ARF's is that more people can get into this hobby for less money and time spent. Eventually, people will start making better choices as their skill/knowledge increases. I am now happy to say that I have progressed to that level.
At last....I am sick and tired of people who think their opinion is gospel and they try to push it on to everyone else. They think their way is the right and only way to do things. Thaknfully, everybody is different (can you imagine how boring this world would be in we all thought the same way). Now I'm off my pedestal...
While I agree that we do all have the right to build what we want, fly how we want, power how we want. I do believe somone does need to step up (All of us) when someone who is new to the hobby with an over powered plane. ARF's are easy, and someone see's one at a contest, or show, want to get into the hobby and copies some one with 15 years of flight experience. So they bring out their new ARF and rip off the firewall or do not have the CG correct due to a too large engine. I hope this is what the thread is about, not limiting us in our right to fly what we want. If you see a newbie come in with an ARF and an engine that is going to over powere it, you have the responsability to talk to them as a fellow club memeber. Maybe it is too much aircraft for them, maybe not. Did they build it and reinforce the appropriate areas? Check it out for them and see. If not, help them out. I have had a few ARF's that when covered hid the fact that not enough epoxy was used for landing gear, etc. So it does happen that airframes may not be up to the challenge of a bigger motor. But build it right, fly it right, call out your manauvers, and it is all good.
Posts: 348
Joined: 5/25/2004 From: Frostproof,
FL, USA Status: offline
hey ya'll ..........
Been flyin for long time now, since mid 50's or so. I Have come to the following conclusions:
If you can bolt it on the front it's okay. If, when nailing the throttle, it does not twist the firewall out, it's okay If you can reasonably make the prop clear the ground, it's okay If the wings rotate and the props stands still, when nailing the throttle it may NOT be okay If you can manage to slow her down enough to land, it is okay. Or you can use tail hook!
MY humble opinion is having to much power is like having to much money .... NOT POSSIBLE!!
Posts: 1057
Joined: 1/1/2002 From: Rowlett,
TX, USA Status: offline
If my model airplane won't fly straight up for just a little while from level flight then it is no fun to me, it does not matter if it is a "scale" WWI biplane or an Ultra Stick. I like for my planes to look good on the ground but once in the air, fun is throwing the plane around the sky, flying great big giant loops and when I choose to I like to be able to power climb a little bit. Most of the time the engine at the top of the recomended range will get me where I want to be. But sometimes not. If a plane is tail heavy and all the stuff has been moved as far forward as possible to balance it, then I vote for a bigger engine to be bolted up front instead of lead. I am not silly for power, I am not into the 3d thing, and I think the only time a hover should occur is right at the top of the verticle climb before the plane stalls and falls out. But if someone else wants unlimited veritcle and the ability to pull straight up out of a hover then that is their choice too. All I ask about the hovering is to not do it right above the runway in the main flight pattern.
Posts: 55
Joined: 3/22/2005 From: Mount Vernon,
WA, USA Status: offline
wildnloose, Amen brother!!! Well said. Follow the rules, fly safe, respect other flyers while at the field. Other than that, anything goes.
Get creative, experiment with power, wing size, servo mixing, and anything else you can think of. After all, that's a big part of what makes this hobby so much fun. For some, this is one of the few places they can practice creativity.
Go for it and Good Luck. Share your excitement and experience with others.
Think outside of the box ( outside of the instruction manual).
This is not a black and white hobby. It's full of all shades of gray and lots of extemely bright colors.
Most of all, HAVE FUN. I want to see all fliers with big grins on their faces because they tried something new and it worked.
Jawsmon
_____________________________
Jawsmon Man says show me then I will believe. God says 'believe' then I will show you. What do you say?
Posts: 3299
Joined: 6/15/2004 From: Deep River, ON, CANADA Status: offline
A significant reason that this hobby is so enjoyable is that there are no real limits to what you can make fly -- bricks included -- & the fiddling & experimenting that goes with making a brick, or any other flying object flyable, includes experimenting with power. I never limit myself to "the manufacturer's recommendations" -- I fly what I want to fly. Not every experiment flys well, but every one is fun.
Sometimes my experiments involve getting something to fly with as little power as possible & sometimes it involves as much power as the airframe can possibly stand -- & a bit more as well.
The folks who follow instrunctions to the letter are missing a great deal in life.
The folks who try to control the rightfull activities of others are the reason there are wars & revolutions.
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Sport Flying >> RE: Why overpower airplanes? A rant... 
RE: Why overpower airplanes? A rant... - 
