Brian, Jan,


I call them as I see them.

Although I do like to argue a bit, the claim of 2.7 HP would to me seem exaggerated, unless it is backed with a realistic measurement.

I did come up to the claimed 2 HP, by adding the RPM advantage and the tuned-pipe boost of the smaller engines, over the .40 pylon engines, but the extra 35% has nowhere to come from.

These engines cannot have a VE that is larger than their competitors, nor do they have a 35% RPM advantage. I don't think there is any dynamometer that can handle over 40K RPM, or is small enough, to measure such an engine.
So to me it is only a claim, regardless of who the person who makes this claim this is.

If you can come up with the details that can corroborate the claim he is making, I may be more inclined to accepting this info.

That is over 1 HP per cc of displacement...