GaryHarris

I have no idea.

Michel

Hi

Here,s my reason .

I have an LT-40 , it is built of koveral and dope , it is overweight by about a pound and maybe slightly more . It is extremly strong , I,ve done cart wheels down the runway . Engine of choice ,........................ OS-91-FX .

It fly,s easyly at 1/4 throttle .

Here,s why. Every year , for the past 6 years , this is my plane of choice to start with . First flight , I,m shaky , fifth or sixth flight ,............... I,m , " BALLISTIC " . Take off,s are something like 5 feet .

than I move on to what I like to fly the most , " WARBIRDS "

And it,s put on the shelf till next year .

BTW , I am planning on building a TopFlite Spit-Fire 60 ,.................................... DLE-20 ( I have everything )

Michel

iflircaircraft

and then there's the guy who lines his plane up on the runway, goes full throttle and doesn't lower it til it's time to land. Then he wonders why his airframe is falling apart.

Tom

blhollo2

My Feedback: (278)

Don't feel bad i have a hanger 9 Toledo special with a OS 75ax 2 stroke lol... yes that's a 40 sized airplane....I clocked it doing 114mph flat and level wide open throttle...and yes its been reinforced to handle the speed and stress =)
Why more power? because I can.

SrTelemaster150

After accounting for battery shifting to finalise the recommended CG, I use whatever size Saito 4-stroke engine that has the weight to balance the CG W/O added useless weight such as lead.

Example: I have a USAircore (coroplast) .40 sized taildrager. After building the airframe & installing the radio I went to the LHS & placed whatever engine it took to balance the CG before the final placement of the battery pack.

Results: An FA 91 balamced the plane W/O added ballst. I beefed up the mount a little & the plane is a hoot to fly.

Before that, my 1st "trainer" was a 95" Sr Telemaster W/an FA 150 for power. That plane took me a long way. I successfully soloed W/O mishap sans a trainer cord. Just had an instructor take the plane "2 mistakes high" & hand me the radio.

It's final demise, after 1 1/2 years of small crahses, rebuilds & souping it up structurally/aerodynamically was during a split "S" manuever that was initiated W/insufecient altitude. It went straight in @ WOT. Quite an impressive sight. I wish I had a video clip of that crash!

westernstar

never a sutch thing as too much.its called a throttle for a reason.

PTERODACTYL

My Feedback: (3)

If it was a "53" I would.

karolh

+1, my sentiments exactly

Karol

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

Great planes revolver .46 with a OS 120AX and Jett Muffler. 14.5x14.5 APC prop at 9,300 on the ground. max level speed on gps average 145 mph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDbOPIMuylE

blhollo2

My Feedback: (278)

that's cool here is my 114mph toledo special with OS 75ax..yeah its a 40 sized airplane [link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpNcnCeUXRI[/link]

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Because this is the funnest airplane I own

And this sequence takes a ton of power.


OK no pics yet.working on it

Charlie P.

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

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

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Short coupled airframes usually require nose weight for balance. We all know that dead weight is not a good thing. If by installing an engine which weights more and has additional "CC" than you have accomplished two things. Less dead weight and additional thrust. This is a win win situation for the average modeler. Keep in mind you also control the throttle and the need for speed is there if need be.

Desertlakesflying

My Feedback: (28)

A 737 only needs one engine to get you from point A to point B, but it has two that are identical....

A P-51 Mustang flew with the Allison V-12, but the RR Merlin was used instead.

There's a bunch of examples in 1:1 of "over power"

I prefer 60 size Mustangs with an OS 120 4 stroke.

Most of the 60 size warbirds I've seen are very marginal with recommended power.

MetallicaJunkie

it"s always nice to have power to spare... todays cars arent any different.... besides who wants to go back to the model T era?

lorenzofgrs

My Feedback: (-1)

if you can have more power with the same weight good.
if you can move a bigger propeller like the real one, good.
if you can climb easier and or go faster with less throttle, good.
more power is better if you do not sacrifice the integrity of the plane and if your plane flies better for you

gwweber

My Feedback: (24)

LOL   SPEED KILLS.
My first year was spent flying electrics sucsessfully and a 20cc Stearman   great planes    Military.
I am flying a nice 50cc aerobat.  However the most fun I have had is with a parkzone Thunderbolt.  After I learned to fly I learned to soup that plane up.  Ithas a power 25 1250 KV and needs a icelite 75 amp to power it.  10/8 prop and a 2650 4  cell    It outruns almost everything at the field for about 4 mins   LOL 
Ive had a lot of flights and finally flew the wings off the plane one day   .  Turns out that i rebuilt the plane and the new wing was not glued all  the way, Horizon gave me a new airfram after I sent pictures of the bad glue joint (no glue at all)
Even though I am flying a PAU 50 cc and am working on a 100cc comparf, i get a kick out of that thunderbolt every flight.

P.S.  It prob does 115mph,  but is hard to clock cause of its size.

jeffie8696

Ihave overpowered some planes and yea its fun, one example is my Escapade with the Irvine 53 it was mega fast till I fluttered it and had to rethink .
My only problem is suggesting to a newbie to put a huge engine on his trainer. All that power is one more thing to master and for most of us it is hard enough to learn to fly with adequate power let alone one with tons of it that needs to be managed.
Sure there are a lot of pilots that are gifted enough to use all the extra power but the majority of us have our hands full just learning the basics.

rcjetflyer0718-RCU

My Feedback: (1)

Putting a 20cc gas motor in a .60 size plane is not overpowering it. Actually I believe Horizon Hobbies recommend 20cc gas engines for their .60 size warbirds. You have to remember that gas powered engines make less power than alcohol engines. Just look at drag racing.
With that being said I like fast planes and I know I only have a few more years where hands can keep up with my eyes so I'm going to enjoy it while I can.

furledd

My Feedback: (43)

I've got some friends that I swear should have been born when the engines had no throttles in the old days. Its a wasted receiver channel for them, because its full throttle from takeoff till just before landing and no flight speed is high enough! Whats the purpose of a throttle if you are full bore 100% of the time?

Also, perhaps there is a link here, they always overpower the heck out of the planes as well. Whats suggested on the box, well triple that for starters....

Then I hear the exciting stories about in a full throttle vertical dive the wings ripped off , and they werent even pulling up
(and that was also I hear "very cool"!)

I admit I have a GB Cub thats overpowered (.90 instead of a .40) but I fly that with like a 12x5 pitch prop and at 1/4 throttle. I use the extra power /switch prop when I have it on floats, but the rest of the time it's much fun putzing around closer to scale.

I have warbirds too but they are powered mostly as suggested

I am probably weird, as I get some enjoyment also as a challenge to flying my electric flying wing at just above stall speed to see how long i can stay up (45 minutes ) So, my next experiment is a Bird of time glider i may like that too.

But I guarantee you that a glider would bore the heck out of my many of my buddies....(unless there was a way to dive it hard and pull up hard to rip the wings off?) - I'd here WHERES THE ENGINE , whats the point without a giant engine..

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Personally, I don't consider your situation as being typical of the type of overpowering being mentioned in this thread. It is understandable why someone in your position would use a larger engine just for normal flying.


Ed Cregger

Airplanes400

My Feedback: (349)

I want to fly my planes and jets as if they are missles and rockets. That's why I over-power them. After all, isn't that what missles and rockets are ... over-powered!

Nothing is ever fast enough.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

I go through a period of over powering my models every so many years. I've been flying model airplanes of one sort or another for over fifty years and I still get a thrill out of an over powered model.

However, I have been there (overpowered) so many times that I have also explored flying with minimal power to for a hoot. I have a now discontinued Great Planes model named the "Fun One" that I first built and flew in 1992. It looked like a shoulder wing model with a Dirty Birdy type of wing on it. Naturally, with a swept leading edge and a straight trailing edge, it wanted to fly faster while rolling superbly. It also eight point rolls about as well as most pattern ships that I have flown. It is not stock, however. I eliminated the turtle deck/canopy and lengthened the rudder by a half inch. Otherwise, it is stock.

The Fun One is really a perfectly balanced high performance sport/fun fly model when powered with an OS or Webra .32 sized two-stroke. It is not slow by any means with these engines. Being a fan of the Edson Adjustable Universal Engine Mount (words might be out of sequence) as sold by RJL/MECOA these days, I put one of those mounts on the nose and then began to experiment by flying the model with different engines. So far, the largest engine I've flown with is an ASP .46. The model accelerates while going straight up with a decent .46 Schneurle ported engine up front. However, the finesse type of slow speed/low altitude flying capability goes right out the window. It handles like a dump truck with anything heavier than a .32 or so up front. So which type of flying is the most fun for me? It depends, but the majority of the time, I really enjoy flying the model with a strong .32 up front. Next I want to fit a Saito .82a to the Edson Mount. That should be a blast!


Ed, NM2K

jwayne

My Feedback: (1)

I have been flying planes with the recommended engine size for 3 years and the performance has satisfied me until now. Then, this chriustmas my son bought me a 4 star 120 kit with a DLE 30cc engine which I thought was going to be much overpowered ,but having flown it, I really like it.Installing that motor was verydifficult but it came outgood. It is fun to have that much power after all these years. I diddo several additional things to beef-up the airframe butit wascreative to doso. Even with the heavier engine, the plane still turned-out tailheavyf and required some weight in the nose. Itnice to have such a planeto fly....

AA5BY

Ed... Good comments that I completely agree with. Each model has a power sweet spot that seems ideal, accentuating the intrinsics of the design and there are many designs that lend themselves to a smaller flight box and are a blast to fly in that smaller box.

A couple of examples... I've a Goldberg Anniversary Cub with an old Saito .50, for a wonderful power and plane match that flies in a small box. Another is a Saito .30 on a Das Box Fly bipe... at 14oz wing loading it is a blast to fly low and slow and is usually flown in a park flier box.

Sure there is a need for speed... just pointing out that every coin has two sides.