Mr67Stang

Is this for real or just trolling? What country is "spotsylvania" in? Here in America it is a tradition to push the envelope and in some cases rip it wide open. That is what makes this country great. Fearless men and women willing to not follow the rules. You tell me I can't and I'll show you I can. We've been doing it ever since the first settelers set up camp on this continent and I hope the spirit and tradition will continue for thousands of years. I remember the first time I folded a set of wings back on a plane. It was thrilling and I rebuilt it better and stronger.

Oh, I do the same thing with old cars (1967 Mustang) and drag race too.

AmishWarlord

My Feedback: (5)

...then yells "Maniac!" when a Ferrari passes them at 255 MPH in a 55 zone.

AA5BY

There is no right or wrong answer as we are not all the same critters.... each to his own.

And... humanity is the same world wide in that we vary worldwide.

markhamregular

The real answer to this is that manufacturers always show weaker engine than the size the plane can handle.
Manufacturers have to minimize claims and the weaker the engine, the less probability of claims due to structural damage.
The top engine listed by any manufacturer should be the starting point.
Buw, how far can you go? It's just up to you.

H5606

A four-stroke .91 on a .40 size Cub may be a "starting point" but it'll be more fun in capable hands with a .52 or a .40...

AA5BY

Yep... I've personally watched two wing failures on Sig Senior Kadets powered by .91 four strokes. In both instances Sig replaced the plane though I don't know what engine the owners claimed they had been running. My guess is that the owners made a typo from .91 to .61 when requesting the replacement.

specs call for a
.40 - .46 cu. in. 2-Stroke or
.50 - .61 cu. in. 4-Stroke

acdii

I fly my Kadet LT40 with an OS 4S 52, and it has just the right amount of power. Half stick scale takeoffs, or full power off to a vertical in 5 feet.  

SrTelemaster150

When one "ups" the power, one should also upgrade the airframe. Some simple wing struts would have prevented the wing failures & they are cheap & easy to fabricate. Cutting out the covering on the bottom of 1 bay & adding some hardwood blocks to the spar is easy enough if neccessary. A hardwood block is easy to add across the bottom of the fuse. On my Sr Telemaster I was able to tie into the ends of the hardwood dihedrel brace. & the blocks for the landing gear.

I had a Saito FA150 for power & I would go full throttle in a shallow dive to get maximum airspeed & yank full up on the elevator to watch her climb several hundred feet into the air before I would kick the rudder for a hammerhead as she slowed to stop @ the top.

shane55

I have a DLE 20 in a Hanger 9 corsair 60. The weight for the plane published by H9 is 7.5 to 8.5lbs. The weight of mine is 10lbs. The DLE 20 added 3/4 lb of weight compared to using the recommended saito 100.I also added flaps, full figure pilot, detailed cockpit which probably added another 1/2 pound or so. I have had 3 crashes where the plane has tip stalled during landing without being that slow. The H9 corsair has a reputation for tip stalling even at the recommended weight but the extra weight is making things worse. I would be slow to go above the recommended weight with a warbird again. extra power will not compensate for extra weight insofar as stalling speed is concerned.

ToxicSludge

Sometime this winter I will be building a TMS.I plan to go electric but with a......yes you guessed it,a bigger motor.Why? Because after I learn to fly it,I will be adding some under wing stores which will add to the parasitic drag.Yes,I will be adding struts and lots of reinforcing throughout the wing and airframe.That in turn will make it heavier,but it's what I want to do,and will.It will also have larger 'tundra' tires on it so the total drag and weight factor will be more then the stock plane.I will also use a 3 blade prop,size to be determined when I decide on which size motor I end up with.My point: at first I could get away with staying within the engine specs,but I know where I'll end up after I'm proficient with the big tele.And like most have said already,the left stick (within reason) is the key.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Because I can afford to and want to. Would much rather be flying something at half throttle rather than something that is properly powered, screaming and going no where at full throttle.

Evidently you do not know anything about American thinking and that is put enough power on it and you can make anything fly !

Leroy Gardner

There you go, if you want to find a throttle jocky or slow and low just ask a "who cares question" and stand back for the answers, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

[QUOTE=Leroy Gardner;11674466]There you go, if you want to find a throttle jocky or slow and low just ask a "who cares question" and stand back for the answers, you ain't heard nothing yet.[/QUOTE

Patiently waiting for more replies.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

The size of an engine not motor can get you into trouble or out of it. Throttle management is the key to success or failure and far to many so called pilots have no idea what there doing with the left stick.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

amen !

ameyam

Late to the argument. When I started I was flying a 65" span trainer that was designed for a 46 but used a 55 on it. Then a 58" Tiger with the same. Then a 60 size UCD with a 75. Then a Reactor46 with OS Fs91. Then a 64" Extra with a Dle20. Now I have a Reactor Bipe with a 110 and its just sufficient power but the 20 is too heavy. I also had a Sbach 20 size with a Dle 30. I noticed that you dont need full power at takeoff. Its good to have the spare power even if you dont use it all the time. For a 3d airplane you walk a tight line between between weight and power. So I build the airplane and then decide on the smallest engine that gives the CG. Did that on the Sbach and doing that on the Yak 120 now

Oh, by the way, most manufacturers recommend the smallest engine that the model can accept. They expect you to figure out what engine gives you the behaviour you want from the airplane

Ameyam

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

I have called plane mfg' numerous times over the years andthey never reccomend larger engines beyond the advertised listins.i suspect it is to prtect them in the event an over powered plane crashes and causesbodily harm or death.i have never seen in my experiences a pilot putting the smallest engine on a model.its true there some guys who inevita ly try to push the bou daries to the ridiculous.but a bigger engine is okay.but you need to make sure the airframe is reinforced at critical points.and you manage the throttle .common sense used correctly saves your investment and keeps e erone safe.an old 60 is not as powerful as that 55.but a 75 on a 6o sized frame is perfectly suited particularly a pattern.loaded with retracts big tanks etc.keep everything in prospective.

bchapman

I always heard that the idea, for the most part, is that overpowering an airplane makes up for a lack of pilot skill. If you get too slow, just firewall it and go vertical!

Let the flames begin!

ameyam

I agree with clouddancer. You can put a slightly larger engine in as long as you use common sense. For example, the Reactor bipe is 61 size & recommends a Fs91. Had I put that it, it wouldn't have done 3d. With the 110, it hovers at 60% power. Ofcourse I strengthened strategically. The Phoenix Yak I am currently building is recommended for a 120ax or gt22. That would qualify my dle but I know the 120 has more power simply from the rpm. A 30 would be too heavy for 3d on a already heavy airplane. So the smallest engine to get the CG may be a Turnigy 26cc. That's what I meant

yoxman13

My Feedback: (2)

I think it unlikely to actually have "too much power" in most planes. The problem is too much weight. For most models, the weight of the bigger engines becomes the limiting factor, not the power.

TomCrump

No flames, here. I couldn't agree more.

thailazer

I hate over powered planes, probably because I never had one. I flew 11 and 13 pound 100 inch span Twin Otters in Scalemasters with OS .28 FSR's and placed well. My Tiger 2 has a .35AX and my 8 pound J3 flies with an ASP 46. Small engines allow your plane to be lighter so there is not much gain in a big engine except fuel drain. With my Tiger 2, I never fly at full throttle except in climbs, so I am sure a bigger engine is not necessary. To be totally honest though, I saw a guy get his arm get ripped to shreds on a hot 60 when I was first starting the hobby so that is always in the back of my mind. He was in the hospital four days getting everything re-connected. Right now though I am considering/planning a 100 inch span ship for my Tartan Twin. The thing scares me.

grosbeak

Whatever could you be talking about?

thailazer

That looks okay... big plane big engine. Now if you had hung that on a Trainer 40......

bchapman

How about a Saito FG-21 on a RC Guys Cessna 150 with a 98" span?