Navy_Flyer

I have been flying RC since 1976, trainers, intermediate, aerobatic and scale. In that timeframe I have noticed the trend of power requirements listed for models to be much higher now, than then... for instance, my first plane was a Goldberg Falcon 56. 3-channels: Rudder, Elevator and Throttle. The original model called for a .15-35 RC engine. When MKII came out a few years later that added ailerons bringing it to 4 channels, the new spec went up to .40-size. My original (lets call it MK1) flew just fine with a Fox .25RC. I could do mild aerobatics with that engine. It took off just fine from a grass field. Next I had Senior Falcon. That flew just fine with a K&B .40 up front.

These days models weighing in at 8 lbs are calling for a .60 2-stroke or .91 4-stroke. I had a Top Flite (old version) P-40E that weighed around 10 lbs. It flew perfectly with a K&B .61. I had a PICA T-28 that was heavy at 12 lbs that flew very realistically with a Supertigre .61. Byron G17S Staggerwing at 18 lbs with a Quadra 35. You had to FLY all of them. I get all the wing loading factors, power to weight, yadda yadda. But c'mon - are we flying the wings on these birds, or just forcing them to fly on power alone? Why the gradual increase in power requirements? I'm not opposed to overpowering for those that like to do 3D, etc - I had a Zenoah G62 on a Giant Stinger that weighed around 15 lbs that would go vertical with no take-off run. That was fun and great for wowing the crowd. But I digress. Just throwing this out there for discussion.

carlgrover

I agree. I don't like an overpowered plane. With these larger engines, prop clearance becomes much less, weight is an issue on landings, too small of a rudder to deal with engine torque on takeoff. And there is never enough room for the right size fuel tank

carl