ENGINE SIZE
01-03-2010, 05:31 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: england, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENGINE SIZE
HI ALL,
Just finished an 88 inch wingspan piper cub Could somebody tell me if my four stroke ASP 52 will have enough power to fly it comfortably.Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
BLUE SKIES AND NIL WIND TO ALL.
Thanks in advance LEE (VAPOUR TRAIL)
Just finished an 88 inch wingspan piper cub Could somebody tell me if my four stroke ASP 52 will have enough power to fly it comfortably.Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
BLUE SKIES AND NIL WIND TO ALL.
Thanks in advance LEE (VAPOUR TRAIL)
01-03-2010, 07:40 AM
#3
Senior Member
RE: ENGINE SIZE
I have the Hangar 9 80 inch Cub that I flew with an OS 70 Surpass II four-stroke. It had "plenty" of power. I often thought a 50ish sized four-stroke would be more scale like. If your Cub is in the weight range of the Hangar 9 Cub, then it should be fine.
01-03-2010, 08:06 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Green Bay ,
WI
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ENGINE SIZE
The GP Cub is 90" and recommends a min of .70 for 4s. I have a 91 4s in mine. More power than it needs but I can use it for small warbirds in the future. You could ask an experienced pilot to maiden it on the smaller engine and get feed back on if itll be stable enough or tend to stall.
01-03-2010, 09:56 AM
#6
RE: ENGINE SIZE
While it may fly the airplane it is most certainly going to disappoint you and keep in mind underpowered airplanes are more difficult to fly and will require proportionatly greater skills. This fact alone tends to shorten the lifespan of the airplane.
John
John
01-03-2010, 11:34 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Waxahachie,
TX
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ENGINE SIZE
ORIGINAL: JohnBuckner
While it may fly the airplane it is most certainly going to disappoint you and keep in mind underpowered airplanes are more difficult to fly and will require proportionatly greater skills. This fact alone tends to shorten the lifespan of the airplane.
John
While it may fly the airplane it is most certainly going to disappoint you and keep in mind underpowered airplanes are more difficult to fly and will require proportionatly greater skills. This fact alone tends to shorten the lifespan of the airplane.
John
01-03-2010, 12:07 PM
#8
RE: ENGINE SIZE
ORIGINAL: Archie League
This is precisely why some people prefer the smaller engine, to enhance the realism . Going small on the engine is an aquired taste, but very, very rewarding.
This is precisely why some people prefer the smaller engine, to enhance the realism . Going small on the engine is an aquired taste, but very, very rewarding.
Yes of course, agreed however it's also the number one reason for diappointment with most folks particuarly if their skills may not be up to the task. Make no mistake I am not suggesting gross overpowering like the 3D enthusiast either but my opinion remains that a .56 four stroke for a near ninty inch cub is grossly underpowered and I would not recomend such as its certain to disappoint.
John
01-03-2010, 12:35 PM
#10
Senior Member
RE: ENGINE SIZE
Fly it with a larger engine. After getting accustomed to the airplane's 'manners' change the engine. Now, with c.g. in same location pick a nice still air day and give it a trial. You'll either love it or hate it! I love to fly the wing instead of the engine. Tailwinds, ARUP
01-03-2010, 12:52 PM
#11
RE: ENGINE SIZE
I have owned two full scale J-3's, a C-65 and a C-75 and I have ridden as a passenger one time in a J-2 C-40 but never agine! Thoese versions were basically incapable of carrying two people and were simply dangerous.
Grossly underpowered full scale airplanes are just as miserable and dangerous as their small scale counterpart.
John
Grossly underpowered full scale airplanes are just as miserable and dangerous as their small scale counterpart.
John
