Can your Homebuilt Aircraft have Too Much Power? 

No issues with torque shear on the frame or engine mounts?

Agree. They never approached the "too much" category by a thousand yards. The title of this video is CLICK BAIT!

All this vid does is state the obvious. Of coarse more power reduces TO distance, but what else does it do? Zero knowledge gained, nothing new to see here.

How about balance of weight, center of gravity, frame reinforcement, fuel consumption, landing, etc cetera...

I just did the math, and the 500lb LSA that I fly (Ekolot Topaz) has about 2/3 the engine power of my car (Suzuki Swift). Fair to say, that little plane doesn't struggle for power. :-)

Is swap it lol

@@Finallybianca They've actually been doing that for about 10 years prior to your comment lol!

@@yourmomsbestfriend8922 I know it’s just the de facto car culture answer lol

@@Finallybianca Yes, I know.I was just saying they're really LS swapping planes too lol!It's crazy...I saw an LS swapped generator the other day!

... then you know you should have tightened all these bolts.

.... you love this puzzle: Finish This Sentence.

@@voornaam3191 it was a joke like in a cartoon , obviously if the airframe supported the motor so it was structurally sound , in a cartoon then the motor would detach from the air frame .they a limit the frame can hold and power to weight of the motor

@@voornaam3191 Or supply an engine that is not powerful enough to tear the airframe apart.

Lol

100% correct

Crap. The words of an amateur ... I suppose you think you can never have too much fuel ?

@@williampotter2098 ??

@@williampotter2098 I mean you cant have too much fuel until you do...

@@benjaminowen6181 When people tell me that, I tell them you have too much when you are sliding off of the end of a runway because you are overweight or if you are on fire. In jet aircraft and even larger prop planes, fuel planning is critical and must take runway length and climb rate into account ....

And the F-16 does not need power at all. It always flies well. Pilots love it.

@@voornaam3191 Retired USAF Bronco, Phantom and Viper mech here and F-16s need and use plenty of power, from either P&W or GE depending on their Block. F-15 is far superior but was too expensive to replace the entire Phantom fleet so the F-16 was developed as a NATO point defense fighter and grew the mission from there. If cost were no object there would be no F-16s. They are easy to maintain (vital to sortie generation) and of course fun to fly but they don't carry near the variety of ordnance and other systems Phantom did. Phantom was the most versatile jet fighter ever built. F-15 is a continuation of that concept and of course carries more bombs or missiles than F-16. F-22 is a continuation of the F-15 air dominance mission and blows all its predecessors away. BTW if a Phantom lost an engine (a typical cause of fighter Class A's) it could still fly home. All a 16 has is the JFS and APU to buy some time.

@@obfuscated3090 Thanks for this summary. I made a joke, of course. It's a reminder of the F-104 paradox: without any payload it was a fantastic plane, but more and more ordnance turned it into a high speed coffin. Yeah, there is so much to know about planes. They are all designed for a specific role, but some are brilliant, some are just a flying bus and some are dangerous. And politics is involved, imagine the USAF flying Mig-29's with American weapon systems and avionics installed. That airframe is quite good and not that expensive. What's wrong with the engines? But those conservatives don't buy it. I thought this world was modern and open minded. Nope.

How I heard it was: "The Triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." ;)

One time I threw my paper airplane real hard and it just went into the ground (no survivors). They said it was pilot error, but I know it was just too much power. Too much for the airframe to handle.

THEN you never seen Draco take off before its untimely demise

@@Ken-rk3by to be fair he did get tossed across the runway by gusting winds. And honestly I can't wait to see him rebuild that!

@@warrenholmar1129 I meant previous take-offs. DRACO may live again or maybe not but I want to see SCRAPPY FLY !!! SCRAPPY TO THE MOON LOL

@@Ken-rk3by all the same it is gonna be great to see him re-build DRACO

@@warrenholmar1129 I do hope he rebuilds Draco but I have my doubts since he bought another Wilga.

😝😝 Only because he didn’t have an extra 300 shot and a bigger airboat prop laying around !! Baaahhhaaaaa !!

The ME 109 fighter plane had an engine that causes the tail section to completely sever itself from the airframe

Actually you can when landing. 1) Too high of an idle making it hard to land and 2) too much torque creating rudder problems in gusty conditions upon landing... Bane of every STOL aircraft. More power, increase that fin area.

Just like presidents. Some should have no power at all.

Was looking if anyone thought of it! you nailed it!!!

Why? His plane didn’t take off near as quick as these do.

Adam R I know it’s confusing Adam but the comment only refers to Mike Patey putting big engines in little planes. Plus it sounds like you haven’t heard of scrappy yet. Just chill bro.

David Allen People have been doing that for decades. My Stinson has more than double the stock output and it was done in the 60’s. That’s nothing at all new. Or anything to do with Mike needing someone to “hold his beer.” This may be tough for you to understand, but the world existed before youtube, and everything has been done before.

1. Clearly you don’t know how the hold my beer meme works. 2. Clearly you don’t know anything about Mike Patey who is just a cool down to earth guy who is doing amazing things for the aviation community. 3. Clearly your name is not Adam...it’s Karen. 4. My post was peaceful in every way and you are just nagging and picking at straws trying to find somebody to argue with. I pity you sad little man. By Falicia 👋.

Same here. I was hoping to see examples of some guy with a 200 hp turbocharged monster in a 701. :-)

Head over & check out Mike Patey. Draco (RIP) was a monster, but Scrappy will be equally out of this world. 700hp in a Carbon Cub is just flat nutty.

The real looneys simply add two counter rotating props. Problem solved. Next problem, please. How stupid are you, exactly? I suppose you know that solution? Many turboprops have those double props. Any idea why? Think a bit harder, please. Can you find one weighing 185 pounds? No? Buy a turbofan. It is all for sale. No turbofan? How about full electric? Those silly planes are a bit light for those batteries. But if you kick out that second fool in the cockpit, you can fly to Australia on one battery. But I guess you got that electric plane and the turbofan Rutan EZ and the Beech Bonanza in your private hangar. So you know it all far better. Don't you?

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kZGXCTqXa_M.html Close enough :)

Bahahahaaaa

Charlie Brown That was good too. I'll remember that! Check out the end replies of the one above. :)

Indeed, a recipe for disaster...

As long as you don't over stress an airframe.

Or too much bacon!

@@williampotter2098 Trouble is, inevitably most people will do exactly that. That is why we have recommended specs. Incident investigators are often being criticized for overapplying "Pilot factor" in verdicts, but the frequency if "I was just going to..." is shocking.

As in the late Daryle Singletary's Too Much Fun

The question isn't weather the pilot can handle the power. The question is whether the airframe design can handle the stress ...

Yes you can. A heavy power plant and structure eats into useful load and range and endurance. Aircraft are designed like Lotus cars.... something that can destroy something with double or triple the power with a Toyota engine.

Corn cob in a kit fox might be too much. ;)

No, sometimes you can't. Throttling back can put you in bad harmonics on some engines. Also, you really don't want an airplane that can fly past or even near Vne in a straight line. Flutter will kill you.

@@akschu1 how bout you flutter these nuts

Sweet 🌻

The corollary to your point (with which I completely agree), is that the FAA needs to extract its cranium from its rectum, apply real world results to the bureaucratic malaise in which it wallows, and increase the specs all across the board for Experimental/LSA/103 categories! There is NO valid real world reason, given EFIS reliability, availability, and cost, that Constant Speed props should be precluded from the E/LSA categories. Same thing for engine power (both in certified and non-cert aircraft); 200hp should be the maximum for the categories, along with matching speed maximums (200kts). Sadly, the Experimental/Kit Builders paradigm has nearly been murdered by 'high end' "too rich for their own good" pilots and "leading" industry proponents. $250,000 for a Carbon Cub? Really? $150,000-$200,000 for an Amphib? Those are NOT 'Kit' aircraft and don't let anyone try to tell me that they are actually 'affordable' for average folks. Average Folks are why the Experimental platform was created! People who couldn't afford to buy a Cessna, Piper, etc, much less pay for the Certified Upkeep! Then came the folks with health problems (such as myself) who are fully licensed to drive a 4,000lb to 20,000lb rig down the road at 70mph-80mph, but NOT be allowed to fly a 1200 pound Experimental aircraft? Yeah, right, that makes a world of sense: but only to an FAA bureaucrat or a Career Politician. Landing gear improvements during the last 15 years for Retractable Gear are another area that needs to be seriously looked at for the Exp./LSA reqs: more and more WWII Kits are now available, and there is keen interest in them. I could go on, but you get the idea. The bottom line is that the FAA demands that everything be so 'safe', that the very mindset itself has become dangerous and highly limiting. Theories are great, but Real World Empirical Evidence is what should guide protocols and policies, not some theoretical demands that cannot ever be met by real folks living in a real world. Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY PS. I must also note that the sheer himalayan amount of narcissism coming from 'professional' well known pilots these days has also truly become part and parcel of the problem: the elitism and arrogance which they exude with their words and attitudes do just as much damage as the FAA paper pushers.

Yeah same here, no bloody way I'm going to pay $30-40k for an engine with technology decades out of date...

@@rocketsurgeon4876 I understand what you are saying and I believe that some, including myself, trust the old tried and true mechanical paths more so than the electronic ones. I know that argument does not hold up with today's advances. Never the less I understand mechanics far more than I do electronics. Its what I grew up with and what I know. Continentals, Lycomings and Franklin engines are just simple as can be, tough as nails with surprising accuracy in manufacturing. They are the pinnacle of the mechanical world and they had to be. So what advantages are you looking for in a more modern engine? An engine that can run so hot because of having to run at high RPMs to get the horse power, engineers had figure out how to cool the heads plus push cooling air over the cylinders too? Having to deal with both of those cooling issues at once? Thats not advanced... thats a fix. Thats poor engineering. Yes the electronics are there and we can see the little red light come on telling us we are over boosting. Its a pretty busy video-game like-cockpit and I dislike it very much. The instruments are jumbled and in many cases tried and true human instrument scan, tried and true scanning techniques are very challenging because there is no consistency in instrument layout. My red light comes on thinking about spending 37K on an engine which has not quit evolving. My apologies. This has turned into a rant of dislike of newer over price engines plus apparently a glass cockpit. Oh well thanks for reading... I feel better now. lol

@@crawford323 My dream engine runs on jet-A, is direct drive with port injection EFI and redundant brain boxes that fail full rich if both die. There are blueprint engines that claim to be this that will likely never see light of day because certification costs with the FAA are outrageously expensive. Tried and true is all well and good but the horse and buggy was tried and true as well. If you want a mechanical engine because it's what you understand well then sir this is America.

@@rocketsurgeon4876 I'm with you brother.. Im retired and broke but very determined. I will be flying in front of a Lycoming 0320. I hope to have things spinning by the spring. So for me right now, my engine is old style and very used. I truly wish I could afford new. This very used engine my be a friend or it might be a very expensive foe. So many of us only have one shot at getting back into the air and we lament the rising cost of the effort. Someone though has to push the envelope. The Wright Brothers did their thing Nov 11th 1903 and a mere 65 years later, we walked on the moon. That's just staggering. Jay Carter with Carter Copter showed we can fly past the limit of retreating blade stall. His effort lead to all sort of side advances including gear and propeller. So push that envelope and all of us will benefit. There is no doubt in that. The FAA allows experimental aircraft to be built because of the thirst for education. That then has to be your path. I like how you think. BC

Yeah, I kept waiting for the P-factor discussion, but then the video ended. Hmmm. Disappointed.

@@TopDedCenter1 We don't really see discussions on P factor or Torque effect. That is a major player in any engine and propeller combination.

P factor on takeoff was an issue for every warbird.

@@TheDuckofDoom. Warbirds often had a substantially higher amount of both rotating inertia in the driveline and just way, way more power. More than 10 times the power of the planes in this video.

@@islandfd3s Shade heavier too I would think.

Torque induced rollover that no amount of control input can overcome?

I used to fly a 150 with the 150 horse Lycoming. Nice for short fields. Main problems were keeping the prop from clipping grass and extra rattling from cowling touching engine occasionally. Fun airplane

Being able to take off in a few feet can be a huge benefit to a brush pilot and the entire reason these aircraft exist. The 80 was taking almost a normal amount of runway length and the 100 while able to get off quickly still had to travel a fair way first. The 130 hp were leaping off the ground.

No doubt!

Yup.....I'm in Central WY and the elevation out my front door is just under 4700'. There's a Bluegrass Festival in Casper every year, up in Bear Trap Meadows, and it's appx 8500'. I get SO TIRED of Sea Level folks in Florida and the West Coast acting as if anyone wanting 130hp-150hp are abject idiots or seem to have a personal failing in some area or another! I've lost count of the times that I've heard of, or seen, Sea Level Folks (SLFs) fly into Casper in a 65hp-80hp rig, during Summer, with 90F-100F weather for that week, and then, next thing you know, they're trying to figure out WHAT BAGGAGE they can LEAVE BEHIND, because those 'great engines' (and at Sea Level they are quite fine) just don't provide the power for enough Lift, to get them off the ground at 5260' at 90F-100F with the loads they carried into Casper. 'One Size' does NOT 'fit all', and the sooner people get OFF their proverbial Tall Equine, the better for us all; that's why there are SO MANY DIFFERENT aircraft makes, models, and then the thousands of variations possible across the spectrum! Personally, while I love the Rotax and UL motors, neither my budget nor my conscience would ever allow me to PAY the prices they want for them. Aeromomentum will be my choice, once I choose the make and model I will build: affordable to buy, great performance on multiple platforms, and affordable to REBUILD when the TBO is reached. Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY

@@jrbailey3208 I'm from the lowlands, and I certainly haven't an issue with more power!

@@jrbailey3208 Exactly and its a shock the first time you can't get out of ground effect or have to fly around a mountain rather than over it! Then there's the wind that often exceeds recommended operation for light airframes.

Fuel consumption is a problem pull the throttle back.

@@ohwell2790 And make less power in the process, thereby defeating the purpose of having a more powerful engine.

it isn't a 'thing'. ie you cannot tell what it is except based on BET Blade efficiency theory or momentum theory, which is based on many variables such and blade design, efficiency and even then only based on air conditions, everything from humidity to density of other variables. in a general sdense propellors come with a efficiency rating by the manufacturers generally in the range of like 7-9, which used in conjunction with token thrust gives a idea of induced airspeed in the streamtube.

A simple answer, without nerdy words, is: search Tupolev Tu-114 on wiki, google, youtube, or whatever. That is the fastest prop plane. Find out why, yourself.

Lol accurate🤣🤷🏾‍♂️

Didnt see any poles hit.....? Just nice takeoffs

Lol my friend was trying to impress his girlfriend that worked at a local store. He wasn't paying attention and hit a light pole 😁

Yeah. There's got to be some real downsides to having too much power. I was disappointed he didn't describe any of the real problems. It was still a fun video.

I was expecting a TIO-541

Then how do you explain DRACO? Haha just teasing.

117

So when is cruise speed ever near VNE ? Cruise speed will increase for sure. How much. depends. Take the popular 150Hp 150 Cessna mod.50 hp increase did very little. Everything you mention comes into play. Never get something for nothing !

Paul Van Tries. In a GA certified aircraft, manufactures will pitch the propeller to engine and airframe to prevent or lessen the chance of exceeding the Vne in level flight. Home built aircraft it is pretty easy to over engine / prop an aircraft. Leading edge wrinkles in the wings and fuselage are a pretty good indicators of Vne being exceeded. Airframe break ups are rare but ultra light's a prone to being abused by those wanting to go a little faster. Most plane manufactures have a significant buffer between Vne and break up for turbulence reasons however if the plane lives there the chance of bending the airframe due to aerodynamic drag in even igentle turns is real - called manoevering Speed.

@@pilotblue6535 Home built & ultralite can happen for sure. Hp more than prop will determine top speed. I had a tailwind N31039 with a 125 in it. It never flew as well as a C90 in a well built tailwind . Gets into the dog chasing his tail thing. Bigger always adds weight. Your points are taken !

Not only that, but in high performance planes you have to watch out for flutter at high altitude. The airspeed indicator may well be within the limits for indicated airspeed, but your true airspeed is much higher. Flutter onset is related to true airspeed. For the Van’s RV series, this is the main reason why they strongly advise against installing a more powerful engine than recommended in their airframes.

There is risk with life, stay in the basement.

@@asherdie Basement? I operate an aerobatic business in winter and fly a Single Engine Air Tanker on the fires in Summer. I do not have a basement. Take risks if you want grumpybill, just do not do it in ignorance. Cheers

@@lauriejones3198 cool flight sim story brah.

@@asherdie I have nothing to prove to you. Why do you make the assumption I am lying about what I do? You have no intention of admitting your own deficiencies and I sure am not going to be baited into giving you enough info to troll me, like I get the feeling you would. Cheers

@@lauriejones3198 I am super deficient, but I'm not the subject. Why the diversion?

Lol. I actually checked my phone!!

I saw seen a U2 take off from 0° to 90° in almost the same runway space.

@@bille.2266 So have I. Then they go vertical to 80K feet and level off. Like a rocket. That is why the Airmen´s Barracks always face the runway! No sleep for us.

I've been watching a Belite ultra light Cub with 50 hp Hirth and this seems to be better than the 20 something or 30 something range!

It takes 8 times more horsepower to double your speed. The force required to overcome drag equals 2 x 2, plus x2 for doing it twice as fast = 8.

I'm flying a helicopter so speed is not a primary concern

@@skymaster337p It's not so much about speed as it is about acceleration. There's never too much acceleration available at hand.

@Terry Melvin LOL, I don't think strong enough bolts are a problem nowadays ;) That may have been an issue in the bronze age, before we were able to smelt iron ;)

Most RC pilots don't operate at minimums because they love their rigs. Aircraft operators have minimums and regulations. If you operate at minimums with too much power I'd be worried about torque.

Just like the old P52s

Yeah😂🤛back to Work!

Lmao

@@theworshiptraveler6709 love the timing, Mike Patey just said a 500 hp. World record holding engine isn't enough for his carbon cub! Lmao I agree!

Same engine but 500 hp is not enough! The engine holds a speed record btw, and he is putting it into a carbon cub

@@nickarganbright7218 AND because it's NA, adding an up to a 250 shot of nitrous! Just for high density altitude and heavy load kind of flying......

I have no idea how I got aircraft videos recommended to me, but the Google algorithms have clearly chosen me to be the future "that guy" 😸

Yeah, up to a point. I learned to fly in Casper, WY, MSL 5260' and when Summer rolls around, we REGULARLY get 90F-100F days, so those low hp engines just don't cut it; it's NOT just about weight, it's a combination of weight to power ratio, AND Flying Conditions! During Summer, Sea Level pilots flying into Casper are REGULARLY seen leave baggage BEHIND, because their 65hp-80hp engines just simply can't provide enough power to get the job done, for the amount of load they are carrying, not with those flying conditions. Try flying in the Rocky Mountain Region States for a while.........you'll quickly understand what I am saying.

Such actions are deleterious to maintaining a proper CG and may result in degradation of aircraft controllability....

Zabama Z landing is a little more tricky. You need the garage door open.