![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 21, 5:21 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote: my docs say "rated horsepower" which makes me think that there is a calculation used to derive the figure not an actual 2750rpm measurement. the 74hp at 2500 rpm seems to be measured. They normally take a brake horsepower reading, with the engine at redline RPM and full throttle. Torque times RPM times 6.28 divided by 33,000 gives HP. BUT: The O-200 makes its 100 hp at 2750. The C-90 its 90 hp at 2475. Everyone knows that drag increases by the square of the increase in speed, so the O-200's prop theoretically has 19% more drag than the C-90's. The C-150's prop is narrower and I think a bit shorter than the prop on the Aircoupe I flew with its C-90, so its drag might be a bit less to start with, but overall the losses will still be higher at 2750. So adding RPM to gain hp is a poor way to go. That's why PSRUs are better than direct-driving a tiny prop at 4000 RPM. And it's also why a 110-hp Corvair, if it's running at 3300 or some such RPM, isn't going to outdo an O-200. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Zero time Aero Vee / Monnett engine | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 30th 05 06:02 AM |