Pounds per Horsepower Listing

Don't make me remove my restrictor plate, install a different redrive ratio and change the chips in the MSD box from 4400 to 10,000 rpm......

Hmmm.. lets see 840 hp divided by a lighly loaded number of 1500 lbs......

Naw.... can't be right..:no::nonod::yikes:
 
N801BH said:
Don't make me remove my restrictor plate, install a different redrive ratio and change the chips in the MSD box from 4400 to 10,000 rpm......

Hmmm.. lets see 840 hp divided by a lighly loaded number of 1500 lbs......

Naw.... can't be right..:no::nonod::yikes:
Click to expand...

That would be fun, although I think you might have a slight reduction in reliability. ;)
 
N801BH said:
Don't make me remove my restrictor plate, install a different redrive ratio and change the chips in the MSD box from 4400 to 10,000 rpm......

Hmmm.. lets see 840 hp divided by a lighly loaded number of 1500 lbs......

Naw.... can't be right..:no::nonod::yikes:
Click to expand...
Ben, Ben, ben....your goal is to make thrust exceed weight.
 
bbchien said:
Ben, Ben, ben....your goal is to make thrust exceed weight.
Click to expand...

I think he'd be there at that point, or at least darn close!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So flying it is good training for OEI in the Baron? :)
Click to expand...
Actually, the Baron on one (with my engine upgrade) is close to one lb/hp less than the Porterfield on one.:D The wing loading in the Porterfield is a bit less though.
 
The 150 horse Cessna 177 being about the same as a Cessna 150M but with a thin "Mooney-like" wing, its obvious why they are underpowered.
 
gismo said:
Actually, the Baron on one (with my engine upgrade) is close to one lb/hp less than the Porterfield on one.:D The wing loading in the Porterfield is a bit less though.
Click to expand...

I realized that after I hit post. Similar on the 310 - 17.3 b/hp on one. As you'd expect, it performs similar to a 150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top