Is 50hp enough?

[1938BF50]

I would like some opinions on a subject I have "worried" to death. Why is it that 40 and 50hp ships USED to be "great, phenominal, exceptional, excellent, leader of the pack, .....etc" training ships and now they are universally unacceptable for training purposes? Do we now expect more out of these ships than they were originally designed for?

Old pilot reports(not advertizing literature!) list the 40and 50hp Areoncas, Taylorcrafts, Porterfields, and Cubs as excellent seaplanes and now nearly everyone tells you that you will never get off the water with a 40hp ship. I have read glowing accounts of the Aeronca C-113 powered C-2 as a seaplane.

I am 47 and cannot comment from experience, but would love to hear your thoughts? Surely some of you old timers have opinions here?

[Jim Herpst]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

For starters its all in the context of what was available. For it was orginally 40 or 50 HP back in the day was all they had for a ship like the Taylorcraft. The PIREPs should be in this context. Yes the planes MAY have been lighter and the people smaller (yes really believe that in general they really were).

A 50 hp ship IS marginal today for the reasons above. Ok its my Birthday and thats my opine for the day !! That said have fun all with whatever !!!!

[flybikefarm]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Maybe because the planes and pilots havebecome overweight? I will ship the altimeter this week,been busy farming, havn't even had time to fly. George

[Winston L.]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

I have flown a Model A with 40 HP and I am 285 pounds. It flew great but had a slower climb rate than the 65 HP ships I have flown. It probably would have been scary with a passenger.

I think everyone wants more power not that it is required to fly the ship, you make up for HP with wing area. I wouldn't upgrade to 85hp on my BC-65because it isn't worth it in my opinion, you get a little better climb but you use more gas.

I don't pile on all of the extra junk other people do either. I am building my airplane completly original so its very light.

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

My buddy with an "A" model recently put a 65 on it and wonders why he waited so long to do it. I would stick with a 65 not only for the extra power but parts availablility.

Mike

[dmcneil]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Hey Mike,

Excellent question. I'm really hoping that Chet Peek will weigh in on this one. I've never flown a Model A Taylorcraft but I do have a fair amount of time in my A-40 powered J-2 Taylor Cub. We've been flying together for the last 30 years.

I've thought about this same question a lot. The 40 h.p. Cubs were used extensively for training. Day in and day out the airplanes hauled two souls around the airport circuit. And in those days, folks soloed in 4-6 hours or so, typically. Sure, there was much less to worry about... no radio, no GPS, no ATC, few airspace rules, etc. But still, folks learned to fly these airplanes very quickly.

I believe there were a couple things going on. First, one circuit in very low powered airplane teaches you a whole bunch about flying. The airplane was certified without an airspeed indicator or a compass (neither was required by the regs of the day). The airplane flys on the wing and only on the wing. Pure stick and rudder. It's much like flying a glider in that respect, another type that folks tend to solo quite quickly. (Having a glider rating is a definite plus in flying these machines.)

The second, and probably most important factor in the use of low powered Cubs, Aeroncas and Taylorcrafts, was that is what they had! For the vast majority of people starting their flight training, there was no frame of reference to compare the performance to anything else. If it flew, it was a great trainer. If it flew cheaply during those pre-war Depression years, the flying schools loved it and then it became a legendary trainer.

The A-40 engine in the very light J-2 airframe is enough to get two people off the ground and around the airport. You just have to reflect on your expectations and any comparisons to a modern trainer before you go flying. Consider that an A-65 powered J-3 or Taylorcraft has 63% more power than the comparable A-40 powered machines. The A-40 airplanes are slow in speed and slow in climb. But the little A-40 will get you airborne and paste a huge grin on your face every time. If you can accept the "antiqueness" of the experience, you'll have a grand time.

Parts can be an issue. It takes some scrounging but the parts are out there. Lots of these engines were built and there are very few airplanes still flying with them. That means they are engines and parts stashes hiding in dark hangars and garages waiting to be found.

The A-50 is a pretty rare engine. I've never flown behind one but I imagine it would be much like flying an A-65. It swings a long prop at a 1900 rpm redline so low speed thrust should be good. Lots of parts interchangeability with the A-65. But for an all around fun airplane, it's hard to beat the A-65 for an engine.

Dan
p.s. I absolutely love that SkyScout you built. I've only seen pictures but, wow!

[Chet Peek]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

OK, I'll weigh in. I took my first flying lesson in a 40 HP T-Craft in 1938. Flew a 40 HP T-Craft all over Iowa in 1941. Flew my 40 HP E-2 Cub fairly continuously for 50 years until a tornado got it in 1999. I think it is true that the people then were lighter, I weight 120#, my grandson weighs 200#. The planes were about 600# empty.
BUT--
The planes flew just fine, unless it was a really hot day, then you probably didn't fly with a passenger.
Those planes really taught you how to fly because you didn't have 50 extra horses to get you out of trouble.
The 50 HP motors have plenty of power for the Cub or T-Craft. You will enjoy flying it.
Had my 65 HP DC-65 up Saturday, what a wealth of power it has!

So that's my blast from the past.



Chet Peek

[flyguy]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

The French designer that did the motorgliders (RF4 Fornier??) said : a pound of aerodynamics is worth more than a pound of horsepower.

I think that also applies to a pound of weight removed.
DC

[1938BF50]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Excellent responses....I appreciate the replies and you all make valid points!

I have been finishing my ticket in 75 and 90hp Cubs lately. I got an hour in a 65hp Cub last night and was very pleased with the performance. Not quite the grin factor that the 90 was solo, but still a blast and certainly no issues hauling my 225# carcass around the pattern. I absolutely loved the subdued sound and docile nature of the 65 Cub.

I have always liked the old "oddball" stuff and hence the reason I am looking at that Porterfield CP-50 in TAP(which pompted the post in the first place). It has the A-50 and in asking around the universal answer was "it is not enough for training". I certainly understand and accept the "Low & Slow" mode(remember, I built two Piets!) and also realize the limitations of these old ships. I was looking at buying the Porterfield and leasing as a trainer, but that is not looking too promising. More thoughts?

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Around here (Denver) we'll occasionally use the phrase:
"He had enough horsepower to taxi, fly, and crash... but not quite enough to climb." You sea-level boys can keep your 50Hps (which actually develop the same horsepower as a 65 does up here) we've got enough people banging into trees, rocks, and roads around here. In fact, after last night's World Series game, I'd say we've got a whole baseball team packed in a 50hp Tcraft trying to take-off and not quite getting it done.
With regards; ED OBRIEN

[1938BF50]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Point well taken, Ed.
We are at 1000' here in WI.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

I once saw an amphibian Piper Cub come into to Meadowlake Airport (elev about 5600ft) on a high hot day (probably 9500ft. pa) He filled up with gas, took the runway, poured on the coals, barely reached flying speed, and rotated after nearly a mile. I'd say his climb rate never got better than 100ft. per minute. Scrapping over trees, ridges, powerlines and horns of farm animals, I just knew he was about to make the 10 O'clock news. Apparently he never crashed... or I never heard about it... BUT, he couldn't have been happy and the pucker factor was off the chart. By the sound of the engine I think this Cub was packing 135-150 Horses. At sea level I've seen a 65Hp Taylorcraft Floatplane perform 5 times better. Up here, if you don't have horse power and since we always have gravity --eventually the gravity wins.

Wih regards; Ed O'Brien

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

My buddy, avoided flying the "A" 40 hp when it got extra hot outside, elevation here is around 1200'.

Mike

[dmcneil]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

Mike,

I've seen that Porterfield ad in TAP. Looks like a neat little flying machine. It would be a hoot as a personal airplane. But a commercial and/or lease back training operation is another issue altogether. There is a reason you rarely see these types of airplanes (Cubs, Champs, Taylorcrafts, etc.) available for training or rental... in a word, insurance. I'd get a quote from your friendly neighborhood aviation insurance underwriter before getting too far along in your plan. The expense may shock you.

Dan
p.s. My 40 horse J-2 Cub is based in Placerville, CA (PVF) field elevation 2600'. We're in the foothills of the Sierra not too far from Lake Tahoe. Not much flat land around here!

[Len Petterson]

Re: Is 50hp enough?

I am hesitating going out west with 65 Hp and the realy old fellows flew with 40.
My experience with a tiered 65 must have been similar.
Like it was said 40 or 50 was they had and Mr Fornier was right as well.
I did a beutifull morning flight in no wind condition and had a very low sink rate with engine on 1000 rpm just enough gas to keep her warm.
Glide ratio 12 to 1 and my ship is heavy and so am I. Lots of gas onboard
so we where close to gross 1200 lbs. Is the Taylorcraft a motorglider?
Close to it. It could use 2 or 3 lbs more of aerodynamics.But we all love it as it is.
Len
PS If you have Sportcar you drive it as sportcar but a Ford Model T or A you can't drive like modern Hp monster. "Hmm" my dad had both and he said the model A was "fast sports car" relative to the T.