Good to know on the 540.. I really hate published weights as they are really just a guideline as there is so many variables with models etc.. Best to discuss with people who have actually put them on a scale. My IO-470 with all accessories, baffles etc came in at 465lbs without the exhaust. Not that anyone was asking but Its nice to have info like this on the forum
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lycoming engine O-320 in a 4-place Bearhawk
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by zkelley2 View Post
No all the Bush planes land shorter than they take off. I can't think of a single airplane that this isn't the case. Provided the pilot is capable. Taking off is a lot easier than spot landing.
The reverse on turbines is not factored when considering landing distance. So that isnt a factor.
Aircraft: Takeoff: Landing
Husky A1-C-180. 200. 350
Maule M7-235B. 600. 900
Maule M7-260. 600. 900
Maule M9-260. 720. 900
Maule MX7-180. 700. 900
Carbon Cub LSA. 60. 110
Carbon Cub FX-3. 90. 155
Carbon Cub X Cub. 170. 170
PA18-150. 200. 350
Notes: Aviat doesn’t list landing and takeoff distances for the A1-C-200. All the Maule specs are performance over the proverbial 50' obstacle.
I'd say my observations are pretty much in line with the demo pilots. Those guys must need to work on landings too.
Bill
Comment
-
The best thing I ever learned about landing short, was to pretend every landing is on an extremely short runway, even if you are on a 10,000 foot runway. Do it the same every single time. Fairly quickly, your landings will be very consistent, and very short. It becomes easy and natural. Pucker factor on an very short runway goes away.
Comment
-
I've been one of the ground "runners" at the New Holstein Supercub get together in recent years. July 2018 results showed of 17 competitors, only three landed shorter than they took off. FWIW.
And it is true that there is plenty of room for this pilot to improve - it's coming along. Actually when I first got the Avid, I could land shorter than take off, but the plane has been improving too! It doesn't help the BH to get completed sooner though...
Comment
-
Between a 320 and a 360. Assume 30 lbs difference. That is about 1.5% difference in weight in the loaded weight of the aircraft. But a 13% difference in power.
But the 13% is deceiving. Lets say it takes 60 hp to barely keep a 4 place airborne at a given weight. That means a 320 has 100 hp of excess to climb/cruise/takeoff. A 360 has 120 hp excess power. 20% more. So you get 20% more climb performance, for a 1.5% reduction in useful load.
If you built a 4 place super light and simple, no electrics, two lawn chairs for seats. You might get close to 1000 lbs empty weight. An 0-320 powered version of that would perform quite well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by svyolo View PostI have seen what looked good deals on lightly used Continental 470-520's in the past year. I was pretty tempted, but I don't trust my ability to buy a good used engine.Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.
Comment
Comment