PDA

View Full Version : turbo video


Peter Holm
August 11th 04, 04:23 PM
Hi,

I donīt know much about aerobatics, but I would love to see a video of
an aerobatic airplane with turboprop engine doing the vertical climb
and the torque roll. A search with the Google machine for "turboprop,
video" on this forum didnīt give me any results. Does anyone here know
about such a video and where I can see it?

Thanks!

Peter

John Clear
August 17th 04, 05:12 AM
In article >,
Peter Holm > wrote:
>
>I donīt know much about aerobatics, but I would love to see a video of
>an aerobatic airplane with turboprop engine doing the vertical climb
>and the torque roll. A search with the Google machine for "turboprop,
>video" on this forum didnīt give me any results. Does anyone here know
>about such a video and where I can see it?

Do a search on 'Turbo Raven'. Wayne Handley's site doesn't appear
to have video, but there is probably some out there. Unfortunately,
the Turbo Raven was only flown for one season.

http://www.waynehandley.com/archive.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

Peter Holm
September 17th 04, 04:07 AM
Itīs been a while and I have been rather busy, but I nevertheless
didnīt want to let pass the deadline for responding.

(John Clear) wrote in message >...
(cut)
> Do a search on 'Turbo Raven'. Wayne Handley's site doesn't appear
> to have video, but there is probably some out there. Unfortunately,
> the Turbo Raven was only flown for one season.
>
> http://www.waynehandley.com/archive.html
>
> John

Besides you, there has been one other person answering to my mailbox.
And that answer referred itself to the Turbo Raven as well. But I
havenīt yet found any video of that aircraft. In fact, it seems to me
as if that aircraft has been the only dedicated turboprop aerobatic
aircraft that was ever flown. And that there is nothing today. Am I
wrong on that?

Just in case that I am right:
I know that a turboprop airplane can easily cost twice as much as a
piston plane of the same size. But this fact could only explain a
relative rareness of turboprop airplanes among aerobatic planes. What
it cannot explain is their (next to?) absence, since experience shows
that if there is a will there is a way, and some or another team of
people should always be able to adquire one of these planes.

If I extrapolate by scale from what I have frequently seen with model
aircraft (which tend to have a much higher power to weight ratio than
full scale aircraft), an aerobatic turboprop plane should be able to
execute a sustained torque roll at 10 or 15 feet above ground. And
that ought to be an absolutely awsome sight! Has anybody ever done
that?

But now I think that - sadly - I will never get to see that, and I am
starting to wonder why.

I know that piston engines can have certain advantages under certain
conditions: For example, when it comes to propulsion on a solid
surface (greater range of rpmīs), or when it comes to the
transportation of large amounts of goods at a minimal price on a
liquid medium (fuel eficiency). But when it comes to airplanes, I can
see that turbo engines are employed either next to exclusively
(commercial/military airplanes) or at least frequently
(private/business airplanes), exept in the case of crop dusters - and
aerobatic airplanes. Now I can understand that turbo crop dusters make
little sense, but how about in the case aerobatic airplanes?

Therefore, my question is (always assuming that my basic assumption
above is correct):

Is there a rational reason for the next to absence of turboprop planes
among aerobatic aircraft, or is this absence perhaps due to some sort
of stubborn romanticism?

Peter

Byron J. Covey
September 17th 04, 11:06 AM
Peter:

"Peter Holm" > wrote in message
om...
> Itīs been a while and I have been rather busy, but I nevertheless
> didnīt want to let pass the deadline for responding.
>
> (John Clear) wrote in message
> >...
> (cut)
>> Do a search on 'Turbo Raven'. Wayne Handley's site doesn't appear
>> to have video, but there is probably some out there. Unfortunately,
>> the Turbo Raven was only flown for one season.
>>
>> http://www.waynehandley.com/archive.html
>>
>> John
>
> Besides you, there has been one other person answering to my mailbox.
> And that answer referred itself to the Turbo Raven as well. But I
> havenīt yet found any video of that aircraft. In fact, it seems to me
> as if that aircraft has been the only dedicated turboprop aerobatic
> aircraft that was ever flown. And that there is nothing today. Am I
> wrong on that?

The first that I saw was a turbo Great Lakes, sponsored by Mennen (the
aftershave company.) It used smoke that smelled like the aftershave, and
did a vertical S ontakeoff. That was in the eaarly 1970's as best as I
remember.

The Turbo Raven flew for a short time before the crash.

There is a turbo Sukohi that Ihave seen photos of, but I haven's seen it
live.

>
> Just in case that I am right:
> I know that a turboprop airplane can easily cost twice as much as a
> piston plane of the same size. But this fact could only explain a
> relative rareness of turboprop airplanes among aerobatic planes. What
> it cannot explain is their (next to?) absence, since experience shows
> that if there is a will there is a way, and some or another team of
> people should always be able to adquire one of these planes.
>

Just a SWAG, but I would think that the Turbo Raven cost about 6 times what
a good Edge 540 would cost. Sponsorship before construction would be
important.

> If I extrapolate by scale from what I have frequently seen with model
> aircraft (which tend to have a much higher power to weight ratio than
> full scale aircraft), an aerobatic turboprop plane should be able to
> execute a sustained torque roll at 10 or 15 feet above ground. And
> that ought to be an absolutely awsome sight! Has anybody ever done
> that?
>
Doins so would be betting one's life and airplane on no wind gusts,
absolutely no pilot miscalculation, and no aircraft / engine problem.

I have seen the Turbo Raven hover, descend vertically, then ascend
vertically. Scary to watch.

> But now I think that - sadly - I will never get to see that, and I am
> starting to wonder why.

Rich and foolish is not a combination that survives long.

> I know that piston engines can have certain advantages under certain
> conditions: For example, when it comes to propulsion on a solid
> surface (greater range of rpmīs), or when it comes to the
> transportation of large amounts of goods at a minimal price on a
> liquid medium (fuel eficiency). But when it comes to airplanes, I can
> see that turbo engines are employed either next to exclusively
> (commercial/military airplanes) or at least frequently
> (private/business airplanes), exept in the case of crop dusters - and
> aerobatic airplanes. Now I can understand that turbo crop dusters make
> little sense, but how about in the case aerobatic airplanes?

Turb crop dusters make lots of sense for large scale application, are
numerous, ane are profittable.

> Therefore, my question is (always assuming that my basic assumption
> above is correct):
>
> Is there a rational reason for the next to absence of turboprop planes
> among aerobatic aircraft, or is this absence perhaps due to some sort
> of stubborn romanticism?

Cost is a rational reason. Turbine engines are not allowed in international
aerobatic competition.

> Peter

BJC

Peter Ashwood-Smith C-GZRO
September 17th 04, 07:38 PM
> > Is there a rational reason for the next to absence of turboprop planes
> > among aerobatic aircraft, or is this absence perhaps due to some sort
> > of stubborn romanticism?

There are actually a number of tubro powered aerobatic planes, think
for example of the PT-6 trainers.

For competition aerobatics however which includes lots of gyroscopic
forces, there are I believe concerns about the long shafts in those
engines and the huge gyroscopic forces at work. That would limit them
to sportsman stuff .. which is quite a restriction for a $1,000,000 +
airplane.

I suspect also the time required to spool up/down the power is an
issue.

Peter

nametab
September 17th 04, 10:12 PM
Power reaction is not such an issue for a single-shaft engine. My engine can
go from 10-90% torque in one second, no problem.

However, you did hit on the larger problem: Very high gyroscopic forces.
Although the spinning mass is not very large, my engine turns at 43,500rpm.
That's loads of gyro. I have to be very careful not to snap against the
engine or I might just loose it.

BTY, I fly aerobatic helicopters, so there's a larger gyroscope to deal
with, but it "flies"...

"Peter Ashwood-Smith C-GZRO" > wrote in message
om...
> > > Is there a rational reason for the next to absence of turboprop planes
> > > among aerobatic aircraft, or is this absence perhaps due to some sort
> > > of stubborn romanticism?
>
> There are actually a number of tubro powered aerobatic planes, think
> for example of the PT-6 trainers.
>
> For competition aerobatics however which includes lots of gyroscopic
> forces, there are I believe concerns about the long shafts in those
> engines and the huge gyroscopic forces at work. That would limit them
> to sportsman stuff .. which is quite a restriction for a $1,000,000 +
> airplane.
>
> I suspect also the time required to spool up/down the power is an
> issue.
>
> Peter

John Clear
September 19th 04, 07:40 AM
In article >,
Byron J. Covey > wrote:
>> Just in case that I am right:
>> I know that a turboprop airplane can easily cost twice as much as a
>> piston plane of the same size. But this fact could only explain a
>> relative rareness of turboprop airplanes among aerobatic planes. What
>> it cannot explain is their (next to?) absence, since experience shows
>> that if there is a will there is a way, and some or another team of
>> people should always be able to adquire one of these planes.
>>
>
>Just a SWAG, but I would think that the Turbo Raven cost about 6 times what
>a good Edge 540 would cost. Sponsorship before construction would be
>important.

Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, and owner of many big boy toys, is
also a fan of aviation. The story goes that he was talking with
Wayne Handley and Sean Tucker after some airshow, and they hatched
the idea of the Turbo Raven. Cost isn't much of an issue for Larry
Ellison, since he is way up there on the various 'richest people'
lists.

Another post mentioned the difference between aerobatics and
competition aerobatics. The T-6A and various other trainers are
aerobatic turboprops, but they don't have to worry about staying
in the competition aerobatic box, which is quite tiny. The cost of
a turboprop, and the size of the box are probably the main reasons
they aren't used on competition planes. The maintenance requirements
on the turboprop would probably also be an issue.

The Turbo Raven was just a show plane, in the same category as the
jet powered Waco. Fun to watch, but totally ridiculous.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

nametab
September 19th 04, 04:19 PM
Turbines are not more difficult to maintain. In fact the maintenance is much
lower on a turbine (on a per-hour basis). The cost of the overhaul is quite
different though! However, the TBO is much better for a turbine. Overhaul on
my turbine is about US$235,000 but I get 3000 hours out of it. It's quite a
bit more expensive than other turbines, but you still are in the US$100,000
zone for an overhaul of a 600hp+ engine.

How much would a 600hp piston engine cost to overhaul?

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Byron J. Covey > wrote:
> >> Just in case that I am right:
> >> I know that a turboprop airplane can easily cost twice as much as a
> >> piston plane of the same size. But this fact could only explain a
> >> relative rareness of turboprop airplanes among aerobatic planes. What
> >> it cannot explain is their (next to?) absence, since experience shows
> >> that if there is a will there is a way, and some or another team of
> >> people should always be able to adquire one of these planes.
> >>
> >
> >Just a SWAG, but I would think that the Turbo Raven cost about 6 times
what
> >a good Edge 540 would cost. Sponsorship before construction would be
> >important.
>
> Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, and owner of many big boy toys, is
> also a fan of aviation. The story goes that he was talking with
> Wayne Handley and Sean Tucker after some airshow, and they hatched
> the idea of the Turbo Raven. Cost isn't much of an issue for Larry
> Ellison, since he is way up there on the various 'richest people'
> lists.
>
> Another post mentioned the difference between aerobatics and
> competition aerobatics. The T-6A and various other trainers are
> aerobatic turboprops, but they don't have to worry about staying
> in the competition aerobatic box, which is quite tiny. The cost of
> a turboprop, and the size of the box are probably the main reasons
> they aren't used on competition planes. The maintenance requirements
> on the turboprop would probably also be an issue.
>
> The Turbo Raven was just a show plane, in the same category as the
> jet powered Waco. Fun to watch, but totally ridiculous.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac
>

Peter Holm
September 26th 04, 04:33 PM
"nametab" > wrote in message >...
> Power reaction is not such an issue for a single-shaft engine. My engine can
> go from 10-90% torque in one second, no problem.
>
> However, you did hit on the larger problem: Very high gyroscopic forces.
> Although the spinning mass is not very large, my engine turns at 43,500rpm.
> That's loads of gyro. I have to be very careful not to snap against the
> engine or I might just loose it.
>
> BTY, I fly aerobatic helicopters, so there's a larger gyroscope to deal
> with, but it "flies"...
>
> "Peter Ashwood-Smith C-GZRO" > wrote in message
> om...
(cut)
> > There are actually a number of tubro powered aerobatic planes, think
> > for example of the PT-6 trainers.

Where and when do they fly?

> >
> > For competition aerobatics however which includes lots of gyroscopic
> > forces, there are I believe concerns about the long shafts in those
> > engines and the huge gyroscopic forces at work. That would limit them
> > to sportsman stuff .. which is quite a restriction for a $1,000,000 +
> > airplane.
(cut)

Because you are flying such a large gyroscope, I wonder if you might
not be overestimating the gyroscopic forces produced by turboprop
engines. Because in distiction to what Peter Ashwood-Smith is saying
above, small turboprop motors only appear to have a long rotor shaft.
In reality they have two shafts mounted separately one behind the
other: The (single) rotor shaft and the power shaft (with the
reduction gears in front of the latter).

I can really speak competently only about model aircraft turboprops.
And the weight ratio of rotor shaft weight/total aircraft weight
should be at least equal if not higher in model aircraft than in real
aircraft. Besides, microturbine rotor shafts rotate at speeds
typically between 120.000 and 200.000 rpm. And in model aircraft, the
guroscopic forces from the rotor shaft are considered to be
negligible. I donīt see how this could be due to some sort of scaling
effect.

So in order to put an end to all of this speculation, I think what
would really be needed here is the testimony of a pilot who has
actually flown aerobatics with a turboprop plane.


One additional question for you out of interest: Do you believe that
aerobatic turboshaft helicopters are relatively more abundant than
aerobatic turboprop planes? And if yes, why would that be so? After
all, this appears to be contradictory since the pilot of an aerobatic
turboshaft helicopter ought to have to deal with much higher
gyroscopic forces than the pilot of an aerobatic turboprop plane.

Peter H.

Peter Holm
September 26th 04, 04:40 PM
(John Clear) wrote in message >...
(cut)
> Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, and owner of many big boy toys, is
> also a fan of aviation. The story goes that he was talking with
> Wayne Handley and Sean Tucker after some airshow, and they hatched
> the idea of the Turbo Raven. Cost isn't much of an issue for Larry
> Ellison, since he is way up there on the various 'richest people'
> lists.

As you concede yourself, when it comes to aerobatic airplanes there
exists a source of financing which generallty doesnīt exist for
private airplanes: Sponsoring. Therefore, the cost argument in itself
can only explain the relative scarcity of turboprop engines in private
aircraft, but not the near absence of turboprop engines in aerobatic
aircraft.

>
> Another post mentioned the difference between aerobatics and
> competition aerobatics. The T-6A and various other trainers are
> aerobatic turboprops, but they don't have to worry about staying
> in the competition aerobatic box, which is quite tiny. The cost of
> a turboprop, and the size of the box are probably the main reasons
> they aren't used on competition planes.

If the competition aerobatic box tends to be too small for turboprop
planes, then it is inconceivable why they do not install a greater
competition box for turboprop planes.

> The maintenance requirements
> on the turboprop would probably also be an issue.
>
> The Turbo Raven was just a show plane, in the same category as the
> jet powered Waco. Fun to watch, but totally ridiculous.
>
> John

Well now, this jet powered Whacko is nothing but a piston biplane
with a turbojet strapped to its belly. And this turbojet engine has a
bent exhaust pipe - kind of like a turboprop. As long as I havenīt
seen more data on this plane or seen it fly, I wonīt believe that this
setup has much more than decorative value.

And now you come and compare this thing with .... a classical
turboprop plane? Sorry, but thatīs what I would call ridiculous. You
know as well as I do, that turbomachinery rules the airwaves - exept
for a relative scarcity among private airplanes and a next to absence
among aerobatic aircraft. And this is clearly a non trivial fact which
requires a cogent explanation.

Peter H.

Smutny
September 26th 04, 08:05 PM
The Australian Roulettes fly the PT-6 as well as a few other countries
I can't think of at the moment. Brazil perhaps? But one has to
remember, what aerobatic teams do, and what happens in an aerobatic
competition aren't identical.

The competition box is one size for all competitions, 1000 square
meters. Changing it would require sancitioning from the FAI. But
creating different sized boxes for different aircraft neutralizes the
spirit behind the competition.

Airshows on the other hand, boxes are determined mainly by the venue.

One of the reasons you don't see many more turbine GA aircraft is
partly due to the lack of certified small turbines. There is a
growing number of turbine homebuilts. Comp Air and Lancair being two
that offer kits designed for them. I've also seen an article on a
turbine RV-4 in Sport Aviation not too long ago. As time goes on,
cheaper and smaller turbines will probably have a greater presence in
the GA market. Don't know what the economics are though, how much
does a hot section cost compared to overhauling a piston engine? And
what does that translate to per hour costs?

No need to get hostile over all this, Holm. Turbines are not the
end-all, be-all of aviation. Jets, turboprops and pistons all have
thier strengths and weaknesses. And their appropriate application.
Aviation pistons right now are just at the top of thier game when it
comes to hardcore aerobatic aircraft. And you wouldn't put a piston
in a commuter airliner.

-j-

John Clear
September 27th 04, 06:29 AM
In article >,
Peter Holm > wrote:
>
>As you concede yourself, when it comes to aerobatic airplanes there
>exists a source of financing which generallty doesnīt exist for
>private airplanes: Sponsoring. Therefore, the cost argument in itself
>can only explain the relative scarcity of turboprop engines in private
>aircraft, but not the near absence of turboprop engines in aerobatic
>aircraft.

Airshow aerobatics have sponsorships. Competition aerobatics don't have
as much in the way of sponsorships except at the highest levels. Even
with sponsorships, there is a big difference between a $50K Lycoming
and a $500K+ PT-6.

>> The Turbo Raven was just a show plane, in the same category as the
>> jet powered Waco. Fun to watch, but totally ridiculous.
>
>Well now, this jet powered Whacko is nothing but a piston biplane
>with a turbojet strapped to its belly. And this turbojet engine has a
>bent exhaust pipe - kind of like a turboprop. As long as I havenīt
>seen more data on this plane or seen it fly, I wonīt believe that this
>setup has much more than decorative value.

I've seen it fly, and it does some pretty impressive vertical climbs.

Some stats on the plane are available at:
http://www.franklinairshow.com/jetstats.htm

There is also video on that site, doesn't show much of the vertical
though.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

nametab
September 27th 04, 08:46 PM
The reason the only aerobatic helicopters (if you can say that) are turbine
powered, is merely power. Where can you get 600 HP out of an engine that
weighs less than 300lbs.? We need loads of HP and turbines deliver that.
With that said, the turbine does act as a large gyro, however the rotor is
about 5x stronger than the engine. It's just that the engine mounts are not
made to take those loads. It's assumed that the helicopter will not normally
snap around like you can get in aerobatics. That's why we have to be careful
about it.

"Peter Holm" > wrote in message
om...
> "nametab" > wrote in message
>...
> > Power reaction is not such an issue for a single-shaft engine. My engine
can
> > go from 10-90% torque in one second, no problem.
> >
> > However, you did hit on the larger problem: Very high gyroscopic forces.
> > Although the spinning mass is not very large, my engine turns at
43,500rpm.
> > That's loads of gyro. I have to be very careful not to snap against the
> > engine or I might just loose it.
> >
> > BTY, I fly aerobatic helicopters, so there's a larger gyroscope to deal
> > with, but it "flies"...
> >
> > "Peter Ashwood-Smith C-GZRO" > wrote in
message
> > om...
> (cut)
> > > There are actually a number of tubro powered aerobatic planes, think
> > > for example of the PT-6 trainers.
>
> Where and when do they fly?
>
> > >
> > > For competition aerobatics however which includes lots of gyroscopic
> > > forces, there are I believe concerns about the long shafts in those
> > > engines and the huge gyroscopic forces at work. That would limit them
> > > to sportsman stuff .. which is quite a restriction for a $1,000,000 +
> > > airplane.
> (cut)
>
> Because you are flying such a large gyroscope, I wonder if you might
> not be overestimating the gyroscopic forces produced by turboprop
> engines. Because in distiction to what Peter Ashwood-Smith is saying
> above, small turboprop motors only appear to have a long rotor shaft.
> In reality they have two shafts mounted separately one behind the
> other: The (single) rotor shaft and the power shaft (with the
> reduction gears in front of the latter).
>
> I can really speak competently only about model aircraft turboprops.
> And the weight ratio of rotor shaft weight/total aircraft weight
> should be at least equal if not higher in model aircraft than in real
> aircraft. Besides, microturbine rotor shafts rotate at speeds
> typically between 120.000 and 200.000 rpm. And in model aircraft, the
> guroscopic forces from the rotor shaft are considered to be
> negligible. I donīt see how this could be due to some sort of scaling
> effect.
>
> So in order to put an end to all of this speculation, I think what
> would really be needed here is the testimony of a pilot who has
> actually flown aerobatics with a turboprop plane.
>
>
> One additional question for you out of interest: Do you believe that
> aerobatic turboshaft helicopters are relatively more abundant than
> aerobatic turboprop planes? And if yes, why would that be so? After
> all, this appears to be contradictory since the pilot of an aerobatic
> turboshaft helicopter ought to have to deal with much higher
> gyroscopic forces than the pilot of an aerobatic turboprop plane.
>
> Peter H.

Peter Holm
September 29th 04, 11:31 PM
Smutny > wrote in message >...
> The Australian Roulettes fly the PT-6 as well as a few other countries
> I can't think of at the moment. Brazil perhaps? But one has to
> remember, what aerobatic teams do, and what happens in an aerobatic
> competition aren't identical.

So it appears. Thanks for the tip about the Roulettes, but all the
images I could find of them in the web were just about formation
flight. No torque rolls etc.

I do envy John Clear a lot for having seen (live, on top!) an
aerobatic turboprop plane strut its stuff. I might never get to see
this in my life – perhaps not even on a video. And this to me is
rather disapointing, whether you understand that or not.

>
> The competition box is one size for all competitions, 1000 square
> meters. Changing it would require sancitioning from the FAI. But
> creating different sized boxes for different aircraft neutralizes the
> spirit behind the competition.
>
> Airshows on the other hand, boxes are determined mainly by the venue.

The idea that the competition aerobatic box might be too small for
turboprop planes came up in this thread, presumably based on the
hypothesis that the throttle lag of an aerobatic turboprop plane
would hamper its agility of flight in comparison to a piston plane.
But as nametab has pointed out on 9-17 in this thread, and I think he
is right, is that throttle lag is not likely to be a problem for
single spool turbine motors. Small turboprops are double spool, though
not coaxial but in series (one turbine shaft and one independent power
shaft).

Therefore, the idea that the competition box might be too small for a
turboprop plane is, like next to everything else on this thread, based
on nothing but speculation. So I repeat: What would be needed here is
the testimony of a pilot who has actually flown aerobatics with a
turboprop plane.

>
> One of the reasons you don't see many more turbine GA aircraft is
> partly due to the lack of certified small turbines. There is a
> growing number of turbine homebuilts. Comp Air and Lancair being two
> that offer kits designed for them. I've also seen an article on a
> turbine RV-4 in Sport Aviation not too long ago. As time goes on,
> cheaper and smaller turbines will probably have a greater presence in
> the GA market.

I donīt think that the general aviation market has a lot of relevance
for aerobatic planes. The abundance of turbine planes (not only
turboprop) in general aviation is far higher than in aerobatics.

> Don't know what the economics are though, how much
> does a hot section cost compared to overhauling a piston engine? And
> what does that translate to per hour costs?
>
> No need to get hostile over all this, Holm. Turbines are not the
> end-all, be-all of aviation.

Of course not. There are ramjets, and perhaps some day there will be
scramjets. But when it comes to aviation, I cannot think of any
advantage of piston engines over turbine engines besides their price
and their fuel efficiency (I know of people who actually think that
the maintaineance for turbine engines costs even less than for piston
engines).

> Jets, turboprops and pistons all have
> thier strengths and weaknesses. And their appropriate application.
> Aviation pistons right now are just at the top of thier game when it
> comes to hardcore aerobatic aircraft.
(cut)

But this is exactly what I donīt understand.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that under certain circumstances a
more primitive technology can have advantages over a more advanced
technology dedicated to the same task. An example in case would for
instance be police officers patroling park and beach areas on bicycles
instead of in police cars. But whenever this happens, there exists a
cogent explanation for that circumstance. And a cogent explanation -
preferrably from someone who talks from experience - is what is
missing in this thread so far.

So why should, of all cases, aerobatics be one of those examples where
a comparatively primitive (engine) technology would have the edge over
a more sofisticated one? Why should the aim in aerobatics be to only
make the aircraft lighter, but not to make the motor stronger – and
lighter at the same time? Why should an aircraft which cannot fly a
sustained torque roll be better for aerobatics than an aircraft which
can? After all, the relative lack of power of piston planes is
responsible for the fact that a torque roll is often confused with a
tail slide.

This remains an obvious paradox – at least on this thread - which
requires something more than speculations for a convincing
explanation. And I canīt help feeling that you guys are trying to sell
me apples for oranges on this issue.


Peter

Google