Always bear in mind that "static thrust" is a tool, not the whole tool chest. When determining what a given power package will do for a given airframe, One must combine the static thrust, as measured, with the theoretical speed of the prop. There are more variables, but these two will give a quick and dirty answer to whether the power package *may* fly the plane.

An example comes from my days experimenting with the AO-84 genny engine:

One of our test subjects was a Fisher FP-101. With the engine, and the required tail ballast, the plane weighed 360# empty. She carried 30# of gas. Pilot weight was 180#. Static rpm 3150, unloaded rpm varied with propeller.

The team each individually worked out what prop we should use (apples to apples, each prop was a Tennessee wood prop, cut to request).

One team member recommended a 60x22 prop. This prop developed the most thrust of any we tested, and would haul the plane off the runway in a short distance, and climb close to the rate a two-stroke would. However, when you leveled off, it was like hitting a brick wall. The plane would barely make 40mph (measured by GPS, boxing the compass), which is about 67% of theoretical pitch.

Next, we used a 54x26 prop, at the same static rpm as the 60x22. This gave about 2/3rd the static thrust as the 60x22. However, while the climb was reduced by a third, when you leveled the plane, the top speed shot to 75mph (again, verified by gps, boxing the compass), which works out to a staggering 98% of theoretical pitch.

For reference, the tests were conducted on the same day, within two hours of each.