Quantcast

What are the fastest kitset or commonly homebuild piston engine designs?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Battson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
610
Location
New Zealand
Just an interesting thought I've been mulling over, I guess these would be the commonly built racers for Joe public (when he can afford it) - some wild one-off design isn't really relevent to this post. But I am talking about cruise speed, rather than Vne.

Some designs that come to mind: I think the important characteristics are the speed and the power plant, as it's not hard just to use a bigger engine to get more speed. Also the altitude which they measure speeds at is relevant

Sharp - Nemesis NXT, Cruise about 300kts with IO-540-K (big block), excess of 320kts at MSL with IO-720
reno05_sport_42_2975.jpg

Lancair - Legacy, Cruise about 240kts for the longer winged version with IO-550 @8000ft.
Legacy_speedmod_lrg.jpg


Questair - Venture, Cruise about 240kts with IO-550-G, albeit a reasonable different looking aircraft in terms of dimensions.
21050d1354142571-interesting-aircraft-questairventure_1.jpg

Stoddard-Hamilton - Glasair III, Cruise about 240kts with IO-540-K, much more affordable than the aircraft above.
C-GGTM-Glasair-III-4.jpg



What else is out there?

I am aware of other composite designs like the Falco/Furio, the Harmon Rocket, RV-8, etc etc which come in under 200kts with various engines, but they are not compariable to the above in terms of straight line speed in a x-country cruise.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,762
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
The Berkut certainly comes to mind. The Thunder Mustang is seriously fast, but needs massive horsepower to do so. Same for the Legend (mostly turbines now I think).

The White Lightning (4-seat) is a bit misty to me, since claimed performance is all over the place. The Rutan Boomerang is also seriously fast on 400 hp.

Here's a list to compare relative drag (to rule out the "big engine" solution):
https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-experimental-aviation-questions/8762-aircraft-efficiency-tool-list-equivalent-flat-plate-areas-various-planes.html
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,995
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Just an interesting thought I've been mulling over, I guess these would be the commonly built racers for Joe public (when he can afford it) - some wild one-off design isn't really relevent to this post. But I am talking about cruise speed, rather than Vne.

Some designs that come to mind: I think the important characteristics are the speed and the power plant, as it's not hard just to use a bigger engine to get more speed. Also the altitude which they measure speeds at is relevant

Sharp - Nemesis NXT, Cruise about 300kts with IO-540-K (big block), excess of 320kts at MSL with IO-720
View attachment 26213

Lancair - Legacy, Cruise about 240kts for the longer winged version with IO-550 @8000ft.
View attachment 26214


Questair - Venture, Cruise about 240kts with IO-550-G, albeit a reasonable different looking aircraft in terms of dimensions.
View attachment 26218

Stoddard-Hamilton - Glasair III, Cruise about 240kts with IO-540-K, much more affordable than the aircraft above.
View attachment 26215



What else is out there?

I am aware of other composite designs like the Falco/Furio, the Harmon Rocket, RV-8, etc etc which come in under 200kts with various engines, but they are not compariable to the above in terms of straight line speed in a x-country cruise.
You have it pretty much summed up in your post. The 4 pictured aircraft have all won the Gold championship race in Supersport at Reno and all have done well over 400mph on telemetry at about 8000 feet DA with very powerful turbocharged race engines->750-850 hp.
 

Battson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
610
Location
New Zealand
Interesting to note that all the above aircraft typically operate at about 300-310hp, before builders get excited by turbochargers or 2 more cylinders. The Thunder Mustang needs more than twice that much power and number of cylinders (maintenance cost!!) to develop a comparable amount or slightly more airspeed.

How is it that the Glasair III typically sells / is built for the same cost as many common 2 seat composite RG homebuilt aircraft, whereas the others tend to cost more than twice as much? Is it a question of carbon fibre vs. fibreglass (which has some other thermal problems too)?
 
Top