hefty lefty
Member
They are not low performance, they are high performance for the way they measure performance which is based on sustained power to weight, brake specific fuel consumption and time between overhauls. When we say something is high or low performance we have to ask how we measure performance.
In aircraft we do not care about specific power (hp per CID or liter of displacement), because aircraft were never taxed on displacement.
The horizontally opposed free air cooled LyCon engines range from the <200 cid 65 horsepower Continental A65, to such engines as the TSIO-550 Continentals and TGIO-541 Lycs which are pretty impressive, but nothing compared to "real aircraft engines" like the later Mark RR or Packard 9A Merlin and the R-2800 Pratt and Whitney.
When I was a kid my father owned a T-6 which had the 650 hp R-1340 Wasp engine. I was never old enough to solo it but I had a lot of stick time in both seats. My dad's best friend was a check captain for Eastern and a FAA designated examiner and he was allowed to fly the T-6 as long as he paid the gas and so much for insurance and engine and prop overhaul. I rode with him many times and one day he told me to get in front and asked me to do some stuff, eights on pylons, chandelles, etc. and to do some other airwork, go back to the field and land. After we got out he told me that I had just flown the commercial check ride and I would have passed on all counts. I never did go into flying, never even got licensed because I had a medical issue and didn't see it as a desirable career nor an affordable hobby anyway. But I'm still kind of proud of that. I always thought the T-6 was easier to fly than the Cessnas because when you throttled back it came down and the stall let you know just where you were-flying or dropping, no in between.
