PowerFlow

Has anyone installed this system and what are your results. I have a '65
C-172 with the Lycoming O-360 Conversion and C/S prop. I wonder if I
would get the extra performance and purposed fuel burn. Currently I am
limited to 36 gallons and that limits my range.

Ross

Has anyone installed this system and what are your results. I have a '65
C-172 with the Lycoming O-360 Conversion and C/S prop. I wonder if I
would get the extra performance and purposed fuel burn. Currently I am
limited to 36 gallons and that limits my range.

Ross

For what its worth, I had the Powerflow on a '68 177 (O-320) and it
delivered a measurable performance gain in that application, pretty
much in line with PF's claims. However, reviews from -B model
Cardinals (a very similar configuration to your converted Skyhawk)
have been mixed, seems the biggest performance improvement is due to
higher takeoff and climb RPM, something our airplanes already do. The
fuel savings are real, but you have to throttle back to get it. I
recall it was approx. 1 gph on the O-320 at the same RPM. The CS prop
will just sink the extra power at higher blade angle and produce
higher speed, so I think one would need to actually reduce RPM
there... ?


Martin

Has anyone installed this system and what are your results. I have a '65
C-172 with the Lycoming O-360 Conversion and C/S prop. I wonder if I
would get the extra performance and purposed fuel burn. Currently I am
limited to 36 gallons and that limits my range.

Ross

For what its worth, I had the Powerflow on a '68 177 (O-320) and it
delivered a measurable performance gain in that application, pretty
much in line with PF's claims. However, reviews from -B model
Cardinals (a very similar configuration to your converted Skyhawk)
have been mixed, seems the biggest performance improvement is due to
higher takeoff and climb RPM, something our airplanes already do. The
fuel savings are real, but you have to throttle back to get it. I
recall it was approx. 1 gph on the O-320 at the same RPM. The CS prop
will just sink the extra power at higher blade angle and produce
higher speed, so I think one would need to actually reduce RPM
there... ?


Martin

Ross Richardson wrote

Has anyone installed this system and what are your results. I have a '65
C-172 with the Lycoming O-360 Conversion and C/S prop. I wonder if I
would get the extra performance and purposed fuel burn. Currently I am
limited to 36 gallons and that limits my range.

I've had the powerflow system on my 160-hp Skyhawk for a few years
now. Definitely more power. Maybe 10-15 hp. And the differential vs.
before is more noticeable at higher altitudes. Probably better fuel
burn but I can't be sure. Living at 5000 feet means regularly flying
at density altitudes above 10000 feet (especially in the summer) so I
tend to forego fuel savings for better speed.

When considering purchasing the system I posted a message to this
newsgroup similar to yours. One guy sent me pictures of how the inner
shroud of his new muffler MELTED under the high heat of engine
operation. He did get his money back. I've not seen a hint of similar
deteoriation in my system. Maybe they were still working the kinks out
with his.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q