Power flow exhaust on 170B-360 Lycombing

[blueldr]

George,
Right on!

[c170b53]

Wow, just checked the price online.....Ouch. They also sell an improved air intake filter for $ 275.00 ish. Think I'll stick to my Brackett 12.00 foamy.

[DaveF]

I agree that the product is too expensive and it's unattractive. I understand that you don't think that PowerFlow has made their case in their advertising. But their product may do what they say, and that might be worth a lot to someone who operates in marginal conditions. Of course, it would be foolish to buy it based on the sales claims alone.

I missed out on being a motorhead in my early years so I don't know enough about engines to know what kind of improvements are possible from tuned exhausts, and it sounded like people couldn't get past the advertising to the basic technical question. That's why I asked.

Hey BL, would you agree that IO-360 owners say they love the conversion simply because it cost so damned much?

Friends, certainly!

[GAHorn]

...Hey BL, would you agree that IO-360 owners say they love the conversion simply because it cost so damned much?

Friends, certainly!

He claims that's why I like Avgas!

[blueldr]

DaveF,
I liked my TCM IO-360 conversion for the exceptional improvement in the aircraft performance. The time to climb from my 1650 ft. home airport to
9500 ft. to cross the Sierras went from thirty five (35) minutes to eleven (11) minutes at gross weight on a hot summer day. That is SIGNIFICANT !

[ptporebski]

Guys,

I have no axe to grind here. I own a 1959 C-172 with an O-300A engine that has a stock exhaust and is as smooth as Black Velvet Whiskey. My second aircraft is a 1976 C-177B with the O-360 Lyc and the Power Flow Exhaust. The P.O. installed it and it is very pricey on a Cardinal, advert price about $3,500. It really is just a tuned exhaust like the hot rodders have been using for years. But, the P.O. paid the price and it is FAA approved for use on certificated aircraft (i.e. will not negate insurance coverage).

After about 2 years of flying behind it, I find that it does:
1. Increase my fuel burn rate at book settings.
2. Increase my cruise speed.
3. Not certain about climb rates - but she climbs real nice (easily get between 500 fpm and 1,000 fpm in central florida hot weather. But admit I haven't been scientific on my numbers).

My point is that there is no free lunch. On an aircraft like the C-177B it really seems to help. I cruise at an honest 130 KIAS and 7 - 8,000 ft indicated with a fuel flow about 1.0 - 1.5 gph greater than book of about 8.5- 9.5 gph ( IOW about 10 to 10.5 gph) than my fellow Cardinal owners seem to get.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Pete P.
1959 C-172
1976 C-177B
2015 Falco F8.l

[Francis Cahoon]

Pete, thanks for your input. As I asked this question, I had little or no information pertaining to said mod. In talking to the guy at powerflow, I think he said 9 guys had their exhaust on 170s. none had been returned as of last week. I brought up some of the stuff people on this form had mentioned such as prop balancing stricter engine requirements, etc. He answered all of them to my satisfaction. The insurance, I will have to ask about. Again one of the guys who called me, stated he had wreaked his plane but would not be interested in selling it to me. This keeps me thinking, the other guy I have mentioned, says it works. So if the other 7 guys are still out there flying with said mod, please respond or call me at 406-261-7046. It is like when guys tell me you cannot fly with any ice on your wings, I ask have you tried and if you tried what happened. Again thank you to all that have responded.

[GAHorn]

How many of the guys that died flying with ice on their wings responded to your question?

[Francis Cahoon]

Gahorn, my question about ice on your wings refers to how much, what type, total coverage, leading edge only, but apparently you must not know much about winter flying or you just are a smart ass? The question also might be in reference to can you even become airborne, things like that are what I am referring to. And if you have not experienced that type of flying then your input is not relevant to me.

[GAHorn]

Francis, I've only been flying professionally for about 43 years, most of it in commuter airlines and corporate jets. I know all I want to know about ice, first-hand.
Sorry if you can't enjoy a bit of humor.

[Francis Cahoon]

Gahorn, thanks for clearing that up for me. I applaud you for the years you have flown big planes etc. You must have all kinds of knowledge pertaining to that type of flying those types of planes. That is not what the question was about. Sorry if I miss lead you. It has snowed quite a little here in Montana recently, I have swept snow off my plane several times now, I thought that there was maybe someone in this club that had also flown in these conditions. Such as wildlife surveys, bird counts, etc. The pilot I use to shoot for no longer flys, so my go to guy is no longer around, so I asked you guys for some type of answer, keeping in mind snow, ice can and does change. As for taking a joke, I do not know you or your intentions, therefore I did not know your comment was to be taken humorously. If that was the case I will try harder to smile. Thank you F.Cahoon

[GAHorn]

Francis, the warnings you've likely heard regarding ice on airplanes is usually serious advice. Light planes (like single Cessnas) do not fly in ice. They are not certified in ice for good reason.
I used to own a 206, which is not much different in design as far as the wing goes, but has a LOT more horsepower (which should help it immensely in icing conditions.) I once flew it about 1,000 feet above the ground, beneath an overcast of drizzle in temperatures around 30 degrees. When the drizzle began to attach itself to the wings, the airplane lost about 10 mph... but the problem next was simply not being able to see straight ahead due to the iced-over windscreen. Kinda hard to see the airport much less line up with a runway. By the time I could get out of the drizzle, I felt like I was in serious trouble because even tho' the freezing drizzle had stopped.... there was no way to De-ice the airplane to safely land, and who knows where the stall-speed of the airplane was in that condition. I couldn't climb because I was not talking with ATC (too low) and couldn't descend because I was only just above the terrain as it was.
Luckily, I eventually broke out into the sunshine and over the next hour the ice sublimated off the airplane. It was pure luck.

On a different trip, in a Bonanza over the Cascades, ice built up so fast we lost altitude to the point of being at full power and barely able to maintain a few hundred feet above the terrain. We couldn't turn around due to terrain, couldn't climb due to lost performance. Again, we simply flew out of the area and eventually the ice sublimated. Lucky again.

Once on takeoff from San Angelo, TX (Cessna 425) on an IFR clearance with only a light coating of frost which had been "polished" to smoothness, the airplane stalled while in ground-effect while still over the runway. With the stall warning screaming despite being about 30 knots faster than the published stall speed, It simply would neither accelerate to flying speed nor climb out of ground effect. The takeoff was aborted after most of the runway had been used. That airplane was certificated and approved for flight into known ice, and the procedure of polishing the leading edges was (at that time) an approved method. Clearly, it didn't work and I felt well-educated after the experience.

My advice: Do not play with ice of any amount in airplanes not certified for it and even then, unless they are fully de-iced prior to takeoff. It's seriously good advice, and the only legal thing to do besides.

[Francis Cahoon]

gahorn, thank you for your last comment, that kind of response is what helps guys like me learn, and hope become better pilots. Maybe it would help people understand my questions if I explained what I have planed for me and my plane. I am a tribal member here on the Flathead Reservation in northwestern Montana. I plan on using my plane in the following ways, doing wildlife surveys in the winter, do predator control in the winter, doing aerial counts of fisherman on Flathead Lake spring and fall, bird surveys, search and rescue in the Mission Mountain Wilderness, fire suppression in the summer, etc. So if my questions seem dumb, please try to understand where I am coming from. Also if you would like me to send you a picture of one of the times my plane had ice on her wings let me know, In that question, I maybe should have explained that I had just sweep the snow and ice off and there was still stuff on a large part of the wing, thus I wondered if It would even become air born or stall out as I made my first turn. I fly from a grass strip that's fairly short, so I questioned my self, thus my question to guys like you. THank you F. Cahoon

[lowNslow]

DaveF, you and I are friends, and we both know that. My previous response was not an effort to denigrate you or your curiosity.
I only quoted their sales pitches. It's their words. The fact they make money off of people by making their strong claims just goes to prove that marketing works.... similar to motor oil arguments. Just because the FAA approved something to be installed on an airplane is absolutely NO proof any benefit is derived. It only proves FAA doesn't think there's any serious harm in it.

Seems Power Flow has called you out George.
http://www.powerflowsystems.com/news.php?nid=95

[ghostflyer]

Well I wonder if they will come to Australia for that challenge . As stated before I removed this bag of pipes due to a increase in fuel consumption and more noise . I had NO improvement in any flight characteristics .Harry Delicker ,s exhaust (coffee tin ) works very efficient .the power flow was removed from my aircraft . It was then fitted to a 172 due to its exhaust being beyond repair. I am now very curious now why if this design is so great why cessna and piper haven't taken it on board and use it as standard equipment . Making coffee tins exhaust is not cheap .