The International Cessna 170 Association

They say they will only travel in the USA

lowNslow wrote:

gahorn wrote:
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

Yes, their "offer" is still more B.S.
They want to install their system on an airplane only after THEY approve the particular airplane.
Then they will modify YOUR airpalne and if they can prove (without mentioning WHO the designated judge is) their NEW system improved your performance (over your old/used system full of carbon) you must PAY them for their system.
If their judge canNOT prove it made any improvement, they will remove their system.
the $1,000 "bet" will not cover your expenses nor insure your airplane against the wear and tear they will likely put on your airplane, NOR will it remove the wear and tear of uselessly installing/removing exhaust systems.

I have a response: Install an OEM factory NEW exhaust system on the subject airplane and use an agreed test program run by a disinterested third party/engineering test pilot. Then install the PowerFlow system, and repeat the test.
Whichever system wins will be paid for by the loser. (and if the OEM system wins, Powerflow will give the aircraft owner all the profits earned by the OEM system mfr's for the next 20 years....which is what Powerflow expects to profit when they convert their own theory to sales by publishing "Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Naaa" using the owners embarrassment as a sales tool. Turn about is fair play.)

Alternatively, for his trouble, PowerFlow can install an upgraded new engine to give the owner the performance they promised.

Bottom Line: PF cannot produce scientifically derived test data in production airplanes. This latest "challenge" is designed to gain them publicity they hope to convert to sales. It has almost no down-side for them, but plenty of risk for the airplane owner who has little to gain. If they win... PF wins big.
If they lose, PF has lot's of wiggle-room and has no obligation to continue to publish the losing data.

George, I am with you on this one 110% . I have tried the PF on my aircraft and didn't like it due to the increased fuel consumption and noise , I then reverted back to a new coffee can exhaust ,it being quieter and less fuel consumption ,and CHEAPER. Plus less maintenance .

this is still very interesting to me. I am still looking for any proven mod to shorten takeoff distance. the good year tires are great, opens more landings spots for sure.

its been said before somewhere but clean out your aircraft of all good junk that might come in handy one day. Out with the back seat and make sure all the flight controls are rigged correctly. have a look at all the panels and their fit in the airflow.Wash your aircraft and give it a polish. Plus make sure your tire pressures are correct or slighly higher. Have a look at your prop and make sure all dings have been blended . All this will help your aircraft leap off the ground .

Also, confirm you have a "climb" prop. (7651 or lower pitch)