|
Bill Zaleski <wrz@instrumentratings.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:19:17 -0700, Jack Allison
><k2_boardrider@rem0ve.th1s.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>> I've had the Air Plains O-360 conversion in my 172N for 16 years
>>> (3500 hours now). I'm an A&P and IA. The Air Plains documentation
>>> is much better, the installation is easier, and the product support is
>>> great. It makes a poor man's 182 out of a 172, No complaints. Penn
>>> Yan is right in my back yard, but I do not regret getting my STC from
>>> the Kansas facility.
>>
>>A '65 C172 that I used to rent had their Air Plains conversion combined
>>with a Powerflow exhaust. Overall performance seemed comparable to a
>>new 172SP. Given my experience, if I was facing engine
>>rebuild/replacement on a similar C172, I would consider the superhawk
>>conversion.
>
>I had the Powerflow exhaust on my 0-360. There was absolutely no
>measurable increase in power. This measurement was carefully done
>using temperature and density altitude corrections. No static
>increase in RPM, hence no increase in power. No increase in airspeed
>or climb performance. I had over 3500 hours of experience in that 172
>prior to the exhaust install. I sent it back and got a refund. At
>least I didn't pay an A&P about $700 to put it on, then take it off
>again. It MAY give a performance increase on some engines, but not on
>my O-360.
If this is true then that's certainly disappointing. Though it
actually transpires the powerflow is cheaper than a new Cessna exhaust
so we are going with the Powerflow anyway.
|
|
Re: Seeking opinion on Penn Yan SuperHawk O-360
