|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:31:02 GMT, mark@burkley.net (Mark B) wrote:
>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.
Your money is better spent elsewhere. The performance promises are
just not there to justifly the expense. Do you think that Cessna
didn't already try to get more performance out of their design before
this?
|
|
Re: Seeking opinion on Penn Yan SuperHawk O-360
