Member Support

  • Advertisement
0

POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Share Your Feedback On Products And Services With The Rest Of The Gang!
Forum rules
This forum is not the right place for sellers and manufacturers to introduce their product or solicit membership feedback. Posts are closely monitored and will be deleted if unpaid advertising appears here.

Topics/ Items discussed are not paid advertisings/ endorsements for any specific product and no compensation/ reimbursement has been received to introduce or discuss any product here. If Seaplaneforum.com has received any reimbursement for introducing any product, this will be properly disclaimed in the respective post.

Seller/ Distributor retains all liability and responsibility for the accuracy, legality and usability of any products. Shared for informational purposes only. All Rights Reserved. Questions/ Concerns? seaplaneforum@gmail.com Thank you. J. Baker (Owner/Publisher Seaplaneforum.com)

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:06 pm

The Force is strong in me!
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Tim McCormack » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:29 pm

We could pick that video apart, but I'd still have to say that's pretty impressive. I wonder if the planes all had similar props. ? If everything they claim is true it looks like a nice addition. It would be even more impressive on the 180 HP. What does the system cost? Does it have to be installed by them or can an A&P do it? Does it make the exhaust note louder? That's one thing I'd hate to change on my 172 with the 180 Lycoming. I get a lot of comments on how quiet my plane is, especially compared to a Lake that operates from the same water in the Adirondack Mountains of New York State that I do.
User avatar
Tim McCormack
Platinum Wings Member
Platinum Wings Member
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Marcy, New YOrk

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby cubdriver2 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:28 pm

RKittine wrote:Just remember, "Let the Force Be With You".


But you can takeoff shorter if it's against you :cowwave:

Glenn
cubdriver2
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:01 pm

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:35 am

Tim McCormack wrote:We could pick that video apart, but I'd still have to say that's pretty impressive. I wonder if the planes all had similar props. ? If everything they claim is true it looks like a nice addition. It would be even more impressive on the 180 HP. What does the system cost? Does it have to be installed by them or can an A&P do it? Does it make the exhaust note louder? That's one thing I'd hate to change on my 172 with the 180 Lycoming. I get a lot of comments on how quiet my plane is, especially compared to a Lake that operates from the same water in the Adirondack Mountains of New York State that I do.


From the powerflow website, it looks like it's about $4k in parts (minus the discounts they're always running). Any A&P can do the installation, I believe - I think it consists of removing the old exhaust headers and installing the PF system. As far as the exhaust note, I don't have a good basis for comparison, but I do know that I watched a couple guys take a test flight and as soon as they were 30-40 yards out onto the water, I couldn't hear a thing. Even at takeoff, it was very quiet. It would stand to reason that improved airflow would make for less noise, though I don't have any data to back that up.

You'd have a high performance plane at that point! Nominally, anyways...
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:37 am

Float Pilot wrote:What prop pitch does the Force have on her seaplane prop?


I'm 99% sure the prop is a McCauley 1A175/ATM 8042. 42 inch pitch?
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Float Pilot » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:10 pm

That is the standard seaplane prop for a 160hp , C172,,,, I was just wondering if the Power Flow added enough zoom that it might have had to be repitched a little so you would not go over red-line
User avatar
Float Pilot
Silver Wings Member
Silver Wings Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:28 pm
Location: Kachemak Bay, Alaska

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:29 pm

That's an interesting point - it actually will go over the red line if you're not vigilant.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby KlausNW » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:12 pm

If you were to select a propeller pitch by the book... :?:

The Type Certificate Data Sheet or the STC that approves the engine installation will give the RPM range. The numbers they give is for a "Static RPM" (stationary full throttle run-up with no wind).

According to an engineer in the know, the RPM range given in the TCDS is for best performance. If your engine is healthy and the Static RPM is at the low number of the range you'll get best cruise speed and if the RPM is at the higher number then you'll get your best take-off performance. Obviously the propeller pitch could be lower and give better take-off but you'll have only partial power output in cruise flight even with a red line RPM. When you pull the throttle back to prevent running over red line you lower the manifold pressure, ie the power loss.
Klaus Marx - Piper Pacer Pilot
Juneau, AK & Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . Click on Link Bar to view the 'non-profit' group.
Image Image
Image
User avatar
KlausNW
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Tim McCormack » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:08 pm

TriPacer wrote:
Float Pilot wrote:What prop pitch does the Force have on her seaplane prop?


I'm 99% sure the prop is a McCauley 1A175/ATM 8042. 42 inch pitch?


That's interesting. I've got an 82X42 prop on my 180HP Lycoming and I can't get 2700 RPM out of it. I'm thinking that I lose some horsepower because of it. The 80" prop would likely bring the rev's up, but I wonder what would happen to the take-off, "climb", power.??? The prop wouldn't have as much bite.

Someone suggested de-pitching mine a little.

I'm sure I've told the story before about trying a constant speed prop but being very disappointed in the take-off performance. I took it back off and sold it after one seaplane season. If I recall correctly, it was a 76" Sensenich.
User avatar
Tim McCormack
Platinum Wings Member
Platinum Wings Member
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Marcy, New YOrk

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Float Pilot » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:43 pm

I wanted to try an 82 inch on mine, but getting a-hold of a field approval was a problem. EVEN WITH A COPY, THERE WAS NOT CERTAINTY THAT IT WOULD BE RE-APPROVED UP HERE. So I went with the 80 inch. I even sent off to the FAA records section for a copy of plane records for a pilot who thinks he has a field approval for his longer prop. There was no mention in the FAA records.
User avatar
Float Pilot
Silver Wings Member
Silver Wings Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:28 pm
Location: Kachemak Bay, Alaska

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Tim McCormack » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:38 pm

Float Pilot wrote:I wanted to try an 82 inch on mine, but getting a-hold of a field approval was a problem. EVEN WITH A COPY, THERE WAS NOT CERTAINTY THAT IT WOULD BE RE-APPROVED UP HERE. So I went with the 80 inch. I even sent off to the FAA records section for a copy of plane records for a pilot who thinks he has a field approval for his longer prop. There was no mention in the FAA records.


I've got one for mine. It should be a no-brainer for your FSDO. As I've said a number of times, we're very luck around here to have a good guy to work with (Al Miller) in the Albany NY FSDO.
User avatar
Tim McCormack
Platinum Wings Member
Platinum Wings Member
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:19 pm
Location: Marcy, New YOrk

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Float Pilot » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:02 am

FISDO folks get by without making any big decisions if at all possible.
User avatar
Float Pilot
Silver Wings Member
Silver Wings Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:28 pm
Location: Kachemak Bay, Alaska

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:07 pm

I'll have to check with the old owner. I found the records for the prop overhauls (it has a seaplane and landplane prop) but it makes no mention of what kind they are. I got that McCauley number from the TCDS...
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Float Pilot » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:14 pm

If you do not have a prop log, It might be restamped on the hub.
User avatar
Float Pilot
Silver Wings Member
Silver Wings Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:28 pm
Location: Kachemak Bay, Alaska

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby jjbaker » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:04 am

Alex,

You might get your Power Flow for hot air and rubber balloons. Looks like all ya gotta do is bark about them being ineffective and they'll give you one...temporarily. Aggression based marketing enters General Aviation. Hahahahaaa!

:ROFL:

Shoot Down @ High Noon:

SHOOT-DOWN AT HIGH NOON CHALLENGE

Power Flow Proudly Proclaims Our:
SHOOT-DOWN AT HIGH NOON CHALLENGE

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895

“This fellow[Charles Lindbergh] will never make it. He's doomed.” — Harry Guggenheim, after studying The Spirit of St. Louis at Curtiss Field, 1927.

“The Americans cannot build aeroplanes. They are very good at refrigerators and razor blades.”— Hermann Goering, German Air Force Minister, in letter to Hitler, 1940.

"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."— A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Fred Smith later started FedEx. 1965.

Let’s Face It: “Experts” (particularly those of the self-anointed variety) frequently get it wrong.

Normally, we are able to write these pontifications off as no more than cheap amusement. When their baseless criticisms and unfounded judgments adversely affect our Customers and our business reputation, though, we feel compelled to respond.

Since we follow many of the same General Aviation web sites, blogs and User’s Forums as you do, we are equally aware of some of the “experts” who feel compelled to inflate their own authority (or maybe just their own self-esteem) by taking pot-shots at the products and services produced by Power Flow’s team of dedicated men and women who work hard to provide our Customers with great service and a top-notch, high performance upgrade.

It is with more than a little satisfaction and with an abundance of self-confidence, therefore, that we hereby challenge any and all nay-sayers and harbingers of doom to a:


Shoot Down at High Noon

We invite any of the aforementioned experts who have any doubts whatsoever about any of the performance improvements stated by Power Flow Systems in any of its product literature or marketing materials to the following contest:

You name the time and the place, supply a registered, airworthy, adequately instrumented aircraft for which Power Flow offers an STC’d Tuned Exhaust System kit, and invite as many witnesses to the contest as you would like.

Power Flow will (at our own expense):

I. Travel to your selected site (within any of the 50 United States)

II. Bring a complete Power Flow System configured for the aircraft you specify

III. Conduct a thorough, documented inspection of your aircraft to verify that it is airworthy and operating within normal parameters

IV. Run a comprehensive series of “Before and After” Flight Test profiles to measure and document each of Power Flow’s published performance parameters.

& - (Here’s the fun part!):

V. If the results of these tests (as verified by an independent, impartial observer) do not equal or exceed the minimum gains stated by Power Flow, we will donate $1,000.00 to any recognized aviation related non-profit organization of the challenger’s choice.

VI. If the results DO verify our stated performance gains the challenger agrees to donate $1,000.00 to the recognized aviation related non-profit organization of Power Flow's choice.

VII. At the conclusion of the Challenge flights, we WILL remove the Power Flow System (Sorry, but No, you don't get to keep it - Nice try, though!) and re-install the aircraft's original exhaust system.

VIII. The particulars, progress, and results of ALL challenges (win, lose or draw) will be published on Power Flow's web site

(Looks like it’s time to “Put up or Shut Up”!)


:popcorn: :cheers:
User avatar
jjbaker
Owner/ Admin
Owner/ Admin
 
Posts: 5666
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:09 pm

Float Pilot wrote:What prop pitch does the Force have on her seaplane prop?


I found it for sure this time looking through the logs - it's a McCauley 1A175/ETM 8042. Not the ATM. Whatever that means.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby KlausNW » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:14 pm

McCauley 1A175/ETM 8042


The 8042 means 80 inch from tip to tip and 42 inch pitch measured at a specific position on the blades.

In theory the propeller will travel 42 inches forward with each full rotation.
Klaus Marx - Piper Pacer Pilot
Juneau, AK & Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . Click on Link Bar to view the 'non-profit' group.
Image Image
Image
User avatar
KlausNW
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:39 pm

Thanks, Klaus - that part I understand - it's the ETM vs ATM that I don't get. Both are listed in the TCDS as acceptable seaplane props. Maybe a bolt-hole arrangement or something?
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby Float Pilot » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:52 pm

One is the older version of the same prop.
User avatar
Float Pilot
Silver Wings Member
Silver Wings Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:28 pm
Location: Kachemak Bay, Alaska

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby jjbaker » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:05 pm

ATM = Out of production model @ McCauley (will be overhauled if within serviceable parameters)
ETM = Current production @ McCauley - for a while the guy thought there is a difference in the indexing holes, but wouldn't go solid on that.

According to McCauley (15 minutes on the phone with them) there is no easily found difference between both as the ATM drawings are scans and very old.

Both props are the "seaplane only" version for the 172.
Means unless you come up with an offroad lift kit, the plane may make different sounds while taxiing on wheels.
Its quite a big sword of a prop from what I remember of the 180hp 172 I flew on floats.

Type Certificate Cessna 172 3A12_Rev_83.pdf
(86.15 KiB) Downloaded 107 times
User avatar
jjbaker
Owner/ Admin
Owner/ Admin
 
Posts: 5666
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: POWER-FLOW EXHUAST, anyone using one?

Unread postby TriPacer » Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:00 pm

Did you call McCauley just for this? You are bored today, aren't you? :lol:

Seriously though - thanks if you did - that's interesting stuff.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Previous

Return to Seaplane Product Reviews & Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests