Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:25 AM - Franklin Versus Lycoming (flyseaplane)
2. 08:33 AM - Re: Franklin Versus Lycoming (Scott Bilinski)
3. 10:03 AM - Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (BERNDSENCO@aol.com)
4. 10:32 AM - Re: Franklin Versus Lycoming (Cy Galley)
5. 04:56 PM - 0-200 low power (John)
6. 09:26 PM - Re: Franklin Versus Lycoming (John Swartout)
7. 09:40 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (John Swartout)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Franklin Versus Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "flyseaplane" <flyseaplane@netzero.net>
" Saying that torque is measured directly whereas power isn't tends to imply
that there's something vague or misleading about power, or that torque is
somehow a more meaningful measurement. Those assertions aren't true,
either."
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Tedd,
In dealing with various installations of certified and non certified engines
on experimental aircraft, I must comment on one additional observation - - -
While two engines may produce similar power at a high power setting, the
lack of low- to mid- RPM torque can hinder the engine's ability to
accelerate the prop quickly, and "rated" take off power takes longer to
achieve.
This has nothing to do with Franklin versus Lycoming, however. Maybe I
should not have mentioned it.
I agree with a previous comment that two "CERTIFIED" engines should be
"expected" to produce the power they advertise - - - - as to the original
question as to why the Franklin makes more power per cubic inch, I do not
have a definitive answer without being able to test the two engines in
question side by side and see what their operating characteristics are.
I AM NOT deliberately trying to open any cans of worms here, or to offend or
infuriate anyone. I am merely expressing some generic comments and
observations. I was only offering some possibilities for the apparent
difference in power.
Happy Building, all.
Linc
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Franklin Versus Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
7:1 for the Franklin are you sure? When I looked at the web page a year ago
it was 10.5:1 or was it 10:1.
At 01:57 PM 5/31/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "flyseaplane" <flyseaplane@netzero.net>
>
>"Both engines rated 180 hp., both normally aspirated and carbureted. The
>Franklin 6A-335 B is 6 cylinders, 334 cubic inch, 7:1 compression, 2800 rpm
>red line. The Lycoming O-360 is 4 cylinders, 361 cubic inch, 8.5:1
>compression, 2700 rpm red line."
>
>There are several factors involved:
>1) You can not actually "measure" Horsepower, it must be mathematically
>derived by multiplying Torque (X) RPM and dividing by 5252 ( a constant)
>If the Franklin makes the SAME EXACT torque as the Lycoming, but at a higher
>RPM, it will automaticly have more horsepower.
>2) The manufacturers may rate the engine by different testing means. Perhaps
>the Lycoming makes 180 HP with the alternator running at full charge,
>spinning a vacuum pump, running through a muffler and sucking through an air
>filter. The Franklin may be bolted to the dyno with no accessories to rob
>power.
>3) No two dynos produce the same exact readings. Repeat that several times.
>4) Maybe Lycoming is assuming a worst case scenario, and Franklin is
>assuming best case. Everybody I have ever spoke to that has dynoed their
>"stock" Lycoming has said it made more power than it was rated at. A good
>friend of mine dyno'ed his Lycoming O-290-D2 (135 HP rated) at 143 HP. Eight
>more horsepower is a nice margin of error, that way you can guarantee you
>will get 135 out of it at most times, even when it is getting close to TBO.
>
>I would like to see both engines side-by-side on the same dyno. That would
>settle all wondering.
>
>Lincoln E. Schlecht
>EAA Tech Counselor #4434
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
To get back to the original question that started this string..... The
Franklins are much more efficient engines than the Lycomings. That's why they
put
out more HP per cubic inch, not because of different dyno measuring procedures
or tricks.
I have owned several Franklin 220s (350 c.i.) and have learned much about
them over the years. They have a tuned intake system as well as exhaust. The
Franklin is a free-breathing engine. It will produce far more MP at high
altitude than a typical Lycoming. At altitude is where the Franklin really shines.
The 220 does have a higher compression ratio (10.5) which adds to its
efficiency, but it is also the cam, valve, porting, cylinder head, and manifold
design that make it go. The engine is no heavier than the Lycoming 360, has 2
more
cylinders (silky smooth), is much less expensive to buy and overhaul, very
easy starting, and has incredibly few AD's. In my opinion, it's the finest
aircraft engine ever built. Too bad it never made it into a large-production
aircraft (Cessna or Piper) where it would have been much more common place.
Maule has been considering offering the Franklin 220 as one of its engine
options. I was told that they have a Franklin equipped test plane set up for all
the required flight testing. Reports are that under static testing, the
Franklin 220 Maule actually puts out more thrust than the Lycoming 235 model!
Jon Berndsen
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Franklin Versus Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
There are several versions of the Franklin 6 the O-335 is generally 7 to 1
The O-350 varies from 7 to 1 to above 10 to 1 depending on the version and
application.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Franklin Versus Lycoming
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> 7:1 for the Franklin are you sure? When I looked at the web page a year
ago
> it was 10.5:1 or was it 10:1.
>
>
> At 01:57 PM 5/31/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> Engines-List message posted by: "flyseaplane"
<flyseaplane@netzero.net>
> >
> >"Both engines rated 180 hp., both normally aspirated and carbureted. The
> >Franklin 6A-335 B is 6 cylinders, 334 cubic inch, 7:1 compression, 2800
rpm
> >red line. The Lycoming O-360 is 4 cylinders, 361 cubic inch, 8.5:1
> >compression, 2700 rpm red line."
> >
> >There are several factors involved:
> >1) You can not actually "measure" Horsepower, it must be
mathematically
> >derived by multiplying Torque (X) RPM and dividing by 5252 ( a constant)
> >If the Franklin makes the SAME EXACT torque as the Lycoming, but at a
higher
> >RPM, it will automaticly have more horsepower.
> >2) The manufacturers may rate the engine by different testing means.
Perhaps
> >the Lycoming makes 180 HP with the alternator running at full charge,
> >spinning a vacuum pump, running through a muffler and sucking through an
air
> >filter. The Franklin may be bolted to the dyno with no accessories to rob
> >power.
> >3) No two dynos produce the same exact readings. Repeat that several
times.
> >4) Maybe Lycoming is assuming a worst case scenario, and Franklin is
> >assuming best case. Everybody I have ever spoke to that has dynoed their
> >"stock" Lycoming has said it made more power than it was rated at. A
good
> >friend of mine dyno'ed his Lycoming O-290-D2 (135 HP rated) at 143 HP.
Eight
> >more horsepower is a nice margin of error, that way you can guarantee you
> >will get 135 out of it at most times, even when it is getting close to
TBO.
> >
> >I would like to see both engines side-by-side on the same dyno. That
would
> >settle all wondering.
> >
> >Lincoln E. Schlecht
> >EAA Tech Counselor #4434
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John" <goldcare@erols.com>
My 0-200 has 22 hours on a chrome major. Static runup is only 2200 on a warm day.
Full throttle at 2,000ft. produces 2550 rpm at 80 mph indicated. It's a high
drag amphibian. The problem is at 7,500 ft., full throttle, and leaned the
rpm drops to 2460 with an indicated of only 60 mph (true about 68). How is it
possible to go slower at altitude?
Some suggested I may have gotten the valve gear off by one tooth. Would an 0-200
run with a tooth off? I know the 74" wood prop is meant for cruise, and was
made for a C-90. I understand the C-90 has more torque at a lower rpm than the
0-200. Perhaps I should cut an inch off the prop to boost the rpm. Any thoughts?
John Allen
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Franklin Versus Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Bilinski
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Franklin Versus Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
7:1 for the Franklin are you sure? When I looked at the web page a year
ago
it was 10.5:1 or was it 10:1.
Remember I'm talking not about the 6A-350-C engine, rated usually at 220
hp; made by PZL in Poland until very recently. That one is 10.5:1. But
the 6A-335-B, also a six cylinder, but 4.5 inch bore instead of 4 5/8
inches, and 7.0:1 compression ratio. They only made about a hundred of
them, so they're kinda hard to find. The 350 was a further development
of the 335. There's a website with a wealth of information about all
the Franklins--and there were a LOT of different models-- it's
http://users.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/Franklin.html
FWIW, I'm told that the 6A-350 (350 cubic inches) is 220 hp, but rated
205 in Europe for tax/export reasons or some such. But if you look at
PZL's HP and torque curves for that engine, it doesn't reach 220 hp
until 3000 rpm. So perhaps it is a 220 hp engine, but only in the same
way the Jabiru 8-cylinder engine is a 180 hp engine (170 hp at 2750).
For my (seaplane) purposes all that horsepower over 2500 rpm is just
window dressing.
John
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Thank you, Jon. I was expecting an answer along those lines. I wonder
if you could answer a few more questions, based on your experience with
them.
I keep running across comments that the Franklin 220--in part because of
the fact that is high compression and working hard--typically only goes
around 800-1200 hours between overhauls, and tends to need new seals on
a regular basis. What's been your experience in that regard?
Also, I've been seriously considering putting a Franklin in my Zenith
801, but those who have done so have had to put the battery in the
tail--and sometimes an extra 20 or more pounds of lead in the tail as
well, partly because the engine weighs more than the 0-360 Zenith
recommends (type certificate for the Franklin 220 says 329 lbs, vs. the
Lycoming's 261 lbs. for a O-360-A4M (about in the middle of the pack for
the O-360 series). The ballast aft is only partly because of the
additional weight; the engine is longer, and can't be mounted as far aft
as the Lycoming because of the aft-sloping firewall of the 801. So,
although the Frank mounts the accessories aft, helping with the center
of gravity, the net result is still more weight further forward, and the
way this plane is designed, the Lyc mounts close to the firewall and the
Frank can't get that close. So good or bad, the Franklin seems to be a
bad match. But I am fascinated with the Franklin engine and always
interested in hearing the views of people who have driven them.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BERNDSENCO@aol.com
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
To get back to the original question that started this string..... The
Franklins are much more efficient engines than the Lycomings. That's
why they put
out more HP per cubic inch, not because of different dyno measuring
procedures
or tricks.
I have owned several Franklin 220s (350 c.i.) and have learned much
about
them over the years. They have a tuned intake system as well as
exhaust. The
Franklin is a free-breathing engine. It will produce far more MP at
high
altitude than a typical Lycoming. At altitude is where the Franklin
really shines.
The 220 does have a higher compression ratio (10.5) which adds to its
efficiency, but it is also the cam, valve, porting, cylinder head, and
manifold
design that make it go. The engine is no heavier than the Lycoming 360,
has 2 more
cylinders (silky smooth), is much less expensive to buy and overhaul,
very
easy starting, and has incredibly few AD's. In my opinion, it's the
finest
aircraft engine ever built. Too bad it never made it into a
large-production
aircraft (Cessna or Piper) where it would have been much more common
place.
Maule has been considering offering the Franklin 220 as one of its
engine
options. I was told that they have a Franklin equipped test plane set
up for all
the required flight testing. Reports are that under static testing, the
Franklin 220 Maule actually puts out more thrust than the Lycoming 235
model!
Jon Berndsen
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|