Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:13 AM - Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (BERNDSENCO@aol.com)
2. 08:06 AM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Fergus Kyle)
3. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Aucountry@aol.com)
4. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (James R. Cunningham)
5. 11:31 AM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Tedd McHenry)
6. 03:32 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (John Swartout)
7. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Scott Bilinski)
8. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Konrad Werner)
9. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (kc)
10. 04:46 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Justin)
11. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming (Aucountry@aol.com)
Message 1
| 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
John,
The 220 HP Franklin weighs 300 lbs with all accessories, minus prop. I have
a photo of the Franklin 220 with all accessories mounted, hanging from a
scale; 300 lbs. It is my understanding that the Lycoming weight you refer to does
not include accessories. You are correct that the Franklin's center of
gravity is further aft in relation to the center of the engine than a Lycoming
360,
however, if you cannot mount the Franklin close to your firewall, I can see
the W/B problem. Also part of the W/B problem with the Zenith/Franklin combo
might be the weight of the C/S prop on the Franklin Vs a lightweight fixed pitch
prop on the Lycoming. You might look into a Franklin helicopter engine using
a fixed pitch prop. Much lighter weight than the C/S version. That would
lighten the front-end weight of the Franklin quite a bit.
As for TBO, the Franklin was rated at 1500 hours back in the late 1950s.
That was with no oil filter and the oil technology of the time. Today, we are
all using high quality oil filters and modern technology oils, and if the engine
isn't abused, we are seeing 2000 hours before overhaul is needed. Yes, the
Franklin does have higher compression and puts out more HP per C.I. but the
cylinders have steel sleeves inserted into the aluminum jugs and steel valve seat
inserts, and that helps with the wear. Besides, you can buy a new Franklin
engine for the cost of a Lycoming overhaul. What we recommend doing is instead
of overhauling your Franklin, buy a new one and sell the old one. You end up
with a new engine for half the cost of overhauling a Lycoming!
As for the seals, the Franklin does have a reputation for seeping a little
more oil than the Lycomings, but if the engine is not overheated and the seals
cooked, it is not a big problem. I do recommend putting an air/oil separator
on the Franklin. It does have a little more blow-by due to its high
compression, and the separator will help keep that belly clean.
One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or any
other engine. How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of that ever
accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its recommended TBO time?
Yes, a certified airplane that is used in commercial or club/partnership
situations will see TBO several times in its life. Most of us experimental
drivers never even get close to putting 1500 or 2000 hours on our planes. Chances
are, we will need to overhaul our engines due to accumulation of years and
lack of use rather than reaching TBO time. Inactivity will wear out an engine
faster than anything. In my opinion, putting a lot of weight on which engine to
buy based upon the recommended TBO is not that practical in our type of
casual sport flying.
By the way, the Franklin 220 does in fact put out 220 HP at 2800 rpm. Not
3000.
Jon Berndsen
In a message dated 6/3/2003 2:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> --> 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
>
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 vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Jon Berndsen:
You have really proven the value of this wonderful medium in clarifying
the remarks made by various folk about the Franklin engine. We have several
at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in nearby Hamilton and I will
take your remarks to the Head Honcho tomorrow. I'm sure he'll be enlightened as
the engine is not all that prevalent here.
Many thanks again,
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064
----- Original Message -----
From: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
John,
The 220 HP Franklin weighs 300 lbs with all accessories, minus prop. I have
a photo of the Franklin 220 with all accessories mounted, hanging from a
scale; 300 lbs. It is my understanding that the Lycoming weight you refer to
does
not include accessories. You are correct that the Franklin's center of
gravity is further aft in relation to the center of the engine than a Lycoming
360,
however, if you cannot mount the Franklin close to your firewall, I can see
the W/B problem. Also part of the W/B problem with the Zenith/Franklin combo
might be the weight of the C/S prop on the Franklin Vs a lightweight fixed pitch
prop on the Lycoming. You might look into a Franklin helicopter engine using
a fixed pitch prop. Much lighter weight than the C/S version. That would
lighten the front-end weight of the Franklin quite a bit.
As for TBO, the Franklin was rated at 1500 hours back in the late 1950s.
That was with no oil filter and the oil technology of the time. Today, we are
all using high quality oil filters and modern technology oils, and if the engine
isn't abused, we are seeing 2000 hours before overhaul is needed. Yes, the
Franklin does have higher compression and puts out more HP per C.I. but the
cylinders have steel sleeves inserted into the aluminum jugs and steel valve
seat
inserts, and that helps with the wear. Besides, you can buy a new Franklin
engine for the cost of a Lycoming overhaul. What we recommend doing is instead
of overhauling your Franklin, buy a new one and sell the old one. You end up
with a new engine for half the cost of overhauling a Lycoming!
As for the seals, the Franklin does have a reputation for seeping a little
more oil than the Lycomings, but if the engine is not overheated and the seals
cooked, it is not a big problem. I do recommend putting an air/oil separator
on the Franklin. It does have a little more blow-by due to its high
compression, and the separator will help keep that belly clean.
One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or any
other engine. How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of that ever
accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its recommended TBO
time?
Yes, a certified airplane that is used in commercial or club/partnership
situations will see TBO several times in its life. Most of us experimental
drivers never even get close to putting 1500 or 2000 hours on our planes. Chances
are, we will need to overhaul our engines due to accumulation of years and
lack of use rather than reaching TBO time. Inactivity will wear out an engine
faster than anything. In my opinion, putting a lot of weight on which engine
to
buy based upon the recommended TBO is not that practical in our type of
casual sport flying.
By the way, the Franklin 220 does in fact put out 220 HP at 2800 rpm. Not
3000.
Jon Berndsen
In a message dated 6/3/2003 2:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> --> 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
>
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: Aucountry@aol.com
In a message dated 06/03/03 07:14:03 AM, BERNDSENCO@aol.com writes:
> One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or any
> other engine.=A0 How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of that ever
> accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its recommended TBO
> time?
>
And, one other thing: the Franklin recently had an AD requiring the
replacement of it's $65 diaphram fuel pump with an $1100 vane fuel pump.
And, one other thing: Side-by-side, at altitude (8000+ feet) you can't pull
the power back to 2400-2500 RPM and dial in the prop to keep the speed up
like you can with a Lycoming. Bottom end torque is not all that good. If you
like running at 2800 RPM, then the Franklin is great.
10:1 pistons are available for a Lycoming. For the experimental crowd, an
IO360 with 10:1 and port and polish will put out over 230 hp. Add long rods
and advance the cam a couple degrees and it'll put out a lot of low end torque
and still turn 2800+ rpm and well over 230 hp.
Let the controversary begin.
Gary
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 vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
10.5 pistons are available for Lycomings.
> 10:1 pistons are available for a Lycoming. For the experimental crowd, an
> IO360 with 10:1 and port and polish will put out over 230 hp. Add long rods
> and advance the cam a couple degrees and it'll put out a lot of low end torque
> and still turn 2800+ rpm and well over 230 hp.
>
> Let the controversary begin.
> Gary
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Gary:
> And, one other thing: Side-by-side, at altitude (8000+ feet) you can't pull
> the power back to 2400-2500 RPM and dial in the prop to keep the speed up
> like you can with a Lycoming. Bottom end torque is not all that good. If
> you like running at 2800 RPM, then the Franklin is great.
(a) Even at 2800 RPM the Franklin's piston speed is 7 percent less than the
Lycoming's is at 2400 RPM, so you're still ahead, wear-wise.
(b) You can't literally have to cruise at 2800 RPM in the Franklin because it
will develop 75 percent power at some RPM below that (at 8,000 feet), even if
it's more than 2400 RPM.
(c) With six cylinders the Franklin is liable to be smoother in cruise,
regardless of any RPM difference.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: | Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Gary, how do you "add long rods?"--wouldn't that change the compression?
Just for kicks, what would you think about taking an O-360, reducing the
compression to 7.2:1 (to burn premium mogas), Bendix fuel injection,
port and polish, and single electronic ignition (keeping one magneto)?
Would it produce 200 hp at 2700?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aucountry@aol.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: Aucountry@aol.com
In a message dated 06/03/03 07:14:03 AM, BERNDSENCO@aol.com writes:
> One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or
any
> other engine.=A0 How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of
that ever
> accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its
recommended TBO
> time?
>
And, one other thing: the Franklin recently had an AD requiring the
replacement of it's $65 diaphram fuel pump with an $1100 vane fuel pump.
And, one other thing: Side-by-side, at altitude (8000+ feet) you can't
pull
the power back to 2400-2500 RPM and dial in the prop to keep the speed
up
like you can with a Lycoming. Bottom end torque is not all that good.
If you
like running at 2800 RPM, then the Franklin is great.
10:1 pistons are available for a Lycoming. For the experimental crowd,
an
IO360 with 10:1 and port and polish will put out over 230 hp. Add long
rods
and advance the cam a couple degrees and it'll put out a lot of low end
torque
and still turn 2800+ rpm and well over 230 hp.
Let the controversary begin.
Gary
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: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Sounds like 185 to 190 is easy. Also add a Superior Air parts sump for
another 5 hp. To bad about that damn alcohol in the gas out here. I have
not checked but I think it is, or will be in all gas soon.
At 06:31 PM 6/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Gary, how do you "add long rods?"--wouldn't that change the compression?
>
>Just for kicks, what would you think about taking an O-360, reducing the
>compression to 7.2:1 (to burn premium mogas), Bendix fuel injection,
>port and polish, and single electronic ignition (keeping one magneto)?
>Would it produce 200 hp at 2700?
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Aucountry@aol.com
>To: engines-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
>
>--> Engines-List message posted by: Aucountry@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 06/03/03 07:14:03 AM, BERNDSENCO@aol.com writes:
>
>
>> One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or
>any
>> other engine.=A0 How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of
>that ever
>> accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its
>recommended TBO
>> time?
>>
>
>And, one other thing: the Franklin recently had an AD requiring the
>replacement of it's $65 diaphram fuel pump with an $1100 vane fuel pump.
>
>
>And, one other thing: Side-by-side, at altitude (8000+ feet) you can't
>pull
>the power back to 2400-2500 RPM and dial in the prop to keep the speed
>up
>like you can with a Lycoming. Bottom end torque is not all that good.
>If you
>like running at 2800 RPM, then the Franklin is great.
>
>10:1 pistons are available for a Lycoming. For the experimental crowd,
>an
>IO360 with 10:1 and port and polish will put out over 230 hp. Add long
>rods
>and advance the cam a couple degrees and it'll put out a lot of low end
>torque
>and still turn 2800+ rpm and well over 230 hp.
>
>Let the controversary begin.
>Gary
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 8
| 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: "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner@wans.net>
Long rods ??? With what pistons?
P.S.: You can burn Premium Mogas in the Lycoming without lowering the compression
to 7.2 : 1 (as per the Peterson Website)
See: www.autofuelstc.com
http://www.webworksltd.com/WebPub/PetersenAviation/ApprovedEngines.html
----- Original Message -----
From: John Swartout
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Gary, how do you "add long rods?"--wouldn't that change the compression?
Just for kicks, what would you think about taking an O-360, reducing the
compression to 7.2:1 (to burn premium mogas), Bendix fuel injection,
port and polish, and single electronic ignition (keeping one magneto)?
Would it produce 200 hp at 2700?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Aucountry@aol.com
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
--> Engines-List message posted by: Aucountry@aol.com
In a message dated 06/03/03 07:14:03 AM, BERNDSENCO@aol.com writes:
> One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or
any
> other engine.A0 How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of
that ever
> accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its
recommended TBO
> time?
>
And, one other thing: the Franklin recently had an AD requiring the
replacement of it's $65 diaphram fuel pump with an $1100 vane fuel pump.
And, one other thing: Side-by-side, at altitude (8000+ feet) you can't
pull
the power back to 2400-2500 RPM and dial in the prop to keep the speed
up
like you can with a Lycoming. Bottom end torque is not all that good.
If you
like running at 2800 RPM, then the Franklin is great.
10:1 pistons are available for a Lycoming. For the experimental crowd,
an
IO360 with 10:1 and port and polish will put out over 230 hp. Add long
rods
and advance the cam a couple degrees and it'll put out a lot of low end
torque
and still turn 2800+ rpm and well over 230 hp.
Let the controversary begin.
Gary
Message 9
| 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: "kc" <samdacat@elp.rr.com>
??Does anyone know where a new Franklin can currently be purchased?? I am
convinced that it is the correct engine BUT I have not been able to locate a
source. The distributor on Colorado does not have any engines and does not
know when he will have any in stock.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BERNDSENCO@aol.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
> --> Engines-List message posted by: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
>
> John,
>
> The 220 HP Franklin weighs 300 lbs with all accessories, minus prop. I
have
> a photo of the Franklin 220 with all accessories mounted, hanging from a
> scale; 300 lbs. It is my understanding that the Lycoming weight you refer
to does
> not include accessories. You are correct that the Franklin's center of
> gravity is further aft in relation to the center of the engine than a
Lycoming 360,
> however, if you cannot mount the Franklin close to your firewall, I can
see
> the W/B problem. Also part of the W/B problem with the Zenith/Franklin
combo
> might be the weight of the C/S prop on the Franklin Vs a lightweight fixed
pitch
> prop on the Lycoming. You might look into a Franklin helicopter engine
using
> a fixed pitch prop. Much lighter weight than the C/S version. That would
> lighten the front-end weight of the Franklin quite a bit.
>
> As for TBO, the Franklin was rated at 1500 hours back in the late 1950s.
> That was with no oil filter and the oil technology of the time. Today, we
are
> all using high quality oil filters and modern technology oils, and if the
engine
> isn't abused, we are seeing 2000 hours before overhaul is needed. Yes,
the
> Franklin does have higher compression and puts out more HP per C.I. but
the
> cylinders have steel sleeves inserted into the aluminum jugs and steel
valve seat
> inserts, and that helps with the wear. Besides, you can buy a new
Franklin
> engine for the cost of a Lycoming overhaul. What we recommend doing is
instead
> of overhauling your Franklin, buy a new one and sell the old one. You end
up
> with a new engine for half the cost of overhauling a Lycoming!
>
> As for the seals, the Franklin does have a reputation for seeping a little
> more oil than the Lycomings, but if the engine is not overheated and the
seals
> cooked, it is not a big problem. I do recommend putting an air/oil
separator
> on the Franklin. It does have a little more blow-by due to its high
> compression, and the separator will help keep that belly clean.
>
> One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or any
> other engine. How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of that
ever
> accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its recommended
TBO time?
> Yes, a certified airplane that is used in commercial or club/partnership
> situations will see TBO several times in its life. Most of us
experimental
> drivers never even get close to putting 1500 or 2000 hours on our planes.
Chances
> are, we will need to overhaul our engines due to accumulation of years and
> lack of use rather than reaching TBO time. Inactivity will wear out an
engine
> faster than anything. In my opinion, putting a lot of weight on which
engine to
> buy based upon the recommended TBO is not that practical in our type of
> casual sport flying.
>
> By the way, the Franklin 220 does in fact put out 220 HP at 2800 rpm. Not
> 3000.
>
> Jon Berndsen
>
> In a message dated 6/3/2003 2:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> > --> 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
> >
>
>
Message 10
| 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: "Justin" <jmw116@socal.rr.com>
I have flown a Lycoming O-320 150HP rather than 160 due to the lower
commpresion pistons and it is NOT the smoothest engine ever. It does indeed
burn 91 octane from the autopump and burns little gas for it's kind but I
have also flown in an airplane runnign the 6cylnder franklin and it is an
uncomparable battle. The 6cyl gives it a smooth ride.
Of corse this is not only due to the engine, prop balance also plays a
roll in this among other things im sure.
Justin
KR2S CORVAIR (6cyl)
----- Original Message -----
From: "kc" <samdacat@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "kc" <samdacat@elp.rr.com>
>
> ??Does anyone know where a new Franklin can currently be purchased?? I am
> convinced that it is the correct engine BUT I have not been able to locate
a
> source. The distributor on Colorado does not have any engines and does
not
> know when he will have any in stock.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BERNDSENCO@aol.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Re: Franklin vs. Lycoming
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: BERNDSENCO@aol.com
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The 220 HP Franklin weighs 300 lbs with all accessories, minus prop. I
> have
> > a photo of the Franklin 220 with all accessories mounted, hanging from a
> > scale; 300 lbs. It is my understanding that the Lycoming weight you
refer
> to does
> > not include accessories. You are correct that the Franklin's center of
> > gravity is further aft in relation to the center of the engine than a
> Lycoming 360,
> > however, if you cannot mount the Franklin close to your firewall, I can
> see
> > the W/B problem. Also part of the W/B problem with the Zenith/Franklin
> combo
> > might be the weight of the C/S prop on the Franklin Vs a lightweight
fixed
> pitch
> > prop on the Lycoming. You might look into a Franklin helicopter engine
> using
> > a fixed pitch prop. Much lighter weight than the C/S version. That
would
> > lighten the front-end weight of the Franklin quite a bit.
> >
> > As for TBO, the Franklin was rated at 1500 hours back in the late 1950s.
> > That was with no oil filter and the oil technology of the time. Today,
we
> are
> > all using high quality oil filters and modern technology oils, and if
the
> engine
> > isn't abused, we are seeing 2000 hours before overhaul is needed. Yes,
> the
> > Franklin does have higher compression and puts out more HP per C.I. but
> the
> > cylinders have steel sleeves inserted into the aluminum jugs and steel
> valve seat
> > inserts, and that helps with the wear. Besides, you can buy a new
> Franklin
> > engine for the cost of a Lycoming overhaul. What we recommend doing is
> instead
> > of overhauling your Franklin, buy a new one and sell the old one. You
end
> up
> > with a new engine for half the cost of overhauling a Lycoming!
> >
> > As for the seals, the Franklin does have a reputation for seeping a
little
> > more oil than the Lycomings, but if the engine is not overheated and the
> seals
> > cooked, it is not a big problem. I do recommend putting an air/oil
> separator
> > on the Franklin. It does have a little more blow-by due to its high
> > compression, and the separator will help keep that belly clean.
> >
> > One last thing to consider about TBO lengths, Franklin Vs Lycoming, or
any
> > other engine. How many sport/experimental aircraft do yo know of that
> ever
> > accumulate enough hours to bring an engine anywhere near its recommended
> TBO time?
> > Yes, a certified airplane that is used in commercial or
club/partnership
> > situations will see TBO several times in its life. Most of us
> experimental
> > drivers never even get close to putting 1500 or 2000 hours on our
planes.
> Chances
> > are, we will need to overhaul our engines due to accumulation of years
and
> > lack of use rather than reaching TBO time. Inactivity will wear out an
> engine
> > faster than anything. In my opinion, putting a lot of weight on which
> engine to
> > buy based upon the recommended TBO is not that practical in our type of
> > casual sport flying.
> >
> > By the way, the Franklin 220 does in fact put out 220 HP at 2800 rpm.
Not
> > 3000.
> >
> > Jon Berndsen
> >
> > In a message dated 6/3/2003 2:56:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> >
> > > --> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
| 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: Aucountry@aol.com
In a message dated 06/03/03 03:32:56 PM, jgswartout@earthlink.net writes:
> Gary, how do you "add long rods?"--wouldn't that change the compression?
>
> Just for kicks, what would you think about taking an O-360, reducing the
> compression to 7.2:1 (to burn premium mogas), Bendix fuel injection,
> port and polish, and single electronic ignition (keeping one magneto)?
> Would it produce 200 hp at 2700?
>
> John
>
>
long rods require a piston with a shorter piston pin height. Why would you
ever want to reduce the compression ratio.? The engine is more efficient with
higher compression. Ported an polished O360 with 7.2:1 will put out about
160 hp.
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! --
|