Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:55 AM - Re: Powerflow (Jim Shafer)
2. 09:44 AM - Re: Powerflow (Gary L Vogt)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello Barry,
Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate hearing your opinions on these
issues. As is often the case between pilots, any five of us will have at
least seven firmly held opinions on any given topic!
So, here's my two cents worth on the points you raised in you most recent
post:
a.) IF the Power Flow System were just another working muffler, I wouldn't
recommend buying it at all, given the premium price. If you are looking to
add another 10 - 20 hp worth of performance to your AA5, then our system
offers a very economical, well-proven and STC'd means of doing so.
b.) As we discussed before, the Power Flow System, installed, will set you
back roughly the same amount as the electronic ignition. Either of these
options costs a great deal less than any other means of increasing your
usable horsepower by a similar amount, PLUS they are both STC'd, which none
of the other options (such as an I/O engine) are.
So, if you just want to replace one power-robbing, gas-guzzling OEM style
muffler with another one of the same design, you can do that for a minimal
up-front outlay. But, if you want to improve both your fuel economy and
the performance of your AA5, you WILL be spending some extra cash to do the
job. Where you personally choose to spend that extra cash is obviously up
to you.
b. / #2) Safety, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. If it's
zero dark thirty and the engine in my aircraft won't start, I personally
would want to have it checked-out before launching into that darkness - no
matter what modifications have or haven't been added to the aircraft.
Does a shorter take-off roll improve your margin of safety? How about an
extra 100 - 150 fpm rate of climb? Or a significant improvement in
performance at high density altitudes? Or if an increase in fuel economy
effectively extends your range &/or endurance - will that help?
Don't worry, Barry, answering "yes" to any of the above will not mean you
are not allowed to personally prefer the ElectroAir unit. As I made clear
in my original post, they are a fine company making a fine product. I also
agree with you that any company that invests the time, money and effort to
develop and produce genuine improvements for the legacy GA fleet is worthy
of all the support we can all give them.
As far as our advertising goes: It is very easy for us to say, accurately,
that you will save 1 - 2 gph in fuel burn, because we DO know what engine is
being used: Our systems are only STC'd for aircraft powered by four very
similar engines: The Lycoming O-320, O-360, I/O-360 and I/O-390. In the
course of getting those STC's approved, we have conducted more than 10
exhaustive (pardon the pun) series of before and after flight tests
measuring fuel flow and aircraft performance on a wide variety of airframes
(from the experimental Glastar, to the Cardinal 177RG).
Yes, believe it or not, we have actually heard of Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption before. And, yes, the BSFC of the engine does change with the
addition of the Power Flow. It gets lower. It is literally off the Lycoming
charts, because the BSFC from Lycoming is computed based upon a neutral
stack engine, not the OEM exhaust that the Grumman has and certainly not
computed with a Power Flow.
Look at our dyno numbers (outlined below) from a C172. Yes, I know it is a
C172, but it is the same Lycoming O-320 you will find in a 160 hp upgraded
Traveler or Cheetah:
Stock exhaust: 2563 RPM, computed HP: 133.8, fuel flow of 98.4 #/hr. (16.4
gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.755 Torque: 274.7
Power Flow exhaust: 2665 RPM, computed HP: 157.1, fuel flow of 100.9
(16.81 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.649, Torque: 307.7.
See how the BSFC went DOWN? Despite the large increase in both torque and
RPM? Look in your Lycoming engine book. You can't create 23 HP for only
0.4 GPH more. That had to come from improved engine efficiency.
Hot rodders have known for years that a more effective exhaust will scavenge
the cylinder more completely. A tuned exhaust is designed to empty the
cylinder more effectively by shifting the pressure and suction pulses around
to create a suction at the start of the exhaust valve opening. It's not
magic and it's not rocket science.
With a Power Flow Tuned Exhaust, at your given example of 8 GPH and 2400
RPM, you would save 0.7 to 1.0 gph when leaning ROP at the same RPM. That
is a savings in fuel burn of approximately 10 to 15%.
And, while you may not find our advertising particularly appealing, it may
be helpful to the general discussion to hear what a few folks who have read
that advertising and then actually spent some of their hard-earned dollars
on a Power Flow System have to say on the subject:
I was happy you don't make false claims, everybody else claims 5 to 10 kts
on every little fairing and piece of plastic they sell, I think PowerFlow
accurately claimed the actual performance gains. I went from 8.5 to 8.1 gph
fuel flow at 2500 rpm leaned, and my acceleration and climb performance went
up as advertised. My IA and I installed the system in June, it was 93
degrees on the ramp, and we took off in less than 900 ft ground roll and
were climbing at over 800 fpm, and we both are over 220 lbs each. - Mr.
Thomas Hunter / N8354L / Cessna 172-I with O-320
Had the Cherokee out for a $100 hamburger over in Winter Haven today with
the wife. I'm happy to say that all of the stated performance gains with the
Power Flow Exhaust are there, and I'm very pleased with the result. The new
exhaust is the perfect solution to the issues that had developed on my 140,
and I feel good knowing that I've got a totally new exhaust system, instead
of a patch on that ancient, old thing. I saw my VSI hit 1000 FPM today - in
climb, not descent!.. That's something new for this plane. I'm going to put
in some new spark plugs and wires and go for total nirvana! - Mr. Jeff
Booker / N1805J / 1968 PA28-140 / O-320
One of the best products, Performance/$ ratio I have ever applied on an
aircraft. Nice job guys! 6000' msl take off. Identical aircraft. Mine
had a power flow. 800ft higher coming around the pattern at the take off
roll end of runway than stock exhaust.
We all hear about the "10% increase in power claims." After modifying
automotive engines for years, most of us think this is baloney because
anyone who makes a piece of plastic to smooth out your air intake claims it!
Well, I bet the PowerFlow exhaust on my aircraft has increased the power at
least 10% . . . Where this really hits home is my increased climb
capability, living on the front range of the Rocky Mountains. - Mr. Jeff
Bursik / N29379 / 1968 C-177 / O-320
I recently installed a Power Flow exhaust on my Tiger . . . I have noticed
a huge difference in the performance of the airplane, especially with regard
to climb.
It has been extremely hot and humid here in the Virginia Tidewater Region,
with density altitudes of 2000 feet and more, yet my Tiger took off in a
shorter distance (felt like it leaped off the tarmac), and demonstrated a
150+ foot increased rate of climb.
As you know, our planes are not know for being great climbers, and all else
being equal, this is not only a big performance improvement, but an major
safety factor increase considering taking off with a loaded aircraft and
increased density altitudes. Not sure you can quantify or put a price on
the safety factor. . . .
With respect to increased maintenance, the mechanic and I discussed the pros
and cons before installation, and intend to disassemble and lubricate as
recommended at annual time. I think will be a small price to play for the
both the increased performance and safety margin. - John Wrenn / AA5B /
N74636
All the Best!
- Jim Shafer
Power Flow Systems, Inc.
Ph: (877) 693-7356
Fax: (877) 570-9831
_____
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
Jim:
I would purchase a PF System in very short order and I'm planning to, as
long as two things existed:
a> I needed a new muffler - I just can't see removing a working muffler to
replace it with a working muffler.
b> I had/have the excess cash to to the job.
>From these statements you should surely surmise I am not free flowing with
cash and I made my suggestions/statements from the question posted in the
email. The question was: "Which do you think gives the best bang for the
buck, exhaust or ignition?"
This indicates to me the fellow also holds his money in deep regard and is
not too frivolous - We all are frivolous to a small extent, just because we
have planes - But that does not mean we have to have MMTB (More Money Than
Brains). And...
b> What truly will give the most for the investment.
The PF System is an EXTRA it is not a Safety Investment nor is it something
that will stop one from flying.
If it is 22:00 Hrs (DARK) and you are at an airport that has no services
avail what is your major concern - OTHER THAN WEATHER ... WILL THE ENGINE
START?
A PF System does nothing to ensure that.
A electronic ignition SURE DOES!
> It gives you a hotter spark.
> It gives you cleaner plugs. <-- And that is whether you use the REM40's,
the Better REM37BY's or the Best Fine Wire. An upgrade in plugs is NOT
required, but sure will help. I was misstated by someone that had the idea
I was making it a mandatory action to upgrade spark plugs because of the
electronic ignition.
> It gives you a TIMED spark especially at altitude where the Mag efficiency
drops off. <-- Electronic Ignition has Vacuum Advance.
I have flown behind the ElectroAir EXPERIMENTAL system for years and the
system and support of the company has always been phenomenal. I am NOT
pushing ElectroAir is it just the company I have experience with; both as a
company and the product. Let me also add I do not have ANY experience with
the STC version of their product. I sure hope it is as good as the
Experimental version and if it is - - - FINALLY - - - A tested and proven
product for us GA Aircraft owners - That I know to work.
Now to address your items:
Your #1 - They give Percentage - PF gives Usage. It is your advertizing
that stinks not the product. How can PF say it gives you 1 to 2 GPH savings
when you don't know the engine being used?
Example; An O-320 which is rated at 150 HP and on mine shows 8 GPH in S&L in
full rich at 2400 RPM at an altitude around 2500 to 3000 Ft... With your
numbers I would be burning 1 to 2 GPH less... That is 6 GPH to 7 GPH at the
same settings. Now here is where we have to get a little scientific and I
hope this does not turn people away.
There is a basic term that is used engine industry wide and is Brake
Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Here is a link for explaination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
What you want to look at is the formula: Lbs/Hr/HP
Which is Pounds of fuel burned / Per Hours / Per Horsepower of the engine.
There is a range for the number of pounds AND remember it is in pounds so
for most users (US), for it to make sense the Lbs has to converted to GPH.
The range is 0.4 to 0.5Lbs/Hr/HP - - - So split the difference and use
0.45... 0.45x1Hrx150HPx75% Power = 8.4375 GPH pretty damn close to what I am
reading on my FP5L fuel flow gauge. So working backwards my 8 GPH equates
to 0.4375
the differance between 8 GPH and 8.4375 GPH is 0.4375 GPH or 56 ounces which
is 0.9333 ounces per minute
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"The reason Benjamin Franklin was such a great inventor was everything lay
before him. The reason why we don't have great inventors today is, everyone
is trying to reinvent the wheel"
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jim Shafer <jim@powerflowsystems.com>
wrote:
Hello,
I think it's great that Grumman owners have so many options for upgrading
and improving the performance on these fine aircraft.
Since it is obvious that not every option is right for each individual and
his aircraft, accurate information is a key requirement enabling each
individual to determine which and how many (if any) of the different
products available make sense for him or her. With that in mind, I'd like
to shed a little additional light on the topics raised by Brock, Dean and
Barry:
#1.) Yes, you are already paying for fuel - AND - Both the Electronic
Ignition and the Tuned Exhaust allow you to burn it more efficiently. The
fine folks at Electroair state their gains in percent (a 10% - 15%
improvement) while we at Power Flow state our gains in gph (a reduction in
fuel burn of 1.0 - 2.0 gph). For most GA aircraft the effective results are
very close to the same and both companies have had these stated gains
confirmed by hundreds of Customers.
#2.) Electroair does claim a reduced tendency for plug fowling as a benefit
of their system and I have no reason to doubt their claims. I can also
state that there have never been any reports suggesting an increase in plug
fowling as a result of an upgrade to the Power Flow System.
#3.) Both companies claim increased horsepower as a main benefit and again,
based on each companies track record (3,800+ total Systems installed / 300+
AA5 Systems installed since 1999 for Power Flow, 2,500+ total systems
installed since 1992 for Electroair), there is no longer any credible reason
to doubt either company's claims.
The pricing for each system is also remarkably similar: As Barry pointed
out: depending on lead times and applicable discounts the Power Flow System
for a Tiger will run you about $3,500.00 plus five to seven hours of
installation labor. The Electroair costs $3,400.00 plus four to six hours
of labor to install.
As to the increase in HP (and if you don't see it, Power Flow will give you
your money back) you by no means need to replace or even re-pitch your prop
to take advantage of it. First and foremost you can immediately use it
where it does the Grumman's the most good: in take-off and climb
performance. As I said above, these are fine aircraft. But who among us
hasn't been way too up close and personal with the trees at the far end of a
slightly too short runway? What is a shorter take-off roll (by about 300')
and a faster rate of climb (by 100 - 150 fpm) worth to you in those
situations?
Even at cruise altitude you don't need to re-pitch or replace the prop to
take advantage of the boost in HP provided by the Power Flow - just throttle
back and enjoy cruising at your current airspeed while burning 1.0 - 1.5 gph
less avfuel. If you're a real speed demon and crave that last 3 - 5 knots
in airspeed, go ahead and take it. Unless you're already cruising with your
engine at redline rpm, the Power Flow System will give you an extra 50 - 100
rpm to play with. Each 100 rpm gets you an extra 5 knots of airspeed, and
you don't have to re-pitch the prop to get it.
We have had a very small minority (well below 10% and typically those who
frequently participate in air racing) of our Grumman Customers who are so
enamored with the potential for increased speed made possible by the Power
Flow System, that they do choose to purchase and install a higher pitched
prop to take full advantage of the extra power. This is by no means a
requirement, but if you happen to enjoy racing, it is another option
available for you.
#4.) We do offer a ceramic coated tailpipe as a $200.00 option, but it IS an
option (for those owners who take particular pride in the appearance of
their aircraft) and not a required expense. If the discoloration that
naturally occurs when stainless steel gets hot doesn't bother you, there is
no need to spend the money. If it does bother you and you don't mind using
a little elbow grease, the discoloration can be easily wiped away with
common stainless steel polish.
#5.) Thanks to the dedication and expertise of Power Flow's many fine
Dealers nationwide (including several well-respected "Grumman Guru's" like
FletchAir, ExcelAir and Gary Vogt) there is no reason on earth why a
Customer would have to live with an "ugly hole" in their cowling. Yes, our
system requires that a new hole be cut for the relocated exhaust pipe exit.
Gary, John, or David, or any one of Power Flow's several hundred Dealer's
nationwide (or even any reasonably competent A&P) can easily make the
existing hole all but disappear.
The assertion that relocating the tailpipe "may have ruined your cooling
airflow" is groundless. Thanks to Gary Vogt's tireless efforts and
determination, his beautiful "Jaguar" cowling is another excellent upgrade
available to Grumman owners in its own right. It is not a requirement for
the Power Flow System.
#6.) So to summarize: The Electroair Electronic Ignition will give you more
horsepower (particularly at higher altitudes) and a 10% -15% improvement in
fuel economy for about $3,400.00 plus 4 - 6 hours of installation labor.
The Power Flow Tuned Exhaust System will give you more horsepower (about 10
- 15 more), better take-off and climb performance, and a 1.0 - 2.0 gph
improvement in fuel economy for about $3,500.00 plus 5 - 7 hours of
installation labor.
I don't quite see how 7 hours (max) of installation labor can stretch into a
month of down time, but maybe that's just ole' math challenged me.
Which is the right choice for you? Well, like most things in life, the
honest answer seems to be: "It all depends". I hope the facts outlined
above will help those who are interested in improving the performance of
their AA5 make that choice based on accurate information.
And, if you find it impossible to decide, keep in mind that, as has Dean,
several very happy Customers have installed both STC'd upgrades on their
aircraft and gotten the best of both worlds.
All the Best!
- Jim Shafer
Power Flow Systems, Inc.
Ph: (877) 693-7356 <tel:%28877%29%20693-7356>
Fax: (877) 570-9831 <tel:%28877%29%20570-9831>
_____
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Airport
Bum
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
Call Garner at Fletchair. They have good prices and support the fleet.
Electro air is the brand. Depending on your location, Ken Blackman, Gary
Vogt, Excel Air, Bob Steward, Roscoe Rosche, Barry, or one of the others can
help you with install.
Kevin
On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Scott Boyce <tscott165@centurylink.net> wrote:
Which electronic ignition and how much?
On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:33 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Brock:
Best bang for the buck and without catchings AIDS/HIV or the CRABS...
The Electronic Ignition.
Why?
1 - You are already paying for the fuel - you might as well burn it more
efficiently.
2 - Less fouled plugs and NO fouled plugs if you are using REM37BY or a fine
wire plug.
3 - If you go for the exhaust ($3400 Plus install) and if you get an
improvement in HP - What are you going to do with it? You then need to
repitch your prop IF if can be repitched. If NOT then $3200 for a new prop
Plus Install.
$6600!!!!
4 - So next is - Do you care if the exhaust discolors? If you than you do
the ceramic coat ... What is that Plus $100?
$6700!!!!
5 - You now just took your standard cowl and cut a ugly hole in it to fit
the new exhaust - Which may have ruined your cooling airflow, SO now you
need or want the better cowl... How much is that I don't recall but lets
say another $3500, Plus Shipping ($250) Plus Install ($3500) Plus Paint
($500) Plus Extra Parts ($200)... So that equals === $7950
WHAT $7950!!!! !!!!
Don't forget to add it to the other costs $6700 + $$7950 =$14650...
Big BANG - Big Bucks and NO KISS
6 - And now the plane is down for another month of no flying...
Don't believe my numbers collect your own.
Oh! How much gas will $14K buy you? Or even $10K? ! ! ! !
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Brock <n2_narcosis@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am trying to decide on what my next upgrade should be. Powerflow exhaust,
or electronic ignition. The ignition is a little cheaper, but I imagine
takes more time to install. Is this correct? Which do you think gives the
best bang for the buck, exhaust or ignition? If I get the exhaust I can
start saving for the cowling.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Brock,
Power Flow for $3400. The ceramic coating is to resist discoloring due to
heat. Not sure if it's worth it.
Gary
_____
From: Brock <n2_narcosis@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
Hey Gary,
What is your best deal on a powerflow short stack right now? Is the
ceramic tip worth it? What is the point com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/= -->
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution> =========
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution> courier new,courier">
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
=========
cs.com <http://cs.com/>
=========
matronics.com/contribution
=========
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
==================================
t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Jim,
Did you meant his to come to me? Or send it to Barry?
I generally, as a rule, ignore everything Barry says.
Gary
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Jim Shafer" <jim@powerflowsystems.com> wrote:
> Hello Barry,
>
> Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate hearing your opinions on these
issues. As is often the case between pilots, any five of us will have at l
east seven firmly held opinions on any given topic!
>
> So, here=99s my two cents worth on the points you raised in you most
recent post:
>
> a.) IF the Power Flow System were just another working muffler, I wouldn
=99t recommend buying it at all, given the premium price. If you are loo
king to add another 10 =93 20 hp worth of performance to your AA5, the
n our system offers a very economical, well-proven and STC=99d means o
f doing so.
>
> b.) As we discussed before, the Power Flow System, installed, will set you
back roughly the same amount as the electronic ignition. Either of these o
ptions costs a great deal less than any other means of increasing your usabl
e horsepower by a similar amount, PLUS they are both STC=99d, which no
ne of the other options (such as an I/O engine) are.
>
> So, if you just want to replace one power-robbing, gas-guzzling OEM style m
uffler with another one of the same design, you can do that for a minimal up
-front outlay. But, if you want to improve both your fuel economy and the p
erformance of your AA5, you WILL be spending some extra cash to do the job.
Where you personally choose to spend that extra cash is obviously up to you
.
>
> b. / #2) Safety, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. If it
=99s zero dark thirty and the engine in my aircraft won=99t start, I
personally would want to have it checked-out before launching into that dar
kness =93 no matter what modifications have or haven=99t been ad
ded to the aircraft.
>
> Does a shorter take-off roll improve your margin of safety? How about an e
xtra 100 =93 150 fpm rate of climb? Or a significant improvement in p
erformance at high density altitudes? Or if an increase in fuel economy eff
ectively extends your range &/or endurance =93 will that help?
>
> Don=99t worry, Barry, answering =9Cyes=9D to any of the a
bove will not mean you are not allowed to personally prefer the ElectroAir u
nit. As I made clear in my original post, they are a fine company making a f
ine product. I also agree with you that any company that invests the time, m
oney and effort to develop and produce genuine improvements for the legacy G
A fleet is worthy of all the support we can all give them.
>
> As far as our advertising goes: It is very easy for us to say, accurately,
that you will save 1 =93 2 gph in fuel burn, because we DO know what e
ngine is being used: Our systems are only STC=99d for aircraft powered
by four very similar engines: The Lycoming O-320, O-360, I/O-360 and I/O-39
0. In the course of getting those STC=99s approved, we have conducted
more than 10 exhaustive (pardon the pun) series of before and after flight t
ests measuring fuel flow and aircraft performance on a wide variety of airfr
ames (from the experimental Glastar, to the Cardinal 177RG).
>
> Yes, believe it or not, we have actually heard of Brake Specific Fuel Cons
umption before. And, yes, the BSFC of the engine does change with the addit
ion of the Power Flow. It gets lower. It is literally off the Lycoming char
ts, because the BSFC from Lycoming is computed based upon a neutral stack en
gine, not the OEM exhaust that the Grumman has and certainly not computed wi
th a Power Flow.
>
> Look at our dyno numbers (outlined below) from a C172. Yes, I know it is a
C172, but it is the same Lycoming O-320 you will find in a 160 hp upgraded T
raveler or Cheetah:
>
> Stock exhaust: 2563 RPM, computed HP: 133.8, fuel flow of 98.4 #/hr. (16
.4 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.755 Torque: 274.7
>
> Power Flow exhaust: 2665 RPM, computed HP: 157.1, fuel flow of 100.9 (16
.81 gph). BSFC (full rich): 0.649, Torque: 307.7.
>
> See how the BSFC went DOWN? Despite the large increase in both torque and R
PM? Look in your Lycoming engine book. You can=99t create 23 HP for o
nly 0.4 GPH more. That had to come from improved engine efficiency.
>
> Hot rodders have known for years that a more effective exhaust will scaven
ge the cylinder more completely. A tuned exhaust is designed to empty the c
ylinder more effectively by shifting the pressure and suction pulses around t
o create a suction at the start of the exhaust valve opening. It=99s n
ot magic and it=99s not rocket science.
>
> With a Power Flow Tuned Exhaust, at your given example of 8 GPH and 2400 R
PM, you would save 0.7 to 1.0 gph when leaning ROP at the same RPM. That is
a savings in fuel burn of approximately 10 to 15%.
>
> And, while you may not find our advertising particularly appealing, it may
be helpful to the general discussion to hear what a few folks who have read
that advertising and then actually spent some of their hard-earned dollars o
n a Power Flow System have to say on the subject:
>
> I was happy you don't make false claims, everybody else claims 5 to 10 kts
on every little fairing and piece of plastic they sell, I think PowerFlow a
ccurately claimed the actual performance gains. I went from 8.5 to 8.1 gph f
uel flow at 2500 rpm leaned, and my acceleration and climb performance went u
p as advertised. My IA and I installed the system in June, it was 93 degrees
on the ramp, and we took off in less than 900 ft ground roll and were climb
ing at over 800 fpm, and we both are over 220 lbs each. - Mr. Thomas Hunter /
N8354L / Cessna 172-I with O-320
>
>
> Had the Cherokee out for a $100 hamburger over in Winter Haven today with t
he wife. I'm happy to say that all of the stated performance gains with the P
ower Flow Exhaust are there, and I'm very pleased with the result. The new e
xhaust is the perfect solution to the issues that had developed on my 140, a
nd I feel good knowing that I've got a totally new exhaust system, instead o
f a patch on that ancient, old thing. I saw my VSI hit 1000 FPM today - in c
limb, not descent!.. That's something new for this plane. I'm going to put i
n some new spark plugs and wires and go for total nirvana! - Mr. Jeff Booker
/ N1805J / 1968 PA28-140 / O-320
>
>
> One of the best products, Performance/$ ratio I have ever applied on an ai
rcraft. Nice job guys! 6000' msl take off. Identical aircraft. Mine had a
power flow. 800ft higher coming around the pattern at the take off roll en
d of runway than stock exhaust.
>
> We all hear about the "10% increase in power claims." After modifying aut
omotive engines for years, most of us think this is baloney because anyone w
ho makes a piece of plastic to smooth out your air intake claims it! Well,
I bet the PowerFlow exhaust on my aircraft has increased the power at least
10% . . . Where this really hits home is my increased climb capability, liv
ing on the front range of the Rocky Mountains. - Mr. Jeff Bursik / N29379 / 1
968 C-177 / O-320
>
> I recently installed a Power Flow exhaust on my Tiger . . . I have notice
d a huge difference in the performance of the airplane, especially with rega
rd to climb.
>
> It has been extremely hot and humid here in the Virginia Tidewater Region,
with density altitudes of 2000 feet and more, yet my Tiger took off in a sh
orter distance (felt like it leaped off the tarmac), and demonstrated a 150+
foot increased rate of climb.
>
> As you know, our planes are not know for being great climbers, and all els
e being equal, this is not only a big performance improvement, but an major s
afety factor increase considering taking off with a loaded aircraft and incr
eased density altitudes. Not sure you can quantify or put a price on the sa
fety factor. . . .
>
> With respect to increased maintenance, the mechanic and I discussed the pr
os and cons before installation, and intend to disassemble and lubricate as r
ecommended at annual time. I think will be a small price to play for the bo
th the increased performance and safety margin. =93 John Wrenn / AA5B
/ N74636
>
>
>
> All the Best!
>
>
> - Jim Shafer
> Power Flow Systems, Inc.
> Ph: (877) 693-7356
> Fax: (877) 570-9831
>
> From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumma
n-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 9:41 AM
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
>
> Jim:
>
> I would purchase a PF System in very short order and I'm planning to, as l
ong as two things existed:
> a> I needed a new muffler - I just can't see removing a working muffler to
replace it with a working muffler.
> b> I had/have the excess cash to to the job.
> =46rom these statements you should surely surmise I am not free flowing wi
th cash and I made my suggestions/statements from the question posted in the
email. The question was: "Which do you think gives the best bang for the bu
ck, exhaust or ignition?"
> This indicates to me the fellow also holds his money in deep regard and is
not too frivolous - We all are frivolous to a small extent, just because we
have planes - But that does not mean we have to have MMTB (More Money Than B
rains). And...
>
> b> What truly will give the most for the investment.
>
> The PF System is an EXTRA it is not a Safety Investment nor is it somethin
g that will stop one from flying.
> If it is 22:00 Hrs (DARK) and you are at an airport that has no services a
vail what is your major concern - OTHER THAN WEATHER ... WILL THE ENGINE ST
ART?
> A PF System does nothing to ensure that.
> A electronic ignition SURE DOES!
> > It gives you a hotter spark.
> > It gives you cleaner plugs. <-- And that is whether you use the REM40's,
the Better REM37BY's or the Best Fine Wire. An upgrade in plugs is NOT req
uired, but sure will help. I was misstated by someone that had the idea I w
as making it a mandatory action to upgrade spark plugs because of the electr
onic ignition.
> > It gives you a TIMED spark especially at altitude where the Mag efficien
cy drops off. <-- Electronic Ignition has Vacuum Advance.
> I have flown behind the ElectroAir EXPERIMENTAL system for years and the s
ystem and support of the company has always been phenomenal. I am NOT pushi
ng ElectroAir is it just the company I have experience with; both as a compa
ny and the product. Let me also add I do not have ANY experience with the S
TC version of their product. I sure hope it is as good as the Experimental v
ersion and if it is - - - FINALLY - - - A tested and proven product for us G
A Aircraft owners - That I know to work.
>
> Now to address your items:
> Your #1 - They give Percentage - PF gives Usage. It is your advertizing t
hat stinks not the product. How can PF say it gives you 1 to 2 GPH savings w
hen you don't know the engine being used?
> Example; An O-320 which is rated at 150 HP and on mine shows 8 GPH in S&L i
n full rich at 2400 RPM at an altitude around 2500 to 3000 Ft... With your n
umbers I would be burning 1 to 2 GPH less... That is 6 GPH to 7 GPH at the s
ame settings. Now here is where we have to get a little scientific and I ho
pe this does not turn people away.
> There is a basic term that is used engine industry wide and is Brake Speci
fic Fuel Consumption (BSFC). Here is a link for explaination: http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
>
> What you want to look at is the formula: Lbs/Hr/HP
> Which is Pounds of fuel burned / Per Hours / Per Horsepower of the engine.
> There is a range for the number of pounds AND remember it is in pounds so f
or most users (US), for it to make sense the Lbs has to converted to GPH.
> The range is 0.4 to 0.5Lbs/Hr/HP - - - So split the difference and use 0.4
5... 0.45x1Hrx150HPx75% Power = 8.4375 GPH pretty damn close to what I am r
eading on my FP5L fuel flow gauge. So working backwards my 8 GPH equates to
0.4375
>
> the differance between 8 GPH and 8.4375 GPH is 0.4375 GPH or 56 ounces whi
ch is 0.9333 ounces per minute
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Barry
>
> =9CChop=99d Liver=9D
>
> "The reason Benjamin Franklin was such a great inventor was everything lay
before him. The reason why we don't have great inventors today is, everyon
e is trying to reinvent the wheel"
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jim Shafer <jim@powerflowsystems.com> wr
ote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it=99s great that Grumman owners have so many options for up
grading and improving the performance on these fine aircraft.
>
> Since it is obvious that not every option is right for each individual and
his aircraft, accurate information is a key requirement enabling each indiv
idual to determine which and how many (if any) of the different products ava
ilable make sense for him or her. With that in mind, I=99d like to sh
ed a little additional light on the topics raised by Brock, Dean and Barry:
>
> #1.) Yes, you are already paying for fuel =93 AND - Both the Electro
nic Ignition and the Tuned Exhaust allow you to burn it more efficiently. T
he fine folks at Electroair state their gains in percent (a 10% - 15% improv
ement) while we at Power Flow state our gains in gph (a reduction in fuel bu
rn of 1.0 =93 2.0 gph). For most GA aircraft the effective results ar
e very close to the same and both companies have had these stated gains conf
irmed by hundreds of Customers.
>
> #2.) Electroair does claim a reduced tendency for plug fowling as a benefi
t of their system and I have no reason to doubt their claims. I can also st
ate that there have never been any reports suggesting an increase in plug fo
wling as a result of an upgrade to the Power Flow System.
>
> #3.) Both companies claim increased horsepower as a main benefit and again
, based on each companies track record (3,800+ total Systems installed / 300
+ AA5 Systems installed since 1999 for Power Flow, 2,500+ total systems inst
alled since 1992 for Electroair), there is no longer any credible reason to d
oubt either company=99s claims.
>
> The pricing for each system is also remarkably similar: As Barry pointed o
ut: depending on lead times and applicable discounts the Power Flow System f
or a Tiger will run you about $3,500.00 plus five to seven hours of installa
tion labor. The Electroair costs $3,400.00 plus four to six hours of labor t
o install.
>
> As to the increase in HP (and if you don=99t see it, Power Flow will
give you your money back) you by no means need to replace or even re-pitch y
our prop to take advantage of it. First and foremost you can immediately us
e it where it does the Grumman=99s the most good: in take-off and clim
b performance. As I said above, these are fine aircraft. But who among us h
asn=99t been way too up close and personal with the trees at the far e
nd of a slightly too short runway? What is a shorter take-off roll (by abou
t 300=99) and a faster rate of climb (by 100 =93 150 fpm) worth t
o you in those situations?
>
> Even at cruise altitude you don=99t need to re-pitch or replace the p
rop to take advantage of the boost in HP provided by the Power Flow =93
just throttle back and enjoy cruising at your current airspeed while burnin
g 1.0 =93 1.5 gph less avfuel. If you=99re a real speed demon a
nd crave that last 3 =93 5 knots in airspeed, go ahead and take it. U
nless you=99re already cruising with your engine at redline rpm, the P
ower Flow System will give you an extra 50 =93 100 rpm to play with. E
ach 100 rpm gets you an extra 5 knots of airspeed, and you don=99t hav
e to re-pitch the prop to get it.
>
> We have had a very small minority (well below 10% and typically those who f
requently participate in air racing) of our Grumman Customers who are so ena
mored with the potential for increased speed made possible by the Power Flow
System, that they do choose to purchase and install a higher pitched prop t
o take full advantage of the extra power. This is by no means a requirement
, but if you happen to enjoy racing, it is another option available for you.
>
> #4.) We do offer a ceramic coated tailpipe as a $200.00 option, but it IS a
n option (for those owners who take particular pride in the appearance of th
eir aircraft) and not a required expense. If the discoloration that natural
ly occurs when stainless steel gets hot doesn=99t bother you, there is
no need to spend the money. If it does bother you and you don=99t mi
nd using a little elbow grease, the discoloration can be easily wiped away w
ith common stainless steel polish.
>
> #5.) Thanks to the dedication and expertise of Power Flow=99s many f
ine Dealers nationwide (including several well-respected =9CGrumman Gu
ru=99s=9D like FletchAir, ExcelAir and Gary Vogt) there is no re
ason on earth why a Customer would have to live with an =9Cugly hole
=9D in their cowling. Yes, our system requires that a new hole be cut fo
r the relocated exhaust pipe exit. Gary, John, or David, or any one of Powe
r Flow=99s several hundred Dealer=99s nationwide (or even any re
asonably competent A&P) can easily make the existing hole all but disappear.
>
> The assertion that relocating the tailpipe =9Cmay have ruined your c
ooling airflow=9D is groundless. Thanks to Gary Vogt=99s tirele
ss efforts and determination, his beautiful =9CJaguar=9D cowling
is another excellent upgrade available to Grumman owners in its own right.
It is not a requirement for the Power Flow System.
>
> #6.) So to summarize: The Electroair Electronic Ignition will give you mor
e horsepower (particularly at higher altitudes) and a 10% -15% improvement i
n fuel economy for about $3,400.00 plus 4 =93 6 hours of installation l
abor. The Power Flow Tuned Exhaust System will give you more horsepower (ab
out 10 =93 15 more), better take-off and climb performance, and a 1.0
=93 2.0 gph improvement in fuel economy for about $3,500.00 plus 5
=93 7 hours of installation labor.
>
> I don=99t quite see how 7 hours (max) of installation labor can stre
tch into a month of down time, but maybe that=99s just ole=99 ma
th challenged me.
>
>
> Which is the right choice for you? Well, like most things in life, the ho
nest answer seems to be: =9CIt all depends=9D. I hope the facts
outlined above will help those who are interested in improving the performa
nce of their AA5 make that choice based on accurate information.
>
> And, if you find it impossible to decide, keep in mind that, as has Dean, s
everal very happy Customers have installed both STC=99d upgrades on th
eir aircraft and gotten the best of both worlds.
>
>
> All the Best!
>
> - Jim Shafer
> Power Flow Systems, Inc.
> Ph: (877) 693-7356
> Fax: (877) 570-9831
>
>
> From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumma
n-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Airport Bum
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:30 AM
>
> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
>
> Call Garner at Fletchair. They have good prices and support the fleet. E
lectro air is the brand. Depending on your location, Ken Blackman, Gary Vogt
, Excel Air, Bob Steward, Roscoe Rosche, Barry, or one of the others can hel
p you with install.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Scott Boyce <tscott165@centurylink.net> wrote
:
>
>> Which electronic ignition and how much?
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 3:33 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>
>>
>> Brock:
>>
>> Best bang for the buck and without catchings AIDS/HIV or the CRABS...
>> The Electronic Ignition.
>> Why?
>> 1 - You are already paying for the fuel - you might as well burn it more e
fficiently.
>> 2 - Less fouled plugs and NO fouled plugs if you are using REM37BY or a f
ine wire plug.
>> 3 - If you go for the exhaust ($3400 Plus install) and if you get an impr
ovement in HP - What are you going to do with it? You then need to repitch y
our prop IF if can be repitched. If NOT then $3200 for a new prop Plus Inst
all.
>> $6600!!!!
>> 4 - So next is - Do you care if the exhaust discolors? If you than you d
o the ceramic coat ... What is that Plus $100?
>> $6700!!!!
>> 5 - You now just took your standard cowl and cut a ugly hole in it to fit
the new exhaust - Which may have ruined your cooling airflow, SO now you ne
ed or want the better cowl... How much is that I don't recall but lets say a
nother $3500, Plus Shipping ($250) Plus Install ($3500) Plus Paint ($500) Pl
us Extra Parts ($200)... So that equals === $7950
>> WHAT $7950!!!! !!!!
>>
>> Don't forget to add it to the other costs $6700 + $$7950 =$14650...
>> Big BANG - Big Bucks and NO KISS
>>
>> 6 - And now the plane is down for another month of no flying...
>>
>> Don't believe my numbers collect your own.
>>
>> Oh! How much gas will $14K buy you? Or even $10K? ! ! ! !
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> =9CChop=99d Liver=9D
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Brock <n2_narcosis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am trying to decide on what my next upgrade should be. Powerflow exhaus
t, or electronic ignition. The ignition is a little cheaper, but I imagine t
akes more time to install. Is this correct? Which do you think gives the be
st bang for the buck, exhaust or ignition? If I get the exhaust I can start
saving for the cowling.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Gary L Vogt <teamgrumman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Brock,
>>>
>>> Power Flow for $3400. The ceramic coating is to resist discoloring due t
o heat. Not sure if it's worth it.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> From: Brock <n2_narcosis@yahoo.com>
>>> To: "teamgrumman-list@matronics.com" <teamgrumman-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:08 PM
>>> Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Powerflow
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Gary,
>>> What is your best deal on a powerflow short stack right now? Is the c
eramic tip worth it? What is the point com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List" targe
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/= -->
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =========
>>> courier new,courier">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>>> =========
>>> cs.com
>>> =========
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> =========
>>
>>
>> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> t">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> st" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
>
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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! --
|