PowerFlow is it worth it

[macosxuser]

The only certified full authority EI system is the Electroair. I know there are gains to be had there, but the price keeps me at bay. Its hard to justify when I can buy a set of two mags for less money. Especially considering that Electroair's system is only so-so as far as efficiency goes (coming from the experimental side).

[N9201A]

Installed PF on my J when first available (motorcycle and car experience with tuned exhausts) and documented before and after. Bottom line, as much as 5 knots and of course better climb. Engine making more power, so higher fuel flow and hotter CHT (nothing is free). Only other negative is no LoPresti cowl (at least not when I last checked, maybe that's changed or one can 337 it). Exhaust SB for annual nonissue, I prefer to take a close look at exhaust annually anyway given potential serious consequence of failures there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bennett]

Installed PF on my J when first available (motorcycle and car experience with tuned exhausts) and documented before and after. Bottom line, as much as 5 knots and of course better climb. Engine making more power, so higher fuel flow and hotter CHT (nothing is free). Only other negative is no LoPresti cowl (at least not when I last checked, maybe that's changed or one can 337 it). Exhaust SB for annual nonissue, I prefer to take a close look at exhaust annually anyway given potential serious consequence of failures there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have both the LoPresti cowl and the PowerFlow Exhaust system. For what it is worth, LoPresti has one of their cowls available at a 25% discount (built for an owner who for unknown reasons didn't pick it up). The fit is a bit tight, but they do work together.

[N9201A]

Thanks for the info. I'm glad they're compatible now. Just what I needed, one more thing to buy... ;^)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[philiplane]

the powerflow system is a huge benefit to any Mooney, 180 or 200 HP. Better power, better fuel economy, and it gets rid of the CO problem that occurs with the OEM muffler.

[jetdriven]

On June 23, 2016 at 8:46 AM, rbridges said:

plus it looks damn cool compared to the OEM exhaust.

You can get the pipe ceramic coated for 125$ at jet hot. 

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, philiplane said:

the powerflow system is a huge benefit to any Mooney, 180 or 200 HP. Better power, better fuel economy, and it gets rid of the CO problem that occurs with the OEM muffler.

Yes a huge improvement to the 200hp models, yet not one documented case of the gains. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by jetdriven

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, jetdriven said:

Yes a huge improvement to the 200hp models, yet not one documented case of the gains. 

Byron, N9201A says above that he documented before and after and got "as much as 5 kts" cruise and better climb. I can not document but I estimate similar improvement on my draggy old E.

Do you have documentation otherwise? 

[Bennett]

I believe LASAR did a same day "before and after" test of the PF system. You might want to contact Paul.

[jetdriven]

49 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Byron, N9201A says above that he documented before and after and got "as much as 5 kts" cruise and better climb. I can not document but I estimate similar improvement on my draggy old E.

Do you have documentation otherwise? 

Burden of proof isn't on me to establish something doesn't deliver claimed gains in speed. But how hard would it be to fly a NTPS 3-track profile at a couple different altitudes to establish a baseline and then quantify gains? Actually document it. I have done quite a few of these tests. You'll find a roller cam engine is fastest at 23 degrees timing, but a -D engine is faster at 25 degrees, for example. 

Lest just say I'm not sold on any benefits for the 4 grand it costs. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by jetdriven

[N9201A]

It's not hard at all to run GPS tracks in four directions under identical load and extremely similar temp and altimeter settings, varying from 4,500 to 10,000, at full throttle/2700, measuring fuel flow, CHT and other parameters. That's why I did it.

Everyone is entitled to their biases and skepticisms: Mine are the step, the downwind turn, Nessie and Bigfoot. But on my J, PFS has netted real performance improvements. I've also got a friend with a PFS-equipped F, and his F will be closer to staying with a J in formation flight. Much to his chagrin, first time we flew together he was disappointed to discover I also had a PFS. Whether it's worth the money is a fair point, but I'm not a "believer." Just persuaded by data.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PTK]

A standard exhaust leaves behind as much as 20% of spent gases. So they say. The premise of tuned exhaust is to evacuate these gases thus making room for the new ones. I get that. But they go on to say that the tuned exhaust allows as much as 95% intake of pure fuel air. So we're talking, at best, about a 15% delta between the standard exhaust and a 4K $ tuned one!

Considering also that there is no free lunch, what kind of gains do folks think they're going to get with this? 

(At yesterday's prices where I filled up 4K $ would buy 941 gal of 100LL!)

 

[Bob_Belville]

Byron, ISTM referencing $4000 cost is misleading. The PFS includes not only the muffler but the heater shroud, headers and tailpipe. All new. When I converted to PFS I was AOG after a chunk of the tailpipe fell off in flight. On examination the muffler was shot. The headers had been rewelded such that a socket would not fit the nuts. 

What does a conventional complete system cost? My A&P feels like the PFS would not be a bad deal even w/o performance benefits. 

[N9201A]

The argument one could instead by more fuel applies at any speed mod, and is enough to make a strong case against if one's analysis is solely dollar-based. For my part I looked at what were the most cost-effective mods. This was the only one that helped climb too (a 3-blade might, but would slow me down and has other cost-benefit issues). Every gas engine I've added intake and exhaust mods to ran produced more power, even if burning more fuel. I can always power back.

To each one's own...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Raptor05121]

10 hours ago, PTK said:

 

(At yesterday's prices where I filled up 4K $ would buy 941 gal of 100LL!)

 

This is my viewpoint as well. That's 1,146 gallons of 100LL for my prices. Divided by 10 gallons an hour, that's over 100 hours of flight time at lets lay 135kts versus 0 hours at 140kts.

Unless my exhaust needed replacing I doubt I would make the jump.

[aaronk25]

It's not just a performance mod, it a cooling mod too, taking 35f or so off head temps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[slowflyin]

11 minutes ago, aaronk25 said:

It's not just a performance mod, it a cooling mod too, taking 35f or so off head temps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1   

[Bob_Belville]

15 minutes ago, aaronk25 said:

It's not just a performance mod, it a cooling mod too, taking 35f or so off head temps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you guys think the heater is less effective with the PFS? I seek to recall my first M20E would drive you out even in the winter with partial heat. Not so much with this plane with PFS.

[Bennett]

I have had two Mooneys because I want to fly fast. Both have had many speed mods to that purpose. I've had 4 Cessnas, (120, 150, 2 -172s), an LSA DOVA, and a two Pipers, and none of them provided the satisfaction of cruising at Mooney speeds. Sure my Mooneys burn (burned) more fuel, but economy is not my first priority. I can run LOP, and I will sacrifice speed for certain long distance flights to avoid a fuel stop, but generally I set up the aircraft for speed. I understand why some pilots prefer to operate at lower fuel burns, but living in Northern California with $750/month hangar fees, $1,500 annual Personal Property taxes, and our outrageous labor and sales tax for parts for aircraft maintenance, fuel prices are a lesser percentage of overall costs as compared to other parts of the country.

[Raptor05121]

1 hour ago, aaronk25 said:

It's not just a performance mod, it a cooling mod too, taking 35f or so off head temps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that I don't believe you guys, but is there an Excel spreadsheet of someone doing a scientific test that shows the change?

[PTK]

14 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Not that I don't believe you guys, but is there an Excel spreadsheet of someone doing a scientific test that shows the change?

You are not going to find it.

The gains/cost ratio is lopsided. The gains are just not there for our engines. They are not high revving motorcycle or sports car engines.

Incidentally I have one question about lower CHT's. How do they drop if the cylinder fills more completely with fuel and air to combust? Someone please explain this to me?

The problem I see with this kind of pireps is that no one is actually going to admit after paying 4K $ that they are disappointed. 

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, PTK said:

You are not going to find it.

The gains are just not there for our engines. They are not high revving motorcycle or sports car engines.

The problem I see with this kind of pireps is that no one is actually going to admit after paying 4K $ that they are disappointed. 

Yeah, why listen to the folks who actually know what they're talking about when there are guys like Peter and Byron around to pontificate? 

Hey Bennett, Aaron, Philip, youse guys getting paid by PFS to shill for them?

[Bennett]

Just now, PTK said: You are not going to find it.

The gains are just not there for our engines. They are not high revving motorcycle or sports car engines.

The problem I see with this kind of pireps is that no one is actually going to admit after paying 4K $ that they are disappointed. 

Yeah, why listen to the folks who actually know what they're talking about when there are guys like Peter and Byron around to pontificate? 

Hey Bennett, Aaron, Philip, youse guys getting paid by PFS to shill for them?

I don't need to shill for anybody. I freely admit I buy all sorts of "go fasts" for my Mooney, and I'm a bit of an avionics junky, but I don't think anyone else should follow my crazy pathway. I do so for my own pleasure. Fortunately I can just about afford to indulge myself. I am not taking away anything from from kids, nor my grown up grandkids. Flying, sailing, classic cars are all passions. I still work full time, owning a couple of businesses, and how I spend the money I earn is my own business.

[N9201A]

Raptor - Yes, I've done that analysis.

PTK - No, there is. And as I wrote, and my analysis showed, my CHTs are higher, not lower, consistent with more combustion (and more power). I don't know why someone would experience lower temps, I did not.

Bob, you didn't ask me, but no I'm not being paid. And if I wasn't happy after being promised gains, I certainly wouldn't make up something to convince myself, much less others. But I'll beg off this thread ... You can see performance for yourself when I see you at MSN next week.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[macosxuser]

With the Carb'd engine, the equal length tuned exhaust has proven to lessen the impact of the unequal length intake, and therefore to help the fuel air mixture reach all four cylinders more evenly. That can help (and has on the O-360's I've flown with it) make the hot cylinders come down in temp by evening out fuel flow. This would not be the same on the IO-360.