Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power flow exhaust, long or short system for floats?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Power flow exhaust, long or short system for floats?

    I am thinking about trying a Power Flow exhaust for my 172 float-trainer. What says the peanut gallery, long or short system???
    Dragonfly Aero
    Seaplane Instruction
    Homer, Alaska

  • #2
    I don't think they will hold up under training, but long stack will make it perform better. I looked at that option on my 172 trainers but I am staying stock unless they warrantee it for longer that 1 year or 500 hours. I have seen one go bad in less than 30 hours??

    Comment


    • #3
      I had one on my 172 under a leaseback that averaged 125 hours a month on the plane and it lasted for quite a while. It was well supported through with the long exhaust having a support bracket at each end.
      Robert P. Kittine, Jr. - West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C. - New York

      Comment


      • #4
        Not a floatplane bouncing on rough water and doing 8-10 landings per hour I would bet!

        Comment


        • #5
          Good point, though plenty of rough landings as a primary trainer, but this was just a regular and IFR Trainer.
          Robert P. Kittine, Jr. - West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C. - New York

          Comment


          • #6
            The performance is great with them, we have 4 -172's with powerflows at Surfside SPB and another 4 or 5 without. On the other side if it saves 1+ gph over 1000 hours, it paid for itself! You won't want another Cub Alex! 2 doors with lots of leg room and comfort!

            Comment


            • #7
              Alex, what is your decision from your 172 studies and a small peanut gallery on this SPA site. Just got out of my 160 hp 172 on BF 2550's in Florida and it sure performs very nice with stock exhaust. Back at Surfside in MN our mechanic Bob's 172-160hp - powerflow on BF 2550's could beat me off the water in my 150 Super Cub on Edo 2000's for what that's worth.

              Comment


              • #8
                The company calls or e-mails occasionally, but of course they paint a picture that is all rainbows and unicorns.

                Between here on SPA and another couple sites I have not had enough positive feedback to push my decision over the edge.

                Many comments seem to be anecdotal at best.
                I was hoping for a few folks who had flown their plane before and after installation, so I could get a true comparison of performance.

                I know there is some place in Texas that changed over to Power-flow while using 160hp engines. I talked with the owner briefly last year when he mentioned that he was using 160s and power flow since the extra fuel saving when compared to the 180s was really helping his bottom line. However, I failed to ask him it he was using the long or short system, nor did I inquire about the maintenance end of the PF system since I was not interested at the time.

                If it was only a couple thousand bucks I would have already done it.... But by the time I change everything over, the total will be well over $4500,, maybe more
                Dragonfly Aero
                Seaplane Instruction
                Homer, Alaska

                Comment


                • #9
                  Alex I have been in the same boat deciding if the powerflow would be worth the $$, as I have had 3 different 180 hp 172's & 175 and now my 160hp 172 all on floats for SES training with stock exhaust. I am a lightweight at 260 and this little 172 with 800# useful does a great job and climbs out very well, it works year round in MN & FL burning 1.5-2 gph less than my 180hp versions. Come down to Florida, thaw out and try mine if you want this winter and compare it to my Super Cub. Ya the Cub is fun, but the 172 is much more comfortable and easier to get in and out for customers and myself.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I talked with Bob in Minnesota yesterday. That was a very informative phone call. I will be buying the long stack system.
                    Dragonfly Aero
                    Seaplane Instruction
                    Homer, Alaska

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You made a good call to Bob, he is very knowledgable on the 172 and power flow and maintains a lot of floatplanes including mine. I have flown Bob's 172 and it is has amazing performance. If you are having just one floatplane I think the PF will be good for you, i hope it holds up under SES training conditions. For me I own four of floaters and if I need more performance we fly the 180,185 or the Super Cub, but my 172 does a great job and flys the most.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am now down to just a "one plane operation". I am retired from a couple other careers and we own a couple other business's. All of which seem to have to support the flying business.

                        The reduction in fuel consumption is appealing, but mostly it is a safety issue due to some of the smaller mountain lakes from which I must operate. Most are surrounded by steep hills and very tall trees. More than once I have whacked a tree top with the Cub's float bottoms because a client went nuts and applied carb heat ( or left it on) during a take-off run. So cutting 100 feet off a water run might make the difference between flying home or camping out all night.
                        I am also reducing the forward weight of the plane as we speak...
                        Dragonfly Aero
                        Seaplane Instruction
                        Homer, Alaska

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X