REFLECTOR:Engines
Gilles Gratton
reflector@tvbf.org
Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:45:44 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C42889.41385D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joe,
Bruce Kown at Classic Air Inc was at Sun n Fun with a Franklin 220
engine in his booth. You may want to give him a call. I just got off the
phone with him for something else and he gave me permission to give you his
address.
classicaire@bellsouth.net
-----Original Message-----
From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On Behalf
Of Joe
Sent: 21 avril 2004 20:14
To: reflector@tvbf.org
Subject: REFLECTOR:Engines
I am considering engine options for my 173 Elite RG.
Option 1. Does anyone know of a used Franklin 220 available. My current
preference is a Franklin 220 with an IVO In-flight adjustable prop, but
don't know if I can find a Franklin.
Option 2. Has anyone heard of installing an O-540 (250 Hp version) in a
173 RG. Here is my thinking (shoot holes in the theory as required) I do
not want to pay the high price of an MT (a real budget buster.) The
majority of my flying will be long cross countries so a fixed pitch prop
optimized for cruise would be preferred. With that prop I realize the trade
off is longer takeoff distance and reduce climb performance. So in comes
the O-540, the additional horsepower will compensate for the lower climb
performance prop. (Lower climb fuel economy is OK.) Other disadvantages:
modifying the cowling (its only time), increased empty weight (81 pound, I
can live with that), more front ballast required when flying solo (can live
with that too.) Possible advantages: increased engine life (will be running
slower than normal operating limits, lower CHT etc.), high density altitude
or short strip - will have a little extra HP available.
I welcome anyone's opinions or comments on #2.
Thanks,
Joe
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C42889.41385D20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D106044020-22042004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Joe,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D106044020-22042004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2> Bruce Kown at =
Classic=20
Air Inc was at Sun n Fun with a Franklin 220 engine in his booth. =
You may=20
want to give him a call. I just got off the phone with him for =
something=20
else and he gave me permission to give you his address. =
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D106044020-22042004><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>classicaire@bellsouth.net</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
reflector-admin@tvbf.org=20
[mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]<B>On Behalf Of =
</B>Joe<BR><B>Sent:</B> 21=20
avril 2004 20:14<BR><B>To:</B> reflector@tvbf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
REFLECTOR:Engines<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am considering engine options for =
my 173 Elite=20
RG.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Option 1. Does anyone know of a =
used=20
Franklin 220 available. My current preference is a Franklin 220 =
with an=20
IVO In-flight adjustable prop, but don't know if I can find a=20
Franklin.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Option 2. Has anyone heard of =
installing an=20
O-540 (250 Hp version) in a 173 RG. Here is my thinking (shoot =
holes in=20
the theory as required) </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I do =
not want to=20
pay the high price of an MT (a real budget buster.) The majority =
of my=20
flying will be long cross countries so a fixed pitch prop optimized =
for cruise=20
would be preferred. With that prop I realize the trade off is =
longer=20
takeoff distance and reduce climb performance. So in comes the =
O-540,=20
the additional horsepower will compensate for the lower climb =
performance=20
prop. (Lower climb fuel economy is OK.) Other =
disadvantages:=20
modifying the cowling (its only time), increased empty weight =
(81 pound,=20
I can live with that), more front ballast required when flying solo =
(can live=20
with that too.) Possible advantages: increased engine life (will =
be=20
running slower than normal operating limits, lower CHT etc.), high =
density=20
altitude or short strip - will have a little extra HP =
available.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I welcome anyone's opinions or =
comments on=20
#2.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Joe</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C42889.41385D20--