Power Flow Systems Forum  

Go Back   Power Flow Systems Forum > PFS Forum > Cessna > C177RG exhaust development (Public)

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 03-10-2008, 02:08 PM
kentowl kentowl is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 3
Thumbs up 177RG Powerflow, Fairings, and Cowl Removal

On my 75 RG, working the lower cowl over the exhaust pipe takes a bit of maneuvering. The Maple Leaf fairing doesn't appear to affect this since it is larger than the hole, and it's open around the aft side.

As the PWF stack extends farther aft, is it still possible to remove the cowling without removing the protruding exhaust pipe? This would be a plus!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 03-10-2008, 03:07 PM
tstrohmayer's Avatar
tstrohmayer tstrohmayer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 37
Default Installing the cowl:

The tailpipe extension clamps on just inside the cowl (the clamp is accessible through the existing opening). By removing one bolt and the clamp, the tailpipe can be removed, eliminating any additional maneuvering required to install or remove the cowling.

So the pipe extension will have to be removed first, but once it's off, the cowl should be easier to work with than with the stock system.
__________________
Tom Strohmayer
Engineering Manager
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 03-10-2008, 05:34 PM
jtreed jtreed is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 60
Default Will the tailpipe be internal or external?

The design, although it may change slightly, is predominantly internal. There will Not be a long externally mounted tailpipe as with the Classic 172 Muffler.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 03-10-2008, 05:35 PM
jtreed jtreed is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 60
Default Is the exhaust note louder?

Our noise testing showed cabin noise to be within 1 db of the standard exhaust. As for the issue of “boomier…” Most people agree that the PFS has a little more “bass” or rumble to it than the typical stock exhaust. On the RG, we haven’t seen a real major difference in the cabin or outside. We’ll have an aircraft at Winter Haven and hopefully we’ll be able to demonstrate the exhaust noise.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 03-10-2008, 05:36 PM
jtreed jtreed is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 60
Default What are the Pro/Cons of Ceramic vs. Polished Tailpipes?

When comparing the two tailpipes side by side the polished pipe will initially look more shiny and brilliant. After several hours of flight the polished pipe will begin to tarnish and turn brown, whereas the ceramic pipe will maintain a nice silver color. There is no performance difference between the two types of finishes, it is simply aesthetics (the ceramic will look nicer than the polished after several hours). An additional benefit to the ceramic pipe would be that it will be much cooler to the touch after a run-up or flight (not that we recommend touching the tailpipe on a hot engine).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 03-10-2008, 05:38 PM
jtreed jtreed is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 60
Default Will your exhaust work with the Firewall Forward mod?

That will ultimately be up to the installer. We haven’t done any specific testing on a plane with the Firewall Forward modification and don’t have any plans to do so as we don’t foresee any conflicts.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 03-14-2008, 12:32 PM
pstauble pstauble is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Over the past few years I have followed the development and reports of the 177FG exhaust, as it went from first to second generation. Various issues were noted and improvements made, such as short stack, heavier material, cracks, etc. Can you summarize the way PFS has handled such issues with customers and who paid for these improvements along the way. I guess while I am very excited about getting this exhaust for my RG, I hesitate to be on the first run of anything new.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 03-14-2008, 07:28 PM
robert.luten robert.luten is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida/Idaho snowbird
Posts: 1
Default Fuel consumption projection

The following, from today's CFO Digest, describes my circumstances and skepticism exactly. What do you (PowerFlow reps) have to say in response?

--------------------------------------------------------

I'm already on an avg burn of 8.5 gph at cruise running approx 25 LOP up
to 8000 (go to 50 ROP from there on up with little, if any, decrement in
fuel consumption) with the GAMI injectors. I highly doubt the Powerflow
is going to drop me to 7 gph. I might bounce that one off the website folks.

--------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 03-19-2008, 12:34 PM
tstrohmayer's Avatar
tstrohmayer tstrohmayer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert.luten View Post
--------------------------------------------------------

I'm already on an avg burn of 8.5 gph at cruise running approx 25 LOP up
to 8000 (go to 50 ROP from there on up with little, if any, decrement in
fuel consumption) with the GAMI injectors. I highly doubt the Powerflow
is going to drop me to 7 gph. I might bounce that one off the website folks.

--------------------------------------------------------
The Power Flow Exhaust will allow a greater airspeed at the same 8.5 gph, 25 LOP. The Exhaust will alternatively allow a lower fuel flow at the same airspeed. When LOP, power drops much faster with FF than when ROP, so 7 gph, while achievable, would probably cause a decrease in airspeed.

When ROP, the efficiency increases from our exhaust result from removing unburned mixture from the combustion chamber after each combustion event and helping to pull in a greater amount of fresh air. When LOP, power is determined by fuel flow, not air flow, so the “clean” mixture is of less benefit. The efficiency gains when LOP come from an increase in volumetric efficiency and reduction in pumping losses.

We did not perform any LOP testing with our test aircraft, so I cannot provide specific numbers. If and when those numbers do become available, we will publish them. The tests we did run showed speed increases on less fuel when ROP. As with all of our products, this one comes with a 60-day money back guarantee. If you do not see the improvements you hoped for, you can return the used PFS exhaust system for a full refund of your purchase price (excluding shipping and labor).
__________________
Tom Strohmayer
Engineering Manager
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 03-19-2008, 02:52 PM
jtreed jtreed is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 60
Default How does Power Flow handle...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pstauble View Post
Over the past few years I have followed the development and reports of the 177FG exhaust, as it went from first to second generation. Various issues were noted and improvements made, such as short stack, heavier material, cracks, etc. Can you summarize the way PFS has handled such issues with customers and who paid for these improvements along the way. I guess while I am very excited about getting this exhaust for my RG, I hesitate to be on the first run of anything new.

It is natural to be hesitant to purchase a new product, especially on the first run. However, keep in mind, although this is our first system for the RG, it is far from our first run. We have over 9 years of experience working with tuned exhaust systems ranging from Cessna to the new Diamond DA40.

You are correct, in the past we have created improved products such as the second generation for Cessna's and Pipers. Please note that the second generation was created not only to accommodate the short stack, but more importantly because its design was more easily transferable to different aircraft therefore simplifying the production process.

Regarding who paid for the improvements, Power Flow paid for them. As with any business, a portion of the profits we make on every system goes to continuing research and development of both current and new designs. Power Flow has fostered a very positive customer service reputation pertaining to manufacturing issues, upgrades, warranties and our above industry standard Money Back Guarantee.

I can not promise you that there will never be a 2nd Generation 177RG exhaust. If we knew of a better design now we would make it now. A laptop computer built in 1999 vs one built in 2008 may be made by the same company, may even be the same initial price, but one made in 2008 will be profoundly better. Does that mean that there was something wrong with the one built in '99? No, at the time it was top of the line. Our exhaust systems, on the other hand, will give you a top of the line product for many years to come.

Our first generation on Cessna’s and Pipers, although almost 10 years old, still provides outstanding performance. If any of those customers wanted to upgrade, there is a procedure for it. We have also stood by the philosophy that our replacement parts should be reasonably priced, regardless of why it needs to be replaced. If you have any questions regarding our specific policies, please do not hesitate to contact me at jtreed@powerflowsystems.com .

Again, I can not promise a 2nd generation will never be released in the future, but I can promise we will stand behind our products, we will continue to provide excellent customer support, and we will continue to uphold our superior quality which has given us such a positive reputation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Power Flow Systems, Inc.