Customer Reviews on the Power Flow Tuned Exhaust

April 2011 - We received detailed feedback from Frankie Lapina, Jacksonville FL, after installing and flying Power Flow Exhaust s/n 003.

Excerpts from the letter: Click here to see the full letter.

"During run up, noticed are the installed Beta II manifold pressure limits and MAP limits, which were supplied with the new system. I guess we’re operating as a Beta II! Once 80% is achieved, the governor takes over and RPM’s seem to “jump” to the top of the green. Very unlike the stock 320. Very much like a Beta II would react, as memory would serve."

"This helicopter truly is performing as a Beta II."

"The next flight, a solo, with the new Power Flow System will again provide more support to the “Beta II in a box” claim. Two to almost three inches of mercury less during all phases of flight were noticed! Straight and level flight, solo, the manifold pressure gauge was close to nineteen with the occasional dip towards eighteen inches of mercury. This was never experienced before in this helicopter! This is at 70 KIAS. It’s….well, cool!"

"Overall, the Power Flow System was exactly what I was looking for. Increase safety through increased performance. Modernizing what would be considered aging, performance wise and increasing the aesthetic overall mechanical appearance, which in turn, in my opinion, increases value."

"In my honest opinion, for my particular application, the cost is justified. Additionally, the replacement time is on condition and replacement parts, such as the tailpipe insert, or baffle, are available so that performance can be restored.

Finally, I am in no way affiliated with Power Flow Systems and this impression is purely voluntary. I do give permission to Power Flow Systems to use the information and pictures in a way that is of positive influence to others with R22’s or with Power Flow Systems in general. I believe product delivers what it claims to."

Frankie Lapina, Jacksonville, FL.

To see Frankie's entire letter, please click here (letter will open in a new window)

Quotes from Justin Dake, Rotorcraft CFI, after flying a Power Flow equipped R22 Beta, N301BP for 8 hours during Power Flow Systems FAA Certification testing, completed June 1, 2010.

  • “Now the Beta really performs like the Beta II. There is improvement everywhere, but I saw the biggest improvement in hover and takeoff performance.”

  • “At max gross, with the stock [Robinson original] exhaust we couldn’t hover within limitations. But, with the Power Flow you can comfortably hover within limitations, even allowing that the maximum manifold pressure is 1 inch lower with the Power Flow.”

  • “With only myself in the R22 and full fuel tanks, I would see 80 to sometimes 85 knots at maximum continuous power. With the Power Flow, I would easily see 85-90 knots. A solid 5-6 knot gain.”

  • “I got the same airspeed in level flight for about 1.0 inches lower manifold pressure. This should result in a lower fuel burn at the same speeds.”

  • “I didn’t really notice a difference in sound in the cockpit.”

Justin Dake, Rotorcraft CFI, Jupiter, FL.

  • "Since the installation of the exhaust system we have noticed a fuel saving of 5 litres [1.32 gallons] per hour in flight training and cruising at low manifold pressure settings, e.g. 20”. We have found whilst doing cross country flights, we are using around 35 litres [9.25 gallons] per hour,(same as a Beta II) but we are cruising with 22” MP, 80 litres [21.13 gallons] on board and 2 P.O.B [People on Board] at around 90-93kts, which is around 5-8kts faster than our own Beta II.

This exhaust puts the R22 Beta up to the R22 Beta II performance without a doubt. And with this exhaust system upgrade we are having the same ‘Hot and High’ performance we are currently having with our R22 Beta II." - D. Lealand - Rotorua, New Zealand

  • "Fuel consumption has shown a consistent 5 Lt/hr [1.32 Gal/hr] reduction when operating at the same airspeed as standard, that’s a 15% reduction in fuel consumption!" - Matt Bailey, Performance Aviation, NZ.

  • We saw an average fuel consumption with the standard exhaust fitted of 33 litres [8.72 gallons] per hour, with the Performance exhaust fitted we saw an average fuel consumption of 30 [7.92 gallons] litres per hour, giving a 3 litres [0.8 Gallons] per hour fuel saving.

This trial was done with the guys just continuing normal flight training, therefore the results are a fairly accurate representation of the fuel savings you can expect. I do believe that in practice, we will see better fuel savings than this when the hook is refitted and they get back to sling with it. Phase of flight such as hovering and sling will be the times where we will see the most benefit in fuel consumption savings.

A flight test was carried out with the standard exhaust fitted, and the same flight on the same day carried out with the tuned exhaust for comparative purposes and the results are as follows.

Standard Exhaust: Climb out @ 23” MAP and constant speed 60kts gave rate of climb of 700fpm.

Tuned Exhaust: Climb out @ 23” MAP and constant speed 60kts gave rate of climb of 900fpm

Standard exhaust: Climb out @ 60kts and rate of climb of 600fpm gave a MAP of 22.5”

Tuned exhaust: Climb out @ 60kts and rate of climb of 600fpm gave a MAP of 21”

Standard exhaust:

Cruise 1000’ at 60kts gave MAP of 18”

Cruise 1000’ at 70kts gave MAP of 19”

Cruise 1000’ at 80kts gave MAP of 20.5”

Tuned exhaust:

Cruise 1000’ at 60kts gave MAP of 17”

Cruise 1000’ at 70kts gave MAP of 18”

Cruise 1000’ at 80kts gave MAP of 19”

Standard Exhaust: Hover MAP – 21.5”

Tuned exhaust: Hover MAP – 20.5”

- R. Marr - Paraparaumu Engineer - HELiPRO Aviation Support - NZ

General Magazine Reviews on the Power Flow Tuned Exhaust

  • “…Power Flow systems offer among the best bang for buck of any mods we’ve reviewed.” – The Aviation Consumer – Feb. 2009

  • “There’s very little available on the aftermarket these days providing the same return rate on investment.” – The Aviation Consumer – Feb. 2009

  • “…we are convinced they have a well engineered product and they have made reasonable performance claims.” – Light Plane Maintenance – Sept. 2008

  • “…the company’s money back guarantee almost makes it a no-brainer to give it a try.” – The Aviation Consumer – Feb. 2009

  • “I’m not a test pilot but… even I could tell there was a difference. It was that obvious.” Flying Magazine, August 1999

  • "Although it’s not free, Power Flow has created the closest thing to free horsepower that we’ve seen.” AOPA Pilot, January 2000

  • “A rate-of-climb increase of about 20 percent is remarkable – not to mention the safety factor increase when leaving high-altitude airports or climbing through cloud layers.” Private Pilot Magazine, December 2000 (click to read)

  • “…boosts the Lycoming O-320’s output by at least 20HP, while simultaneously reducing fuel flow and lowering CHT’s. Geez, what a deal.” The Aviation Consumer, May 1999

  • “At the conclusion of the flights, there was no questions that the PFS had improved both climb and cruise performance.” Plane & Pilot, December 2006. (M20 200hp)

  • “Upon opening the large boxes, I was immediately impressed.” Cessna Owner Magazine, September 2002.

  • “This is a quantum leap in climb performance.” Cessna Pilots Association Magazine, August 1999

  • “In the aircraft industry, you see many “mods” claiming incredible changes to performance. It is refreshing to see one that actually lives up to its performance claims.” Cessna Owner Magazine, September 2002.

  • “The engine gets a more complete fuel burn. The effect in the cockpit is that it will take less throttle to get the same RPM” Aircraft Maintenance Technology Magazine, March 2005