Mandatory tool box

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

rsrguy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
158
Location
Eden
That needs to be the subject of another thread on HBA... a lot of us want to know about the airplane, how it flies, did you build it or re-engine it, etc.
Maybe.. it's a long mostly boring and geeky story. In any case this is a new pzl build franklin with about 6 hours of total run time. The 350 isn't a lot more weight than the o360. But the builder put a light weight cs mt prop on it...
 

rsrguy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
158
Location
Eden
Daughter and son in law used to have a 1948 Cessna 170 that was converted to a 150 hp Franklin engine. Engine went bad and needed a MOH and we converted it back to a Cont- 0-300. Did a new W&B and it lost 85 lbs. Flew better in all ways. Made a good airplane out of it.
The Franklin uses the same prop as the Cont -0-300- A engine.
Daughter's first flight training was in the C-170.
Sure but ask the guys that put the 220hp 6 on the 170's, 172's and stinsons how they like them...
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,498
Location
USA.
Sure but ask the guys that put the 220hp 6 on the 170's, 172's and stinsons how they like them...
Big difference between the stock 145 Hp to the 220 hp. The extra 5 HP of the 150 HP Franklin over the Cont 145 hp didn't make up the difference of the 85 lbs extra weight. Huge negative.
Reminds me of the last bi-annual I had. Did it in a Cessna 172N with the Lyc-360 conversion. It was a conversion STC that didn't relocate the battery to rear of the baggage area. With 2 of us in the front seat it was very, very nose heavy. Had lots of power but was not a good flying C-172. I have flown 3 different C-172's with the Lyc-360 conversions and the one that flew and preformed the best was the Bush STC conversion. Fixed pitch prop, battery moved to the rear of the baggage area. The other was with the weight on the nose of the constant speed prop and the battery still on the firewall was also a poor flying airplane.
I don't know anything about the Franklin 220 hp STC conversions in the Cessnas, but unless the W&B is kept at the stock location, they might have lots of power but will not handle as good as the stock Cessna.
There used to be a Stinson that flew in my runway with the Franklin 220 HP conversion and it got off quick and climbed good. But, for some reason, didn't keep it very long.
 
Last edited:

rsrguy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
158
Location
Eden
Couldn't agree more. A poorly balanced and rigged airplane suks regardless of the airframe.
 

rsrguy3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
158
Location
Eden
Victor Bravo... here yago!

 

challenger_II

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,341
Location
Fisher County, Tx. USA
Big difference between the stock 145 Hp to the 220 hp. The extra 5 HP of the 150 HP Franklin over the Cont 145 hp didn't make up the difference of the 85 lbs extra weight. Huge negative.
Reminds me of the last bi-annual I had. Did it in a Cessna 172N with the Lyc-360 conversion. It was a conversion STC that didn't relocate the battery to rear of the baggage area. With 2 of us in the front seat it was very, very nose heavy. Had lots of power but was not a good flying C-172. I have flown 3 different C-172's with the Lyc-360 conversions and the one that flew and preformed the best was the Bush STC conversion. Fixed pitch prop, battery moved to the rear of the baggage area. The other was with the weight on the nose of the constant speed prop and the battery still on the firewall was also a poor flying airplane.
I don't know anything about the Franklin 220 hp STC conversions in the Cessnas, but unless the W&B is kept at the stock location, they might have lots of power but will not handle as good as the stock Cessna.
There used to be a Stinson that flew in my runway with the Franklin 220 HP conversion and it got off quick and climbed good. But, for some reason, didn't keep it very long.
With the 220 Franklin, the 108-3 becomes a very short-legged flying machine unless One increases the fuel onboard.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
11,498
Location
USA.
With the 220 Franklin, the 108-3 becomes a very short-legged flying machine unless One increases the fuel onboard.
Same problem with the older C-172's without the long range fuel tanks. The long range fuel tanks are just the C-175 wings and tanks on the 172's . One of the reasons the Lyc-360 is a better conversion into the C-175. Then in the later models of C-172 they had the long range tanks as standard.
My daughter and son in law had a 1963 Cessna 172 with the Lyc-360 conversion and fixed pitch prop and battery relocated to the area behind the baggage area. Lots of power and handled very well. I took it on a trip to Cleveland, OH and back and averaged 151 mph for the trip. Had a gross weight increase and a great panel and a S-Tec autopilot coupled to everything. Just didn't have enough range.
I liked it better than the C-182. With the GW increase it was a good 4 place airplane.
Daughter loved that airplane.
 
Last edited:
Top