The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Due to the conversation in another thread regarding possible engine-conversions, I looked at the Franklin Engine website (the one in Ft. Collins) and I've tried to telephone them as well. This was back in August. I've yet to get any kind of response. I can't imagine why they keep the website. The telephone is answered quite generically by an answering machine.

If anyone has received any kind of real communication from them at all in recent history, I'd like to know about it. Thank you.

Franklin Aircraft Engines
Ft. Collins, CO 80524

Phone: 970-224-4404
Fax: 970-224-4404

http://www.franklinengines.com/

(Notice the only engine offered is a run-out.)

Flew behind the 220 engine for a while. Loved it. If I was to do a 170 engine swap it would be with the 220 Franklin. Never had a problem with parts. Susan in Tx can get parts. Also go to Franklin-engines.com for the franklin site. This is not the one in Co.

I'm not looking for old production parts. I'm not looking for rebuilt cylinders. I'm not looking for light-weight starters. I'm looking for the person/company that are leading folks to believe can supply brand new engines and can so right now. As already well known.... both sites are only unfulfilled promises of some engine, some day, in the future.

I receive regular requests from folks wanting contact and other info about the company that is "selling" new engines, and although there are two sites and a couple of American small mom/pop shops that claim to be distributors for the factory, in actual practice there are only used and surplus parts for old production engines. No new engines.

Yeah, it's a bummer with getting anything new for a Franklin now. It was (imo) the best bang for your buck conversion. Now the best bang is to sell what you have and find a deal on a C-180 ,long time owners are getting out and there are some deals that would be less exspensive for performance gain than doing a conversion on any plane now.
I wonder if the way the economy is now it will push the Franklin parts progress even further behind

squaretail wrote:... Now the best bang is to sell what you have and find a deal on a C-180 ,...

I disagree because of that ugly tail on a 180. I'd rather fly a pretty round-tail anyday than be seen in a 180/185. Richard Pulley is the guy who has it all. Beautiful assortment of planes, women, locales.... (Texas AND Alaska).

Hey now George, let's be careful with those dreadful comments about square tails You are going to hurt 888A's feelings by golly

Oops. I'll have to make it up to her! Bring her to Reklaw!

Lets see, the evolution of Cessna in the beginning, they created round tails, not knowing what they were doing as they were just new guys on the block building airplanes, as they continued to build and gain experience, one day they looked up at the pattern in the sky over the airport they saw the light...."Square" is where our future is, and lo and behold a new era was born, and to this day, they have never went back to "round tails"!

The moral of the story is....... sometimes it is hip to be square!

Hmmmn. Didn't last long.

Hey "G",

I still don't see "ROUND" there!

gahorn wrote:Hmmmn. Didn't last long.

swepttails.jpg

Ya got me!

The curious thing to me is why round tails were ever made in metal at all. The previous airplane designs kinda made sense when you recall that they were fabric stretched over frames. Round would be easy.

But in order to have sufficient area for control-effectiveness the round feathers would have to be larger, and yet most round tailfeathers were small. Here's Clyde flying the first airplane he considered successful:
He called it "Silverwing" but it was commonly referred to as the "flying bedstead" because of all that structure out front that resembled a headboard. The tailfeathers were small, but they were on a long arm and it was a common thing in those days to have small tail controls. I imagine those guys were afraid of overcontrolling, but those small, ineffective surfaces were actually part of the problem.

Later on, when all-metal came about, they kept that shape probably because it looked familiar, but it actually is more difficult to make well. (Ask anybody whose had to cut sheet metal in an ellipse and rivet the trailing edges.)

When "square" tailfeathers came about, they greatly improved controllability because of the greater surface area. The "swept" look is a fashion-statement. It actually detracts from controllability, and the surface area must be increased accordingly, which also adds unnecessary weight.

So you are correct.... square tails are better aerodynamically and structurally, and are more efficient.

But who is into old classic airplanes for efficiency?

I like my airplanes and my women well - R O U N D E D!