VW Reality

"Jerry Wass" wrote in message . net...
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
Limited experience with a Franklin in a Bell 47 had a lot of lead fouling,
compared with Lycoming engine experience. Different plugs or mags? Also if
there wasn't oil under it before start up, it needed more oil. Not my bird
though. All of the above could be maintenance related?

Stu
"Morgans" wrote in message
...
"Anthony W" wrote

Anybody know if these new Franklin engines are any good? If they are, a
complete engine for under $7 make me wonder why anybody would use a VW
engine instead of one of these...
I have no first hand experience, but I know someone with one, and they
don't have kind things to say, as compared to the other "big two" opposed
engine makers. I don't know of anything specific, though.
--
Jim in NC



The Franks use a 14mm plug in lieu of the usual 18mm--there's not as
much room between electrodes & porcelain to let the lead balls fall out.
especially the 3 electrode plug which works a lot better than the other
types. Jerry



Plus, they still spec 100/130 for the minimum fuel grade?
http://www.franklinengines.com/4a.cfm
http://www.franklinengines.com/6a.cfm

If they meant 100LL, why wouldn't they say it?

The TCDS that I can find at FAA.GOV list minimum octane at 73 to 80 for the older engines...

Anthony W wrote:
Jerry Wass wrote:
The Franks use a 14mm plug in lieu of the usual 18mm--there's not as
much room between electrodes & porcelain to let the lead balls fall out.
especially the 3 electrode plug which works a lot better than the
other types. Jerry

According to the website the new Franklin engines have 18mm spark plugs.
I can only assume they discovered that problem.

What I don't understand is how the Franklin engine company ended up in
Eastern Europe. The last I'd heard of them was that the Franklin engine
division was the only surviving department of Tucker motors. From what
I read Tucker brought Franklin because they couldn't get the bugs out of
their own engine design.

Tony

The Polish company PZL bought the Franklin production rights, tooling,
engineering etc from whatever receiver was sitting on it back in the 90s.

Wasn't aware that Tucker ever owned Franklin. He originally got his
Franklin engines from Howard Hughes, who had a warehouse full of VIO 5
something engines for helicopters and wanted to unload them on a sucker,
and found a willing dupe only one letter of the alphabet away.

John

Blueskies wrote:

Anybody know if these new Franklin engines are any good?
The Franks use a 14mm plug in lieu of the usual 18mm--there's not as
much room between electrodes & porcelain to let the lead balls fall out.
especially the 3 electrode plug which works a lot better than the
other types. Jerry



Plus, they still spec 100/130 for the minimum fuel grade?
http://www.franklinengines.com/4a.cfm
http://www.franklinengines.com/6a.cfm

If they meant 100LL, why wouldn't they say it?

The TCDS that I can find at FAA.GOV list minimum octane at 73 to 80 for
the older engines...

I was wondering about that too. The compression ratio doesn't seem high
enough to require that. Perhaps a thicker head gasket could be used to
lower the CR so it would run on auto-premium to make it cheaper to operate.

Tony

John wrote:

The Polish company PZL bought the Franklin production rights, tooling,
engineering etc from whatever receiver was sitting on it back in the 90s.

Wasn't aware that Tucker ever owned Franklin. He originally got his
Franklin engines from Howard Hughes, who had a warehouse full of VIO 5
something engines for helicopters and wanted to unload them on a sucker,
and found a willing dupe only one letter of the alphabet away.

John

I didn't verify it but according to a History channel show on Tucker.
After too many failures of the Tucker engine, Franklin aircraft engines
were converted to liquid cooling and proved to be reliable and Tucker
bought the Franklin company to be sure and have an uninterrupted supply
of engines for his cars. After the bankruptcy, the Franklin engine
company was sold off but I don't know who bought it and I assumed they
were gone forever. If the Pols are doing a good job at building these
new Franklin engines, they sure look like a bargain.

Tony

On Feb 8, 7:01*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote

* * * Point was: *After all the fooling around and the unexpected
costs associated with the installation, it wasn' worth it. These
things tend to cost way more than we figure, and take a long time to
sort out. I just want others to know that, so that they aren't as
unpleasantly surprised like we were.

Point taken.

Auto engine installations are definitely for the person that wants something
different, and realizes that there will most likely be some things to sort
out.
--
Jim in NC

That's the "educational" part of homebuilt experimental planes....

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

"stol" wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 7:01 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote

Point was: After all the fooling around and the unexpected
costs associated with the installation, it wasn' worth it. These
things tend to cost way more than we figure, and take a long time to
sort out. I just want others to know that, so that they aren't as
unpleasantly surprised like we were.

Point taken.

Auto engine installations are definitely for the person that wants
something
different, and realizes that there will most likely be some things to sort
out.
--
Jim in NC

That's the "educational" part of homebuilt experimental planes....

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

----------------above line is prior post (OE strikes again!)--------------

I've seen a few really nice ones, and a couple that got a little too
educational!

Peter

In article hNorj.881$R64.37@trndny03,
Anthony W wrote:

I didn't verify it but according to a History channel show on Tucker.
After too many failures of the Tucker engine, Franklin aircraft engines
were converted to liquid cooling and proved to be reliable and Tucker
bought the Franklin company to be sure and have an uninterrupted supply
of engines for his cars. After the bankruptcy, the Franklin engine
company was sold off but I don't know who bought it and I assumed they
were gone forever.

At least as of the mid-70s Franklin engines were in production.

About the time I first started instruction, Bellanca was making
Aeroncas, and they offered their 7AC equivalent with a 2-cylinder
Franklin engine.

For $4995 FAF. (I wanted one *sooooooooooo* much at the time.)

If the Pols are doing a good job at building these
new Franklin engines, they sure look like a bargain.

Tony

On Feb 9, 2:10 pm, Anthony W wrote:
I was wondering about that too. The compression ratio doesn't seem high
enough to require that. Perhaps a thicker head gasket could be used to
lower the CR so it would run on auto-premium to make it cheaper to operate.


I've had very little to do with Franklins, but if they're built
like most other opposed aircraft engines, there is no head gasket. The
steel cylinder screws into the aluminum head, more or less
permanently, using a shrink fit. The only way to lower the compression
ratio in such engines is to shim the cylinder base/crankcase
junction.
I once owned a McCulloch two-stroke four-cylinder drone
engine that had been modified this way to derate it from 72 hp to 50
and to allow it to run smoother at a lower RPM. Terrible engine,
commonly used years ago in Bensen's gyrocopters. They'd been built by
McCulloch for the military, who used them in target drones for anti-
aircraft gunners to practice shooting down, so the engine was designed
for a 15-minute service life or something like that. In homebuilts,
they vibrated like mad, and the mag would get hot and quit. The
carburetor throttle shaft would wear the thin carb barrel walls out in
no time flat and leak air. But cheap they were, light, and plentiful.
Couple pictures of one, and one of a Franklin drone engine, too:
http://www.barnstormers.com/EVENTS/0...museum-21.html

Dan

wrote:

I've had very little to do with Franklins, but if they're built
like most other opposed aircraft engines, there is no head gasket. The
steel cylinder screws into the aluminum head, more or less
permanently, using a shrink fit. The only way to lower the compression
ratio in such engines is to shim the cylinder base/crankcase
junction.

This seems an odd way of doing things to me but my background is in
motorcycles not aviation.

I once owned a McCulloch two-stroke four-cylinder drone
engine that had been modified this way to derate it from 72 hp to 50
and to allow it to run smoother at a lower RPM. Terrible engine,
commonly used years ago in Bensen's gyrocopters. They'd been built by
McCulloch for the military, who used them in target drones for anti-
aircraft gunners to practice shooting down, so the engine was designed
for a 15-minute service life or something like that. In homebuilts,
they vibrated like mad, and the mag would get hot and quit. The
carburetor throttle shaft would wear the thin carb barrel walls out in
no time flat and leak air. But cheap they were, light, and plentiful.
Couple pictures of one, and one of a Franklin drone engine, too:
http://www.barnstormers.com/EVENTS/0...museum-21.html

My old business partner (some 25 odd years ago) had both a 2 cylinder
and 4 cylinder drone engines hanging up in the bike shop. I agree it
sure looked cheaply made. He had them for display items and I don't
think he ever ran either of them.

Tony

wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:10 pm, Anthony W wrote:

I was wondering about that too. The compression ratio doesn't seem high
enough to require that. Perhaps a thicker head gasket could be used to
lower the CR so it would run on auto-premium to make it cheaper to operate.



I've had very little to do with Franklins, but if they're built
like most other opposed aircraft engines, there is no head gasket. The
steel cylinder screws into the aluminum head, more or less
permanently, using a shrink fit. The only way to lower the compression
ratio in such engines is to shim the cylinder base/crankcase
junction.
I once owned a McCulloch two-stroke four-cylinder drone
engine that had been modified this way to derate it from 72 hp to 50
and to allow it to run smoother at a lower RPM. Terrible engine,
commonly used years ago in Bensen's gyrocopters. They'd been built by
McCulloch for the military, who used them in target drones for anti-
aircraft gunners to practice shooting down, so the engine was designed
for a 15-minute service life or something like that. In homebuilts,
they vibrated like mad, and the mag would get hot and quit. The
carburetor throttle shaft would wear the thin carb barrel walls out in
no time flat and leak air. But cheap they were, light, and plentiful.
Couple pictures of one, and one of a Franklin drone engine, too:
http://www.barnstormers.com/EVENTS/0...museum-21.html

Dan



Perhaps, like teh VW, a spacer at teh bottom of the cylinder can be
used to adjust compression?