It's an STC, so it's FAA approved. Whatever the power.

Karl

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1104329653.980269@sj-nntpcache-3...
[use caution for thread drift]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

I forget the company's name, but I think they're out of Florida. They
advertise up to 23 extra horsepower. I'd say I'm getting at least 10 on
top of the 160 sea level horses the engine's rated at. Very noticeable,
and welcome when flying in the local mountains, some of which exceed
14,000 feet.

Don't konw, but I wonder. Doesn't that 160 hp rating come from the engine
(not airframe) manufacturer and doesn't it represent the maximum hp output
in ideal conditions?

Then, after the engine is rated by the engine manufacturer, the airframe
manufacturer decides what kind of exhaust system, etc it will have, and
the choice will determine how close the engine-in-the-airframe will come
to producing the theoretical power advertised by the engine manufacturer?

So would it be more accurate to say that with the modified exhaust, you
might be closer to actually producing the advertised 160 hp, rather than
saying the power is greater than 160 hp?

Notice each sentence above ends with a '?'. I'm not saying anyone is
wrong, just wondering how this horsepower rating game works, given that
both the engine mfr and the airframe mfr are making design decisions that
probably affect the actual power produced.

Dave