flyfish1 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:03 pm

It just goes to show that the institutional knowledge on these Franklins is just not there. I think they are a good engine but have a lot of issues by incorrect maintenance.

I have the same belief. I have two engines- one that is 0 SMOH that's waiting if I need it, and one that I installed when it was time to put an engine on the plane during my rebuild, and I hadn't gotten the one back from O/H yet. The one that's currently on my plane has 1975 hours on it SNEW, and has never even had a cylinder removed I feel like I'm sitting on a unicorn. I'm planning to fire it up for the first time in about 20 years this weekend, and depending on how it runs, oil pressure, compression, etc., I plan to continue running it. If it displays any bad behavior, I'll swap engines.

Anyone want to speculate why Maules setup is different than the Stinson setup.

Which setup? It's been a while since I've had my Stinson, but if you referring to the oil line routing, my best guess would be that the engine cases are entirely different, but I don't know if they changed the basic oil routing between the 150/165 and the 180/220 cases.

Yes, referring to the oil plumbing. Best I can tell is that all the engines are the same. It seems the Maule method may be a bit more passive in changing oil flow where the Stinson setup may be a bit more of a positive swap between paths. But I haven’t drawn both out to wrap my head around it.

Maybe the vernatherm blocks changed at some point. Seems the Stinson block uses one extra hose. But I think the Maule block is the same and the extra port is just plugged.

I remember the vernatherm on my Stinson being an integral part of the oil cooler, and it's not on my Maule....