220 Franklin Parts

912c · Post by **912c** » Tue May 06, 2008 7:58 pm

Anyone have a lead on Franklin 220 pistons or other parts?

swanstedt · Post by **swanstedt** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:44 pm

Try Susan at http://www.franklinengineco.com/

They try to keep everything in stock to keep our birds flying. They even have parts manufactured when supplies are low.

51E · Post by **51E** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:09 am

Aside from the question of parts, are there any particular disadvantages of an aeroplane powered by the 220 Franklin?

Joseph

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:07 am

Can't use Mogas, but neither can the IO-540.

xwildcat · Post by **xwildcat** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:13 am

Sucks at altitude. My M4-220C is a beast below 5000' and does remarkable things at 3500' or less. Above 8000' it's terrible. After 12,000'... forget it.

51E · Post by **51E** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:23 am

Thanks for your note. This performance profile would be a disappointment for someone interested in backcountry flying.

xwildcat · Post by **xwildcat** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:44 am

Well, I don't confuse back country flying with cross country flying. I do A LOT of backcountry and off-airport stuff. However, when I go home to Colorado and have to clear 12,000' passes I cringe.

So to clarify... it is a GREAT backcountry tool. It is a poor cross country tool when higher altitudes are required.

Also... I blame the engine, but it might be a combination of factors including wing and prop.

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:09 am

I might be wrong, but I don't think the Franklin loses power any faster than other normally asperated engines from altitude. This is not from experience, but I have been led to understand the long wing Maules do better at altitude or on floats than the short winged ones, but it is my understanding that a M-4/220 will blow the doors off of my M-6/235 down low.
I've not flown one so I cannot say for sure.
Jeremy?

51E · Post by **51E** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:39 pm

The backcountry flying I do usually involves mountains (going into Big Creek, ID next week...5700' or so elevation), so power at altitude matters to me.

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:54 pm

The short winged Maules will not do as well at altitude as the long winged ones regardless of engine, unless I'm wrong of course. The exception to that would be the turbo, I believe. But as I have no experience, I'm hoping Jeremy or someone else will jump in and confirm or deny.

vaughans · Post by **vaughans** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:09 am

What are we comparing to? I have had my M-4 220 into Johnson Creek loaded with my son (both big guys) & I all our camping gear & food & drink & fuel and was quite suprised at its performance off a field at 5000' altitude. it doesn't lose power any worse than any normally aspirated engine that I have ever flown behind & I find it to be an exceptional engine so much in fact that I rebuilt another m-4 with the same powerplant!

xwildcat · Post by **xwildcat** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:22 pm

True. I've had mine in the same or worse situations and would post identical to yours. I love it at 5000' or less. Take it to 10,000 feet or more, however, and the M4-220 sheds performance quicker than anything I've ever flown.

BTW, I live in the land of 14,000 foot peaks so I don't consider 5,000' to be high altitude. In fact, that is 2,800 feet BELOW my field elevation. So in my previous posts I'm talking about Altitude with a capital "A".

Hottshot · Post by **Hottshot** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:06 pm

One other thing you must remember is the M4-5 have the shortest wing maule made so at Altitude no matter the power plant performance will be hindered....

.02

Just a thought anyways...

Hottshot · Post by **Hottshot** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:09 pm

Hey guys don't mind my blabering ...\

I think I need to read the posts from the top down inste of the other way around

a64pilot Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The short winged Maules will not do as well at altitude as the long winged ones regardless of engine, unless I'm wrong of course. The exception to that would be the turbo, I believe. But as I have no experience, I'm hoping Jeremy or someone else will jump in and confirm or deny.

vaughans · Post by **vaughans** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:58 pm

Xwildcat, The next question that I would ask then is why are you flying a shortwing MAULE if you believe it suffers in performance to other comparable aircraft in your high altitude enviorment? the basic wing profile is even comparable to the MX-7 except that hey have more flap, less aileron & the negative flap setting for spoiling lift. I agree that the longer wing would be better at high altitude but them you give up performance in speed. One needs to define the enviorment that they spend the majority of their time in and equip for that enviorment. I flew along with a Maule MX-7 235 lycoming into Johnson creek Idaho and the only performance advantage that I believe he had over me was speed in cruise due to the negative flap setting he had available. By the way he comsumed several gallons an hour more fuel. I bet you are not ready to trade your maule for a cessna or four place piper.

vaughans

220 Franklin Parts

220 Franklin Parts

220 Franklin question

performance at high altitude

Who is online