FIRSTHAND experience with Franklins

There’s a 801 that just came into our airport from out west.It has a Franklin (180 hp I think) and it sits on a weird motor mount,like the mount is underneath the engine instead of behind it.This is probably common for them as I’ve never seen another one but it puts a lot of strain on the 2 top tubes and welds.This one actually broke will trailering back and upon inspection the one break was an old one so the po was flying with a partially broken engine mount.Doesn’t really factor in but just an interesting observation
Not an uncommon idea at all. This is the mount for a Franklin on an 801:

1714853260951.png

It's called a bed mount.

Now, a look at the Cessnas that had the Continental O-300, O-470, O/IO-520, and IO-550:

182. An O-470 mount.

1714853535644.png

185, IO-520.

1714853646695.png

Pre-1968 Cessna 172, O-300 engine:

1714853837185.png

IO-550:

1714854114881.png


Now, back to that 801 mount:

1714854446326.png

I see four places (two circled in red) where there will be bending loads on that mount, at the weld clusters and at the rear engine shockmount points. That's where it will crack and fail. Properly designed, it should look like this Franklin mount:

1714854547398.png
1714854575368.png

The weld clusters are at the rear mounts, with no unbraced sections of tubing at all between the top tubes and the engine's weight. If you look at the Cessna bed mounts above you will see the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Not an uncommon idea at all. This is the mount for a Franklin on an 801:

View attachment 128447

It's called a bed mount.

Now, a look at the Cessnas that had the Continental O-300, O-470, O/IO-520, and IO-550:

182. An O-470 mount.

View attachment 128448

185, IO-520.

View attachment 128449

Pre-1968 Cessna 172, O-300 engine:

View attachment 128450

IO-550:

View attachment 128451


Now, back to that 801 mount:

View attachment 128452

I see four places (two circled in red) where there will be bending loads on that mount, at the weld clusters and at the rear engine shockmount points. That's where it will crack and fail. Properly designed, it should look like this Franklin mount:

View attachment 128453
View attachment 128454

The weld clusters are at the rear mounts, with no unbraced sections of tubing at all between the top tubes and the engine's weight. If you look at the Cessna bed mounts above you will see the same thing.
And that,friends,is what happens when a neophyte tries to speak with authority on a subject on which he knows little;).Thanks for setting me straight
 
. Knowing how often electrics fail in airplanes, I was never comfortable flying it.
And yet people add EFIS and electronic ignition all the time.

A well designed install will be reliable. something slapped together will not. The cost of the frame tractor engines is all about low parts production volume, nothing else. tell me how can a Lycoming be reliable when you have to replace 1-2 jugs every 500ish hours???
 
Im curious about the 1500 hour tbo of the franklin. How does the real-world longevity compare to a lycoming? If i gotta replace jugs left and right, 4 might be better than 6 unless the sleevable Franklin is cheaper to do than a lycoming. Experimental vs certified has to make a difference too.
 
Where did you come up with that ridiculous figure? It’s total BS.
He speaks from a total lack of experience. Our flight school airplanes--six of them Lyc-powered, one twin with Continentals--always went to TBO with no cylinder replacements. Must have overseen maybe 35,000 hours of air time in my time as Director of Maintenance there. Never had a magneto or alternator or vacuum pump failure, either, since we always did the recommended periodic inspections on them. We did not run them to failure like so many dudes do.

His assertion of folks adding EFI and EI all the time to their aircraft is a reference to the E-AB world, where that's permissible. Can't do that on type-certified airplanes without an STC, and there is no STC for electronic fuel injection. There are STC'd electronic mags available, and they have not been particularly successful; search this site for Surefly problems.

EI and EFI work well in cars, where an electrical system failure means coasting to the side of the road. In an airplane, to be safe, it needs redundancy, and Lycoming's iE2 engines have exactly that. Full EI and EFI with a separate, dedicated alternator in case the airframe electrical supply fails. And that electrical supply failure is WAY TOO COMMON especially in private airplanes, as alternators are often being run until they quit.

When I was in Power Mechanics classes in high school in the late 1960s, the instructor told us that 90% of engine problems will be electrical. In the 55 years since then I have found him to be right, both for cars and airplanes. 90%. It's why we have two magnetos in a Lyc or Continental, but only one carburetor. As long as adequate clean fuel reaches the carb, the engine will run. Carb failures are nearly unknown. But mags quit regularly when they're not maintained, and most are not maintained.

An EI/EFI airplane will also fail if it is not maintained properly. Airplanes are not cars; they need more care because they easily kill the careless, and because they are working far harder than the car. The alternator in a car is running at about 30% of its redline, since it is driven at a ratio that makes sure it does not exceed its redline when the engine reaches its redline, and the car cruises at maybe 30% of its redline RPM. In the airplane, the same alternator, similarly driven at a ratio that makes it reach redline at the engine redline, is typically running at over 90% of its redline, and the field brushes wear out much faster. It's as simple as that. A Lyc that redlines at 2700 will be cruising at around 2500, 93% of redline. Not a car. Can't treat it like a car. Can't expect high levels of reliability without redundancy, and redundancy costs money, and owners are too cheap to buy the stuff. So the iE2 is found in very few airplanes, as are the expensive SMA diesel certified for the 182 and the Continental turbodiesel CD-155 certified for the 172. When I was working on an SMA in a 182 in 2010, there were only 50 of them flying worldwide, after a $1 Billion development cost by Safran. Not cheap. It had mechanical fuel injection, like legacy auto and truck diesels, and a computerized engine control system that only had to control the throttle lever on the fuel pump and manifold pressure. There was an emergency mechanical backup throttle control for the pilot if the electrics failed. The prop governor was set to 2200 RPM, and the pilot did not have any prop control. The RPM went to 2200 on takeoff and stayed there until the power was reduced for landing.
 
Great info...thanks! Lots of variables to consider.
 
I’ll have to check my really old TAP and see if I can find the ad.

The GO-300’s on Skylarks had their share of initial problems.

Franklin sold a complete FWF kit that included the mount, prop and baffles.

I don’t recall if there were cowling mods.

It was rather popular vs the GO- 300 overhaul.

A similar package wound up on a Stinson 108-2.
 
I'm no expert on EI but I'd say a few of them, E-MAG/P-MAG in particular, have become as reliable as any magnetos out there. Truth in lending, I run Slicks on my IO-540 but I'm seriously considering switching to PMAGs at the next 500hr point.

As for engine TBOs, even in the standard certificated world they are not legal hard stops. I personally know of many Lycoming 360s and 540s that are well past their TBOs and still going strong. The key IMO is proper routine maintenance using all the tools in the tool kit -- bore scope, oil analysis, filter examination, compression testing, etc, etc. However, there's no panaceas. Even the best cared for engines can be problem children and can have all kinds of recurring expensive issues way before reaching TBO. As with most things there's few absolutes when it comes to engines.
 
As for engine TBOs, even in the standard certificated world they are not legal hard stops. I personally know of many Lycoming 360s and 540s that are well past their TBOs and still going strong. The key IMO is proper routine maintenance using all the tools in the tool kit -- bore scope, oil analysis, filter examination, compression testing, etc, etc. However, there's no panaceas. Even the best cared for engines can be problem children and can have all kinds of recurring expensive issues way before reaching TBO. As with most things there's few absolutes when it comes to engines.
The engine itself--the case, crank, pistons and cylinders, gears--are all robust and very seldom give problems unless the engine is mistreated or neglected. They do not appreciate, for instance, ground-running "to circulate the oil." That adds water to the crankcase via the cold piston/ring/cylinder clearances, and it doesn't get driven off by the heat of flying the thing. That water mixes with the oil and forms acids that eat the engine This chemistry is well-known and the engine manufacturers warn you against such stuff. Cars have extremely close tolerances, as liquid-cooling permits, and they also have PCV systems that constantly purge the crankcase of corrosive gases. An airplane engine is not a car engine and cannot be treated like one.

Water in the case also results in sludge that makes hydraulic valve lifters stick.

Most engine problems are with the accessories. Alternators whose field brushes wear out because the alternator did not get the recommended 50-hour internal inspections. Magnetos that fail for the same reason. Vacuum pumps that fail due to vane wear way beyond limits, because it was either not replaced at the recommended time (for a non-vane-wear-inspectable pump) or because the five-minute inspections on inspectable pumps weren't done at the recommended intervals so as to take a pump out of service once the wear is at limits; this also gets the maximum service out of a pump and I have no idea why people still buy pumps without the inspection ports. Tempest and Rapco both sell pumps with inspection provisions. If the vanes are not worn out, they can't cock in that carbon rotor and jam it and break the pump. It's that simple. And if a pump does fail suddenly, the whole vac system needs cleaning out, as the vacuum in the instrument cases can suck carbon debris back into the lines, debris that then gets sucked into the new pump and shortens its life. There is absolutely no sense to running any of this stuff to failure.

Fuel systems give problems because the various filters in the system never get checked at annual. I have run into several fuel strainers that had obviously not been apart for many years; the bowls were seized onto the head, there was corrosion in the bowl, and the filter screen was filthy. This is a 100 hour/annual thing. There's another filter in the carb's or injection servo's fuel inlet that never gets checked either. It can get dirty and stop the fuel flow. A 200-hour/annual item that doesn't get done. The carb bowl is also supposed to be drained and flushed at annual, another ten-minute job.

So many older engines have only an oil filter screen. Carmakers stopped doing that maybe 70 or 80 years ago. A proper filter catches the stuff that causes engine wear, and there are adapters available from the OEM or via aftermarket STCs to install spin-on filters that make your engine last far longer.

There are engines that run 4000+ hours in operations such as pipeline or powerline patrol. They are run hard every day, and the engines like that. It does not like sitting for months and then pootling around the pattern for an hour on some Saturday afternoon, then sitting for more months. Our flight school airplanes lasted to TBO with compressions still in the high 70s and no metal in the filters, and those engines were flown by ham-handed students, too. Any of those engine cores could have powered a homebuilt for another 1500 hours.

Most expensive problems that arise in well-cared-for engines involve ADs. Some manufacturing defect that has crept in somewhere, and now we have some part that might be bad and might fail, and so there might be a risk that demands replacement. Sometimes it's a fault directly with the engine manufacturer, more often with a contractor that makes parts for the manufacturer, and often with field overhaulers that do something outside the limits of the overhaul manuals.
 
Last edited:
I am not a Franklin expert, but I do fly behind a Franklin 150, which is substantially similar to a 165.

- The Franklin is the smoothest piston aircraft engine I’ve ever flown behind in 7,000 hours.

- The removable top cover is like a computer or a smart phone: You managed just fine beforehand, but once you have it, you wonder how you ever did without it. I can drain the oil, pop the top cover, and see the cam, lifters, all the way down to the bottom of the oil pan. With a borescope, I can see the back side of the front bearing and the accessory gears. With a reusable silicone gasket, all it requires is a socket and about 10 minutes. It also made pickling the engine this winter when I knew I wasn’t going to fly for a couple months easy. I can spray the crank, cam, and lower parts of the cylinder bores directly.

- Parts are out there if you can be a little patient and ask around. Supposedly there are PMA offerings in the works, so hopefully that comes to fruition.

- The intake manifolds are solid, so do not shim the cylinder bases to try and lower compression. Something will crack, leak, and/or depart the airplane.

- Since you’re experimental, you could probably “derate” a 220 in other ways, but I’d call around and speak to those who know their stuff on it. The Franklin Engine Company in Texas would be where I’d start. Susan can put you in contact with people who would know how to pull that off. There are some extremely good independent shops that know these engines well, so that’s where I’d put my money.

- Franklins are easy to work on, but they are different than a Continental or a Lycoming. For example, lots of 150/165’s have had spark plug helicoils ripped out because a mechanic didn’t read the manual. 14mm plugs can’t be tightened as much as an 18mm one can. RTFM and do what the designers said, and it’ll treat you well.

- It’s been said a worn out Franklin is still tighter than a new Continental. I don’t know how true that is for every measurement, but below are two screenshots of a Franklin 150 manual and a C-85.
 

Attachments

  • B4243B3B-76EA-4F49-8230-F983693E841F.jpeg
    B4243B3B-76EA-4F49-8230-F983693E841F.jpeg
    273.5 KB · Views: 8
  • 4C4F5178-C293-44AB-8831-1856BA954682.jpeg
    4C4F5178-C293-44AB-8831-1856BA954682.jpeg
    365.7 KB · Views: 8
  • 731B1541-E28D-4E93-97BB-7973AC6DF6E5.jpeg
    731B1541-E28D-4E93-97BB-7973AC6DF6E5.jpeg
    441.8 KB · Views: 8
Wow good stuff! Thanks for taking the time to fill me in! Its a shame they arent more popular. That seems to be the biggest strike against it so far.
 
I also had a Franklin in a Helicopter. Dont forget that the Franklin lives at 3100 RPM when in a Helicopter. That takes its toll on engine life. I think Hondas and Suzukis are cool but the same thing goes for them. They will live at 5500 RPM in your plane. I think the head gasket will put up with that for 1000 hours so half the price/ half the life of a lycoming.

go out to your 4 cylinder powered car. Start it up and hold the pedal down till it reaches 5500 rpm then leave it there for 2 hours. you will feel like its about to blow up.

Rotax motors rev that high and seem to last long but its just my opinion.
 
I've flown my Velocity with a PZL Franklin 6A-350-C1R for about 850 hours over 8 years now (1250 TTE). It's a smooth running engine that's been very reliable for me. The builder of my plane flew it for 400 of the 1250 hours and had a stuck valve on the #6 cylinder at around the 400 hour mark. Cylinder and piston were replaced and the engine has been running well since. The top access cover is a cool feature that some other poster mentioned. I have dual electronic ignitions with auto plugs on mine (Lightspeed Plasma 3) and am very happy with it.

Parts haven't been an issue yet and both Southern Aero (now called Franklin Aerospace) in North Carolina and Susan Prall of the Franklin Engine Company in Texas have been my go to for parts.

The PZL Franklin was a popular engine choice for Velocity during the 90's as it was readily available from Velocity factory and was lower in cost compared to Lycoming and Continental. The controversial electric Ivoprop Magnum propeller is a supported option for the Franklin which is also installed on my Velocity. The combo has worked well for me.

The Polish company, PZL, is apparently still around and presumably producing some limited runs of engines and parts. (https://www.franklin-engines.com/en/6-cylinder-engines-6a-350-c1r/)
 
Okay okay thats enough! If you all keep raving about this engine, I wont be able to afford one by the time I'm ready to get one! I gotta resist the urge to get one now!
 
Back
Top