hotrod180 wrote:

TxKiger wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what to do with my engine. I could spend nearly 30k+ for the pponk engine or I could field overhaul the engine for roughly 15k and put the money saved into a sportsman stol kit, wing extensions, and larger tires. Any comments would be appreciated.

I'm surprised that no one has asked what your mission statement is. What are you trying to make the airplane capable of-- more speed, shorter takeoff and landing, carrying more load? Or maybe all of the above?

All the above (except the speed is probably the last thing i'd like out of all of those)! I'd like to focus more on back country utilization although I haven't done much adventuring yet. I'm currently on pace to need an engine every 6-7 years so I'm now leaning more towards the lower price engine overhaul, but we will see!

Hotrod180 is spot on.

Your decision should be based on the priority of your needs, not necessarily what is cheapest first.

I am still nursing the bank account after a $ 48k hit in Pponk conversion, MT prop, rebuilt motor mount and all the other ancillary costs. Was it the right decision for me vs. my other wants (bushwheels, new interior, Sportsman STOL) coupled with a standard overhaul? Absolutely in my opinion.

My kids and all their stuff are usually tagging along on my ventures to play, and while the 180/182's are rocket ships when empty, like all light aircraft it was definitely not overpowered at high DA. When heavy getting the airplane into ground effect wasn't hard, but pulling away from the ground/terrain high/hot/heavy was at times challenging. The extra horsepower/thrust in climb with the Pponk/MT combo is dramatic. I first swapped in an 88" prop on my high time engine and that helped some, but nowhere near what the additional displacement and thrust delivers.

That said, if I was primarily venturing solo and light, I'd have probably made a different decision, and worked with the O-470's lower power output and the 88" prop.

It's best to think through how the upgrades will best fit your mission, and make the choice from there.

Flynengr

TxKiger wrote:Thanks for all the input, it's made me go back and forth on my decision multiple times . The 30k for the Ponk does not include the cost of a approved prop... MTV my hangar is only 42 feet wide so I'd build another hangar if I decide to put on the wingx. Fortunately I live on the airport and I'm handy with a hammer so the cost of building a hangar would be minimal compared to hiring it done. Also the engine in question hasn't had any problems. I'm nearing the 1,900 hour mark and the compressions and oil consumption is still good. I know this opens up another can of worms of when to pull the trigger on starting the overhaul. The last overhaul was done in 1968 and the model is an o470L.

This is how mine panned out, I took it out and over to the Pponk approved shop.
Pponk engine $25800 included $2000 for Pponk STC
included reman mags, new wires and spark plugs, reman wet vacuum pump, oil pump upgrade (but not high volume), big oil cooler, carb mod, prop gov. ECI cyl assemblies, connecting rods, new U crankshaft, exchange cam, hiflow exhaust lifters and regular intake lifters, machined and inspected case, reman starter adapter, oil filter adapter (increases TBO to 2000 hrs), plane power alternator and regulator belt and correct pullies.
2hrs run on engine stand to prove and adjust.

$1900 Kosola engine mount repair and new rubber.

$1250 new engine baffling.

$9000 Mac 3 blade prop excellent used remaned, new spinner/backplate - $1000 for my old prop & spinner back plate=$8000

$500 Burls battery box and battery on firewall. (does not include my labor to remove bat box and 35# of cable)

$2500 engine monitor

$2500 for IA mechanic to allow me to help install and sign off all ppwrk. (all of this happened in my hangar no shop rate applied).

$43,450 does not include all MY labor, cleaning fluids, nuts, bolts, screws, washers, new wire, connectors ect. paint stripper solvents trips to A/C spruce (only 10 miles away )

I'm sure I've forgot some things it's been 4 yrs 2 mos since back into service, 485 hours. no leaks one hellofa puller, all compressions in the high 70s

Thanks for sharing that info, Russ. Good stuff!

I have a very different view of what a Pponk costs than Russ, and I am CERTAIN his numbers are accurate

I am also very certain that installing a Pponk in my airplane was a difference of a couple grand +/- over rebuilding an O-470. IMHO calling it a $48K build up is no different than the guys who claim spending thousands on an annual... (BTW, just annualled my 180 and the bill came to $400. ) If you are the guy who counts all the MX you should have attended to earlier, but put off until annual, as part of your annual inspection bill... then you will be the guy who spends $50K on an engine upgrade.

For me the math was simple;

$25 K for an O-470-50 built up by a meticulous builder or $22.5 K for an equally meticulously built O-470.

In either case, I wasn't going to hang that much money on the firewall without a remanned engine mount. So that cost is a wash...

In either case, I wasn't going to hang that much money on the firewall without an engine analyzer... Learn what you can really learn from this gadget, and learn to use it well, and you won't go without either... another wash...

Since I was upgrading props from an 82" C66 Mac, the two bladed MT I initially hung would have likely been my choice regardless of new engine choices... However, if you can get your hands on a set of 86"-88" blades for a C-66 or C-58 hub you'll have an equally performing prop for an O-470-50 at no additional cost.... another push

I elected to hang a battery on the firewall at the time of rebuild as well. Never the less, I can't honestly attribute this to the cost of an engine upgrade. I attribute it to the fact that I prefer to get it as light as I can, while still maintaining the creature comforts that fit my desires.

Don't want a tiny battery up front? no Problem, TSIO 520's have been starting on big batteries for decades

Baffles... that's another one of those deals like the $5K annual... if your baffles are less than stellar, you should be replacing them regardless of engine choice. If you do not, your re-engine cost is likely to include re-topping costs in a few more years

Similar can be said for the exhaust, but I guess by now I've made my point...


As for the real message to Russ' post... If you really want to entertain an engine rebuild / upgrade, you probably owe it to yourself and your airplane to do an extensive cost analysis before trying to compare it to anything else. Either is going to cost more than you think. Then do a well thought out analysis of mission requirements, vs personal desires. Next you may consider how long you'll keep this plane. Getting your money back out of any of these mods when it comes time to sell is going to be tough... on the other hand, if there is a possible newer plane in your future that is a Pponk candidate, you could buy a useable O-470 in a snap and transfer an O-470-50 over to the new plane. If the new plane is not a Pponk candidate, you still may elect to keep the big engine and sell it separately. This can, and has been done successfully ... selling a used stol kit? I dunno...

Lastly, as has been posted many, many times before, the key to the happiest matches in aircraft is matching your mission... If your mission mandates more power, all the biggest tires in the world aren't going to help If you live at sea level and are stretching the budget to get in a bigger engine, chances are good you'll be singing the blues when you realize the sacrifices you'll have to make elsewhere to make those ends meet....

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:..... . However, if you can get your hands on a set of 86"-88" blades for a C-66 or C-58 hub you'll have an equally performing prop for an O-470-50 at no additional cost....

Rob makes some very good points. However, I have to disagree on this one. I have an old 82" C203 prop on my 180, and thought that since it could probably stand a clean/inspect/reseal job I could just have some 88" blades put on it at the same time and be good to go. Apparently there's not too many used 88" blades out there, and a new set costs $5200. In between that and complying with the upgrade-to-oil-filled McCauley SB, it's cheaper to buy a new prop than upgrade mine.

At engine OH time, you'd want to OH the prop too...just don't count on no-extra-cost or cheap 88" blades being available. So IMHO the added cost of the longer blades or an upgrade to an MT or 3-blade Mac is a legitimate part of the cost of the Ponk conversion.

My 53 180 already has a K engine, 850's, double-pucks, 185 gear legs, v-brace, 10" t/w, & extended baggage. When it comes to performance mods, I have a short list -- I want to upgrade from my 82" C203 Mac to an 88-incher, and that's about it. Except for flap gap seals (which I plan to remove), my 180 has stock wings & I plan to keep them that way.

I'd like to throw another thought into your hopper. It dawned on me that you haven't had the 182 all that long, and so Iooked back at your posts--4 months, is that right? In that time, have you really learned "182-ese"? The reason I ask is that often people new to the bird aren't aware of how versatile a 182 really is, in stock form.

Here's my story as an example. My first foray into airplane ownership was in a 70 182, with 2 partners, back in 1975. We were all relatively low time pilots. One of my pards had his IR, but both the other one and I were working on ours. I also had my commercial (it came first) and was planning to work hard and heavy toward my CFI and CFII. Over the course of our ownership of the 182, the 3rd partner sold his interest, and soon that one dropped out altogether, so that only 2 of us owned the airplane. My pard then was regularly taking the airplane into some ranch strips, but none what you and I'd call challenging--all around 3000' long. I was regularly taking it to visit my folks in Sundance, which meant landing on a 2100' x 16' ranch strip at 5000' elevation.

Then he got the "need for speed" itch, and we traded the 182 in on a TR182. Very soon, he wanted to add a Roberston STOL kit to it, to the tune (then) of something like $20,000 in 1979 dollars (that would be $65,000 in today's money). His reasoning: he could no longer get into those 3000' ranch strips in the faster airplane. Really!

I had known that he had been having some trouble getting into the 3000' strips in the 182--I had flown enough with him that I knew he tended toward a pretty fast final even in the 182, and even faster in the TR182. But trying to get him to slow down was like teaching your sister--he just wasn't listening. But for my share of $20,000, I wanted to try, because I didn't see any reason for that expense. So I chided him that if he'd just learn to land like Cessna designed the airplane, we'd save all that money. I guess that insult was enough to get him to accept my offer to show him what I meant.

We arranged to get together the next day, and I spent that afternoon practicing slow flight and slower speed approaches. I concluded that I could bring it in at 50 knots IAS, but that it had insufficient elevator left to keep the nose from plunking down at touchdown. But 55 knots worked well.

So we went out the next day, and first I asked him to slow it to slow flight--and his idea of slow flight was about 65 knots indicated. I had him slow it until the stall warner was on constantly, and then I told him to do some turns--he did the 5 degree banked kind, so I said "use 30 degrees". "No! It'll fall out of the sky!" So I had to show him, and of course it didn't fall out of the sky.

Then we went to land, and I said to slow it to 60 KIAS--and again, "No! It'll fall out of the sky!" So he wanted me to show him, and instead of 60, I used 55--and he was very visibly nervous--"You're going to kill us!" Of course, I didn't.

To make this shorter, I finally got him to land at 65 KIAS--not slower, but at least he could now make the first turn-off, which if memory serves is at about 1600' from the numbers. And we didn't buy the Robertson.

So spend some time with what you've got, and learn what it can do. A 182 is a marvelous machine, bone stock. It's true that it can be made a little better, but maybe you don't need it to be better, and you can save a lot of money if that's true.

Cary

Not sure it was mentioned.

What is your missions?

If mostly flying high elevation mountains and airstrips, I would go the Pponk route.

If mostly around Texas with even a few trips to higher elevations, I'd just go with stock overhaul and all the other goodies!

With my big rear end and camping gear, my 58 Skylane performed very well in the Idaho backcountry with a stock 470 and stol kit. Power on stalls were pretty much very difficult to do.

Cary wrote:I'd like to throw another thought into your hopper. It dawned on me that you haven't had the 182 all that long, and so Iooked back at your posts--4 months, is that right? In that time, have you really learned "182-ese"? The reason I ask is that often people new to the bird aren't aware of how versatile a 182 really is, in stock form.

Here's my story as an example. My first foray into airplane ownership was in a 70 182, with 2 partners, back in 1975. We were all relatively low time pilots. One of my pards had his IR, but both the other one and I were working on ours. I also had my commercial (it came first) and was planning to work hard and heavy toward my CFI and CFII. Over the course of our ownership of the 182, the 3rd partner sold his interest, and soon that one dropped out altogether, so that only 2 of us owned the airplane. My pard then was regularly taking the airplane into some ranch strips, but none what you and I'd call challenging--all around 3000' long. I was regularly taking it to visit my folks in Sundance, which meant landing on a 2100' x 16' ranch strip at 5000' elevation.

Then he got the "need for speed" itch, and we traded the 182 in on a TR182. Very soon, he wanted to add a Roberston STOL kit to it, to the tune (then) of something like $20,000 in 1979 dollars (that would be $65,000 in today's money). His reasoning: he could no longer get into those 3000' ranch strips in the faster airplane. Really!

I had known that he had been having some trouble getting into the 3000' strips in the 182--I had flown enough with him that I knew he tended toward a pretty fast final even in the 182, and even faster in the TR182. But trying to get him to slow down was like teaching your sister--he just wasn't listening. But for my share of $20,000, I wanted to try, because I didn't see any reason for that expense. So I chided him that if he'd just learn to land like Cessna designed the airplane, we'd save all that money. I guess that insult was enough to get him to accept my offer to show him what I meant.

We arranged to get together the next day, and I spent that afternoon practicing slow flight and slower speed approaches. I concluded that I could bring it in at 50 knots IAS, but that it had insufficient elevator left to keep the nose from plunking down at touchdown. But 55 knots worked well.

So we went out the next day, and first I asked him to slow it to slow flight--and his idea of slow flight was about 65 knots indicated. I had him slow it until the stall warner was on constantly, and then I told him to do some turns--he did the 5 degree banked kind, so I said "use 30 degrees". "No! It'll fall out of the sky!" So I had to show him, and of course it didn't fall out of the sky.

Then we went to land, and I said to slow it to 60 KIAS--and again, "No! It'll fall out of the sky!" So he wanted me to show him, and instead of 60, I used 55--and he was very visibly nervous--"You're going to kill us!" Of course, I didn't.

To make this shorter, I finally got him to land at 65 KIAS--not slower, but at least he could now make the first turn-off, which if memory serves is at about 1600' from the numbers. And we didn't buy the Robertson.

So spend some time with what you've got, and learn what it can do. A 182 is a marvelous machine, bone stock. It's true that it can be made a little better, but maybe you don't need it to be better, and you can save a lot of money if that's true.

Cary

Great info Cary, thank you! You're right, I've only had the 182 for roughly 4 months and have only logged around 80 hours. I'm based out of a 2,200 foot grass runway with trees at both ends (although I've got some space before getting to the trees). I operated a Piper Cherokee 140 from it for about a year. The 182 is definitely a different animal. She takes off shorter, climbs better, cruises faster, and can haul a big load. I'm still learning her, but I know that for a fact I'd like the Sportsman Stol so I figured I'd put that on asap. It's hard to argue it's usefulness, there are so many good reviews on this site for it. Some say its the biggest single improvement you can do for a 180/182. I spoke with Willie over at Steve Aviation and ordered the sportsman stol. He's a great guy and I can't wait for this kit to come in!

58Skylane wrote:Not sure it was mentioned.

What is your missions?

If mostly flying high elevation mountains and airstrips, I would go the Pponk route.

If mostly around Texas with even a few trips to higher elevations, I'd just go with stock overhaul and all the other goodies!

With my big rear end and camping gear, my 58 Skylane performed very well in the Idaho backcountry with a stock 470 and stol kit. Power on stalls were pretty much very difficult to do.

My mission is to eventually fly somewhat rugged back country strips. Right now I'm just flying from my grass strip to airports within the region. That's why I'd like some mods to improve slow flight, shorter landings, and shorter takeoffs.

Great choice on the Sportsman STOL purchase, no doubt a great mod that changes the wing for the better.

Before you Pponk a good engine, I would also recommend spending a little time and money trying to lighten yours up (more time than money mind you). Once you realize the beauty of a light 182 with a great wing, you may not be so rushed for more HP.

But as Cary stated, gas in the tanks and time behind the yoke is the best "mod" anyone can buy.

mountainmatt wrote:Great choice on the Sportsman STOL purchase, no doubt a great mod that changes the wing for the better.

Before you Pponk a good engine, I would also recommend spending a little time and money trying to lighten yours up (more time than money mind you). Once you realize the beauty of a light 182 with a great wing, you may not be so rushed for more HP.

But as Cary stated, gas in the tanks and time behind the yoke is the best "mod" anyone can buy.

I agree with Matt The main reason I Ponked my motor is that 3 cyls went TU and 2 others were weak at 1750 hrs and I could finance it. I put the Sportsman on 1 yr ago and the combination if phenomenal Learn your airplane.

hotrod180 wrote:

Rob wrote:..... . However, if you can get your hands on a set of 86"-88" blades for a C-66 or C-58 hub you'll have an equally performing prop for an O-470-50 at no additional cost....

Rob makes some very good points. However, I have to disagree on this one. I have an old 82" C203 prop on my 180, and thought that since it could probably stand a clean/inspect/reseal job I could just have some 88" blades put on it at the same time and be good to go. Apparently there's not too many used 88" blades out there, and a new set costs $5200. In between that and complying with the upgrade-to-oil-filled McCauley SB, it's cheaper to buy a new prop than upgrade mine.

At engine OH time, you'd want to OH the prop too...just don't count on no-extra-cost or cheap 88" blades being available. So IMHO the added cost of the longer blades or an upgrade to an MT or 3-blade Mac is a legitimate part of the cost of the Ponk conversion.

Agreed, not selecting an appropriate prop after an engine upgrade is a waste of horsepower. Like you, I'd prefer to hang a new or overhauled prop on a new or overhauled engine. For my purposes, there would be no compelling reason to hang an 82" prop on an O-470 or an O-470-50, so I guess that's why I'd call the prop selection a wash in the conversion.

As for replacing 82" blades on a C203/4 series pro, that is not what I suggested... I might go there if that is what I had to work with, but that is not the prop I was comparing to the 2 blade MT. If I had a C203/4, I'd probably figure on selling it and replacing it with a 2 blade MT. The hub design on the C58/66 series props may be antiquated, but the fat chord is IMHO probably what makes this prop so good. If I had a new C66 with 88" blades, I'd replace the three blade MT on my 180 with it and never look back. Unfortunately, that's not likely in the cards.

Take care, Rob

As usual in aviation, there is often more than one way to skin a cat. Increasing the aspect ratio of your wings will also increase climb performance at high density altitude.

The Sportsman STOL cuff (and other true STOL mods, like the RSTOL kits) will increase the ANGLE of climb, if not the RATE of climb. An increase in angle of climb will get you over obstacles almost as easy and in some cases, easier than more power will.

Power is great, no doubt. I would respectfully point out, as posters on this thread have indirectly, that an engine conversion can be a real wild card when it comes to cost. If you have to buy a crankshaft, that's going to get into big $$$. And, that's something you may not realize till you're in there. Of course, as Rob points out, the same may be true if you're just overhauling. But I think most folks are going to have difficulty duplicating Rob's cost to PPonk an engine.

On the other hand, the WingX, Sportsman, etc, are pretty easy to predict the cost up front. Not too likely to run into surprises (assuming you do a good job of working with a reputable shop) in total cost up front.

I agree that you need to understand your mission and place your priorities on those mods that'll work best in those missions.

I operate my PA 11 with 90 hp at some pretty high DA with no problems. The point? LOTS of wing, like about as much wing area or even a bit more than a 182 and a higher lift airfoil at that. And, a VERY light All Up Weight. Add some wing to that 182 and the plane will benefit at high DA. As much as a big engine? I can't tell you that. But, those mods will help the plane's performance significantly in that environment. And, the wing extensions will improve cruise performance, especially at high DA as well.

I simply don't buy that you can RELIABLY state that a Ponk conversion will cost within a few thousand $ of a good quality overhaul. Not saying Rob is wrong, because I know a mechanic who did the same thing for about the same cost, just saying that it may be difficult to match his numbers if you're not doing a LOT of the work yourself.

MTV