As you've probably already seen, I just bought a 57' 180A with a Pponk O-470-50. I've been reading everything I can find online to see what's the best way to get the most performance from, and more importantly, how to operate this engine safely. For you experienced Pponk'd 180/182 guys out there, feel free to share your thoughts. What's the best procedure for takeoff and climb, cruise climb, cruise, descent, and landing? I'm just trying to learn all I can so I can make sure I'm not going to do anything wrong to hurt the engine. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

I can't say I am experienced as I have only had my PPonk for a year, but this is my procedure:

TO: firewall throttle and prop to 2700
Initial climb: Back prop to 2500
Cruise: 2350 and whatever MP I get
Decent: keep prop at 2350 and back up MP an inch for each 100fpm I plan for rate. 500fpm = 5 inches

Probably someone will think I am gonna blow this thing up, but it works for me. Put about 1000hrs on a Turbo 182 with a very similar profile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, Sean. What about EGT, and CHT? I've been trying to stay below 1500 and 360 in cruise. CHTs usually aren't an issue if I'm below 1500 on the EGT.

1475 and in the 380's is Happy Times .

Do you have a multi probe engine monitor? If so learn it, and the plane and you will have a hard time hurting the pponk. One of their virtues is for the horse power they are a very low strung engine.

I shoot for a max sustained cht of 380, and wouldn't worry too much about egts until you get to know that engine / monitor / exhaust combo. If you've ever replaced an egt I think you'll find that simply moving the probes a 1/2" makes a startling difference... Who knows where yours are set up till you burn some gas...

I suspect it will be nose heavy compared to what your coming from, you might try and talk Gary out of the prop on the tan one

Take care, Rob

It has a single point CHT. My 180 is a little nose heavy but that's a good thing in my opinion. That means I can load it full of all sorts of stuff and not have to worry much about CG. If I wanted to fly alone and with nothing in the back I would just keep my 170.

So I am going to work on some baffling refinement with the new motor.

I like to keep my temps under 400, but sometimes on climb out it can be tough. I usually see the EGTs at 1450 and cylinders between 370-390.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Rob,

I apologize for veering off course on that one... the prop comment was truly aimed at brother Gary, who I know owns a brand new Pponk, a 180 to put it in, and had the choice in props... he would probably give you his left nut before trading out props at this point, but that's mostly because full length C-66's are getting rare as hens teeth.

As for the rest of my ramblings... ya... you're probably right... I know not much of big bore conti's... W, B C or G... I own a 180 specifically to fly around empty, out of gas and alone, and know nothing of camping out of an airplane (certainly not a heavy one in desolate country)

What I do know, (in other words, not speculation, calculation, or secondhand internet hearsay) is that neither you nor the pilot of this airplane (who happens to be enroute to the lower 48 from AK for the umpteenth time in a Pponkd wagon) would ever fly a C180 heavier than this one. I know that because neither of you would ever fly over gross Here is what the trim looks like just after T/O on his airplane (max fuel, and a shitload of clams / salmon / gear) ;



and his prop is within ounces of a full meat C-66...

All in good fun with lotsa love

As for the two most important Pponk operating tips I can offer you (for the longevity of the engine's life)

1) buy a multi point engine monitor.... or do the antiquated pull the mix till it stumbles routine and pray to the engine gods that the other five cylinders are burning the exact same ratio as the monitored one...

2) buy a carb temp indicator, or develop the habit of randomly pulling carb heat every so often, needed or not. You are moving a shit ton of air, and you will make ice. If you play remotely like most of the BCP'rs I have encountered, sooner or later you will find that ice at something along the lines of 25' AGL... This can be bad for engine life...

Take care, Rob

I guess this is what you should expect when you put a 16-year-old in a airplane and he solos and he gets the bug big time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First - congrats on the new plane! A Pponked 180 is pretty hard to beat.

I've got just over 1000hrs on my first one and still pulls hard, runs smooth, and maintenance free. I've also run a couple IO-520s to TBO and run them basically the same way. A bit unconventional, but I was learned by a very experienced operator, and so far it seems to work.

Warm the engine up good. If it is cold out, get that oil temp up to 90 if possible. Take-off full power, full RPM. Reduce RPM as soon as positive rate of climb established to 2450-2500. Climb at full throttle. No, it won't hurt the engine,. In fact, the reason for it is engine longevity. Full throttle throws considerable more fuel to the engine than less throttle. This is a built-in measure to help the engine at high power. May as well use it, particularly in colder temps, where the engine may run too lean at high power settings less than full throttle. Remember, on an IO-520, which is basically the same engine, the only restriction on power is that RPMs must be reduced to 2700 or less within 5 min after take-off. Cowl flaps open for TO and climb unless you have a good 6 point engine analyzer, then just keep them below 380.

Don't lean below 3000ft DA. Above that, lean to 200ROP. At top of climb (whether its 100 or 10,000ft) dial prop back to 22-2300rmp (wherever it seems to run smoothest, each engine/prop is a bit different.) Then reduce throttle to 22-24". Lean to 100ROP (should be 14-15gal/hr). Cowl flaps - use to keep CHTs 380 or below.

On decent, reduce power slowly. I like to bring it back to 20', then back to 17-18', then 15' in stages. These planes are pretty slippery by bush plane standard, and will take a bit of planning to keep from chopping the throttle. I attempt to keep MP in the green and never pull the power to idle until short final. Course not always possible, but I believe a good target practice.

Change the oil at 30-35hrs if not flown frequently, 50 if it is. 25hrs if no oil filter. Little MMO in the gas once in a while probably doesn't hurt the valves. Don't put it in the oil unless it has been run in that engine from the beginning. May break deposits loose and plug passageways. Seen that just recently with a seized R-985.

6 Point engine analyzer is a good tool but not necessary. I went with factory recommendation. They told me its a good tool if most of your flying is long x-country at altitude. If not, not worth the $$. So currently I don't have one on either the Pponk 180 or the IO 185. YMMV.

That's good stuff North River, just the kind of info I wanted. Thanks.

Not exactly what you asked for about the Pponk, but to support Rob's point above:

In talking with a friend who Pponk'd his C180 some years ago, apparently the change in the way it flew was very noticeable. He has the big three blade MacCauley prop on the nose. He noted it was a little nose heavy, but his main point was that landing really well became an art-form.

Specifically, the flare timing became a lot more important. With the original engine, he used to close the throttle and flare into the three point attitude, and the plane would delicately settle onto the ground. Now, he finds the timing of the flare and throttle close is more important, because when you close the throttle the plane stops flying and comes down fast. His words.

I have a lot of respect for this pilot, having seen him fly quite a lot. He flies his 180 very well, including into some of the more difficult places. He's also done Idaho etc., so he has a broad knowledge based and knows what good looks like. He's also had his 180 for a long time and does a lot of hours. So I tend to believe him when he makes these observations, and thought it was worth repeating. Maybe this behaviour is something you might like to look for, and make up your own mind, as you work your way into the new aeroplane.

Hopefully that's helpful.

North River wrote:On decent, reduce power slowly. I like to bring it back to 20', then back to 17-18', then 15' in stages. These planes are pretty slippery by bush plane standard, and will take a bit of planning to keep from chopping the throttle. I attempt to keep MP in the green and never pull the power to idle until short final. Course not always possible, but I believe a good target practice.

I would strongly support this point, based on what I have learnt about TCM engines and big-bore air-cooled engines in general. I have been told waiting between 60 and 120 seconds between reducing by 2" MAP increments is a good rule of thumb, it gives the CHTs time to cool down gradually. This does mean approach to land takes some planning, perhaps 4-5 minutes out.

Can't speak to PPonk'd engines particularly, but I've flown several different O-470 equipped 182s, owned one and also a Lycoming TO540 powered TR182 and a Continental TIO520 powered T210. Like any big bore engine, it's unwise to be a throttle jockey. I also am of the group that doesn't like to yank off the power. I don't know that it has to be so many MP inches per minute, but no yanking.

As for the engine monitor, when I was contemplating an Insight G1, I got lots of guff from friends--"you're putting an engine monitor in a 172? That's crazy." Well, after using it for a few years now, I'm glad I have it. If I were to do it over, I think I'd move up a notch to a G2 so that I could download what the engine's been doing--with the G1, I have to look at the gauge and write down stuff for my mechanic's information. But having both CHT and EGT for each cylinder is really, really nice.

I also have the carb temp option on my G1. There was a carb temp gauge on the TR182, also. I've had enough carb ice issues over the last 43 years that I heartily agree, you should have one. My very first carb ice issue was on short final to Merrill field when I was learning in a 150, when the engine quit just as I was flaring--really quit, like in the prop stopped. Ol' dummy here had forgotten to pull the carb heat. Since then, I've had numerous carb ice events, but none with a carb temp gauge installed--of course, you have to look at it.

Oh, and on the EGT, worry less about it and more about keeping the CHT within bounds. The actual numbers for EGT are a concern for turbo'd engines (TIT, turbo inlet temp, is an issue which is directly tied to EGT). But for a normally aspirated engine, I don't think EGT is a concern at all. Mostly you'll use it to set the mixture more accurately than just pulling the knob till things get shakey. A single point gauge isn't very useful, because the leanest cylinder varies depending on various factors. With a multi point gauge, you can see which is peaking and go from there.

Have fun with the new bird!

Cary

Early on doing the ag thing I flew a couple Bonair (550) converted Cessnas. That operator was adamant that I flew those airplanes exactly as North River layed out. Or as close as you could given these were ag planes. Those planes made TBO and not an hr. over Before that I flew some time in a Pponk'd C305 and that operator was equally adamant about the same procedures... His engines also ticked like singer sewing machines... Today I operate my Pponk exactly the same, and have treated the dozen or so other 470 to 550's (O and IO) equally.... so far so good

Beyond that, I am of the opinion that who ever suggested North River doesn't need an engine monitor has done him a disservice . I am also of the opinion that contrary to what he has been told, the up high cruiser, probably needs it the least (pretty hard to hurt an engine that can only produce 55% power...) and the down low river runner (specially the guy in that thick cold alaskan air) stands to benefit from one the most. After all, he is going to make rated power (and potentially much more) on every take off, he has the potential to lean out, on every take off, and he has the least amount of options available to him if things should go askew...

It is also my opinion that the guy who says, "awe shucks, we've run these things for 60 years without them just fine" is the same guy that thinks topping a big bore conti at 600hrs. is normal and acceptable, or the guy who thinks following 'the magenta line' is somehow inferior to following a number on an ADF?

What my engine monitor has shown me in just the last few years has saved me top ends at a minimum, and potential catastrophic failure on more than one occasion. I have found loose intake hoses as a result of it, I have found broken a primer line, I routinely use it with uncanny accuracy as a carb ice indicator... I know I suggested buying a carb ice indicator, but that is because most folks nowadays haven't been schooled in carb ice recognition, and don't know it's happened till it stumbles at best or pukes at worst... learn it, use the engine monitor or digital MP, and carb ice is no longer the boogey man the press makes it out to be...

Ask any engine shop that deals with a bunch of Pponks what the Achilles heel of the Pponk is, and the answer will be 'it runs too lean'... no, not running LOP, that's a topic for another thread, and potentially doable with good results (I do not, running less horsepower than I can make is counter productive to why I own a bigger engine)... Running too lean at cruise is not the issue, again pretty hard to hurt a recip by running too lean at 55% power... leaning out on take off is what kills a Pponk. My experience has been that the vast majority of these engines are built with the carb not modded to flow enough fuel on take off. If you live in Tahoe, or Durango, you will likely never experience this... If you live in Alaska, or Southern CA, you will have already lived this one out.
Many if not most are set up marginal, mine was so lean that it required carb heat immediately after breaking ground to keep things under control, it was built by probably the most knowledgeable Pponk guy out there, and it was not a fluke...Have one set up that will do ok at your home base but not rich enough for a cool morning at sea level is not only a recipe for disaster, but pretty much an undetectable situation with a single point probe...
There are six individual breathing machines within your engine, each with it's own fuel delivery system, ignition system, and multitude of failure points. Throw a massive three legged flywheel on top of that, and you will likely fly fat dumb and happy long after a cylinder has puked it's last breath out....But hey... it's been done that way for sixty years

Take care, Rob

I agree on the need for a 6 probe engine monitor.
We have a 182 at my field that is used for skydiving. I have got to know the pilot fairly well. Last year they installed a new FREM engine.
John, the pilot, after a breakin time told me something was definitely wrong. Two of the jugs were running hot and the egt's for those jugs were also noticeably higher than the others. I suggested a intake leak most likely. This went on for about 20-25 hours. Keep in mind the Cessna installed CHT and EGT gauges were happy campers. Finally he brought it in to the shop to have the mech take a very close look at it.
What he found was that one jug, the intake gasket at the head was installed crooked and actually a new hole was made in the gasket when the an bolt was installed! The highly skilled factory worker actually had to punch through the gasket with the bolt to get it in. Don't recall the other jugs issue but it was another factory screw up. I thought all FREM engines had a well monitored run in sheet with them, perhaps not this one.

Bottom line is that saved his bacon by having a mulriprobe monitor on carburated engine.

T

Around here a guy who has been operating and is still alive after 60 years is obviously doing something right. I'll listen to the experience!

Come to think of it, in my current fleet of 11 aircraft, not a single one has a full engine monitor. And no, we don't blow jugs or have engine failures on a steady basis. In fact nearly all the engines go to TBO. Saying that, a good engine analyzer is a great tool. I have had them in a number of planes and when I do have one I use it. It certainly can help a lot in proper engine operation. But take internet advice for what it is worth.... Just reporting my experiences and the engine manufacture's recommendation.

Gadgets will never be a match for proper engine operation, good maintenance, and experience.

NR, I hope my post didn't offend you. Have no interest in an engine monitor? that's cool with me

Have I ever ran anything to TBO without one? you betcha… everything from flat fours, to round 9's, to turbines… Does that experience make it better than having more knowledge? Na, not by a long shot… Knowledge is power, in my books, Knowledge trumps chronological seat time every time… My chief pilot (a pilot with over 30,000 logged ag hours alone) will say the same (coincidentally he asked for and got an engine monitor when he was moved into a new Thrush). He routinely asks questions and advice from other pilots at our outfit, including the junior most pilot. He elects to use the information provided as he sees fit, but solicits it from all and any… I admire that.

The last sentence in your post is precisely why the more expensive engines of my fleet will always have a monitor… Every word of that sentence is easier performed, and more precisely so with a good piece of equipment. I am OK with old timers referring to them as gadgets… It's what they all used to call a GPS, and nearly everyone of them is flying soley by GPS nowadays if they have to go any further than 'down stream'

For example,

you could ask me what temperature any cylinder of mine was burning at last week… all week… all year for that matter What my oil temps were, CHT's you name it… Trend monitoring? try that in an single point analog plane…
Conversely if the average Joe's number 2 cylinder has a gradual intake leak next week, it's going to have to start running poorly (i.e.:having a melt down) before he realizes what's going on. A good monitor with preset alert values will make life soo much nicer right about then…

you could sit with me as we enter solid icing conditions and literally watch carb ice happen in real time on the monitor… ever compare the accuracy of your analog MP (pretty much your only hope of predetermining carb ice) to that of a precision one?

Contrary to another poster's exclamation, you can watch either side lean out as you loosen the corresponding hose clamp on the crossover tube… I have discovered a loose crossover on more than one engine precisely that way, and neither engine was running poorly.

and sooo much more…

I agree these are nothing more than airborne tractor engines, and with simple good practices they will easily go to TBO. For my purposes, just making TBO is a pretty low bar to set for standards… I want performance like a scalded cat to TBO and beyond. Also a pretty easy target to set with a little above average practices.

I understand the balancing act required to keep a business running in the black will sometimes dictate just were we draw the line on equipment, I also am very familiar with the concept of spending dollars to save a nickel … Since the engine monitor in the thrush has already outlived more than one TBO, I'd say it's a pretty cheap piece of gear. In fact in that case it has saved our bacon more than once, So I guess I'd say it's not only free and clear, but made us money. I am banking on it to do the same in my flat 6, and so far I think it has

Take care, Rob

I also firmly believe in all-cylinder digital engine monitors. I attended the Advanced Pilots Seminar (APS) put on by a group of folks who have been doing instrumented testing of engines in what is probably the most advanced engine test facility in the world. The course is a result of the factual findings they've made, based on empirical data collected during thousands of hours of fully instrumented engine testing. Even Continental has been sending their factory guys through this course, and have radically changed their viewpoints based upon the information learned.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I have zero affiliation with the APS or any of the three folks who put on the seminar. My only involvement was as a very (VERY) satisfied attendee and customer. I would encourage anyone who owns (or is considering purchasing) an all-cylinder digital engine monitor to investigate their web site, read the articles they publish there, read some of John Deakins' articles (search for his name and "Pelican's Perch"), and seriously consider attending the course. They offer a complete refund to anyone who attends the 'live' course and doesn't feel they got their money's worth. They've been doing the course for years, and not a single person has asked for their money back. Considering how notoriously 'cheap' we pilots are, that says a LOT about the course and the instructors.

Some people think the APS is the "Learn to fly LOP" course, and it is true that they do teach how to do that. But they also teach how to operate the engine safely ROP (which is likely NOT what most of us were taught, nor what is written in the manuals, and is more akin to what many of the experienced operators in this forum describe). And they give you the facts (backed by empirical testing data) to determine what is the best way for you to operate your engine in your conditions.

But the MAIN thing that is taught in the course is how to use and interpret the data from an all-cylinder digital engine monitor. They show how to diagnose engine problems before you land, so that you can walk in to the shop and say "please pull the top plug on the #3 cylinder and clean/test it," instead of saying "my engine is running rough"... They teach you to read and diagnose intake leaks, exhaust leaks, stuck valves, and all kinds of other things. They also teach some things that can absolutely save your life - and possibly save your aircraft.

It is not cheap. The course if offered as either an "online" course (~$500) or as an "live, in-person" course ($~1,000). If you sign up for the live course (taught in Ada, OK), they give you access to the online course for a full year. They encourage you to complete the online course before you come to Ada for the 'live' course. I signed up for the "live" course, and did the "online" course twice before even going to Ada. I was expecting to learn a few tips here and there, but boy was I wrong! The APS course was probably the best laid-out progression-of-knowledge type of instruction I've ever experienced. Everything built on the foundation of what was learned in the previous hour, and the knowledge and skill of the three instructors (George Braly, Walter Atkinson, and John Deakin) was impressive. They used humor liberally, but also became deadly serious at times, which helped to focus our attention! I learned more during that weekend about engine operation than in all the 40 years of flying that preceded it! It was easily the best 1-AMU I've spent in aviation, by far!

On the return flight home, I did some of their recommended diagnostic tests, and realized my turbo-normalized Commander 114 almost certainly had an intake leak. Never had a clue before this, and the airplane performed well above "book" specs so it never occurred to me that I had a problem. My A&P did a "smoke test" and identified a fairly large leak where a gasket had failed in an area where you could never have seen it visually. Cheap repair (caught before anything else occurred), because he didn't have to waste time checking everything else. Ditto for the "weak" magneto that the diagnostic turned up - the magneto was arcing inside, where it wasn't visible. It was less than 150 hours since a total rebuild, and since that particular engine uses the infamous "dual mag", a mag failure is often a bigger deal than it would be for most engines. About a year later, using the information gained in the course, the engine data showed that I had an exhaust leak. My A&P again did the 'smoke test' and found a failed gasket that was blowing hot exhaust gas directly onto an oil line. It has just barely begun to "char" the protective cover of the line. How long until it burned through? I don't know. But I do know that once again it was in an area where it could only be seen by removing the lower cowl and closely inspecting with a mirror. Would it have been caught before I lost the engine? I don't know, but I'm glad I found it using the engine data instead of "the hard way"...

I'm 100% certain that I've saved more money on maintenance than I spent on the APS course! I highly recommend it!

Fly safe!

good stuff - thanks boys

Congratulations, you'll love it.

14 years and 1000+ hours on mine; here's a few ideas.

Start up:

OAT>40: 3 pumps of throttle first start, 1 pump when warm. Crack throttle, starts almost immediately.

OAT<40: 3 shots of primer, then as above. Always preheat <30, preferably < 40.

Taxi, warm-up:

Lean as possible, warm up to at least 150 CHT before run up.

Takeoff:

Max throttle. I've experimented with the rpm, and mine pulls slightly better at a twist less than max. (2600-50). If I'm leaving early, and am light, will do a noise abatement TO at 2500. Never do a reduced throttle TO, it reduces cooling.

Climb:

Max throttle, see above. 2500 RPM. If climbing to altitude, can lean it out a little going through 4-5000; from 20+ back to about 18 GPH.

Cruise:

Down low-2500/22" at 14.5 GPH. 2500/24" more like 15.5 GPH.
(Did you see the TCM service bulletin advising to run these at higher RPM's?) in any event, that's where mine is smoother.

At altitude you'll want full throttle to maintain whatever MP you can. However, if you back off the throttle just enough to see a slight drop in MP; I've found you can lean more effectively. As low as 11GPH up at 10000'. Most typical for me is 13 or so at 7-8000'.

Descent:

Very conservative on the descent planning, around 4:1 profile.

Taxi:

Lean aggressively.

Enjoy!