I am interested in flight reviews from any 180 owners who have done the Pponk engine upgrade. I have seen a lot of “it’s great, definitely worth doing”, and I am sure it is, but I am a numbers guy. I have done a lot of looking and if I missed this topic somewhere please forgive me. I am especially looking for a review by someone who did NO airframe modifications, (STOL Kit, VGs, Wing X, etc), at the time of install other than than the engine. I know this upgrade often comes with a propeller upgrade as well, no problem there. This information from a 182 would be useful as well.

I am looking for differences in airspeed, climb, takeoff and landing distances, fuel burn, etc. It does not matter if you are on wheels, floats, or skis. I am interested in it all. I am just trying to get an idea what the extra HP translates to on the same airplane. Surely there is someone out there who knows their numbers before and after. Thank you!

I want to say the PPonk website has some of that info.

I'd argue a lot of numbers depend on the pilots ability. And weight + distribution etc...

Yes, but before & after performance numbers from the same plane / same pilot ought to provide some insight.

I have a ponk in my airplane and could take you flying some day. Maybe feel the difference...
I converted my 56 182 and had flown it before and after quite a bit. I also converted my 180G this year. No other mods and went from an 82" two blade Mccauly to a 82" two blade Mccauly on both.
My first seat of the pants was kinda a mehh... Low fuel and totally empty, the airplane the take off performance difference is very small. Climb is slightly better. Cruise is better but burns more fuel. If all i did was fly light airport to airport it would be a huge waste of money. Its faster yes but at the cost of fuel.

Where you really see the difference is heavy, altitude, skis, and soft fields. It makes a big big difference.

Cruise speed the 470-50 does about 8kts faster at 20in/2300rpm compared to the 470r running 24/24. The PPonk will go quite a bit faster if run 24/24 BUT it needs 17GPH or so to be happy. At 20/23 i get about 13.5 lean of peak.

I have a Texas Skyways O-520 in my 58 C180. I do have a Sportsman STOL kit on the airplane but had it installed before the upgrade. Performance is mostly dictated by economics of fuel burn. I have speed mods on the airplane and at one time I had wheel pants (prior to getting into backcountry flying). I have 8.5X6 Goodyear tires with the speed mods brakes coverings.

At 8-10 thousand feet with the following settings: WOT 18-19 inches and 2400 RPM - I typically see 146-148 KTAS. Fuel burn is 12.8-13.5 GPH. At 6000 thousand feet (22/2400) I can see speeds of 149-151 KTAS but I am burning 15-16 GPH. Down low - 25 squared I can see 153-155 but the fuel burn is 20 GPH. I only run the engine ROP. When I am not going on longer trips I often power back cruising in the valley. I will run 19/2200 and see 10.5 GPH burn at 2-3K and still see 125 KTAS. I only lost about 3-4 knots removing the wheel pants.

Climb performance is truly amazing. Vy ISO conditions at gross/sea level is 1800-2000 fpm. I typically cruise climb at 105 KIAS and see 1400-1500 fpm at sea level. Takes 12 minutes to reach 9-10 thousand feet. The STOL kits gives it a short ground roll of 400 feet.

The plane performed great with the O-470 but is a true beast with the O-520.

I suppose I can find this out soon enough once I get done with mine, but have you tried running peak EGT at or below 65% power and noted TAS vs fuel difference compared to ROP? It's perfectly safe to do so on the Continentals at/below 65%. TCM's engine care guide does say best power occurs at about 75 degrees ROP (based on first cylinder to peak), but peak EGT may only lose a few HP with a decent reduction in fuel burn. I've been curious how the miles per gallon equation will play out on the 520's, since that's what I did in mine (P-Ponk STC but with an IO-520-F converted to carbureted). Being where I am, I cruise high and don't usually see more than 65% power for long.

Mine is a 1973 C180J that had a Continental 0-470-R and a McCauley 88-inch seaplane prop. I’m based at about 4,000 MSL and I thought that the airplane was a pretty good performer. The conversion to the 0-470-50 required replacement of the two-blade propeller with a three-blade propeller, which really ratcheted up the total cost. I selected the Hartzell Scimiter 84-inch diameter.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide any hard numbers on takeoff roll and climb rate. However, I am positive that both are much better that before. I’m typically operating at 5,000 to 6,000 ft density altitude, often higher. At lighter weights, say 2,000 to 2,200 lbs, and 80 KIAS indicated, I’ll achieve 1,600 to 2,000 fpm climb. At 2,800 lbs I’ll achieve 1,200 to 1,500 fpm climb. This probably aligns reasonably with Dog’s SL performance.

About the lowest I can normally fly around here is 5,000 ft. At WOT 23.5 inches and 2,400 RPM – I’ll be well into the yellow airspeed zone – about 150 KTAS – burning 19 gph (-100 ROP). At 6,500 ft., 20 inches and 2,400 RPM I’ll achieve 155 KTAS at 16 gph (-100 ROP). This is about 10 kts faster and 3 gph more, than before the conversion.

My normal cruising altitudes are around 7,500 to 9,500 ft. Typically I run WOT 21 to 21.5 inches and 2,200 RPM (about 60%) at 11 to 11.5 gph. At 20 inches and 2,100 RPM I can run 10.5 gph. Both of these are operation at peak EGT with CHT’s around 360 to 370F (no cowl louvers), resulting in 130 to 135 KTAS. I would say this is 8 to 10 kts faster at roughly 1.0 to 1.5 gph more than before. Again, these results seem to generally align with Dog’s experience.

I installed a JPI EDM-830 with the P-Ponk, which I highly recommend. Unfortunately, the fuel flow data for the original engine and propeller installation is only a calculated estimate. So, the comparison with the current installation is a bit rough.

At 65% power and below, I always adjust the fuel flow to peak EGT. I find that I can often run the 0-470-50 slightly LOP below 60% power. I might give up 10 to 15 kts of airspeed, but reduce the fuel consumption by 6 to 8 gph from ROP operation. My focus is generally on keeping the CHT’s as low as possible.



In the hot summer weather, below 6,500 ft., I often need to crack open the cowl flaps to maintain CHT below my target of 380F in cruise flight. I'm planning to install those cowl louvers sometime.

I recon that if you generally fly at lower density altitudes and light aircraft weights, in and out of paved airports, the performance boost delivered by the P-Ponk probably would not justify the investment (particularly if you need to buy a new propeller). If you operate heavy, at higher density altitudes, from short backcountry airfields, on floats or skis, the performance improvement will absolutely justify the cost.

Thank you to all who have posted their experience so far. This is exactly the information I was looking for. If there are others out there please keep it coming. If there is someone out there who flew floats before and after the Pponk that would be great information too.

Thanks much to the folks giving their firsthand perf experience here. With a deposit in to LyCon for a winter build of a PPonk, I’m looking forward to the anticipated performance increase. We typically run in the summer months near gross at high DA’s and out of short strips.
I pinged BigRenna a while back to see how his hot rod PPonk build turned out, but as Gramps used to say, he’s been “busier than a bordello on dollar day,” so no report as of yet.
Hopefully he’ll chime in shortly.
Johnny

Have about 100 hours in the new PPonk build by Lycon. Is pulling the plane with a 3-blade MT off the strips in Frank Church much better than last year with tired 470. Dyno’d 309 @ 2700.
Still should have gotten a 185 w/550!

“I recon that if you generally fly at lower density altitudes and light aircraft weights, in and out of paved airports, the performance boost delivered by the P-Ponk probably would not justify the investment (particularly if you need to buy a new propeller). If you operate heavy, at higher density altitudes, from short backcountry airfields, on floats or skis, the performance improvement will absolutely justify the cost.”

Agree 100%

I dont have numbers, only comments.
C180J. Texas Skyways 0520 with 8:5-1 cylinders from O470-S. MT 3 blade 83 from 2 blade Macauly 88”
Fuel burn at the same speed is the same.
Light the performance increase is marginal (after all a % decrease of a takeoff roll that is not much, is not much).
But loaded to 3190, its a whole different story In all aspects. Big improvements. See quote above.

I don't have a lot of time on mine yet, but always operate high (5500' field elevation minimim with DA corrections between 8-11k this time of year) and have noticed a big improvement in climb. I did the O-520-F conversion, I suppose equivalent to the Skyways version; it's P-Ponk STC but gives 285 book HP at 2700 RPM. The MT prop is statically set to about 2630 on the pitch stops (default set by factory), and the governor is bumped to 2700 which happens as soon as it gets some forward speed to cause an incidence change on the blades.

I haven't had it heavy yet, but light I was seeing 2000fpm off the ground here in Denver. I can basically hold that until the temps climb, which is an unfortunate side effect of this much engine in a little cowl. Before too long I am pushing the nose over to get some more cooling on the cylinders, but then cruise climb is just fantastic. Ground acceleration is also faster than before with rotation happening in a matter of seconds. I can't tell you what the balance is between engine and the much better prop I have now, but the combination has me smiling every time. I'm going to do some high elevation mountain stuff in the near future and see how that goes, but based on my local results I expect no issues.

Fuel burn seems commensurate with everyone else, which it should be as we all have the same displacement. I do appreciate the higher compression of the 520 conversion though over the standard P-Ponk rebuild. It means I can't run auto fuel, but I don't anyway so I'd rather have more power on tap. I will have to manage fuel a little more closely than before just due to the higher burn, but I still have ~4 hours usable at 14GPH and can always pull it back if I want to stay aloft longer. One of my next experiments after the STOL kit goes on next week is finding the best speed / best econ settings, fuel burn, and everything in between. I'll publish the results once I have them.

225/230hp (depends on what engine) vs 285 plus...it's a significant difference. The 470 is a performer but the 520 feels like a dragon. Personally imo it comes down to your mission, how much does your plane weigh? Where do you fly most? Still not certain why anyone would want to put a 550 in a 180 unless it's a later model. Have yet to see any 180 with a 550 do better than the 520 except for top end speed. Good luck!

Would bet that Bushwagon East has the numbers your looking for.

AKT