Finally stopped raining and is drying out down here in So. Cal. Finished with the install and annual sign off December 5th so far only have 5 hrs on it and I'm impressed! With the McCauley 86" prop and the extra hp I've picked up over 10 mph TAS at the same power setting that I used before. I'm seeing 20 more indicated mph used to see 125 IAS now seeing 145 IAS, also increased my fuel burn from 11 gph @ 50 deg ROP to 13 gph @ 100 deg ROP. Seeing a sustained climb of 1200' pm @100 mph IAS thru 8000'. Before it was more like 900'-1000' @ 90. All temps are manageable.

Next stop debtors prison

275HP ???

Hp sure puts a smile on ones face. Enjoy.

RobBurson wrote:275HP ???

At least 275, 520 ECI cyl's polished ports and flow matched. Push the middle knob and hold on

[quoteHp sure puts a smile on ones face. Enjoy.quote]
I call it the grin factor, priceless
In my mind, it was the single best mod I did.
I'm hopin Pat gets one for his.
Gary

Glidergeek wrote::D With the McCauley 86" prop and the extra hp I've picked up over 10 mph TAS at the same power setting that I used before. I'm seeing 20 more indicated mph used to see 125 IAS now seeing 145 IAS, also increased my fuel burn from 11 gph @ 50 deg ROP to 13 gph @ 100 deg ROP.

Next stop deters prison

Actually, if you're burning more fuel per hour, you cannot be using the same power setting. Power setting is defined as a percentage of horsepower, and I suspect what you're talking about is actually rpm/manifold pressure settings.

The same rpm/mp settings on different engines can provide VASTLY different power settings, and that's what you're describing.

A certain power setting will result in a specific fuel burn. More HP, more fuel. Less HP, less fuel. and vice versa.

Sounds like you've got a nice setup in any case, and the advantage is that you can either cruise faster at higher fuel burn, or cruise the same speed as the old engine at the same fuel burn.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Glidergeek wrote::D With the McCauley 86" prop and the extra hp I've picked up over 10 mph TAS at the same power setting that I used before. I'm seeing 20 more indicated mph used to see 125 IAS now seeing 145 IAS, also increased my fuel burn from 11 gph @ 50 deg ROP to 13 gph @ 100 deg ROP.

Next stop deters prison

Actually, if you're burning more fuel per hour, you cannot be using the same power setting. Power setting is defined as a percentage of horsepower, and I suspect what you're talking about is actually rpm/manifold pressure settings.

The same rpm/mp settings on different engines can provide VASTLY different power settings, and that's what you're describing.

A certain power setting will result in a specific fuel burn. More HP, more fuel. Less HP, less fuel. and vice versa.

Sounds like you've got a nice setup in any case, and the advantage is that you can either cruise faster at higher fuel burn, or cruise the same speed as the old engine at the same fuel burn.

MTV

Yes you're right and I stand corrected. Pull the power back right?

Nothing climbs like money!!

Been a lot of cylinder issues this year with ECI on the IO520's...like change them all at 400 hours or less on 3 different airplanes that I know of. I wonder if the PPonk engine folks have seen anything or if it is just on the standard 520? I ask because an overhaul is on the horizon.

Love my Milleniums on my IO-520. 500 or so hours now and all compressions were 78 a few weeks ago at the annual. 520's in Bo's typically run cool, I'm rarely over 300 in cruise.

Mine had the cyls replaced around 200 hrs. Probly arond 5 yrs. ago

It is interesting how they'll run a batch one year that last forever and the next batch is junk. I think it is all of the manufacturers, no one in particular. The cylinders we have on the 206 now are 2nd run nickel and are holding strong just 200 from TBO which by all accounts should not be. I'll stick with it as long as I can stand it.

We used to run the 520's on the 207's @ 100 degrees rich of peak. As I recall the manual called for about 50 degrees. Usually you would have to replace a cylinder or two about the 7-800 hour mark. This was in 100 degree OAT. Seemed like the Millenium cylinders would made TBO most of the time.

I wonder how most are running there continentals.

Had a friend with the P-Ponk in his 182 and he loved it.

shortfielder wrote:Mine had the cyls replaced around 200 hrs. Probably around 5 yrs. ago

My cousin just re ringed 1 cylinder and the rebuild shop recommended and he did replace all his lifters on the exhaust side with a high flow lifter I'll get a part number if anyone is interested.

Sorry Geek...we gotta have some details. Who built the engine and at what cost (if you dont mind sharing) and I'd be curious which cylinders you used. Did you buy the STC separate?? We have received quotes for 0-470-R's for 20k with new cylinders right now...decent deal.


The two overhaul shops I've talked to lately both emphatically recommend ECI's on Continentals, claiming they'll go much further than TCM's....but as we've seen, ECI can have their share of issues. Lots of chatter out there right now about poor QC at TCM in the last few years but who knows??

Do tell-

62L
The rebuild shop was Corona engine in Corona, Ca now to the roof with water, he might be into boat engine rebuilding soon. His package was 24K including the STC (he's Pponk authorized) Included mags, vac pump, oil cooler, Plane Power alternator conversion, converted my old oil pump to a new style. Be careful if you got an R crank it'll have to be changed make sure that's in ur " ". R's only have 2 counter weights on them and for a 3 blade they require a 4 wt crank. Used new ECI's price included polish and flow balance. He has/had a flow balance machine looked expensive, now an anchor. Cost went up $1K cause he had to replace all push rods.

You can count on Corona going into neptuns domain every now and then. Am considering a p ponk in my 182B. We will be pulling the cylinders off in few weeks to see where all the metal is comming from. Engine has only 820 hrs on it but only 30 hr per year average before I bought the plane three years ago. Will make the big decision after that.

Tim

shortfielder wrote:[quoteHp sure puts a smile on ones face. Enjoy.quote]
I call it the grin factor, priceless
In my mind, it was the single best mod I did.
I'm hopin Pat gets one for his.
Gary

I would really love too do the Pponk mod. But I don't think I'm going to be able to afford it. But, you never know. Maybe I'll come up with some extra cash somehow

qmdv wrote:You can count on Corona going into neptuns domain every now and then.

I seriously considered using Corona, but got this same feedback from every reference I called. I ended up using Steve Knopp himself, and couldn't have been more pleased with the engine or the transaction. Only 3 hours so far, but smoooth and beastly....

I have a Pponk powered 66 182 and the extra HP was EXTREMELY noticable. New Milleniums were used and with only 450 hours two of them have been pulled due to worn exhause guides but that has nothing to do with the Pponk. If I had a stock 0-470 needing OH I would definately try to scrape up the extra $$$. 10mph increase isn't an exageration and also helps to seperate your bird from the rest of the flock come resale time.