Flying Kiwi wrote:Glidergeek...what made you go for the McCauley 86"?
Curious as getting Pponked soon.

1st run blades lotta metal left for at least 2 more overhauls, $7000-$1000 for my old prop (trade) made it very affordable. The McCauley new through Pponk I think was around $9K plus ship, Hartzel was around $12K and MT was close to $14K. I originally wanted to go with a 82" for speed and pull but 86" was available. As it is I picked up about 15 IAS at the old power settings with 2gph more.
It pulls like you wouldn't believe, coming off a 800msl airport on a 75F day it climbed out at 1800-2000' pm at 95 mph IAS sustained, it's a frickin beast. Very little vibration. Lotta prop clearance with the tail up for the W&B still had 22" ground clearance.

Thanks Glidergeeek...
Good info.

Flying Kiwi wrote:Glidergeek...what made you go for the McCauley 86"?
Curious as getting Pponked soon.

Steve Knopp is very approachable. I would recommend anyone interested in building up an O-520 via the Pponk STC, speak with him in depth. Regardless of who is actually building the engine.

On the subject of propellers, it might be of interest that up to this point Steve had only tested the select few on the STC, and a couple more. Up until recently he hadn't tested neither of the MTs that could be used via a piggy back STC. He has since tested those, and the results are very favorable. The MTs are certainly not for everybody, but if you're going to go through the cost and trouble of building one of these engines, you may as well get the prop that makes the most sense for your application.

Of the several friends I have running Pponks, I have seen about every prop applicable on these engines. Including the 2 blade C-66, the 86" 401, MTs 2 and 3 bladed, and a Hartzel Scimitar. Virtually everyone is happy with their choice, but not everyone would be happy with the next guys....

Take care, Rob

I had the 82 inch 401 3 blade Mac on my Pponk. Switched to 83 inch MT 2 blade. There is no comparison. MT pulls harder, has even less vibration that 401 mac, is faster, and the best thing of all it weights 40 pounds less. That 40 pound weight savings on the nose of an airplane is huge. I gained 40 pounds useful load, and the handling is so much better. The MT is STC'd on the Pponk, no piggy back stuff required. I would do it all over again. Flight Resources in Chatek WI has the STC which covers Pponk and Texas skyways conversions on Continental motors. Russ

I've got a 1954 180 that already had the PPonk conversion when I got it. It was an early one and the motor was a TIO-520 straight out of a P-210 with about 500 hours on it. It was not overhauled at the time of the conversion and had rebuilt ccylinders on it when I bought it. Plane had been sitting and at 740 hours things started taking a dump.

I'm was based out of Corona at the time so I had Ben at Corona Engine rebuild the motor. He did a first class job (just before the last flood) and I am absolutely amazed at the performance. With about 12 hours on it, I took it up to my place in Idaho (where it lives permanently). Fuel burn was about 12.9-13 gph and 165 mph was pretty easy. My strip in Idaho is at 2500 ft MSL and is 2000 feet long, surrounded by trees. Oh, and it's a turf strip. On an 85 degree day with 4 folks, I only use half of it. My son is usually one of him and he was a 245# defensive end at Oregon State.

Ben did a great job, including a custom paint job on the case and acessories, plus other cosmetics that really make it look good. I'd do it again in a heart beat and wouldn't hesitate to use Corona Engines.