Cary wrote:30 hp is a 13% increase

The 30hp increase pencils out to roughly a 20% increase in climb power and only a few percent increase in max speed.

The 20% increase in climb rate is also pretty close to what some folks with a 260hp Skylane claimed. Some local here says he can reliably file for 17k-19k legs in a 182 with a 260hp IO-470.

I've pretty much ruled out the Peterson STC at this point. Performance sounds good and it would be a cool installation but the cost and time involved is too much for me.

Conversion kit with STC is $6500 and roughly $8000 in other Cessna parts is required. I'm guessing if one had the patience to track down used components this $8000 could be whittled down considerably but who has patience? Of course we haven't even bought an engine yet.

Then there's the time involved, Peterson quotes roughly 85 hours for just the engine conversion in his shop, I'm guessing 110 or more for me. At roughly 2-3 days a week there goes 3 months or so. Oh well.

I'm now intrigued by this "Norland" STC that cub180 mentioned earlier. I've spoken with Chris up there in Ontario and it sounds pretty simple to me. $2000 gets you permission to remove the fuel injection from an IO-470 and install the intake and carburetor from an O-470, pretty simple. This nets you 260 max power @ 2700rpm (I think) and for the same given airspeed as my O-470R should get about .5 gal/hour better economy.

Anyone have experience with high compression O-470?

Io 470 rpm is 2650 this set- up is basically what I had in 180 k .it got good fuel consumption.at 9000 ft burned 9 to 9.5 gals at 130 kts .now I burn 11.5 at same with pponk .hartz 84 in prop.having flown both I miss my 470 u and 90 in 204 Mac.i ran the u engine on 92 mogas for many years on issues.i have had this plane almost 20 years .put 2800 hrs on it.still has original bladders.

Speaking of a prop. Anyone have a lead on someone who is doing Field Approvals for the C58/66 on PPonk'd 180s through their FSDO? Steve Knopp's guy just retired and he thinks it is going to be some time before he is back to getting these done without hassle.

To your question Sam. I am really liking the PPonk for it's added performance over the O470, especially on float, but also on skis and when operating a gross with the family. The 3 blade prop does make it nose heavy. I did an exchange with a 520 case, so that would have been some added weight as well. Might look into the difference with case weights if you are trying to shave pounds. I wish I had done so. I also have the firewall battery...
Pun intended when we say mission can certainly be a balance. On skis is quite nose heavy when I am solo, but well balanced with a full load. Previously with the O470 and a younger, lighter family on board, I would be a full forward trim in cruise. On straight floats which, as you know, move CG aft, it allowed me to pile stuff in with WAY more of a CG margin. On amphibs which move CG forward, would be a problematic issue, likely requiring weight on the tail spring. Have thought about this to the point of even putting the aft battery back in place, but yesterday removed any thoughts when I ripped it all out and installed the Airglas flat floor extended baggage. Will try to address CG with the prop, as noted above.

PPonk engine runs great and I like the low compressions with considerations of availability of 100LL, now or in the future. Have a 6 channel CHT/EGT and at times I wish for injection, but when I had a weak, cold soaked battery and had to prop it a few weeks ago, was happy for the carburetor. Looked into getting the parts for the Bendix FI setup Rob talked about, but it was going to delay the project for a few months, so passed. Price a few years ago was an additional ~$5000.
You should definitely talk to Steve about any of the many additional STCs he has for "re-engining" you Skylane/Skywagon. Putting high compression cylinders on the O520 engine for 285hp+. Installing an IO520 engine - 300 hp. He is pretty much a one stop shop for what you want to certify for your engine overhaul.
My thought would be if you are considering having high compression cylinders and running 100LL, why rip out the fuel injection from an IO470 or IO520? Install the pump and header tank (or not with Bendix system) and overhaul and install the engine as it was originally set up.
Best of luck with the endeavor.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:
PPonk engine runs great and I like the low compressions with considerations of availability of 100LL, now or in the future.

Can you explain this statement please Matt? It's my understanding that the Pponk engines aren't approved for moGas, regardless of the compression.

Not legally. But lower compression = auto gas some would say.

What's the TBO on an IO-470? The Pponk engine is 2000 hrs. Something worth considering? For me it is.

I have ran a super eagle on my late model 180 for several years. Its sweet. Speeds are tremendous, takeoff is impressive (mines light tho). And its smooth. Very.
The only problem is the crappy uneven fuel flows but you get that with any carb. If we are comparing carb engine to carb engine (which it sounds like you are now), I don't think theres much competition. The fuel injection would give you more economy which may be worth it depending on your preferences but if you take that away, I wouldn't want anything but PPonk and a wide cord 3 blade Mac.

My .02

I realise that, but I know own of guys running moGas in 9:1 compression and having no problems. The IO-470 is 8.6:1 I believe, which is not much more then then a lot of 8.5:1 engines that are approved for moGas.
If we're not speak get legally though, I don't think there's any point in mentioning it...

Matt 7GCBC wrote: Speaking of a prop. Anyone have a lead on someone who is doing Field Approvals for the C58/66 on PPonk'd 180s through their FSDO? Steve Knopp's guy just retired and he thinks it is going to be some time before he is back to getting these done without hassle........

Someone earlier stated that the 82" C58 & C66 props are approved for the ponk -50. Is that only on the 182 airframe, not the 180? Or are the longer 88" seaplane versions not approved?
I have a C203 prop on my 180, from what I understand it's a pretty good prop. Newer hub design than the C58 or 66, yet doesn't seem to be approved for the -50. How come?

Based on my discussions with Steve, the C66 is only STC'd with the Super Eagle conversion on the 182.

Flynengr

I have transport canada paperwork for the PPonk with C58/C66/C90 props on the 180 (88" lengths on the 58 and 66). Not sure if it'll help with an FAA approval, but I'm happy to scan and email to anyone who may want it.

As for the C203, it's not approved with the PPonk due to some vibration issues that Steve wasn't able to resolve.

Chris

airChris wrote:.........As for the C203, it's not approved with the PPonk due to some vibration issues that Steve wasn't able to resolve. Chris

Thanks for clearing that up.

Reviving an old thread...
Due to a couple newer threads, been thinking about possible engine upgrades. That Norland STC is kind of intriquing.
I wonder why they didnt work it up so that you could just install the 8.5:1 (or so) pistons in an otherwise stock K or later model O470?

Also, it seems to me that I've heard about Pponk having an STC for an O550 Continental (IO550 converted to carburetor), although that one doesn't seem to be mentioned on his website.

I have a one-time STC for an 88” C58; I had to get my STC thru Matt Lawson of Lawson Aviation of Goble, MI (they did the pponk and found the prop) - good guys! The OK FSDO sat on the paperwork for several months and never did deliver despite having copies of several other approvals.

Not so OK after all, eh?
I think them same guys are at the SEA FSDO now.

I think a Norland 470 is basically the same as a Texas Skyways O470UTS. O470U uses long reach sparkplugs and our K,R,S don't so maybe not as strong for higher compression ratio.

Not to propagate rumors, but my IA said something about the PPonk STC being sold about some possible troubles with PPonk engines? HE went so far as to say that planes with PPonk engines may even lose value. Is there any truth to that?

Halestorm:

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but regardless of the flavor of the upgrade (have had a P-Ponk for 20 years and it has been tremendous), you should consider the injection option. Have had a dead battery in the backcountry more than once and had to hand prop to get it started. With the carburetor, no problem.

Good luck with the upgrade, but if you spend a lot of time in the backcountry consider carefully using injection???

88H wrote:Halestorm:

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but regardless of the flavor of the upgrade (have had a P-Ponk for 20 years and it has been tremendous), you should consider the injection option. Have had a dead battery in the backcountry more than once and had to hand prop to get it started. With the carburetor, no problem.

Good luck with the upgrade, but if you spend a lot of time in the backcountry consider carefully using injection???

This thread was started 4 years ago, I put a pponk in my airplane 3 years ago. It’s been performing perfectly, no complaints.

This engine is identical to the IO-520D it started life as except for the carburetor. I can’t imagine why pponks would be in trouble just because the STC changed hands?

CParker wrote:Not to propagate rumors, but my IA said something about the PPonk STC being sold about some possible troubles with PPonk engines? HE went so far as to say that planes with PPonk engines may even lose value. Is there any truth to that?

Already been posted about on BCP, but I thought I'd bring this thread up to date:

https://pponk.com/engines/

"We have sold our Super Eagle O-470-50 STCs which will now be provided through NorthPoint Aviation of Brainerd MN. In the future, you will see the engine marketed as the NorthPoint XP470. For STCs and additional information including currently authorized engine builders, please contact Joe Birkemeyer at NorthPoint: 218 829-3398 [email protected]
The following O-470-50 engine information is still posted on our website as a convenience during the transition. P Ponk Aviation will continue building engines, but at a slower pace."