For those with P-Ponks, on a scale of 1 (being not that important at all) to 10 (being "you'll fry that thing without it!"), how important are 6-cylinder engine monitors vs the simple single-cylinder analog CHT/EGT gauges in the original panel?

I am in a bit of a quandary. A generous person has offered me an old Gem monitor, but per Insight it'll still set me back over $1300 in harness/probes to use it, and they say I must use their probes (even though they are probably standard and/or rebranded anyway). My eventual plan is a Dynon HDX, and Dynon tells me I should expect to use their probes when I put that in. They are still not STC'd yet let alone with the 182 on the AML. No matter what that's a 2019 thing now.

So...Will the primitive gauges give enough awareness to avoid cooking a hotrod motor (especially in backcountry flying) with some judicious application of nose-down pitch, or am I headed for a bad day without some real monitoring in there to know what every cylinder is doing? With the latter, I see no way to stick to my current plan and not waste money regardless, though still cheaper than a top end.

I recall flying a Skyways 182 a couple years ago, and you would hit 400 on the CHT very quickly if you weren't paying attention. I'm concerned about that happening here and not knowing which is really the hottest jug, but at the same time I might be making more of it than it is.

What say the ponk'd crowd on this one?

People flew these engines for years without 6 position analyzers quite successfully. Don't get me wrong, I have one on my Pponk and it's a great tool but it's not absolutely necessary.

Make sure your carb gets "squeezed" by a shop like Lycon or equivalent to run plenty rich, you can always lean more aggressively later when you have a better instrument installed. If you do have just one CHT give yourself a 30 degree buffer or so and level out a little earlier, most departures don't really require a VX climb to altitude. Speed is your friend!

I think it is foolish to spend 30 grand on a motor, P-PONK or not and not put a 6 cylinder CHT/EGT on it. The labor saved when you have your first engine issue will pay for it. Single cylinder CHT/EGT are as useful as tits on a boar hog.
DENNY

I recently Ponked the engine in my C180 and the answer to this question was simple for me. I consider that the money that I spent installing a JPI-830 engine monitor is an investment in the long term health of the engine. Of course, aircraft engines have been operated for decades without such tools, often quite successfully, and sometimes not so successfully.

The monitor has already helped me identify and resolve several issues. For example, the monitor showed that in cruise the CHTs of cylinders #5 and #6 were running significantly colder than #3 and #4. Cylinder #6 was down around 220F while #3 and #4 were about 370F. By experimenting baffling modifications, I have gotten #5 and #6 up to about 320F and #3 and #4 down to about #350F. Meanwhile, the stock Cessna CHT gauge just consistently indicates with it's needle in the center of the green arc - whatever that means.

The monitor enables you to immediately correctly identify a fouled spark plug or magneto problem. The ability to record the engine performance and download the data to SavvyAnalysis is very helpful, at least to me.

I would strongly second the earlier comment about the need to ensure the carburetor is correctly re-jetted when going with the P-Ponk conversion. Low fuel flows at takeoff power settings has been a problem with some engines. My engine was built by Premier Aircraft Engines in Troutdale, Oregon and I had several discussions with Jim on this matter. In the end, I went with Jim's recommendation and it has worked out well for me. Again, the multi-point EGT/CHT information provided by the JPI-830 is very useful in managing fuel flow during takeoff and climb to altitude, particularly at high density altitudes.

Lol, it's nice to see my inner monologue play out in public like this. I keep going between "people been flying these for years" and "I just spent $$$ and want to protect it", with a dose of "if there's an issue I want to know".

To be clear, I absolutely intend to install a monitor. I'm just a bit stuck waiting for the Dynon thing to materialize, meaning I'd be chucking a decent amount of money at it now for the next 12-18 months of flying, and changing it all out again whenever they get it approved. I'd probably get some percentage of what I spend back later selling those probes/harness used I suppose, so maybe a solid year of peace of mind is worth a few hundred bucks.

WRT to the carb, yes it'll be overhauled and re-jetted per the STC. P-Ponk only approves two shops for that effort, Lycon and Avstar. The latter is substantially less expensive for what appears to be the same result FYI.

Windknot54, thanks for your post. I'm wondering what you changed on your baffles to get temps to change. I have basically the same setup on my K and don't see to much to modify. I don't have much for instrumentation with just the original single probe but have been doing compression checks and they're all in the high 70's and no valve leaks after 225 hrs.

We have a g2 with probes harness whole kit and caboodle right out of a pponk. Worked fine just upgraded. carb temp and all. 1g and you pay shipping

colopilot wrote:For those with P-Ponks, on a scale of 1 (being not that important at all) to 10 (being "you'll fry that thing without it!"), how important are 6-cylinder engine monitors vs the simple single-cylinder analog CHT/EGT gauges in the original panel?

I am in a bit of a quandary. A generous person has offered me an old Gem monitor, but per Insight it'll still set me back over $1300 in harness/probes to use it, and they say I must use their probes (even though they are probably standard and/or rebranded anyway). My eventual plan is a Dynon HDX, and Dynon tells me I should expect to use their probes when I put that in. They are still not STC'd yet let alone with the 182 on the AML. No matter what that's a 2019 thing now.

So...Will the primitive gauges give enough awareness to avoid cooking a hotrod motor (especially in backcountry flying) with some judicious application of nose-down pitch, or am I headed for a bad day without some real monitoring in there to know what every cylinder is doing? With the latter, I see no way to stick to my current plan and not waste money regardless, though still cheaper than a top end.

I recall flying a Skyways 182 a couple years ago, and you would hit 400 on the CHT very quickly if you weren't paying attention. I'm concerned about that happening here and not knowing which is really the hottest jug, but at the same time I might be making more of it than it is.

What say the ponk'd crowd on this one?

I might have what you need (used):



PM me if you're interested or for more info! I'll make you a deal!

CW

Whether you go the used route from these guys or go new, let me say that I've never regretted getting an Insight for my airplane--and it's a lot less of a stressed engine than your new PP is (O-360 Lycoming 180hp). It has caught some minor issues, plus some more serious overheating issues, and it has made me much more comfortable knowing what my engine is doing. Remembering that most O-360s only have oil temp gauges, having CHT and EGT on each cylinder is sort of like being treated to a feast when you're used to half a hot dog. Mine originally did have a single point CHT, but I can tell you, it really didn't tell me much, compared to the Insight.

Cary

Cool, thanks guys. I think this reinforces my gut intuition that I need something there now, even if I do spend a little more money in the long run to do it.

I'm clarifying one thing from my A&P before I move on anything else since it'll determine how deep I get here.

180Marty wrote:Windknot54, thanks for your post. I'm wondering what you changed on your baffles to get temps to change. I have basically the same setup on my K and don't see to much to modify. I don't have much for instrumentation with just the original single probe but have been doing compression checks and they're all in the high 70's and no valve leaks after 225 hrs.

Cylinder #6 gets a serious volume of cooling air due to it's location. The cooling of cylinder #5 is somewhat moderated by the engine oil cooler, but still receives a significant amount of excessive cooling air.

The original engine baffles on the C180/182/185 and 206 included a blocking dam in front of cylinder #6. Over the course of the past 40 to 50 years, these have typically experienced cracks due to vibration. Subsequently, they have either broken off or been removed. Take a look at the metal baffle immediately in front of your cylinder #6 and I suspect you will find a jagged sawtooth edge immediately adjacent to the cylinder fins. That's where the blocking dam has broken, or been removed, and the remaining baffle has been rubbing against the cylinder fins. I fabricated a replacement aluminum blocking dam that effectively covers the entire front face of the cylinder head, and a second dam that covers about half-height of the cylinder barrel.

Cylinder #5 may not be as critical, but it's worth exploring. Originally, there was often a small blocking dam located on top of the oil cooler, covering the exposed cylinder head fins. I fabricated such a dam from aluminum sheet. I may still experiment with an additional dam at the cylinder base.

These blocking dams achieve two purposes: 1) directly blocking the cooling air raises the CHT of cylinders #5 and #6. and 2) the air diverted around #5 and #6 is available to lower the temperatures of #3 and #4.

Although my baffling was generally in very good condition, there were a number of poorly fitted areas that would allow air to leak from the upper deck to the lower deck without passing through the cylinder cooling fins. These were particularly present near the front cowl bowl where the baffling changes direction. Any large gaps were plugged with scrap baffle material and all of the small opening were caulked with RTV sealant.

In my opinion, the results have been worth the modest efforts expended. Of course, without a multi-point CHT gauge, you may not be able to recognize the results - although you will reap the benefits.

Windknot54 wrote:The original engine baffles on the C180/182/185 and 206 included a blocking dam in front of cylinder #6. Over the course of the past 40 to 50 years, these have typically experienced cracks due to vibration. Subsequently, they have either broken off or been removed. Take a look at the metal baffle immediately in front of your cylinder #6 and I suspect you will find a jagged sawtooth edge immediately adjacent to the cylinder fins. That's where the blocking dam has broken, or been removed, and the remaining baffle has been rubbing against the cylinder fins. I fabricated a replacement aluminum blocking dam that effectively covers the entire front face of the cylinder head, and a second dam that covers about half-height of the cylinder barrel.

Any chance you have a picture of your repair work? I wondered about that sawtooth baffle when I was taking the 470 baffles out, at the time I just thought it was a crappy design. I didn't realize there was actually structure missing.

I guess I did part of that when i converted left front 470A baffle to work on my K install. Can't remember why I even thought to make it higher.

I’m on the hunt for a similar set of these front baffles which were included on the later 172 with an O-300.

They weren’t included on the 170 or early 172 and the CHT of #5/6 cylinders up front is way lower as a result.

Having a 6 point EGT/CHT was so valuable when I used to run massive electrode plugs and they would occasionally lead foul. I could effortlessly narrow down which plug needed to be pulled and cleaned before I shut down the engine to grab my wrench.

I switched to fine wire plugs and they don’t foul anymore, but I still like having all the info for each cylinder.

I'm in the process of pponking my 180. I wouldn't fly it without an engine monitor... that engine is such an investment, not to mention the airplane itself I've got to have it for peace of mind alone!

I've had plenty of JPIs, an Auracle and am now a solid CGR-30P fan.... absolutely!

gunny

For anything as expensive as an airplane engine, a five thousand dollar box that tells me everything I could ever want to know about how my engine is operating is peace of mind. Sure you can get away with just a one cylinder and one exhaust probe setup, but what if one of the other five cylinders starts running weird? I get that the pioneers used to fly these things with nothing and I highly respect their flying abilities, but they aren't the one footing the bill at overhaul.

For a brand new engine like your new ponk I would consider putting a six point CHT/EGT instrument in the panel. A "simple" EDM700 is still a great tool to have with all of these other extensive engine monitors out there.

These are my opinions and they are just that. I hope that you get what makes you feel comfortable when flying your plane.

I put the cgr 30-p in my 182 when i did my pponk upgrade. It sure cleaned up the panel. i definitely need to watch my temps with my small inlets that come with the later model 182. Sometimes i regret it thinking it’s way to much info and it makes me freak out over nothing but for the most part i would have to agree with everyone else. Spending that much on an engine you might as well have it

I don't really want an all-in-one engine instrument (TMI as dudestickle points out),
but I would like to have an all-points CHT / EGT unit.
I really like the multi-color display on the ECI CGR-30P.
Unfortunately it seems like the available CHT/EGT-only gauges (both ECI & JPI) are monochromatic-
not as easy to read at a quick glance as the CGR's technicolor display.

Hotrod - Look at the Insight gauges, the g2 mentioned above is primarily EGT/CHT in a color display. It also has some other useful numbers, but isn't a primary replacement for the whole stack.

180Marty wrote:Windknot54, thanks for your post. I'm wondering what you changed on your baffles to get temps to change. I have basically the same setup on my K and don't see to much to modify. I don't have much for instrumentation with just the original single probe but have been doing compression checks and they're all in the high 70's and no valve leaks after 225 hrs.

Here you go, but remember, it's a work in progress and still to be finalized: