If you look at all of Cessna aircraft performance stats and average all of the fuel burn and speed numbers you'll see they all burn about the same MPG. My old C-170 Used 7.5 GPH @ 115 TAS+ 15.33mpg, my old C-182 used 12GPH @ 155mph= 12.9mpg. My C-180 before the Pponk used 10.5GPH @ 148TAS=14.1 mpg, after Pponk 163TAS @ 13.04.

The only way you're going to change these numbers substantially is to sand the rivets down to give you a more laminar flow maybe get 1 flight

I really like the Pponk, but you've got to figure at least 40K firewall forward.

Thanks for the replies and thoughts so far. I just talked to him yesterday and he was still waiting for the blessing to become a member. My thought would be that he go experimental with a turbine. Rumor has it that he has access to smoker fuel. Endlesss possibilities.

Great news! I just found out the 182 H is under warranty. SAS (Steve's Aircraft Sales) is going to cover the whole thing! Good thing I kept the paperwork!
Carl

Thanks for everyones ideas!

........And then there is Supercharging to consider:

http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm

They (website) do make it sound real attractive......
Anyone have one??


Subtle hijack attempt
lc

Less subtle hijack attempt: The web site says it will work (approved) with a P-ponk motor......
A lot of backcountry strips are at 'significant' density altitude-especially in the summer. SOUNDS like a marriage made in heaven for more power for a 182 (as usual, all you add is MONEY). Someone said aprox 40 grand for the ponk. The Supercharger is 1/2 that. What a combination! SOMEBODY on here has to know someone that has one, right?

In my defense, it sounded like the thread had about run its course.....

lc

Looked at website. Supercharger is intriguing......

Littlecub wrote:

........And then there is Supercharging to consider:

http://www.forcedaeromotive.com/product.htm

They (website) do make it sound real attractive......
Anyone have one??


Subtle hijack attempt
lc

Less subtle hijack attempt: The web site says it will work (approved) with a P-ponk motor......
A lot of backcountry strips are at 'significant' density altitude-especially in the summer. SOUNDS like a marriage made in heaven for more power for a 182 (as usual, all you add is MONEY). Someone said aprox 40 grand for the ponk. The Supercharger is 1/2 that. What a combination! SOMEBODY on here has to know someone that has one, right?

In my defense, it sounded like the thread had about run its course.....

lc

I've just done a TURBO CHARGED Continental (TIO)0-470-R -know of a IO-TIO520 in 66 182 > Lets talk power. Turbo will give you Sea Level Power to 20,000 Density Altitude .For standard 0-470-R add- When they open up case and check crank and internal parts get crank,rods and pistons balanced and see a 10 % increase in power and much smoother. Get Leading edge exhaust (Alaska for 185) or at least Knisley Welding exhaust. Cylinders standard Steel with flow balancing , Do the Norland STC and you'll see near 300hp--been there done that . Have prop balanced(I don't like 3 blade props -per PPonk) to micro grams and hang on- also send Engine mount out and plastic bead blasted and Checked> If any just get a Sea Planes West mount - Add there Seaplanes West Windshield Brace . Remember to have the BAS Shoulder harness ready to rock and roll and push the money handle ahead and hang on !For turbo over and above engine with STC about 30 grand -for other mods -Balance-Noland> exhaust >flow balancing add another 5-6 grand over regular overhaul. Been there done that.
Standard 0-470-R ovehaul will run 15-18 K or 20 K with new cylinders .

My spray pilot friend from Missouri was up yesterday. He just bought a 180 with Pponk 470-50 and Big Foot prop from Oklahoma. How can that engine run so much smoother than my loping 470? Everything induction wise is the same----just 520 cylinders.

Better banancing

180Marty wrote:My spray pilot friend from Missouri was up yesterday. He just bought a 180 with Pponk 470-50 and Big Foot prop from Oklahoma. How can that engine run so much smoother than my loping 470? Everything induction wise is the same----just 520 cylinders.

Did he get the '74, white with red stripes, that was just on barnstormers? That thing looked really nice!

I know the cost is higher.... But an io550 seems like the best of all worlds
310 hp for take off and climb. Then run lean of peak on 12.5 GPH (65 percent) and cruise fast at on 201 hp. Also you enjoy long engine life at the low power setting plus the 310 hp is underrated if anything.
Just my thoughts

Did he get the '74, white with red stripes, that was just on barnstormers? That thing looked really nice!

Yes, that's the one. It has had repairs to the gear box and forward area. That Big Foot really looks impressive but wonder how my little 2 blade MT would compare.

Looking very seriously at PPonk. Talked to Steve Knopp and was very impressed. Sounds like i can get more hp and a balanced engine for about what an OH would cost. Very accomodating to my cracked case situation where some others smelled blood in the water. Any other thoughts?

charlan wrote:Looking very seriously at PPonk. Talked to Steve Knopp and was very impressed. Sounds like i can get more hp and a balanced engine for about what an OH would cost. Very accomodating to my cracked case situation where some others smelled blood in the water. Any other thoughts?

If you have the budget, go with the Pponk! I flew with Glidergeek a few times in his 180 with a fresh Pponk and I was very impressed! The morning we took off from Riverside, CA and climbed like a rocket ship (we did have some nice headwinds, though), I was instantly sold!! But, my budget will not allow it right now. Everybody I have spoke to about a Pponk did not have one bad thing to say about Pponk and Steve. Good luck!

i have owned two pponked 182's and looked at all the options, the 550 is nice but about $20k more, i am really sold on the pponk mod,

I have about 75 hours on my PPonk 0-470-50. Fantastic, I can not say enough good things about it

mtv wrote:Actually, horsepower output = fuel flow. The only variable is in leaning of the mixture.

If the stoichiometric ratio is optimal, and you're USING 150 horsepower, it makes no difference the cubic inch displacement of the engine....they'll all use about the same amount of fuel.

The curves for specific fuel consumption are concave up. In other words, you will burn more fuel per HP when lower than an optimal value, and quite a bit more when run harder than the optimal value. This is because roughly a third of total horsepower developed by the engine (O-470, for example) is robbed by the piston rings, heat losses to the cylinders, and accessory drives. So when operating at lower lower MP, more of the fuel/air charge is being used to overcome engine friction and other effects, and at higher RPM, more charge is exiting unburned and at a higher temperature, meaning lower thermal efficiency/ higher specific fuel consumption.

Higher horsepower engines CAN (and often do) produce the same horsepower as a smaller engine with less fuel if the operating point is closer to the minimum on the curve. Here is an example:
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/193242_combustion_temperatures_chart_sm.jpg