• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

O-470 R advice

jimboflying

MEMBER
At a recent annual a cylinder was pulled because of a leaking intake valve. While the cylinder was off pitting was noticed on the lifter and some cam damage was seen. The engine is 560 hours since factory reman which was done in 1996. The fellow before me didn’t fly it much. The question is what is the best thing to do now?:sad:
 
Sorry to hear, bummer!

Lifters can be replaced very easily...

Not that I am going to be helpful in a cam question, but are you able to be more specific as to 'damage' to the cam? Maybe a photograph?

If it were my plane, I would be having whomever my engine overhaul guy would be take a long look at it before I made any decisions.

Guessing you looked at all the lobes if one seems bad?
 
The rule I was told was if you can detect the corrosion pitting with a thumbnail, the cam is toast.

Maybe a good time to do a Pponk mod!
 
Last edited:
"Maybe a good time to do a Pponk mod!"
Perfect attitude.
I pulled the Pitts out of the hangar one day, pulled the prop through and one cylinder was dead.
My first thought was--Time for more horsepower!
 
"Maybe a good time to do a Pponk mod!"
Perfect attitude.
I pulled the Pitts out of the hangar one day, pulled the prop through and one cylinder was dead.
My first thought was--Time for more horsepower!

Cary
How many hrs have you put on my old S-1D?
Lou
 
If you are getting to that point, other options are out there besides Pponk... including Texas Skyways and one or two others.

You can also have the engine pulled down and the cam replaces for less, but you have a 22 year old engine with 30% or so of the tbo. If the cost of repair is 25% of a reman/overhaul it might be a good time to 'get-er-done'.
 
Hi Lou,
I've put about 650 hours on the S1. It has been a great airplane.
Also in the small world category, after flying with Steve Wolf one day, he showed me some before pictures of the S1 he built up for his wife Kathy. It was originally built by the same guy in Georgia that built yours/mine.
 
At a recent annual a cylinder was pulled because of a leaking intake valve. While the cylinder was off pitting was noticed on the lifter and some cam damage was seen. The engine is 560 hours since factory reman which was done in 1996. The fellow before me didn’t fly it much. The question is what is the best thing to do now?:sad:
An IRAN or overhaul. Depending on what you find inside.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
 
If you are getting to that point, other options are out there besides Pponk... including Texas Skyways and one or two others.....

When I (finally) bought a C180 a few years ago, the first thing a lot of people asked was "when are you gonna get it Ponked?"
Like it was a given that I would.
But I think when the time comes (which will probably be sooner rather than later),
I'm just gonna go for an overhaul to stock specs.
Some folks who haul a lot of stuff (or have amphibs, or whatever) need more power,
but the 470 has plenty enough steam for my missions.
I do want to have the engine balanced, "blueprinted", and whatever else to ensure it's just as smooth as possible and lasts a long time..
 
When I (finally) bought a C180 a few years ago, the first thing a lot of people asked was "when are you gonna get it Ponked?"
Like it was a given that I would.
But I think when the time comes (which will probably be sooner rather than later),
I'm just gonna go for an overhaul to stock specs.
Some folks who haul a lot of stuff (or have amphibs, or whatever) need more power,
but the 470 has plenty enough steam for my missions.
I do want to have the engine balanced, "blueprinted", and whatever else to ensure it's just as smooth as possible and lasts a long time..

I am with you! My last 180 had a heavy case O470R with a seaplane prop. Plenty of power and decent fuel burn.
 
My O-470A with 90" prop has been a decent powerplant for the 500 hours I have on it........in two different early 180 airframes. But more power means more options for landing zones to get loads out of, not just into.

Yes there are compromises. Increased cost and weight are the obvious compromises.
 
As a guy familiar with my 180 before and after the Pponk mod? It made a good airplane a great airplane. It may not be for everyone but that's my take on it.

I'll be interested to hear how jimboflying navigates his sad surprise. Been there, done that!
 
Good point SB.

I can say that same 0-470A in my 100 pound lighter plane with bigger tires and a Sporstman is FAR more capable than the other 180 it powered.

However, the IO470 that went into the other 180 woke it right up!!!
 
Back when I changed to the Texas skyways engine in the 180, the increased TBO was a big factor.

What ever upgrade or change you go with, be sure you get a quality product with high standard of workmanship. Not all repair shops machine cases, and demand tight tolerances.
 
My O-470A with 90" prop has been a decent powerplant for the 500 hours I have on it........in two different early 180 airframes. But more power means more options for landing zones to get loads out of, not just into.

Yes there are compromises. Increased cost and weight are the obvious compromises.

How did you get approval to swing a 90" on any thing other than a 180K with the O-470U. I wanted to upgrade to the U engine and 90" prop but I couldn't find any way to put one on anything but the K model. Went with the O-520 and MT in the end.
 
Northwest Propeller Service, Inc. STC#SA2229CE

The 90" sure performs different than with the 82" prop on the same engine
 
Last edited:
You don't really have many options as far as what you can do with your bad cam.
You are going to replace the cam and followers. You can either do a repair or an overhaul.
The condition of the rest of the engine needs to be assessed, before you can decide the best way to go.
You should have had some indication of ferrous metals in your oil filter/screen, you may want to look at
how you are inspecting your oil system. If you caught this early enough, the damage should be minimal.
 
My O-470A with 90" prop has been a decent powerplant for the 500 hours I have on it.........

Just ran Ponk's tip speed calculator for a 90" prop at 2600rpm,
on a standard day temp (59F) tip speed is .9145 mach.
However, at freezing, tip speed is .9392 mach -- well above the .88-.92 sweet spot.
Just saying.
 
I have had the following "argument" here and elsewhere:

That "sweet spot" in a computer model is about efficiency in a computer "model". (As I understand it)

When I am stuck in deep snow or need to get a heavy airplane on step I dont give a hoot about efficiency. Or prop tips breaking the sound barrier, or supposed loss(!!!???) of thrust from prop tips.

I do give a hoot about horsepower and thrust, both of which more is produced at higher RPM's, thanks very much!

Pull tests actually performed(!!!) at tip-supersonic regime prove this out.

Computer models be-damned, the fast spinning long prop just keeps pulling harder, and louder:)
 
I have had the following "argument" here and elsewhere:

That "sweet spot" in a computer model is about efficiency in a computer "model". (As I understand it)

When I am stuck in deep snow or need to get a heavy airplane on step I dont give a hoot about efficiency. Or prop tips breaking the sound barrier, or supposed loss(!!!???) of thrust from prop tips.

I do give a hoot about horsepower and thrust, both of which more is produced at higher RPM's, thanks very much!

Pull tests actually performed(!!!) at tip-supersonic regime prove this out.

Computer models be-damned, the fast spinning long prop just keeps pulling harder, and louder:)

Engineering calculations can only get so far... then it is time to test in the real world. It is amazing how subtle differences will change final results.

Glad to see folks at times showing flaws in engineering theory.
 
Back when I changed to the Texas skyways engine in the 180, the increased TBO was a big factor.

What ever upgrade or change you go with, be sure you get a quality product with high standard of workmanship. Not all repair shops machine cases, and demand tight tolerances.

I'm interested in your thoughts regarding that Texas Skyways engine. Would you do it over again, or would you go the PPonk route? Or something different?

Eric Barker of Western Skyways wrote in a Beech forum that they've done 1,000's of the TS engines, 100's of the PPonks, and a few dozen of the Norland. He seemed to appreciate the details in the TS engines https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=121134
 
Pponk converts 0-470s to use TSIO-520 cylinders and modifies the carb, or can do it starting with an IO-520. They're "supposed" to use 7.5-1 TSIO pistons but lots of them use 8.5-1 IO-520 pistons. The 470 R and S models' cranks aren't applicable for the conversion. If you have an R or S you'll need a different crank. My S model upgrade uses a 520 crank, but that requires milling the case for an oil transfer collar. Not a big deal.

Texas Skyways starts with an IO-520 and removes FI to add carb. 8.5-1 compression.

Which suits you best is largely determined by what you start with. If buying outright? Pick who you prefer to work with. Both are good engines.
 
Pponk converts 0-470s to use TSIO-520 cylinders and modifies the carb, or can do it starting with an IO-520. They're "supposed" to use 7.5-1 TSIO pistons but lots of them use 8.5-1 IO-520 pistons. The 470 R and S models' cranks aren't applicable for the conversion. If you have an R or S you'll need a different crank. My S model upgrade uses a 520 crank, but that requires milling the case for an oil transfer collar. Not a big deal.

Texas Skyways starts with an IO-520 and removes FI to add carb. 8.5-1 compression.

Which suits you best is largely determined by what you start with. If buying outright? Pick who you prefer to work with. Both are good engines.

Thanks, Stewart.

I forgot about the 8.5:1 C.R. on the Skyways engines. One of the things I like about the PPonk is the 7.5:1. Yes, some power loss, but I could burn "alternate" fuel in a pinch w/o detonation.

I don't know how many 470-50 engines are out there on 180's and 182's, but it seems most owners are pretty happy with them.

J
 
I have had the following "argument" here and elsewhere:

That "sweet spot" in a computer model is about efficiency in a computer "model". (As I understand it)

When I am stuck in deep snow or need to get a heavy airplane on step I dont give a hoot about efficiency. Or prop tips breaking the sound barrier, or supposed loss(!!!???) of thrust from prop tips.

I do give a hoot about horsepower and thrust, both of which more is produced at higher RPM's, thanks very much!

Pull tests actually performed(!!!) at tip-supersonic regime prove this out.

Computer models be-damned, the fast spinning long prop just keeps pulling harder, and louder:)

i agree with Dave. There was a time when, I’d our mechanics trusted a pilot flying one of our 185s, they’d set the prop governor to 2900rpm max. “Public Use Aircraft”. Then the Chief of Maintenance would have “the talk” with said pilot.

The one I flew was on early PeeKay 3500 amphibs, and there were more than a couple times I got on step, waited, then pushed that prop control all the way to fine pitch. And that, and a bit of wrestling would always get the thing airborne.

I did breath a sigh of relief when they replaced that 185 with a Beaver, though. Of course that Beaver had a H-S 2D30 prop that someone had failed to trim to proper length for a Beaver. It was only 12 inches longer than specified. Hard to keep out of the water, but if you think a 185 snorts at takeoff power, you shoulda heard that beast. Then they decided to play nice and replaced those long blades with AG 200 blades. Just wasn’t the same.

MTV
 
I bet that prop was somthin special.

Funny, on floats, doing a mag check on the big two blade Beaver versus the 3blade Hartzell shows the thrust of the 2 blade. The 3 blade is slogging along in plow at 1750 rpm. The 2 blade moves along MUCH faster at the same RPM. Yes, the 3 blade is smoother!
 
I'm interested in your thoughts regarding that Texas Skyways engine. Would you do it over again, or would you go the PPonk route? Or something different?

Eric Barker of Western Skyways wrote in a Beech forum that they've done 1,000's of the TS engines, 100's of the PPonks, and a few dozen of the Norland. He seemed to appreciate the details in the TS engines https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=121134


Absolutely.

I had the O-470 250 hp was all, and she was fantastic!

One of the benefits that this engine gave me was a 2,500 tbo. Flying 135 that was a big deal- 25% more engine life.

Texas Skyways was easy to work with, and started with remanufactured engines, so I did not have to worry about overhauled parts being close to limits... The engine was great to fly behind.

Would do business with them any time.
 
Texas Skyways was easy to work with, and started with remanufactured engines, so I did not have to worry about overhauled parts being close to limits... The engine was great to fly behind.

Would do business with them any time.
Agree, Great people to do business with.
 
Back
Top