Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 45

Thread: P-Ponk ?????

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    P-Ponk ?????

    What can anyone tell me about P-Ponk engine conversions?
    I'm in need of a go fast(er) XC rig and I'm considering a 180 that has the 0-470-50 conversion, and nobody around here (mid-atlantic) seems to know anything about it. Good, Bad, Indifferent?????

    Thanks

    WSH

  2. #2
    labdad32
    Guest

    P-Ponk

    Get ahold of ABCACY when he's on or send him a PM, he just did his 180 this year and loves it! B&J in Palmer, Alaska did the work for him.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Rockies
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    The ponk engine is rated at 235 horses instead of 230 on the original. That said it definitely brings the 180 up closer to the 185 than any other mod for the price.

    They also claim a 2000 hr TBO even though the parts they use come off of engines with a 1600 hr TBO. They claim it is their engine and they can call it what they want.

    If they go out of business there is no inexpensive way to convert it back. The case is shot.

    That said I have been maintaining a couple for about 1500 hrs each and see no major problems with case cracking or fatigue that should keep it from making 1600 to 1800 for TBO. I still don't see the 2000 mostly due to the cylinders and timing as to feasibility to repairs that close to overhaul.

    All in all a good engine.

  4. #4
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    6,116
    Post Thanks / Like
    Call Alaska Seaplanes in Juneau, (907) 789-3331 and talk to Craig. They put one in a few years ago and flew it commercialy.

    I went with a Texas Skyways and loved it.

    235, no, 265 is the hp rating! and trust me, the only reason to go back to stock is if you are switching aircraft and are taking the engine with you!

    If you are buying a plane with it installed, I would not worry. There is a guy here that is on his third or forth, used the plane for Herring spotting and Salmon spotting. He is really holding his life on the engine, so it must be trustworthy.

    You can not believe the difference these, (texas skyways/pponk), engines can make
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Colorado Rockies
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote="aktango58"]

    235, no, 265 is the hp rating! and trust me, the only reason to go back to stock is if you are switching aircraft and are taking the engine with you!

    Check the data plate. The -50 is rated at 235 Hp. They didn't want to go through the paperwork to show a larger hp increase.

    There is also a mod to put 550 cylinders on a 470 case available

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    439
    Post Thanks / Like
    What about the Air Plains IO-550, 300HP in the 180?

  7. #7
    Lance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Gonzales, Louisiana
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like
    Try looking on Skywagon.org. Some of the guys,including stewart b., have discussed this very thing before.

    Lance

  8. #8
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like

    PPONK

    I have a PPONK in my Ector L-19 and it is by far the fastest Bird Dog I have ever seen - around 148 GPS mph at 22"/2250. Much faster at higher, but for what?

    They balance the engines, and if you have an O-520 case like mine, you have the possibility for 285 pistons. Add Lycon intake polishing and you are off to the moon.

    Make certain they jet the carb rich enough. you can lean out, but you cannot richen up if you are short.

    Steve Knopp (PPONK backwards) is also very accesible and helpful.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Soldotna, AK
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cimarron, you might have a miss marked data tag. I have worked on many of these and all have had 265 stamped on them. Supposedly they actually produce more than 265 but to simplify getting the stc they rated it at 265. That is what Steve Knopp told a friend of mine anyway, don't know how true that is.
    Shawn

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    A lot of the P-Ponks are converted from 520's. Mine was a TSIO 520 D, it is now an O-520, @275 hp. I guess. The 180 with this engine will go fast ! It all depends on how much you want to spend for fuel.

    In case anyone is interested, my 180 is for sale at
    www.theplaneexchange.com
    J. C.

  11. #11
    Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Nikiski Alaska
    Posts
    2,596
    Post Thanks / Like

    P Ponk

    I spent an hour on the phone last Thursday with Paul Knop (Ponk spelled backwards) the owner of P Ponk talking about his STC O-470 conversion for the Cessna 180. You basically can go two ways with this STC and arrive in the same place.

    1) Take an O-470K, R or J, pull it apart and install different crankshaft counter weights set up for the harmonics of a three blade prop, bore out the case halves to accept the bigger O-520 cylinders and 7.5:1 pistons, replace the rods with 520 rods, assemble and away you go.

    2) Purchase a TSIO-520C (turbo charged 7.5:1 compression) take the turbo charger and injection off and install a carburetor and away you go.

    Either way you end up with a carbureted O-520 with 7.5:1 compression that can run auto gas, with a 2000 hour TBO.

    The Cessna 185 engine (IO-520) has 8.5:1 compression and fuel injection. He said fuel delivery has not the big difference in the engines hp, compression was the main difference.

    He also said on a dyno test the converted 7.5:1 O-520 engine showed 281 HP and a IO-520D (Cessna 185 engine) dyno'd out at 285 hp.

    He feels the lower compression 0-520 will run longer because it is under less stress, and has had some come back with over 2800 hours on them and in great shape.

    The original O-470 has 7.5:1 compression pistons so this is not that big of change. Just a bigger bore picking up 50 additional cubic inches of displacement (0-470-50).

    My big question is whether to get an early light ('53 to 59') 180 or a mid '70s J model that is 350 to 400 lbs heavier but with a modern panel and lower hull time.

    Take care! Crash

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like
    Morning Crash, I have never worried about hull time. I would much rather have an airplane that has had regular use than a hangar queen. More unseen things go wrong with an aircraft that is little used.

    I don't know about all P-Ponk conversions, but the two I do know about, both are nose heavy. It may be the big three blade, I didn't weigh mine when I had it off, but I would guess between 100# and 150# for the prop alone. Once you realize the nose heavy condition and balance it with survival gear - whatever - they handle just fine.

    I would also rather have a set of good instruments. More than once I have been caught in a weather situation that would have required a big diversion (maybe not enough fuel) or a long wait. I'm not talking about hard IFR, ice, none of these light aircraft are any good for that, just the daily garden variety "I can't see the ground anymore" situations. J. C. GTF

  13. #13
    Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Nikiski Alaska
    Posts
    2,596
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another interesting point is the test between propellers. The 88" three blade pulled the same as the 86" three blade. Paul felt the 86" was the optimum length and after that you didn't gain anything. This might also apply to Super Cubs.

    Last week Kascub posted a pull test of 770 lbs with a 90" 1A200. I remember a post some time back that another Cub driver did a pull test with a 82" 1A200 and it pulled over 800 lbs. Is my memory bad or was I just dreaming? Crash

    http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

  14. #14
    pzinck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    western,me
    Posts
    1,859
    Post Thanks / Like

    Plane pulls

    Maybe you could have a competition like they do with the tractors,or just a tug of war on the ground.That would be more exciting than just a scale test. :Some of my buddies spend lots of their time pulling it.

  15. #15
    skysigns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    seattle wa 98053
    Posts
    147
    Post Thanks / Like

    trust

    Testing of Aircraft (max static thrust)
    Bob Dempster?s 150 hp SuperCub 74/56 560 lbs
    Michael Moore?s 150 hp Stinson ? 580 lbs
    John Carson?s 180 hp SuperCub 82/41 880 lbs
    John Carson?s 253 hp 182 82 c/s 820 lbs
    SGC?s 180 hp SuperCub 82/41 780 lbs
    SGC?s 260 hp Pawnee 84/? 800 lbs
    BESC?s 235 hp Pawnee 84/? 880 lbs

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Snohomish WA
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like
    PPonk converted my '57 180A from the original O-470K to a -50 in 1996. I use a 2 blade seaplane prop. I have had no trouble.

    I prefer the simplicity of a carburetor, even though carb ice can form and the fuel burn may be a bit higher than a fuel injection. Hand prop starts are also easier, should the need arise. I also consider Steve Knopp to be a trustworthy individual.

  17. #17
    Gunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    After reading Kano's post here:

    http://www.supercub.org/phpBB2/viewt...ghlight=#55570

    I'm left wondering if static thrust testing provides nothing more than an opportunity to set around with the lads drinking beer and running up engines on a dyno stand?

    Does static thrust testing provide any insight into the blade's AOA change in the various phases of flight?

    I guess even if it doesn't testing would be a fun way to kill an afternoon.
    "You are the Gray Rider who would not make peace with the Blue Coats, you may go in Peace." - Ten Bears

    Gunny

  18. #18
    Gunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    SB,

    Not attempting to shoot down the proposal. Just curious how static thrust relates to Kano's post and admittedly I'm not an engineer. I guess the point you are making is that if static thrust is high then performance on the slow end of the envelope will be good, i.e. take-off, climb and control while slow and landing? I guess to maximize the STOL end of the envelope one wants a prop whose airfoil is generating max lift in take off and landing portion of the envelope? Hence the climb vs. cruise trade off in fixed pitch props.

    Anybody have any data on AOA at various points up and down the blade on say a borer 8242? I'm guessing that the AOA on that prop changes when it gets loaded during T/O and the prop flexes; and that the prop flexing under the load is increasing AOA (?) on the prop and creating more lift which is a good thing?

    I guess with all these questions, I'm wishing I could pitch up to drink beer and tell stories with you for the static tests - hell I'd even be willing to buy the beer....
    "You are the Gray Rider who would not make peace with the Blue Coats, you may go in Peace." - Ten Bears

    Gunny

  19. #19
    Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wellton, AZ
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by aktango58

    235, no, 265 is the hp rating! and trust me, the only reason to go back to stock is if you are switching aircraft and are taking the engine with you!
    Check the data plate. The -50 is rated at 235 Hp. They didn't want to go through the paperwork to show a larger hp increase.

    There is also a mod to put 550 cylinders on a 470 case available
    The deal with the data plate is that it simply depends on which case you started with. Those going the O-470 route will end up saying 235 on them, and those going the TSIO-520 route will end up saying 265 on them. Since for all intents and purposes they end up in the same config the hp will be the same, but the hoop jumping to make the O-470's reflect that increase would be enormous... This is similar in function to those 200hp for take off only, ELSA's....
    I would venture to guess that if a decent shop puts together your pponk you are going to end up with a good chunk higher than 265 available on T/O...

    Whiskey Mike, are you missing WM yet? that was one cool bird

    Take care, Rob

  20. #20
    fadec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    We've done 3 of P-Ponk conversions 2-182's and a 180. Everyone is very satisfied and glad they did it. Aero Engines of Winchester has done all the engines.

  21. #21
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StewartB View Post
    I don't believe my TCM data plate has any horsepower rating on it, does it? Stewart

    Yes, it does have a HP rating on it.

  22. #22
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    11,722
    Post Thanks / Like
    Steve Pierce PPonked my 180 and it Is a dream come true. We used a late model VAR cranked IO520 for the core. It turned the 55 180 into a high speed high performance bird.

    Sj


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  23. #23
    Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wellton, AZ
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi SB,

    The TCM data plate shows the T/O HP and the continuous HP. The smaller Pponk 'add a tag' shows Max RPM and CID. Mine says 235, must be a stout 235 235 Clydesdales as opposed to ponies?
    Take care, Rob
    Last edited by Rob; 12-15-2010 at 11:28 PM.

  24. #24
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    and then add the Cherokee-six fuel injection system(lyc), with a 3/4" spacer to make airbox still fit... and we have 300 if i remember right.... (they have a cont one now too for it? I think?)

  25. #25
    SJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kansas City, USA
    Posts
    11,722
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike,you would probably have to add a fuel pump then too I suppose. After a night flight from CT - OH with a lot of carb ice, I wish it were injected!

    That has to be an expensive mod though.

    sj
    "Often Mistaken, but Never in Doubt"
    ------------------------------------------

  26. #26
    dalec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Anchorage and beyond
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stewart

    I would be up to a round of Static Tests, maybe I can find a "better" prop for my 150hp cub? If nothing else I can figure out how to drink beers and listen to stories
    "What we obtain too cheap we esteem too little!

  27. #27
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    Mike,you would probably have to add a fuel pump then too I suppose. After a night flight from CT - OH with a lot of carb ice, I wish it were injected!

    That has to be an expensive mod though.

    sj
    yes its the whole system...
    was +10 years ago, pump(s), servo/throttle body? split manifold/fuel pressure/flow gauge, lines, and that riser block.... some old abandoned STC if I recall....

  28. #28

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like
    SJ,

    Quote Originally Posted by SJ View Post
    Mike,you would probably have to add a fuel pump then too I suppose. After a night flight from CT - OH with a lot of carb ice, I wish it were injected!

    sj

    Hey, leave the carb heat on, or at least partially on, so that intake temperature is well out of the freezing range. Your not going to ingest anything at any reasonable altitude, so there shouldn't be any fear of harming the engine.

    Most of these carbureted big bore Continental engines like a little "heat" anyway, helps with the fuel vaporization, giving you better fuel distribution, i.e. they usually run smoother. Yes, adding carb heat does enrichen the mixture, so set the carb temperature you want first, then lean like you would normally, ROP or LOP, doesn't matter. A lot of people have a lot of success around 50 df, mine likes it a little warmer, around 64 degrees.

    Get a carb temperature gauge, if you don't already have one, and try it. And if you have a engine monitor, put it in "normalize" mode ( it's more sensitive and reacts more quickly) while you try it and you can watch the EGT's and CHT's smooth out, left side of the engine with right side, while varying the amount of carb heat to find your ideal temperature for the best fuel distribution. Then, it's just a matter of setting the carb heat to that temperature again while in cruise and you leave it there then the ice can't form.

    I just leave it on, if carb ice is a concern, all the way to pulling off the runway, keeps it simple.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like
    BTW, did anybody notice this thread has been resurrected from 2004?
    Last edited by WSH; 12-16-2010 at 11:17 AM.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stewart

    I'll confess that it probably will be somewhat different for you guys up there in Alaska, where you experience much colder "normal" temps. To the point that adding carb heat may even bring the temperature BACK into the "carb ice" range.

    It's just another technique that is often overlooked or worse, not even taught, that will mitigate most of the risk of carb ice. Hell, I'm more worried about starving to death than I am getting carb ice!

  31. #31
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StewartB View Post
    Skip,

    I added carb temp to my EDM700 and have experimented a little with partial carb heat. It does appear to even out the EGT a little but my average flight is short enough that it doesn't matter much.

    Stewart
    SB, there's a gal who flies a white and yellow 180 from her home/your cabin to your home/Anch. and does many of those flights with partial carb heat.

    With a carb. temp gauge in a 180, an important element of my 'panel scan' is "carb. temp"/"carb heat control". A pushbutton lock control helps.

  32. #32
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by StewartB View Post
    June? Last winter I had a long talk with her over dinner and she said she was selling the 180. Did she?

    Stewart
    I like june, like a second mom, just don't cross her!...

    she would always buy 9 1/2? gallons of gas when hauling each load of fish from her fish camp on the kvichak west side....

  33. #33
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    13,781
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mike, details on the fuel injected P-Ponk? STC, field approval etc?
    Steve Pierce

    "When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
    Henry Ford

  34. #34
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Mike, details on the fuel injected P-Ponk? STC, field approval etc?
    sketchy memory on paperwork part, think it was an abandoned STC that we used as data and got field approved then.....

    will see if logs are still at one of the hangers at airport next time I visit....

    maybe someone else here knows the paperwork basis details???

    edit...
    I remember, call BJ's Custom engines in Palmer AK, they had the info

  35. #35
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    13,781
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't see a fuel system modification going through via field approval according to the current inspectors handbook. SJ doesn't need fuel injection anyway.
    Steve Pierce

    "When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
    Henry Ford

  36. #36
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    I don't see a fuel system modification going through via field approval according to the current inspectors handbook. SJ doesn't need fuel injection anyway.

    ah but its FAA approved data.....stc'ed... just abandoned... or something like that...

    but oh you are right.. this was before the change with field approvals in 2003~ ..... hmmmm

  37. #37
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    I don't see a fuel system modification going through via field approval according to the current inspectors handbook. SJ doesn't need fuel injection anyway.

    I've got a field approval for fuel injection in-process right now. It will happen.

    ....and it's a Continental system with return to the fuel tanks via a "T" into the crossover vent line and back into the RH wing tank.
    ...no header tank.

    D

  38. #38
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    13,781
    Post Thanks / Like
    How are you going about the approval? I see fuel system modifications are on the list of mods that has to go to engineering.
    Steve Pierce

    "When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
    Henry Ford

  39. #39
    Dave Calkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,685
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    How are you going about the approval? I see fuel system modifications are on the list of mods that has to go to engineering.
    DER.

    What a joy it is to pay someone an fee and have them want your money and want to finish a job. DAVE

  40. #40
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    6,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Calkins View Post
    DER.

    What a joy it is to pay someone an fee and have them want your money and want to finish a job. DAVE
    (DER) have never been down that road yet, aprox what does that cost to do?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •