• 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!

New PPONK

Correct, by the Cont. intake system loses 1-2" right off the get-go. So, for example, at sea level at WOT most you will see is around 28".
 
Just reading from the JPI engine monitor. 22.6 MP. If I could figure out how to post a picture I would. Not saying it's correct. Just saying that's what the JPI reads...
 
You lose approx. an inch per 1,000 feet, right?
Also if you reduce the rpm, you will gain about 1/2" mp/-100 rpm. So considering 28"/2700 rpm @sea level. @ 7000 ft 28" - 7" = 21" 2700 rpm - 400 then add 2" (4x1/2)= 23". 22.6" is not out of line.
 
I would not buy a new or reman from continental right now.

Cryptic statement.
Is this a long-held belief, or based on recent input?
Is it possible for you to provide more detail?
I've purchased more than a few, and another on the way... just curious.
Perhaps there is some new flaw to be aware of.. any heads up on that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Jose
 
Cryptic statement.
Is this a long-held belief, or based on recent input?
Is it possible for you to provide more detail?
I've purchased more than a few, and another on the way... just curious.
Perhaps there is some new flaw to be aware of.. any heads up on that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Jose
Whole lengthy thread on BT talk on this topic right now. You might want to check it out.
 
Why not share your thoughts here? Anyone have recent experience with Continental? I’ve shared my recent experience with Lycoming. With respect to the topic? Factory issues don’t apply.
 
Not sure if they build the PPONK but the PROAERO shop in Kamloops B.C. is real good. They build a lot of engines for Alaska. Might be worth a call. Recently bought an equipment attachment in Canada. Freight was reasonable and the exchange is in our favor.
 
Lots of cam follower failures as of late. Good thing is you can pull the followwers out without splitting the case and they will go long before the cam, you just have to pull them to inspect. No different than the two Lycoming cam shaft failures I have seen lately just more cylinders involved.
 
Why not share your thoughts here? Anyone have recent experience with Continental? I’ve shared my recent experience with Lycoming. With respect to the topic? Factory issues don’t apply.

Hi Stewart,

My comment was not from recent personal experience. Mostly from reading threads on Beechtalk. Beechtalk is free, just sign up.

I would not buy new from continental:



Tim
 
I've said I'd never buy another factory engine for 20 years. That opinion was based on experience with Continental. Bad cylinders, bad cranks, bad support, etc. Then I bought from Superior. That didn't work out so well. Now I chose to buy new from Lycoming and that also had its challenges. But like I said earlier, new doesn't apply to a Pponk/Northpoint conversion.

My preference for engine builders would always favor local shops. Face to face interaction usually nets a better experience than long distance and with overhauling engines there is no magic. Build it to new clearances using venturi valve cylinders and balance the parts... presto. That's as good as it gets.
 
My preference for engine builders would always favor local shops. Face to face interaction usually nets a better experience than long distance and with overhauling engines there is no magic. Build it to new clearances using venturi valve cylinders and balance the parts... presto. That's as good as it gets.

You should spend some time talking to Bart Lalonde former AeroSport or Ken Tunnel from LyCon and then fly behind one of their engines. There is a lot of proven science not used in the mainstream build/rebuild.
 
What science? Displacement-compression ratio- fuel flow- rpm. Do they manipulate those? Thunderbolt ports, polishes, and balances to <.5 grams per cylinder. They report it results in 3-4 HP improvement in a 210hp engine. How do other shops explain their unusually high HP reports? I know a few guys who know a lot about engines and engine shop claims. I find the topic very interesting. I find dynos very interesting, too.
 
Let's see, from recent conversations I have learned about cryogenics, different cams with different durations, different cam to crank timing, what spark plugs produce more power, DLC and probably some more I have forgotten. All proven on the Dyno and in real life like Reno air racing. Learned a lot from Bart just hanging out at Sun &Fun and some dealings with an engine he built and many late night conversations with Ken.
 
Cryo is a metal treatment. Cam lift and duration in most of our engines isn't a factor. Auto plugs are said to produce better combustion. I get it. I used to love building badass car engines. I've done lots of homework regarding airplane engines. The tricks mentioned don't add up when looking at aircraft engine dyno reports. Believe it or don't. All I know is I'm all smiles about what I've got. That's the important part.

I'd like to take a Ly-Con engine to Superior, Barrett, Lycoming, etc for a validation on a second dyno. It would be very interesting.

Regarding Pponk? I used TSIO pistons and haven't noticed any disadvantage to friends with IO pistons. On a Dyno there should be a difference but in real life? Not so much. The old saying There's No Replacement For Displacement is still true.
 
Last edited:
The data I have gained and experiences from the engines we have modified differ from your experience. No point in me posting it here.
 
Data?

Over boosting and over revving Reno engines doesn't apply to my airplane engines. If you have data for normally aspirated carbureted and injected engines in typical applications I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

A friend asked me to discuss a 300hp 4-cylinder engine with Lycoming, which I did. I asked about 11-1 and 12-1 compression and whatever else they could do to wring out power. They won't exceed 10-1. They say there's little dyno gain for going higher compression. Higher rpm opens up other problems. I believe they err on the conservative side but I respect that from a manufacturer with more to lose than gain. These simple little engines are fun but they're limited in potential unless you want to inject nitrous. Then the mods become about how to keep them from self destructing. That's a pursuit for other guys.
 
Last edited:
They may be simple but the can definitely be made to run better.
E03C8CA3-0D7D-40EE-BD2C-0164F9D0838E.jpeg
Full rich down low on a cool day, all temps within 20 degrees on a 160 hp O320. This was just after having #2 reworked due to a bad valve guide. This is repeatable without much effort and FYI Both LyCon and Barrett have laid hands on parts this engine.
 

Attachments

  • E03C8CA3-0D7D-40EE-BD2C-0164F9D0838E.jpeg
    E03C8CA3-0D7D-40EE-BD2C-0164F9D0838E.jpeg
    143.8 KB · Views: 235
They may be simple but the can definitely be made to run better.
View attachment 46281
Full rich down low on a cool day, all temps within 20 degrees on a 160 hp O320. This was just after having #2 reworked due to a bad valve guide. This is repeatable without much effort and FYI Both LyCon and Barrett have laid hands on parts this engine.
That closely resembles my 180 hp IO-360 with balanced injectors and electronic ignition which is otherwise strictly stock.
 
Oldcrowe
It looks like you are running a bit lean. If you are full rich at that RPM you should have a higher fuel flow and you CHT's would not be as high. From that setting can you lean 125 degrees without going over peak on the CHT'S? If a pepperbox jet fell into the carb while in one of the shops they tend to run lean.
DENNY
 
That’s with an 82x43 Borer prop, with the Cruise prop, fuel flow was about a GPH higher for the same rpm. Thanks, I’ll check lean range, but the carb was bench flowed at LyCon.
 
Last edited:
I would recommend Lawson Aviation. I bought my IO 520 converted to Pponk from Knopp. Steve helped with the approval of the hi compression pistons but couldn’t help with approval of my C66 88” prop. Lawson got my prop approval even though I didn’t get my engine from them. I have two friends who used Lawson and have been happy with their engines.

It’s likely one of my 8110-3s for your prop approval. I’ve done quite a few for Lawson over the past several years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I have the same engine/prop, at that RPM I need to burn right around 8.8 GPH to keep my CHT'S around 330-340 range. Anytime you start messing with the airflow (porting, etc) you may need to rejet the carb to match the engine airflow.
DENNY
 
Back
Top