• 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

Man has this one drifted.... lol

All,

If there are recent experiences with Ly-Con I would appreciate you sharing. It seems everyone likes the PPONK and I am committed to that direction over other options but would like to feel confident of the vendor I am doing business with.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

When shopping for a Pponk, Lycon as in Lycon in Visalia, not Lycon of AZ, was my first choice as well, as it was for my last cub engine. I had flown behind Ken's O-320's, O-360's and a couple Pponk's as well, and really, really appreciated those engines. In the end, knowing that the time frame they tend to quote was 'optimistic' at best, coupled with the fact that Steve Knopp had one in his shop that was half way through the build process, and available, I went that way and couldn't be happier. My Cub engine went to another shop :down

Fast forward several years, and my neighbor was looking for some assistance in building up a Pponk for his '56 180. Steve was not as available this time, and we happened upon an IO520 core. Having a serviceable O-470 in the airplane the 520 was sent to Lycon, and I expect it will produce all the expected smiles as well. It has been going in this week, along with the typical 'freshening up' of the usual stuff like exhaust, mount, baffles etc...
The engine was a month and a half or so later than expected, but to be fair, we never called and checked on it until then, as we had a time gap between when we anticipated the engine, and when we could install it. I'm also pretty sure they knew we had a flyable condition until they were done.

While I don't regret having Steve K build my engine instead of Lycon (I think he does an amazing job as well). I can't say the same for my last cub engine. It came from a reputable engine builder in CO, and it is no where near as smooth or robust as the Lycon cub engines I have flown. In fact it, a wide deck 160 is a dog compared to the clapped out narrow deck 150 it replaced. I wish I had parked that one a little longer and exercised the patience in having that one built up.

BTW, some of the posts above tend to suggest that building to 'trade standards' should yield as good a result as any :-?. In my prior life as a building contractor, I used to make a point of reminding both employees, and customers, that 'trade standards' were a pretty low benchmark to shoot for.

In the end, some shops shine at customer service, some at paperwork, some at speed, and some at build quality. It's pretty rare to get one to shine at two of these points, and rarer yet to get one to shine at all of them. Ask yourself which one of these is most important, and then when / if you start getting impatient during the build remind yourself of that. ;-)

Take care, Rob
 
All,
Thanks for the interesting responses and thoughts. Ly-con ( Calif) won me over and l am looking forward to a April delivery date. Installed stock 470 running great so time pressure is minimum.

Regards,
Bill
 
All,
Thanks for the interesting responses and thoughts. Ly-con ( Calif) won me over and l am looking forward to a April delivery date. Installed stock 470 running great so time pressure is minimum.

Regards,
Bill

Are you planning to change out or overhaul your engine mount?
 
At this point..... 3 months out I am ...... not sure. Leaning towards overhaul though not yet committed in thought.
 
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.

How does the Pponk do with the C66 88", RPM, shorten your take off distance, what did you have before
 
How does the Pponk do with the C66 88", RPM, shorten your take off distance, what did you have before

The C66 88” is a great prop for me. I had it on my 470 before the Pponk. It’ll turn 2750 on takeoff but pulls harder at 2550-2600. Three blade is at least 15# more on the nose unless it’s a MT. The two blade may not get off quite as short as a three blade but is cruises about 5-7 knots faster. It’s all about balance for me. I operate my plane as a two person camping/traveling machine and rarely at gross. Three blade is great if you’re hauling loads and operating at gross all the time.
 
The C66 88” is a great prop for me. I had it on my 470 before the Pponk. It’ll turn 2750 on takeoff but pulls harder at 2550-2600. .....

So do you generally keep it dialed back at takeoff?
Your engine's making less hp at the lower rpm,
I wonder if a shorter prop that you could run at full rpm without busting mach
(and losing efficiency) might be better?
 
My early morning thoughts. Thrust is a product of the prop. If the prop is incapable of utilizing the engine's full power there's reason to change to a prop that can.
 
Depends on a lot of factors. Taking off above 9k feet in Colorado in the summer the extra rpm is good as it’s harder to bust Mach. Down lower usually just dial prop back a couple of turns. If I don’t I can feel prop pull harder once I takeoff and dial prop back a couple of turns. It’s mostly seat of the pants feel so maybe I’m wrong. Just doing what works for me. I know I’m leaving a little hp on the table with the two blade but it’s not like I’m not landing spots guys with three blade prop are. I don’t want the extra 15+ pounds on the nose of a Mac or Hartzell three blade and I’m not convinced a MT is 15,000$ better. I fly a good amount of cross country trips a year not going to the backcountry. Sure is nice to put the 8.50’s on and run 165mph at reasonable power setting with the two blade.
 
All else being equal, taking that 15 pounds off the nose moves the CG aft, causing the trim to be adjusted more nose down due to reduced down load on the tail. Which by reducing drag increases cruise speed.
 
My experience with my own PPonk includes very low density altitudes. In front of my cabin winter ops require getting the tail up quickly to skid around a bend and then to lift off and gain altitude quickly to clear trees. Even with winter temps at very near sea level full power works better than dialing the prop back. It's noisy as heck but it provides the best performance. I'd dial it back a little in really cold temps but that was for fear of blowing the engine. I'm not interested in flying in those temps anymore.
 
All else being equal, taking that 15 pounds off the nose moves the CG aft, causing the trim to be adjusted more nose down due to reduced down load on the tail. Which by reducing drag increases cruise speed.
Also lets you land a little slower since the tail isn’t working as hard to balance that extra 15 pounds on the nose
 
Get your engine yet? Make sure you check the compressions after the break-in.
We didn't and should have. Had to send two cylinders back to LyCon within ten months for reworking of exhaust valves. It's possible they arrived needing the work but I neglected to determine that.




All,
Thanks for the interesting responses and thoughts. Ly-con ( Calif) won me over and l am looking forward to a April delivery date. Installed stock 470 running great so time pressure is minimum.

Regards,
Bill
 
Get your engine yet? Make sure you check the compressions after the break-in.
We didn't and should have. Had to send two cylinders back to LyCon within ten months for reworking of exhaust valves. It's possible they arrived needing the work but I neglected to determine that.

No engine yet. I have been told it should ship soon. Standing by.
 
Get your engine yet? Make sure you check the compressions after the break-in.
We didn't and should have. Had to send two cylinders back to LyCon within ten months for reworking of exhaust valves. It's possible they arrived needing the work but I neglected to determine that.
So why do you think the exhaust valves came from LyCon with an issue? New or reworked cylinders? What was th issue found?
 
Reworked, which I figured was a safer bet than new.
I don’t necessarily think they did arrive with issues, but they might have or they might have developed during break in. Who knows?
Point was that I should have checked after break in, not at next annual. We just made it at the tail end for the warranty period. Would have been better if I had determined full function at the beginning.
“Never assume” was the lesson!

So why do you think the exhaust valves came from LyCon with an issue? New or reworked cylinders? What was th issue found?
 
I have had eworked cylinders where guides or seats moved and caused valve leaking issues. Have not had that issue with new. Was curious as to what the issue was and specifics.
 
Unfortunately we did not get any info back from LyCon re: what actually happened.
 
Update from original post....
Lycon finished my pponk and a seaplanes west mount is heading south. Installation commencing later this week as we begin adding the new bits to the engine.

Thinking about a plane power alternator. AL12f-60. The pponk compatibility was uncertain from the Hartzell perspective. For those that have travelled this road are there any issues I should be aware of? 1973 180j on the aml for this alternator.

thanks!!
 
If you change out the alternator with a new style such as the Plane-Power, be sure to use their regulator and new wires also. You'll be money ahead in the long run.

Web
 
Thanks for quick response Gents.

I had no concern other than the Hartzell folks being uncertain to application.

Thanks for the offer Stewartb, I may take you up on that.

Thanks Web..... if we go PP we will go all in!

Regards
bill
 
The old Ford in my 180J went t.u. for the third time in 20 years so I bought the same Plane power kit last week. That kit is compatible if you keep the rubber mounts which are crazy expensive and wear quickly. Since older and newer models did not use rubber mounts I'm making some steel bushings and getting rid of the rotted rubber.
The pponk shouldn't be an issue since the alternator PMA is to the airplane not the engine.
 
. . . since the alternator PMA is to the airplane not the engine.

Not a blanket statement. Keep in mind that there were optional engines and engine swaps. Not just same brand. Some, like C-170's and C-172's may have Lycomings OR Continental's.

Web
 
I’m curious...has anyone used a permold engine when doing the O-520 conversion? You’d think the IO520BA with the flat back case, small journal VAR crank and front mounted alternator would be preferable..something like 413 pounds with the stock alternator and starter. The IO version is rated to run continuous 2700 at 285 RPM.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Stewart, what’s your 180’s fuel flow at WOT, sea level? I’m seeing about 26.5 gph for takeoff.
My Pponk has had the primary jet adjusted for more flow 4 times. At the end of the day fuel flow is about temp management, both for CHTs and ambient conditions. HP comes from displacement, compression, and RPM. Johnny should have a 3-4% advantage for 8.5-1 over my 7.5-1.

Engines are air pumps, not fuel pumps. If you want to make big power you need to pack more air into the cylinders. You need a blower for that. Porting and polishing make engines smoother and cooler running but big horsepower claims don't make sense. To me, anyway. Not until it makes a significant increase in manifold pressure.
 
Last edited:
22-23-24 depending on the day. Full rich at 24/2400 is a little over 19. I lean to 15.5-16 and pretty much leave it alone after that.
 
Back
Top