("Dick Meade" wrote)
snips
Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips.

The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".


Thank you for the report - you've actually seen the beast. Cool.

I'm a sucker for that canard stuff (combined with my enthusiasm for the old
idea of the Free-Winged plane) I'd like to know what happens when those
canards get unhooked from that complex rigging and are allowed to pivot
freely, properly balanced of course - which might take some trial and error
to get it just right. g

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propcalc.html
Fun tip speed calculator.

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/O520_conversion.html
Wow! This one has me befuddled :-)
Fuel injection comes off, carburetor goes on? Huh?

Then this:
New low compression pistons are precision balanced to within .5 grams and
installed in your choice of cylinders, we'll be happy to discuss your
various options.

Huh?

I'm running a little low on cash these days. How bout only 2 of those low
compression pistons today?

People like their Pponk conversions, unfortunately I seem to have had a
(Huh?) experience reading their web info.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif