Anyone who says a Pponk doesn't perform significantly better than a stock O-470 hasn't flown the same plane without, then with, a Pponk.
The additional safety margin for mountainous terrain operations isn't unknown by those of us who have a good number of hours with and without Pponk in our plane, operating anywhere near max gross weight. Airport operations are only a part of the calculus. Time-to-climb to enroute matters. Here in LA, the faster you can climb out of the basin, the faster you get cleared direct. Time-to-climb to a cool cruise altitude also matters for passenger comfort over the hot desert.
What is true is that a Pponk does not come with new performance charts. This was done to keep the cost of the STC in check. With a Pponk you have ~17% more HP on the nose, and to say that makes no significant difference makes no logical sense.
Someone with a STOL kit criticizing the choice of a Pponk is pretty ironic.
I'm not criticizing it. Read carefully. I'm saying unless you've flown it and written the numbers down, you can't quantify it.
Jose's assertion was about SAFETY and my point was that a non P.Ponk can be operated as safely as a P.Ponk, barring a FEW specific airports and conditions. I told him to show his work.
He can't, for the very reason you confirmed. There are no official POH numbers for the modification.
It's worth pointing out that it's also not a guarantee of 17% more HP on the nose at higher airports. It derates as you go up, and without testing it, nobody knows how much.
It's also worth pointing out that the new engine is heavier. That certainly does have to mathematically have some effect on performance in the negative direction.
The other items you listed are "nice to have", no question about that, but they're unrelated to SAFETY. Jose's assertion. Unless we're talking about safety of passengers and heatstroke and taking SAFETY to an absurd level, most conversations about SAFETY use real performance numbers to make their case.
"Keeping the cost down on the STC" is great. It means unless you go fly your own flight test regime and write it down, you don't have numbers to share, just anecdotes.
And those are fine, but my point was that nobody has PROVEN any particular extra amount of SAFETY because there's a bigger engine on the nose. Especially for typically sized high altitude paved airports, which is where most 182s operate 99% of the time, piloted by most pilots.
There's no irony in a STOL kit operator stating that an engine change doesn't necessarily make the average 182, going the most common places a 182 goes, safer.
In fact, in clearing a 50' obstacle, my STOL kit makes my aircraft LESS safe -- it requires MORE distance to clear obstacles when a max short distance performance ground roll is performed. This not only is true, it's also quantifiable because Robertson didn't cheap out on the POH changes. They did the tests.
If someone wants to buy a P.Ponk they SHOULD! It's nice. It does add some performance. You can even ask around and get a feel for how much, and the numbers you'll get back from owners can be plotted and an average taken. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, you can't tell.
From there, you can make some *assumptions* about which airports would truly be SAFER with it.
Then you can make some *assumptions* about how often you'll really be flying to those airports.
The assertion that a majority of airports magically become safer because the aircraft has 17% more HP at sea level, isn't quantifiable. Operating safely is the pilot's job, even if you hang a turboprop on the nose and have 100% more HP.
I simply suggested that Jose didn't quantify his opinion about SAFETY in any meaningful way. It's an opinion without real numbers behind it.
YOU fly one, so you're the closest thing we have here on PoA to having real numbers. And you didn't actually give them. Not expecting you to. Was challenging Jose to defend his opinion.
I'd love to toss a P.Ponk on my STOL equipped airplane. Might when we need to overhaul it, too.
But I (and any other 182 pilot) can operate a non-P.Ponk non-STOL airplane quite SAFELY out of the vast majority of mountain airports. Because that's TRUE, Jose's assertion about SAFETY is busted, and he can't give a quantifiable set of numbers to back it up.
Show me a strip a non-P.Ponk 182 can't operate out of safely, and I bet it's well off the beaten path, rough, and extremely short. There won't be that many of them. Around here, there's a handful that I can think of, and neither are open to the public. Private property and prior landing permission required. And you won't be going anywhere but to your tent at them, unless you want a multi-mile hike. MOST 182 pilots won't be landing at those, ever.
All the public use mountain airports here in CO, can be SAFELY operated out of by a stock 182. No P.Ponk required.
No STOL required either. Our airplane just happens to have it from a previous owner. It's not necessary for 99% of airports.
A P.Ponk is a "nice to have", not a SAFETY enhancement. SAFETY is done between the ears.
Same thing with the STOL kit. In some scenarios it makes the airplane less safe when used improperly.
