aktahoe1 wrote:

Barnstormer wrote:

55wagon wrote:..."there, I'm done, she's perfect".

Put that on my tombstone when the time comes - will ya?

I am done, she if perfect...now what to do? Oh I know...buy an SQ...shit! Did that yesterday...

Thanks for your insight Phil...after talking to Goza I was pushed over the edge.

AKT

Hey.....You can't make a statement like that without a few more details and a photo!!!!

Thread hack...sorry Phil

Ordered and should arrive in 3-4 months

Akt

aktahoe1 wrote:Thread hack...sorry Phil

Ordered and should arrive in 3-4 months

Akt

Yea baby! Bad ass! Going from your tricked out 180 to anything other then a SQ2 wouldn't be that big of a jump, but you already knew that. Very excited for ya!

So I took a team of operators to my mechanic's today to rescue my 185 that is being held hostage. Or so I thought. It's just waiting on parts. And of course there is the delay because lightning struck the shop, then the electrician came in to fix stuff and was holding onto one of the purlins when he threw the breaker - got his ass blown backwards for his efforts.

So there she sits with her tail on the floor. So I guess now is a good a time as any to do what I thought was going to be the final phase of mods, yanking the avionics and replacing them with a GTN 650 and panel mounting my iPad-mini. Seems there never is a "final phase", just a "next to last phase".

So, Phil, why's the tail off the beast in the first place? Hell, with the rain you guys been getting, you need to think floats......

So, are you talking to the guys at Flight Resource about an MT three blade....lighter, better, etc....ya know..

MTV

mtv wrote:So, Phil, why's the tail off the beast in the first place? Hell, with the rain you guys been getting, you need to think floats......

So, are you talking to the guys at Flight Resource about an MT three blade....lighter, better, etc....ya know..

MTV

When I was up at Willie’s I asked him to look the 185 over and tell me if he thought there was anything that needed addressing. He had two suggestions. First was the flap tracks. Although there was nothing wrong with them he suggested installing the McFarlane Flap Track Kit so there would be no problems in the future. Done.
http://mcfarlane-aviation.com/Products/?PartNumber=MCSK100&

A relatively easy install, especially with their Flap Roller Installation tool.
http://mcfarlane-aviation.com/Products/?ID=96323566&PartNumber=970&

The second suggestion was to overhaul the tail assembly. He came to this determination by grabbing the horizontal stabilizer and attempting to move it fore and aft. It had like a 1/32” of travel. Willie told me I should do this ASAP as currently the wear was in a couple of plastic bushings and not addressing it would get really expensive once the wear got into the metal. So off the tail came. Since its off I’m replacing every single nut, bolt, washer and bearing. Once or twice a year I’ve had to tighten the bolts that hold the stinger on so we pulled it as well and are replacing nuts, bolts, washers and bushings. Speaking of washers, the two that go between the cradle and rubber bushings were missing. Guess for the last person who had the stinger out it was too much of an effort to fish the washers in.

So... the next “next to the last mod”, the prop. I’d love to go to a more modern blade design, and would surely like the weight on the nose not to increase, but, for my 185 the MT prop is restricted to 2,500 rpm max.



At Sea Level that’s a drop in horsepower from 300 to 255. At 6,000ft pressure altitude the drop is from 240 to 205.



And according to Cessna the difference in climb rate between 2,850rpm for 5 minutes, and 2,700rpm continuos is 35 ft/min (with the 82” 2 blade that was originally installed on my year/make/model 185). Although this number isn’t for the prop I’m currently running, nor its replacement, I think it does illustrate the difference horsepower/rpm makes.



If the MT was rated at 2,700rpm the choice would clearly be the MT. I know blade design can make a big difference but I just can’t get past the horsepower thing. Right now I’m heavily weighted (pun intended) to the 88” Mac 3-blade. Why the 88” over the 86”? I suspected the 88” would out perform the 86” at altitude, and Willie confirmed that (he has two A185F’s, one with the 86” and one with the 88”, and both he and his Dad feel the 88” out performs the 86” at high DA).

Price has no bearing on the decision as both the MT and the Mac cost $15k.

Floats would be awesome, at least until the Cigarette Boats take over the lake again. Austin is now the 11th largest city in the U.S., and certainly one of the highest income. Can't imagine how many boats and jet skies will be sold in the next year or two.

What has changed to reduce the RPM on the MT? I know the European STC is 2500 but mine spins 2700 under Flight Resources STC. So 'next to next to last' mod MT prop, ' next to last' mod io550 getting all that hp at 2700 - sweet. Need anymore help spending you $$$$ Phil!

That's a bummer if true on the RPM....can't imagine a prop being STC'd for less than full rated HP.

I think pponk has the STC on the 86 and 84 on the 185. Having been around the Mac 88" 3 blade....call me lame but it would cause too many neighbor problems for me. That prop/rpm makes my old 88" sea plane prop seem tame.

fiftynineSC wrote: Having been around the Mac 88" 3 blade....call me lame but it would cause too many neighbor problems for me. That prop/rpm makes my old 88" sea plane prop seem tame.

Willie's 185 with the 88" 3 blade sure can make some noise! (I'm pro aviation noise when it's appropriate. )

mountainmatt wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote: Having been around the Mac 88" 3 blade....call me lame but it would cause too many neighbor problems for me. That prop/rpm makes my old 88" sea plane prop seem tame.

Willie's 185 with the 88" 3 blade sure can make some noise! (I'm pro aviation noise when it's appropriate. )

Matt there is just something wrong with you. And I love it. What's not to like there?

NZMaule wrote:What has changed to reduce the RPM on the MT? I know the European STC is 2500 but mine spins 2700 under Flight Resources STC. So 'next to next to last' mod MT prop, ' next to last' mod io550 getting all that hp at 2700 - sweet. Need anymore help spending you $$$$ Phil!

Ok you got me wondering and searching. Apparently there are two MT Prop distributors in the U.S., and there are two different STC's for the same exact prop on the same exact plane. I didn't know that was possible. Doing a Google search on "MT Props" the first returned result is http://www.mt-propellerusa.com, as is the second result and the third. It's not till the fourth result that you get http://www.flight-resource.com/Advantages.aspx. Hell, I was clicking on links long before I got to the fourth result.

MT-Propeller USA, Inc STC is SA01296WI
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/67E6C73B786B22388625738A007178EA?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa01296wi
It is only for the A185E and A185F. Max RPM 2,500

Flight Resource, LLC STC is SA02294CH
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/CA43E8B05EBBB75086257A4400632290?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa02294ch
It is for all 180's & 185's, plus other Cessna models. Max RPM 2,700.

The game’s afoot!

Give John at flight resources a call and he'll hook you up. Great guy to talk to and he'll make sure you get what you need/want.

If that prop could be run at 2850 I'd do it this year.

Mountainmatt..... Love the video.

Seems to me Flight Resource are "quiet achievers" letting their product do the talking. However for things like this buyers need to know Flight Resource are the STC holders that get the MT to spin at 2700 rpm on the 180/5. Add to that they are good guys who know their product so why would you buy elsewhere. Especially so for offshore buyers who think it might be more prudent to buy through your local dealer, make sure you or your dealer go through Flight Resource if you want their STC.

There's been much discussion about running IO520's at 2850 vs. 2700. I can't recall the thread over at the super cub site but there were a couple of Ag guys who weighed in. As we all know those guys do what most of us only bullshit about. The take away was they were getting as good or better takeoff performance at 2700 with the long prop. There was some advantage to 2850 with the old pencil tipped Mac 3 blade but that was about it. I've read several cases of 2850 + long prop = extra noise. Makes us feel like we're getting more power, but in reality maybe not so much.

We had an air taxi that used to drop passengers at our lodge strip. C185, big motor, 88" Mac 3 blade, all the bells and whistles. That was one loud SOB. Good pilot. It took more room with 4 aboard than the sick old C180 slow turning O470 did, same load.

gbflyer wrote:There's been much discussion about running IO520's at 2850 vs. 2700. I can't recall the thread over at the super cub site but there were a couple of Ag guys who weighed in. As we all know those guys do what most of us only bullshit about. The take away was they were getting as good or better takeoff performance at 2700 with the long prop. There was some advantage to 2850 with the old pencil tipped Mac 3 blade but that was about it. I've read several cases of 2850 + long prop = extra noise. Makes us feel like we're getting more power, but in reality maybe not so much.

We had an air taxi that used to drop passengers at our lodge strip. C185, big motor, 88" Mac 3 blade, all the bells and whistles. That was one loud SOB. Good pilot. It took more room with 4 aboard than the sick old C180 slow turning O470 did, same load.

That's correct. A lot of the "legend" of the 185 and 206 with the IO-520 came from the "good old days" when most of those airplanes came out of the factory wearing those "pencil tipped" POS early three bladed props. The guys with the 88 inch two bladed props had a grand time making fun of those "quiet" props, mostly to the effect that they didn't perform well....and they didn't.

The good news is that, along with avionics, perhaps the biggest innovations in general aviation over the last twenty years is the massive improvement in propeller technology and efficiency. I find it ironic that one of the primary reasons that the Wright Brothers were successful at Kitty Hawk, when others had failed was that the brothers had done extensive research on propeller efficiency and actually developed propellers that were in the 86 to 87 % efficiency range. It's taken us a hundred years to get back to the point where we're even close to that efficiency.

Nowadays, the three bladed props available will almost universally out perform those old 88 inch two bladed noisemaker "props".

Finally, RPM and thus horsepower, does not tell the whole story as far as propeller efficiency and performance. As with automobiles, engine torque is also a major factor in performance. And, maximum torque does not necessarily occur at maximum rpm.

While it is an oversimplified explanation of propeller efficiency, take a look at P.Ponk's little propeller simulator, found at the bottom of this page: http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

And, note that their static thrust tests were done between 2600 and 2700 rpm, where maximum thrust was noted.....NOT at 2850.

Now, I'll add that static thrust is also somewhat misleading, because there is NOTHING static about propeller performance during a takeoff run. Those propeller blades are constantly changing angle of attack as the airplane accelerates. Unfortunately, the only way to truly evaluate a propeller's true performance is to bolt it on an airplane and fly it.

That said, I do think you can make some reasonable assumptions from static thrust, but it's not the whole story.

Again, one of the most significant advances in general aviation over the last twenty to thirty years is the development of much more efficient propellers.

MTV

Barnstormer wrote:

mountainmatt wrote:

fiftynineSC wrote: Having been around the Mac 88" 3 blade....call me lame but it would cause too many neighbor problems for me. That prop/rpm makes my old 88" sea plane prop seem tame.

Willie's 185 with the 88" 3 blade sure can make some noise! (I'm pro aviation noise when it's appropriate. )

Matt there is just something wrong with you. And I love it. What's not to like there?

NZMaule wrote:What has changed to reduce the RPM on the MT? I know the European STC is 2500 but mine spins 2700 under Flight Resources STC. So 'next to next to last' mod MT prop, ' next to last' mod io550 getting all that hp at 2700 - sweet. Need anymore help spending you $$$$ Phil!

Ok you got me wondering and searching. Apparently there are two MT Prop distributors in the U.S., and there are two different STC's for the same exact prop on the same exact plane. I didn't know that was possible. Doing a Google search on "MT Props" the first returned result is http://www.mt-propellerusa.com, as is the second result and the third. It's not till the fourth result that you get http://www.flight-resource.com/Advantages.aspx. Hell, I was clicking on links long before I got to the fourth result.

MT-Propeller USA, Inc STC is SA01296WI
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/67E6C73B786B22388625738A007178EA?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa01296wi
It is only for the A185E and A185F. Max RPM 2,500

Flight Resource, LLC STC is SA02294CH
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/CA43E8B05EBBB75086257A4400632290?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa02294ch
It is for all 180's & 185's, plus other Cessna models. Max RPM 2,700.

The game’s afoot!

Ah, sooooo! I wondered about that 2500 rpm thing when we discussed this in Bozeman a while back. I never followed up on it, and I should have.

Larry Schlaschinger, John's partner in Flight Resource, flies a Cessna 185, obviously with an MT prop. I can't imagine Larry running that thing at 2500 .

Thanks for continuing the research. The other MT STC is probably based on the European approval, hence the rpm restriction.

I'll send you Larry's phone number....give him a call, I'm sure he can tell you everything you want to know about the MT prop on a 185. And, like John, Larry is definitely one of the good guys.

MTV

mtv wrote:Ah, sooooo! I wondered about that 2500 rpm thing when we discussed this in Bozeman a while back. I never followed up on it, and I should have.

Larry Schlaschinger, John's partner in Flight Resource, flies a Cessna 185, obviously with an MT prop. I can't imagine Larry running that thing at 2500 .

Thanks for continuing the research. The other MT STC is probably based on the European approval, hence the rpm restriction.

I'll send you Larry's phone number....give him a call, I'm sure he can tell you everything you want to know about the MT prop on a 185. And, like John, Larry is definitely one of the good guys.

MTV

Mike,

Just got off the phone with Larry, great conversation, thanks. And thanks for helping me spend my money.

Barnstormer wrote:

mtv wrote:Ah, sooooo! I wondered about that 2500 rpm thing when we discussed this in Bozeman a while back. I never followed up on it, and I should have.

Larry Schlaschinger, John's partner in Flight Resource, flies a Cessna 185, obviously with an MT prop. I can't imagine Larry running that thing at 2500 .

Thanks for continuing the research. The other MT STC is probably based on the European approval, hence the rpm restriction.

I'll send you Larry's phone number....give him a call, I'm sure he can tell you everything you want to know about the MT prop on a 185. And, like John, Larry is definitely one of the good guys.

MTV

Mike,

Just got off the phone with Larry, great conversation, thanks. And thanks for helping me spend my money.

What did he have to say (if you don't mind me asking1). What's the RPM "limit"....is 2700 a guideline or is it a limitation in the STC? Can you spin it to 2850?

Thanks in advance,
Bill

fiftynineSC wrote:What did he have to say (if you don't mind me asking1). What's the RPM "limit"....is 2700 a guideline or is it a limitation in the STC? Can you spin it to 2850?

Thanks in advance,
Bill

2700 is the STC limit. He has two 185's and has flown them with 2 & 3 blade Hartzells and Macs. He satisfaction guarantees that the MT 3-blade will outperform the Mac 3 blade, 86 or 88 inch in every way, or I can ship the prop back. Shorter takeoff, better climb, better cruise, better braking, less vibration, and of course quieter (which is not a concern of mine).

I asked Willie last night if he'd ever flown a 185 with a MT and this is what he said:

"I've only ridden along with a 3-blade MT. You know as well as others riding is totally different then flying one. My observations were very smooth and performance seemed good or at least comparable to the 86" prop. I wouldn't be able to gauge how it changes the feel with regards to CG since it helps your airplane go on a nice diet.

As you know we run both the 86" and 88" on our 185's. One thing to note is we don't hesitate to run the 86" at 2850 but the 88" we typically run around at 2700 when around the airport otherwise we get grumpy people due to noise. We will run it at full rpm on floats and occasionally around airports for the performance but we try to refrain."

I would add a word of caution. The few guys I know who have gone to MT props on their 180's and 185's have all experienced starter adapter failure. This is not MT's fault nor is it specific to MT. McCauley experienced the same thing with their new Blackmac Carbon propellor. It is a phenomenon of light-weight propellors and the design of the Continental Starter adapters, especially when paired with light-weight starters. There are threads here that discuss this, and numerous beliefs as to what exactly causes it, and how exactly to keep it from happening - which basically means no one really knows for sure although they've managed to stop it from happening with various fixes which include: changing to a different version of the adapter, or changing to a different starter, or both. And of course there are some who've not had any problem with the changeover (at least that's what they say ).

I suspect that some of the failures occurred with adapters that were already well worn, switching to a light prop speed the way to its end. I intend to research this problem as thoroughly as possible, including talking with both MT and McCauley. I will report back here on what I learn. In an earlier thread I talked about changing to Hartzell's M-Drive starter, much lighter then the Energizer, and designed so it protects the starter adapter. After having problems with two of them, unrelated to adapter problems, a tech at Hartzell told my mechanic that the only starter he'd use on a backcountry 185 would be the Energizer. Sure spoke volumes to me. The Energizer is back on my plane and I've had no problems since.

I know you had a hell of a time with your light weight starter, but I might chalk that up to the Hartzell. I've got 250 hard hrs of short hops (lots of starts) with no issues using the Skytec/MT combo. No way Im putting that heavy starter back on if I can help it.