Not yet... been a bit busy with work along with not wanting the Wagon to be down again... I couldn't fly for three weeks while waiting for the gov to get overhauled. Im gonna fly off this and perhaps the next oil change then pull the prop when the first snow hits.

Hit the 100hr mark since I started flying the wagon so it was time for the 4th oil change... Also pulled the stock prop today in prep for the MT.

I weighed the 82" McCauley 2A34C20390D and she was lighter than the 64lbs the Flight Resources website claims. The blade w/out oil came in at 55lbs. The spinner, backing plate, and fasteners were 4lbs. I will weigh the MT and spinner tomorrow.

I was looking forward to the 18lb savings advertised, but Im starting to think this "magical" super weight savings is a bit of hyperbole. We will see...

(flight resources advertising material) http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

100 hours already? You must be taking pointers from Tom with his new cub. I'm sure your going to love that new prop,and just think you already spaced the pponk kit to fit the titanium gear so not all is lost.
By the way we need more pictures,Awesome plane.

Wow Greg, congrats on the 100 hr mark! That's impressive and I look forward to a full review. There has to be some lessons learned from all the blood, sweat and tears you've endured (and money spent!).

Also, please let us know on the prop. My CG is also near the forward limit and I am curious of the handling differences as well as the performance gains. I would love an MT someday, but the old noise maker 88" is doing a swell job for the time being.

MM

mountainmatt wrote:...please let us know on the prop. My CG is also near the forward limit and I am curious of the handling differences as well as the performance gains.

MM

Well, the jury is in... I hung the 2 blade MT on the scale and got the hard number. W/out oil, the 2 blade MT came in a CH above 41lbs. I didn't weight the spinner/backing plate as Im prepping for paint, but Im hoping its the same or just a bit lighter than the 4 lb stock.

So all in, it looks like the net savings over the 82" McCauley 2A34C20390D is only 14lbs, which is a far cry from the 20-30 that gets kicked around the old world-wide-super-web-internet-network. Of course this is still a well needed savings at -45" of arm so Im not complaining yet. I will run the numbers tomorrow and see just how much the CG walks back, but all I have to say is the performance upgrade better be substantive, otherwise its gong to be an expensive 14 lbs. Fingers crossed...

It may not be quite as light as the over exaggerated numbers, but it sure is sexy (to an airplane guy). I know this will start some crap but I think the two blade prop looks way better on a 180. I can't wait to see it in person, you've done a great job on this project.

I could be wrong but I think the big weight savings claim stem from 3 blade to MT 3 blade swaps. In any case, if your running the 82" Mac now anything will be a performance boost.

You may be pleasantly surprised at the difference in weight of the spinners. Not huge, but there'll be a difference and it all counts.

MTV

What's the reasoning for the two different paint schemes on the blade tips?

bigrenna wrote:

Barnstormer wrote:What's the reasoning for the two different paint schemes on the blade tips?

bigrenna wrote:

I think that's just the angle of the shot coupled with some lens distortion.

Yep. Just the 14mm lens I use.

Bump, thoughts?

A "Cessna" decal on the engine mount?!! Over the top, Greg! Did you weigh it first?
-DP

denalipilot wrote:A "Cessna" decal on the engine mount?!! Over the top, Greg! Did you weigh it first?
-DP

You like that... I tried to add a bunch of cool subtle little artistic flourishes in the design. I wanted there to be lots to see if you noodle about long enough.

RE: the bump... No thoughts yet. I have to paint the spinner still so I haven't mounted the prop so far. FYI... spinners are pretty much the same weight, so the net difference is only 14lbs.

bigrenna wrote:

denalipilot wrote:A "Cessna" decal on the engine mount?!! Over the top, Greg! Did you weigh it first?
-DP

You like that... I tried to add a bunch of cool subtle little artistic flourishes in the design. I wanted there to be lots to see if you noodle about long enough...

I confess- I do!

Of course nothing can be easy these days...

A couple of weeks ago I went to try to order the paint I had previously shot the wagon with. Lo and behold U-Tech no longer makes their 3.8 polyurethane (of course.)

This normally isnt that big of a deal, but since I was using a custom additive formula and not a standard color, the paint shop could not cross-reference the old formula with the new replacement U350. For a while, it was looking like I was SOL.

Long story short, the engineers at AkzoNobel bent over backwards for me and have now created my very own "officlal" AkzoNobel "Skywagon Red." Pretty cool...

Today I'm shooting the spinner and backing plate with the replacement U350. Seems to paint just as nice, so Im pretty pleased thus far.



Traveling this week, but hopefully next weekend I will get to test the performance of the MT.

Looking good Greg!

For polish do you do a full on color sand and then compound?

Is Larry around this week? Lurking?

I'm guessing you didn't color sand parts of the airplane that have universal rivets under the paint, that's beyond my skill level anyways.

Sam

I'll color sand and polish the spinner, but that's it... The rest of the A/C I shot in the heated downdraft booth so it is a much better job.

Even though 3.8 is a single stage, you can integrate the MS clearcoat over two light coats of the single which is what I did. Its a wee bit heavier, but since I was only painting a small bit of the A/C, I wanted the nicer wet look. It will also help the red with UV over time as reds tend to fade.

Cool.

I've found color sanding curved surfaces to be really tricky, some of those hot rod guys make it look easy. Sticking the paper to a sponge or scotchbrite pad helps me.

Eagerly awaiting your performance report.

Well, she's on... Was already to give her a test this weekend but was hobbled with snow and crap WX here in New England. Fingers crossed for tomorrow.

The primary reason I pulled the trigger on the MT was to save some weight and move the CG back, so I was obviously anxious about the data.

In the end, the MT spinner (with 2 coats of added single stage color) was actually 1 lb heavier than the stock Mac I removed. Total taken off was -59lbs, total added was +46lbs, so the net savings was a paltry 13lbs. For sure this was an expensive 13lbs, and we all know the folks who say "Just toss survival gear in the back." True indeed, but the fact is oz's = lbs, and although not the 20-25 suggested, 13lbs is 13lbs.

As for CG: The prop lives at -40" of arm, so in the end, the loss of the 13 moved the empty CG aft 0.54". Epic? Not really...

What happens to the A/C CG empty is merely interesting. The real marker is what happens when calculated as light as you would ever conceivably fly... single pilot, reserve fuel, rear seats, and perhaps even front pax seat removed. The "theory" people talk about is to set up the A/C as light as possible w/ the CG as legally forward as possible so you can stuff her full and never worry about busting aft.

In my case, with me behind the wheel and 11 gal of fuel (45 min of reserve at a conservative 15gph) the movement difference of CG between the stock prop and the MT is still only 0.50".

To put that into perspective, (with the stock prop on,) I could have gotten the same effect by tossing 12 lbs in the extended baggage. The argument for the proverbial "bug-out-bag."

The net/net.... I removed 13lbs on the nose to avoid 12 lbs in the extended baggage. A ton of cash for an otherwise easy fix, but then again, that would have meant an additional 25lbs, and 25lbs is 25lbs.

Hopefully I'll get her up in the air tomorrow and have a better all around feeling for the swap. Fingers crossed for a performance inducing smile.

Stay tuned...