That spinner came out nice. Looking forward to hearing if you feel any significant performance increase.

I hope the performance makes the deal for you. I've never flown behind one so I can't comment. Definitely curious to hear your continued thoughts on it though.

It looks great!

I think the performance will be a big difference. My dad and I have a 180 with the 88" prop and a 182 with the 82" prop. The seat of the pants difference is crazy. I like the 88"

Well it looks great even if it's not the weight saver you were looking for.

Greg,

As you realize, moving the CG is a lot tougher than it sounds.

That said, a half inch change in FLYABLE CG is pretty big, realistically.

Also, don't forget how much lighter your wallet is now, and the potential effects of eating Top Ramen three meals a day will have on your personal W/B.

Looks fantastic, in any case.

MTV

WX finally broke and I got a chance to fly her today with the MT.

Was a really nice day, sea level, wind 280 at 8 (rwy 240) DA was -800. I was pretty light with 27 gal of fuel, 2170 gross at T/O.

Very first impression? Hard to say... For sure I wasn't tossed back into the seat with some neck snapping acceleration. Really the biggest thing I noticed right away was the whacky sounding strange high whooshy noise. On the first take off I had to pull my headset off to make sure nothing was going to fall off. Later on I did a 170 mph buz job on my friends field and he said it was much much quieter.

That said, I think I'm going to like the prop. I only was able to do a couple of laps around the patch, but although I didn't feel the A/C accelerate any faster, the data didnt lie and I was getting some pretty short T/O numbers compared to before.

Of course it wasnt scientific by any means and just by eye, but with 2 notches of flaps, I was easily lifting her off in the sub 200 range with my best at around 175 ft. I'll try a camera on the strut to get a more precise measure, but with some more confidence, I think I can do a bit better. Climb out was also a bit better. I wasn't pushing it, but at 85mph/2550 rpm, I was seeing around 1300ft/min. All pretty respectable for a 180 I would say.

So is it worth it? Yes. Worth the price? Jury is still out.

Bigrenna, check out the cloudahoy app, it will automatically measure your take off distances and overlays them on Google Earth.

A 175 ft takeoff seems pretty good to me! Thanks for sharing!

175 feet is a good number but to put it in perspective, if you look at the takeoff performance in the Cessna 180H Owners Manual (I used a 1969 model manual as that is the one I have) for your airplane at 2200 pound, really close to your 2170 pounds, at sea level and 59 degrees (density alt sea level) calm winds the ground run is 368 feet. With 10 knots of head wind take off distance is reduced by 125 feet to 243 feet on a standard day at sea level. So 100 ft came from the head wind and additional reduction came from the non standard day (-800 density alt). The Cessna data may also be with a 82 inch diameter propeller. So, the pilot in me likes the 175 number and thinks it is great, but the scientist in me wonders how much comes from the Sportsman STOL and the increased angle of attack of the larger main tires. Maybe a same day test of the old prop and the new on the same airplane or even better a test of the MT verse the 88 inch McCauley. Either way you should be proud of the improvements you have made and for having the piloting skills to beat the book numbers.

Tim

Few of us are heading to Hampton my for lunch around 11:30 tomorrow

bat443 wrote:So, the pilot in me likes the 175 number and thinks it is great, but the scientist in me wonders how much comes from the Sportsman STOL and the increased angle of attack of the larger main tires.

Tim

That's what I've been thinking all along. Does it all do anything....?

I did a bunch of (unscientific) testing before I pulled the prop in roughly the same conditions and I was finding my T/O rolls in the 350-400' range despite what the book says. One thing's for damn sure, and that's there is NO WAY I could do the things I'm doing now with the stock airplane.I feel confident saying the prop has put me in new place as far as getting out short. By how much is the question.

Regardless, for sure she is much more controllable at slow speeds, takes off quicker, climbs steeper, stalls slower, is much lighter, and lands shorter than when I flew her home from the West Coast. Can I pin it to one mod? Prob not... But shes starting to be a really fun airplane to fly.

Two things I forgot to mention. One is the smoothness. She is def smoother in cruise, but the other is the change on final. The power-off approach is definitely different in that you can really feel the airplane laying up against the prop like a big speed break. Was a very different feel and will take a bit of getting used to, but I think Im going to be able to come in even steeper while staying slow.
More experience is needed to wrap my head around the change. I will have to make sure to fly even more.

We're headed in that direction tomorrow Tom, so I will catch up with you at Hampton.

bigrenna wrote: She is def smoother in cruise, but the other is the change on final. The power-off approach is definitely different in that you can really feel the airplane laying up against the prop like a big speed break. Was a very different feel and will take a bit of getting used to, but I think Im going to be able to come in even steeper while staying slow. .

This seems to be what most are talking about with that prop is the speed brake feel on final. Very interesting...I like it

Greg,

You've mentioned a few things that I found I really liked on the MT props:

Smooth....these props are all really smooth. It's really hard to appreciate till you fly one.

Air brakes.....pull the power back, and due to the low mass of the prop, it changes pitch really fast....air brake. As you noted, getting in steeper is easier. Also, you can use it in a landing approach....work the airplane in slow with some power, tail low, and when you're where you want to touch, pull throttle to idle, and you land. Right there. A really handy technique, especially on slippery airplanes.

Climb performance.....every one I've flown climbs really well.

Sound....everyone notices the sound....kind of like a dry rustling sound. Not annoying, just different. Harder to get away with stuff....

I think the more you fly it, the more you'll like it.

MTV

Glad you're in the positive, I hope it continues to grow on you!

Got some more flying in this weekend and a better chance to get a feel for the MT... (solid 10hrs )

Was working it pretty hard and I had one T/O in the 150' range... so I think Im sold.

Got a bit nostalgic for the day I brought her home and shot this 1000' T/O roll. Such a different airplane.

bigrenna wrote:...Got a bit nostalgic for the day I brought her home and shot this 1000' T/O roll. Such a different airplane.

But I really miss those seats!

Man, and I thought it was a nice plane when you tore into it... What a damn nice plane you have made that into! There are A LOT of us have followed your progress for a while now.. DAMN NICE PLANE!

roamak wrote:Man, and I thought it was a nice plane when you tore into it...

Thanks Roamak. Really appreciated...

For those that are interested in the MT, here is a quick clip from this weekend. Nothing too mind bending as I had my Dad and didnt want to get him nervous with the stall warning all blaring on T/O. At any rate, it was me, my Dad, full fuel (444lbs) at 2635 GW. Pretty good at just over 500'.

Greg, are using the videos to measure your takeoff roll or the cloud ahoy app? I'm trying to come up with real figures for my own airplane.

The wagon looks and sounds killer! Good work!

Just watched your videos, looking good. Now the fun part, go out and shoot landings, hundreds of them, try and wear the old girl out..

Well we have been slammed with snow here in New England... Just got our hanger plowed out yesterday in time for another 12" of the stuff today...


(pic of the piles yesterday outside the hanger)

Anyway... The non-flying WX is good for projects, so I thought I would start in on the Wing-X install. For those who aren't familair, there are three basic components to the install. The tips, and two reinforcing packers (depending on your model) at Sta 100ish and then between 136 and 160 ish.

In order to gain access to the outboard stations, you have to cut access holes in the underside of the wing, which is what I did yesterday. I used a really cool tool by Noah called the ARC360. It's fast, precise, and cuts great looking holes. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/arc360.php?clickkey=77785









As has been mentioned here quite often... remember not to rivet the doublers in until you have finished the install so you can have as much clearance for your arms as possible.