Well what I know about props is very limited, but my experiance on 180/182 aircraft is that an 88" prop on the 180 pulled real well. better than the 84 that was on it when I bought it.

Now ground clearance on a 88" for a 182 is nill, but I have seen one on a 182 with an after market nose fork and a big tire.

When I asked the prop shop about putting a 3 blade on my O-470, they advicesd against it, say that performance is just as good with the 2 blade I have, with less weight.

Now with that said, I would like to put on the PPonk -50 engine with a three bladed prop at overhaul. Check this link for the here's why.

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

The 3 blade pulls just a tad bit more thrust than the two blade. I'm not sure what this would equate to. A pilot I know up in the Lewiston area flies a 182 with the -50 coversion with a 3 blade and just loves it. He said take off and climb performance were great and really improved, and it helped in cruise, but not as noticeable.

Ravi, good luck on your decision.

Fly safe, Bub

I went from a 120 to a 170 quite easily 3 circets with a hi time pilot. no problem but i didn't have to deal with a constant speed prop at the same time. the flaps make it seem like you are coming down final nose low compared to a 120-140 I had a tendancy to flair high as a result but i overcame that with a few circuits id say a couple houers with a instructor you will have it down pat.

If the variables are kept to a min., usually a three blade will develop more thrust from 0 airspeed to about VY, above that usually the two blade begins to win due to the fact that two blades have less drag than three. On mine it amounted to about 1 or maybe 2 kts. at cruise. One of the variables that was not kept the same is that my three bld. is the Hartzell scimitar or blended airfoil prop. I think it's airfoil is slightly more efficient so the cruise didn't suffer that much. I would recommend a three blade only if you had to buy a prop anyway, like the PPonk for example. I Q-tiped my two blade and had to have another prop.
I tried to back peddle as much as possible because I'm sure some airframe / engine combinations respond well to three blades and I'm sure some don't.

This should probably go into another thread, but it seems we are on the subject. I was told for a 3 blade you need more power (maybe over 250hp.) for it to become efficient. For example on a stock 182 not as effective as on a 182 w/Pponk-50.

I have the -50 in my 180 and was told by several well known prop shops and Steve Knopp(Mr. Pponk) to stick with the 88" 2 blade that I had. They all felt that unless I was haulling heavy loads, that I would be better off with what I had.

If you are looking for ground clearance, noise reduction, smoothness, than it is fine. It will do all of those things.

I was also concerned that if I had a catostropic engine failure that I would have a reduced glide(less time to look for a favorable spot to land) because of the drag of the third blade.

Gary

[quote="zane"]



You might as well just have it annualed by your own IA. You can't afford not to with an old bird. Plus, it gives you bargaining power that can svae you a lot of money, far eclipsing the money spent on the IA's time. Otherwise, you just throw money at it on your first annual as owner.

That said, I'd love to get my hands on that 170. [quote]


^^^^^^

That right there is some of the best advice anyone's given you on here! Good luck with it!!
JH

ravi,

The 180 is a whole different beast than the 170, which is a different beast than the 140, etc. And the king kong of that line is the 185, which is.....

The 170 IF THE GEAR HAS BEEN PROPERLY ALIGNED, is a pussycat, as tailwheel airplanes go. That's the reason for any difference in insurance costs.

Just remember, if you buy this airplane, you need to tell the insurance company what it's REALLY worth, as opposed to what a stone stock airplane would be worth. They will insure for higher hull value than standard, if you can convince them the airplane is indeed worth more. Those pictures will do that deed.

Folks, I'm all for you if your favorite airplane is a Maule, or a Cub or a Tupolev. My point was, and is, the Maule is NOT the right airplane for everyone, just as the Cessna 170 is not the right airplane for everyone. Get over it, fer criminy pete's sake. Answer the question if its asked.

If the guy asks the question: Hey, what airplane does this, that and those the best--by all means jump in there with your Maule sales pitch.

But, if you persist in insulting those of us who don't fly Maules (and I have, and not going back, thank you very much) with nasty comments, most of us would prefer that you keep that to yourself, or go share it on the Maule site.

MTV

Lets ease up a bit. I like this site but not the Wa Wa

Tim

This 170 was featured in Private Pilot magazine a few years ago. Not owned then by this seller. So it's changed hands at least once since.
Nice looking airplane. 3 blade is probably smoother and quieter, but might not pull as hard as a longer 2-blade. Price seems steep. But I know of a 180-horse 170B that sold for 60K-ish last year that wasn't nearly as shiney.
Before I spent that kind of money I would fly some other stuff, like the 180/210/220/235 Maule. I flew in a 180 horse Pacer and a Maule M4-220 several years ago, & was unimpressed comparing them to a 180. Similar impression from 2 different 180-horse 170's. If you can swing the purchase price and operating costs, I'd say go for the Skywagon.

Eric

This 170 was featured in Private Pilot magazine a few years ago. Not owned then by this seller. So it's changed hands at least once since.
Nice looking airplane. 3 blade is probably smoother and quieter, but might not pull as hard as a longer 2-blade. Price seems steep. But I know of a 180-horse 170B that sold for 60K-ish last year that wasn't nearly as shiney.
Before I spent that kind of money I would fly some other stuff, like the 180/210/220/235 Maule. I flew in a 180 horse Pacer and a Maule M4-220 several years ago, & was unimpressed comparing them to a 180. Similar impression from 2 different 180-horse 170's. If you can swing the purchase price and operating costs, I'd say go for the Skywagon.

According to the seller, the previous owner featured in the magazine article nosed over while landing in a quartering tail wind. They replaced the prop and repaired one wing tip. For reasons unknown they replaced it with another three blade prop.

The three blade prop is a puzzler. You'd think that if it was a good idea, more people would be doing it. As it is, I think it's the only three blade prop I've ever seen on such a small engine (rotax powered aircraft exempt). I like the idea of selling the three blade and putting on something else, if it's that simple.

There are a lot of other airplanes out there for similar money, and I agree that you can buy more airplane for the duckets, either with a Maule or a Cessna 180. But in addition to the Maule insurance issue, we haven't been able to locate a Maule instructor in our area...unfortunate.

I loose sleep over the 170 verses 180 question. Seems like if both my wife and I had a few more hours and perhaps our instrument ratings a 180 would be the hands down winner. Right now it seems like a lot of plane for where we're at. For my wife especially, hours are going to count more than miles.

I keep trying to remind myself of how much enjoyment we've gotten out of our 140, despite it's extremely limited payload. Bottom line is we had more fun in an underpowered airplane because we didn't mind putting a lot of hours on her. I'm not sure where the line is, but at some point the cost per hour is going to imped on the enjoyment per hour of flying. It's not so much what you can afford, it's what you're willing to spend.

On my 182B if I want hours instead of miles I just pull back the power. Now I can fly as slow as my buddy with a 172 with an O-360 and have just about the same fuel burn.

Hey ravi,
If it means anything to you, I'm looking for a good 140, because the Maule is expensive to just knock around in. You know, flying for fun, when your not really in a hurry and it's just you or one other. The Maule is expensive enough to fly that I feel like I need a reason to fly to justify it to myself. Be careful if you get a bigger airplane, not to get in that trap. I'll keep the Maule, but I figure it's three times more expensive to fly than a 140, so I should be able to fly three times as much for the same money.

ravi wrote: People I know who have flown a variety of tail wheel planes all report that larger planes (Cessna 180 for example) are significantly harder to control than smaller planes.

Just my opinion mind you... I've owned C180's and C120's, and got more than a few hours in both, and the C180 is a whole lot nicer to fly than the C120. Docile, stable, and just all-round well mannered. I'm betting you won't find many guys who have moved up to a C180 who say,"Darn, this is sure a hard airplane to fly compared to the Mighty 120!!!"

Gump

On my 182B if I want hours instead of miles I just pull back the power. Now I can fly as slow as my buddy with a 172 with an O-360 and have just about the same fuel burn.

I hear that a lot, and I'm not saying it isn't true, but it's just never worked for me. I'm probably doing something wrong, but regardless of whether the vehicle goes through the air or over the ground or water, the theory that it takes X horsepower to move X feet on X gallons, and it doesn't matter what size engine provides that horsepower, has never panned out in my experience.

In theory I should be able to get my 115hp engine down to the fuel burn of a stock 85hp engine, but it just don't work. Whether I keep it firewalled all day or pull the throttle halfway out, the fuel burn is pretty much the same. I might go from 6.5 gph down to 5gph, but I've never gotten close to the POH burn figures.

Believe me, I've tried like hell to convince myself that I can burn 8gph in a 180 while practicing lazy 8's, and maybe it's possible. But I doubt it.

ravi wrote:
Anyway, it's a 170B with the 180hp Lycoming engine and a 3-blade prop. Looks like it has a 170 panel in it, along with a pretty good IFR set-up, which admitadely I don't need, though if I bought it I'd probably get my instrument license. Good and bad there...

$70+ for a 170? I got my 4 year newer 180 IFR airplane for less. A 170 MTOW is what, 2250? With a 180 Lyc in it, your payload will be far less than a comparable 180 with the O470 which has more power. The 170 range is based upon a tank built for a C145. Your range will go down with the Lyc. The 180 has a tank built for an O470. I fly mine from Phoenix to Jackpot all the time without stopping and still have plenty of gas. If you get an older 180, it will fly a little heavier than the 170, but it's not that big of a deal. If you are planning on flying IFR, that will actually be a good thing.

If you insist on buying it, I agree with the guy that said have your IA do an annual. The one the seller has is virtually meaningless and only the guy you plan on using will find the stuff that he will find. Anybody else might wave something or be less picky. It might cost you an annual for an airplane that you don't buy but that is better than buying an airplane that you can't fly.

Also, the 180 isn't any more difficult to fly than a 170. As a matter of fact, the ground handling on a 56 or newer 180 is so incredibly better than a 170 that you just kind of go "Ahhhh" when you taxi a 180 around for the first time after being a 170 pilot for 17 years. You have one more handle to fiddle with (prop) that really isn't that tough. That's it.

Wayne

Visibility, almost put it up in upper case, but did not want to get flacked, in any case, there is one major benefit to the "big motor" 170B.

That benefit is the visability during take off with 20 degrees of flaps.

I have flown a 180 in Idaho for a couple of years and rode right seat in a couple of Maules. They just can not match up to the "big motor" 170B when taking off from the bottom of a canyon, especially into a dark shaded wall early in the morning. Mine at least mostly just levitates up, almost flat, without the nose protruding between me and the hard objects out front. My friend with the 180 now prefers to fly my 170 in the back country whenever it might get close and tight. mission specific I guess.

Hmmm good thought on the visibility, Wanabe. I forgot about that. The viz over the panel in the 170 is awesome, even when taxiing. I've heard early 180s with the round style panel are similar.

btw... ALL CAPS is ok if you are excited or want to show emphasis. It's only annoying when the whole damned post is all caps.

Well, I'd basically agree with the 180 argument, EXCEPT (how's that Zane?) that there's a lot of junk out there going by the name 180. Many of these airplanes have been worked hard in a previous life. THat's not always bad, but they really warrant a very close look.

Nice airplanes, and I loved the one I owned (a 66 model), but they are a different airplane, and a REALLY good one is going to cost more than $70 K in this market, I would think. I could be wrong on that, since I'm not exactly buying and selling airplanes daily, though.

MTV

One thing that hs not been mentioned yet. The tail feathers of the 170 are beter looking than any other.

Tim

Ravi,
I have held out until now but after MTV comments about maulewaco I have to chime in. I know maulewaco and he is not speaking thru his hat
he has been there done that and is trying to share his knowledge and opinions with you. After having and trying on many planes he bought his
M-4 and is extremely excited about it as it is his answer to his quest of
searching for years for the best combination in an airplane to fit his needs
he flys in Idaho every day and not one these guy's who just tries to talk like they do! I myself started with the cessna and loved it except for the performance, I then went to the stinson and loved it also except for the lack of horsepower and small baggage door, then I went for a ride in a
maule and now own 2 of them, one for sale that I sent you pictures &
specs on. I went into the maule a fairly low time T/W pilot and yeah the insurance was a little more but not as bad as some are trying to project.
My reasons for the maule desision was based on several features important to me. Performance/fairly fast & economical for cross country,
Accessability to load baggage/try loading a couple of mountain bikes and
a weeks camping gear is another type, SAFETY/ most people don't die from blunt trauma in an accident when there is no medical help, but from bleeding to death from being cut by sharp metal. This is why I prefer a
4130 cage around me and my family over the monocoupe design and why
I will fly in neither that does not have shoulderharnesses in it I think what
maulewaco was trying to say is that there is no one plane that is perfect in every aspect and if you are expecting the magic answer from a group
of folks that have different needs and desires that you are not going to find it here, it is personal at some point you will need to make the desision and take the chances that you didn't get it right the first time as
a lot of us have experienced, but don't take forever and continue missing out on your dream lifes to short DIVE IN!!! Define your needs/ identify the candidates/make your best choice. If crosscountry flying was the main
type of flying for me I would be in a Bonanza. Just my thoughts
Good luck
M-4

cut up by sharp metal if

Sorry about my presentation, next time I will preview prior to hitting the submit button. Just wanted to offer some thoughts in helping with the desision that is right for you. Whats with this word wrap thing?
Good Luck