lowflybye wrote:By the way, anyone out there got a good prop and spinner they want to sell cheap?

I got a Q-tip 2 blade, but it fits a IO-540. You are kidding right?

a64pilot wrote: You are kidding right?

I wish I was...it was not me, but it was our plane.

The parking brake was enabled although it was not activated by pulling the handle on the panel. It seems that the pilot pulled the cable with his foot while working the rudder pedals at some point and he did not have a clue that the brakes were locked until touchdown. A visual check of the parking brake lever did not show them as activated and he pumped the brakes on pre-landing check as usual. Once the plane slowed enough to lose elevator authority it went over on the nose. The normal method of pushing the brake pedal would not disengage the brakes even after it was put back in a 3 point attitude. They had to reach down and tap the levers to get them to release.

The parking brake is being disabled while she is down...should not be an issue any longer.

Needless to say I will most likely need a ride to the fly-in again...unless she is back flying by that point, but I am not holding my breath.

Ouch, sorry to hear about that.

Hopefully, repairs will be completed quickly and effectively.

MTV

lowflybe,
How many hours on the engine? You know what has to happen to the engine I'm sure. Mine had 1700 hours and 22 years, so I overhauled it after my prop strike.
At one time I think Maule had some Mac's that were over the storage life so they would have to be overhauled, anyway they were cheap. Don't know if there was one for a 180 though. Call David Wright, he may be able to get you one or know of one for a good price. Or, I got mine "used" from Hartzell. It had 6.5 hours on it where RAM had used it in a flight test. Hartzell overhauled it and sold it to me for less than a new 2 blade.
Good luck. and to think YOUR the insurance man

a64pilot wrote: How many hours on the engine? You know what has to happen to the engine I'm sure. Mine had 1700 hours and 22 years, so I overhauled it after my prop strike.

Only about 200 or so total hours on the airplane...it is already at the shop for the inspection. The prop is a total.

a64pilot wrote: At one time I think Maule had some Mac's that were over the storage life so they would have to be overhauled, anyway they were cheap. Don't know if there was one for a 180 though. Call David Wright, he may be able to get you one or know of one for a good price.

Already talked with David...no joy! The problem is that there is only 1 prop approved for the 180 hp MX7. To compound the problem there is a mandatory AD to replace / overhaul the prop hub and it expires this month. Needless to say there has been a run on the hub market in recent history so they are hard to come by since this hub can also be found on the Mooney, Husky, Navion, etc. To further compound the problem, the company who manufactures the hub is / has been on strike...needless to say this prop is harder to find than Steve Fossett. Hartzell gave us a 14 week lead time to get one so I wound up talking Maule out of a prop based on the premises of poor factory support. It is new "old stock" but past shelf life so it will be reconditioned prior to our receipt of it in the next 14 days.

Sooo, the prop situation is fixed, now I just need a new bub / cone assembly.

a64pilot wrote: Good luck. and to think YOUR the insurance man

Yeah, it can happen to anyone. Fortunately is was not me this time, just our plane....but we have full coverage so it's all being taken care of. The renewal is gonna sting a bit.

...needless to say this prop is harder to find than Steve Fossett.

Ha!!

Wow, that is a downer. I'm curious...doesn't a significant prop strike usually mandate an engine tear down?? Who or what decides different?

Sorry to get your news Chris.
For all Maule pilots, in your GUMPS. insert brake check at U for undercarriage, depress brakes TWICE because the first check will look for the appropriate sponginess, the second check should also be spongy and if not, but firm, then you locked the brakes in first check either because of inadvertant brake knob activation or mechanical problem, and thus you can rectify the problem before landing or land on grass or dirt as the plane will not nose over with full aft yoke and sometimes a touch of power to blow elevator down.
Jeremy

Lowflybye,

Ouch, again!! By the way, however, that Hartzell prop AD does NOT require the replacement of the compact hubs. It requires that you either complete an eddy current inspection of the hub every 100 hours, OR replace with a new hub. As you noted, however, Hartzell hasn't been able to provide enough hubs to meet the demand of both the manufacturer's and the result of their AD, which precipitated a lot of folks trying to buy new hubs.

This AD really kicked in (it had been issued with a compliance date much earlier) during an Alcoa strike, and Alcoa is the company that makes the Hartzell hub blanks. Oops.

Not trying to hijack this thread, the point is, if your hub is a later type (the suffix on the hub s/n tells the tale) it could be used again, after inspection, and simply have new blades installed, a lot less expensive alternative.

If you choose to stick with a new prop (which may be a good idea in any case, since insurance is paying) understand that your old hub, if it wasn't damaged in the incident, has value, assuming it's the newer type, and I'm betting it is.

MTV

There sure seem to be alot of expensive AD's on those Hartzell props... if it isn't the hubs, it's the clamps. Is this the case only on their older props? A friend had trouble with this years ago with an Apache, turned out Hartzell was the only approved prop for this application, so he had to replace with Hartzell. Not happy with that idea.

Eric

Ravi-

There is an AD on our particular engine that only requires inspection / replacement of a few select components prior to returning to service. There are a few caveats to this AD, but it can be done without even removing the engine. If upon inspection an A&P finds everything satisfactory the aircraft can be returned to service. Since this is the 3rd propstrike in our aircrafts history (only 1 during our ownership) we decided it was time to do a teardown inspection as the other 2 were done as previously discussed.

Jeremy-

We have always added the Brakes to our GUMP check just for that reason. Unfortunately this time the friction locks (a.k.a parking brakes) on the brake cylinders themselves were stuck and obviously did not release. We never set the p-brakes and the handle had not been pulled so the cable must have been pulled by getting caught on a shoe or other similar scenario. He had to physically tap the brake tabs to get them to release in order to pull the plane off the active runway.

Mike-

Our hub is the newer model and it does have some value, but we have been able to find a new prop/hub combination and will go that route. The old one may be rebuilt in the future, but for now it will be gutted of the interior parts and hung on the wall as a battle scar momento. Fighting gravity can be dangerous sometimes.

Some posters have raised concern that I might have besmirched Jeremy’s good name by ribbing him about not landing on the paved portion of the runway. Hopefully this is not true, but just in case I’ll try to be serious for once in my life.

Jeremy, in addition to giving generously of his time and knowledge, took us on a flight that admirably showed the capability of the Maule. The flight culminated in landing on a hundred feet of dirt and weeds on the approach end of the runway. Very impressive, especially considering there was a gusting crosswind. If someone hadn't been pulling weeds in their vegetable garden I think we would have landed there, too.

The ironic part is that at the end of the flight I decided I was ready for a Maule, while my wife decided she’s not ready for me to have a Maule. The last time she saw a look of glee on my face like that was when a nurse gave me an injection of preoperative narcotics…

I’m still working on her…(Jeremy, remember, 180hp constant speed…)

Ravi,
Why 180 hp.? I might suggest expanding your search to the 235 and buy the best deal you can find. I think the 235's are more plentiful.
As an IA, I won't put my name on the return to service logbook entry without a Magnaflux of the crank and gears, just my opinion.
Now here is the crutch, Ins. pay's for the R&R and tear down and inspection and reassembly. If it were me parts not meeting servicability criteria aren't going back into the engine. IAW Lycoming, there aren't many required replacement parts for an overhaul. Actually that's a SB and they aren't mandatory for part 91, but you know.
I would overhaul it, if it didn't need it, then it won't cost much, but you get to restart the clock.

Why 180 hp.? I might suggest expanding your search to the 235 and buy the best deal you can find.

Yup, there are a whole lot more 235's out there. Bottom line is 99% of the time I just don't need 235 ponies, but if I have them I've got to pay for them 100% of the time. More money up front, more for insurance, more for fuel, more for oil, more for spark plugs, more for overhaul.

I know there's no substitute for horsepower, but you have to draw a line somewhere. I have a friend who can't understand why anyone would ever buy a Cessna 180 when they make a 185. His plane has 1450hp, so I guess it's all relative. I simply don't anticipate carrying heavy loads out of short strips, and 180hp with a constant speed prop seems to be a good compromise between cost and performance, even if it's hard to find.

Good thinking, Ravi, if you don't need more than 180 horses why pay the feed bill for them. Lots of people think that if some is good, more is better, and too much is just about right.
1450 hp? Is that a typo, if not what kind of airplane does he have?

Eric

FWIW, If flown at the same speed, there is almost no difference in fuel burn between a 180 and a 235. That's not crap, Ive seen it, it's less than a 1gl. an hour. The 180 and the 235 are very similar engines, just the 235 is 1/3 bigger. The IO-540 turns slower and makes less power per cubic inch so it is stressed less and will out live a 180. They both will make TBO though. The 180 on paper will have a higher useful load. I say on paper because it's easier to load out of CG with a 180. The 235 is nose heavy and accepts the load better CG wise. Now if the 180 is cheaper insurance wise, then that may be a real saving there.
I'm sure you will be happy with a 180. It may even be a better "balanced" airplane. But if you run into a real deal a 235 isn't a bad thing to have.
Wasn't it you that recommended me to find a 140 with an up-graded engine

The 180Hp Lycoming will burn auto fuel. Will the 235? Auto fuel represents a significant savings.

flyer

flyer wrote:The 180Hp Lycoming will burn auto fuel. Will the 235? Auto fuel represents a significant savings.

flyer

Only the low compression O-540 will burn Mogas. The IO will not. I guess the answer to your question is it depends. The low compression O-540 has to turn more RPM to make the same power. It is available only with a carb. so lean of peak is not an option. It is I'm told a better seaplane engine as all FI Lycomings are subject to vapor lock and can sometimes be hard to start when hot.
The O-540-B4B5 is the one that can burn auto fuel. The IO-540 W1A5D cannot.
Being 6 cyl. engines makes them as smooth as a baby's butt, especially with a three bld. prop. There is an RPM range you should avoid with the 180 as it shakes there and I believe shortens the exhaust systems life. Everything from avionics, gyros and even the airframe will last longer with a smoother running engine.

1450 hp? Is that a typo, if not what kind of airplane does he have?

It's a North American T-28 Navy. Once you get to cruise and lean it out fuel consumption goes down to 50 gallons an hour . He took me for a ride in it once...very smooth and very strange. Dropping down a few thousand feet to look at something then climbing back up to where you were is a non-event, like vertical space is of no more consequence than horizontal space. He also claims that it's the easiest flying airplane ever made.

The restricted operating range found in most Lycoming 180 hp engines is a range where the vibrations are third and fourth order harmonics.

These harmonics can be very destructive, but you won't feel them. The admonition is no continuous operation in this range. The engine won't come apart if you run it there for a bit, but running it there for long isn't good.

At the rate at which refiners are turning to alcohol as an additive in auto fuel, I wouldn't base an airplane decision on whether it can burn auto fuel or not.

MTV

It is very easy to test for alcohol in auto fuel. You just do not operate the 180HP 0360 in the RPM range of 2200 to 2250. It has a red line and it is very simple to avoid.

Saving over $1.00 per gallon is one of many reasons I love the Lycoming 0360. Putting an extra tax on AVGAS should not have any affect on my operation. I also like not putting all of the extra lead into my engine.

I did not mean to start this overdone debate.

flyer