mtv wrote:Okay, I’ll just go ahead and say it: 185s aren’t for going fast.



MTV

I've always looked at the 185 as not great at anything, but pretty damn good at everything. It's the airplane that checks more of the boxes in my life than anything else.

Best prop for speed and overall capabilities for the 185 is the Aluminum Voyager. It does everything very well. I've flown and tested it against MT and various other Hartzell designs. You will be hard pressed to find a better overall prop.

MW

Hartzell is offering nice discount to RAF members as well.

Does Hartzell provide paperwork or do they tell you that since you’re in Alaska just get a field approval? That’s what they did to me when they sent me the wrong prop for our 206. Then they stuck their dealer with the freight back to Montana. That was after he went to them directly pre-buy and they OK’d it. I wouldn’t do business with them again if their club was free.

Sad story. Seems odd they wouldn’t have fixed their mistake.

Hartzell sells the STC for the 180/185 prop no matter what state you’re in these days.

There might be different approval if it’s going on a Pponk? Can’t remember.

Halestorm wrote:Sad story. Seems odd they wouldn’t have fixed their mistake.

Hartzell sells the STC for the 180/185 prop no matter what state you’re in these days.

There might be different approval if it’s going on a Pponk? Can’t remember.

This was a Top Prop for IO520. Dealer sent them the serial number off the airplane and engine (I still have the fax around here somewhere). Hartzell put the info on the STC. My mechanic looked at it and found that the prop was not approved for my airframe. They sent me a long hub. We contacted them and they verified that in fact we could not install on my airframe. We’re sorry, get a field approval was their fix. The FAA is still laughing. Why would they field approve a prop that doesn’t conform when Hartzell makes one that does conform?? It was a bad deal. The dealer said it was totally normal for Hartzell. I hope he quit selling them.

Anyway, I’m sure the products are ok just expect the full retail experience dealing with them. They also have a reputation for very expensive inspection requirements issued 4-5 years after they introduce a new model. Bastards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

G44 wrote:

C180_guy wrote:

G44 wrote:Take the old standard 86” prop, overhaul it and during overhaul cut the blades down to 82”. Performance will suffer but speed will increase.

Isn't an increase in speed considered an increase in performance???

Yes, however since most on this board equate performance to short field STOL operations only I made the statement I made to fit the group.

Kurt

The OP is asking about increasing speed. So, a bunch of folks on this 'board' consider speed a component of performance.

The fastest (and lightest at 46 lbs) is the MT 2-blade 83" Expedition Series prop. Tested many times with various planes by both Texas Skyways and AirPlains as well as several members of this site. Also: very smooth, never had any AD's on any of the Cessna MT Props, owner repairable and no life limits.

The Aluminum Voyager is the best metal prop made today. Period....but it gets it's speed with very thin blades...our experience with thin blades like McCaulley is they erode from normal use very quickly and a rock ding or scratch across the face or back side may require a blade change.

The 3-B 83" MT Expedition is light, tough, owner repairable, no AD's, no life limits and turbine smooth.

McFarlane Aviation is also offering RAF Members a $1000 discount on MT props and a 1 year family pricing membership to MT prop buyers for all their catalog items.
Cheers!

That’s great! How long is that discount program running? I didn’t see it on the website.

gbflyer wrote:

Halestorm wrote:Sad story. Seems odd they wouldn’t have fixed their mistake.

Hartzell sells the STC for the 180/185 prop no matter what state you’re in these days.

There might be different approval if it’s going on a Pponk? Can’t remember.

This was a Top Prop for IO520. Dealer sent them the serial number off the airplane and engine (I still have the fax around here somewhere). Hartzell put the info on the STC. My mechanic looked at it and found that the prop was not approved for my airframe. They sent me a long hub. We contacted them and they verified that in fact we could not install on my airframe. We’re sorry, get a field approval was their fix. The FAA is still laughing. Why would they field approve a prop that doesn’t conform when Hartzell makes one that does conform?? It was a bad deal. The dealer said it was totally normal for Hartzell. I hope he quit selling them.

Anyway, I’m sure the products are ok just expect the full retail experience dealing with them. They also have a reputation for very expensive inspection requirements issued 4-5 years after they introduce a new model. Bastards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My experience as well with Hartzell……sell a prop, then some years later, issue an AD that requires regular “inspections” that can only be done at few locations. Or replace the “part in question”, ie: the Faulty part they designed and built. Done expect much help when that happens.

MTV

mtv wrote:

gbflyer wrote:

Halestorm wrote:Sad story. Seems odd they wouldn’t have fixed their mistake.

Hartzell sells the STC for the 180/185 prop no matter what state you’re in these days.

There might be different approval if it’s going on a Pponk? Can’t remember.

This was a Top Prop for IO520. Dealer sent them the serial number off the airplane and engine (I still have the fax around here somewhere). Hartzell put the info on the STC. My mechanic looked at it and found that the prop was not approved for my airframe. They sent me a long hub. We contacted them and they verified that in fact we could not install on my airframe. We’re sorry, get a field approval was their fix. The FAA is still laughing. Why would they field approve a prop that doesn’t conform when Hartzell makes one that does conform?? It was a bad deal. The dealer said it was totally normal for Hartzell. I hope he quit selling them.

Anyway, I’m sure the products are ok just expect the full retail experience dealing with them. They also have a reputation for very expensive inspection requirements issued 4-5 years after they introduce a new model. Bastards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My experience as well with Hartzell……sell a prop, then some years later, issue an AD that requires regular “inspections” that can only be done at few locations. Or replace the “part in question”, ie: the Faulty part they designed and built. Done expect much help when that happens.

MTV

I figured I’d draw you out eventually. I should have taken your advice to start with. [emoji3]

It is new and not yet posted. Simply call the Flight Resource/McFarlane Aviation MT Prop phone number 866-717-1117 ext 1 and tell them you are an RAF member and want the $1000 member discount. Have your membership number ready.
John

25 square on the weekend at sea level, 88” 401 and 520D in a ‘73 185F. It was a calm day and flew at 150kts +/- 3kts both directions. Quick enough for what I do with a plane.

Flew my 185 about 4,500 nautical miles in the last two weeks. Mostly from 8,000-12,000 running WOT 2500 RPM and ROP.

Every time I calculated TAS on the 430W, it came out to 144 Knots true.

This is on 8.50's and Black mac 401 prop. Wing extensions and Horton STOL. Another 10 knots would have been nice.

Oh well, I'm back on floats now for the summer.

I had the 88" three blade Black Mac 401 on my 185 before switching over to my 3 blade MT. I think I might be 1mph slower in cruise with my MT. The 401 was surprisingly good in cruise...but noisy on takeoff.

AEROPOD wrote:

mtv wrote:Okay, I’ll just go ahead and say it: 185s aren’t for going fast.



MTV

I've always looked at the 185 as not great at anything, but pretty damn good at everything. It's the airplane that checks more of the boxes in my life than anything else.

There aren't too many planes that can haul four people in relatively cramped quarters with gear and land off airport on terrain deserving of big soft tires; and for this, the 185 is great. But other than that, yeah, pretty good at lots of other stuff. And not that good for landing in gusty 25 kt crosswinds.

PIREP on conversion from Mac c403 on a185f with IO-520D, a prop you do not hear much about on here to a Hartzell Voyager and no other comparisons that I have seen on here. If you are offended and triggered by fast skywagons click back or call your mother. Speed matters. I only operate on nice turf and asphalt for now.
The bad:
Weight: at 77lbs added about 9 pounds on the nose
Speed: Lost 3 kt at at 7500 WOT 2400 RPM from 153kt to 150kt TAS
The good:
Great customer experience. They gave me a nice OSH discount. Answered all my annoying questions patiently.
Installation kit and instructions were thoughtful and complete
The great:
Looks even better in person
The butt accelerometer demonstrated faster acceleration from a stop
The noise on takeoff is spectacular
Overall, I am thrilled with it and believe it was good value on new hardware that takes an operational beating. I do not see it changing how I operate meaningfully but it I do not have floats, operate at or near gross weight, or very high DA.

Gorgeous airplane.

Did you do measure your speed at the same CG? My experience has been that speeds can easily vary 3kts or more simply sliding the cg around. With your fwd gain, you may have the same exact speed (all things equal), or potentially gain a kt or two by putting the cg back where it was when you had the 403 on.

Take care, Rob

Rob wrote:Gorgeous airplane.

Did you do measure your speed at the same CG? My experience has been that speeds can easily vary 3kts or more simply sliding the cg around. With your fwd gain, you may have the same exact speed (all things equal), or potentially gain a kt or two by putting the cg back where it was when you had the 403 on.

Take care, Rob

Thanks. N1015F is enjoying its semi-retired life in the pasture as a family hauler on nice grass strips. Your point is well taken. There are so many potential confounders that prevent an amateur from doing a controlled test. The plane was probably 50 pounds heavier and CG similar, but higher DA with the second run with the new prop. The only firm conclusion I can make is that the old C403 was actually good on performance contrary to the many expert opinions that I sought that indicated that it was a garbage obsolete prop. I do not believe a heavy prop is a bad thing as it serves as a flywheel integral to direct drive engine operation.

Rob wrote:
Did you do measure your speed at the same CG? My experience has been that speeds can easily vary 3kts or more simply sliding the cg around.

Take care, Rob

Excellent point out that deserves an explanation. By moving the CG aft, the download on the horizontal tail is reduced which unloads the main wing. Conversely, moving the CG forward increases the download on the tail which the main wing must support, hence loading the wing. Ask any long hauler (transoceanic) what they do at level off, and the answer should be start feeding to run the CG aft to maximize efficiency. By reducing the total lift required, one can reduce the throttles for the same airspeed. Leave the throttles in the same position and speed increases. Same aerodynamic principals apply to our "slow movers". A forward CG is more stable but less maneuverable and inefficient as the large download on the horizontal tail must be countered by extra lift on the main wing. Moving the CG aft is more efficient due to reducing the load on the main wing and results in better maneuverability, however, it may result in unfavorable stall or spin response. Thus, there is a happy medium. By being aware of where your CG is and where it is going based on mission requirements, one can make the 180/185 not only more efficient and faster but a much better handling aircraft...who wouldn't want all that? Apologize for the drift, but I thought it worthwhile.

TR