Just checked the Donaldson on-line applications chart.

http://donaldsonaerospace-defense.com/l ... 048554.pdf

Looks like they make one for the 180A-H, but not for the early 180.
FWIW Spruce sells the one for the 180A-up for about $125.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/ap ... Filter.php

Spruce shows a Challeneger filter for the 180 at only $10.
Elemnet only, I'm sure- anyone know if something is required?

I know this is a 2 year old thread and the OP no doubt long ago decided on a prop and bought it, but given that I came across it while searching for information on props while mulling the same decision, I thought it might be worth adding to the discussion in case someone else finds it looking for input. Anyway, a couple of observations; It was pointed out earlier that Steve Knopps site has some data on static thrust he's measured with various props. Something to consider in the Hartzell vs MacCauley comparison is that it's true according to Knopp's results the Macauley 401 86" prop does develop more static thrust than the Hartzell PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8068+2 84" prop, it's not a lot more. In fact it's only about 1.3% more, which isn't a lot. If getting the most static thrust is your number one goal, the Mac seems the choice. If you're trying to balance a number of factors, 1.3% isn't giving up a lot.

Also it's worth pointing out that static thrust is only one factor in takeoff performance. Most of the things I've read indicate the Hartzell prop gives better cruise speed, which means that at cruise airspeeds it's generating more thrust than the MacCauley. Not that Cruise speed is a deciding factor for me, personally. But obviously as airspeed increases, the Hartzell goes from developing less thrust to developing more thrust. It would be interesting to see thrust comparisons at various airspeeds, but of course, that's a lot harder to measure than static thrust.

AAlexander wrote:I know this is a 2 year old thread and the OP no doubt long ago decided on a prop and bought it, but given that I came across it while searching for information on props while mulling the same decision, I thought it might be worth adding to the discussion in case someone else finds it looking for input. Anyway, a couple of observations; It was pointed out earlier that Steve Knopps site has some data on static thrust he's measured with various props. Something to consider in the Hartzell vs MacCauley comparison is that it's true according to Knopp's results the Macauley 401 86" prop does develop more static thrust than the Hartzell PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8068+2 84" prop, it's not a lot more. In fact it's only about 1.3% more, which isn't a lot. If getting the most static thrust is your number one goal, the Mac seems the choice. If you're trying to balance a number of factors, 1.3% isn't giving up a lot.

Also it's worth pointing out that static thrust is only one factor in takeoff performance. Most of the things I've read indicate the Hartzell prop gives better cruise speed, which means that at cruise airspeeds it's generating more thrust than the MacCauley. Not that Cruise speed is a deciding factor for me, personally. But obviously as airspeed increases, the Hartzell goes from developing less thrust to developing more thrust. It would be interesting to see thrust comparisons at various airspeeds, but of course, that's a lot harder to measure than static thrust.

And knopps tests don't include the new Hartzell Voyager prop. According to those that have switched, it is a big improvement over the 401. Built especially for the 180/185, I wish they would include a 84" version for the 206...

I’m the OP, and before I pulled the trigger on a 401, Hartzell developed the Voyager. So I bought one.

It’s absolutely incredible. Better T/O, better climb (much better), and a minimum of 6 kts faster in cruise over the 3-blade round tip Hartzell Top Prop. It’s now as fast lean-of-peak as it used to be rich-of-peak. Not sure how they did it, but they did. Couldn’t be happier.

Glad to hear Cannon. Is it 86" long?

Well, Ive got 10 yrs flying my 185 behind the 401. For me the most important part of the package is when I need a short takeoff. When I throw the whip to her and want giddy up, that’s what I’m looking for. Not some figures for the best performance, at cruise, at xxx altitude, at xxx outside air temp ,at xxxx. That’s diddley squat. The prevail winds blow all that information into the toilet.

However, the trees at the end of the 1000 ft strip I’m at call for my immediate attention. I,m near gross weight, wind is good, temps cool, surface is good, All buttons forward. Ok Lite it up!
I want thrust out the wazoo. Dial prop back a bit to max thrust.
Right then, cruise performance is not even in my thought process.

I fly a fair amount of cross country, But at cruise altitude I have a lot of options that I can adjust: lean and economical, or fast and furious. All at my luxury and current needs. But when I’m looking at the fixed length of runway and obstacle clearances, I don’t have any luxury choices. It is what it is. I want thrust. Dependable performance.
The 401 has been my proven performer in this regard.
Yes it’s front end heavy. Yes, it’s an amazing wind stop unfeathered. Yes, you have to pull it back sometimes to get peak thrust for the rpm. But when the whip is snapped it does jump and trot. She’s put smile on my face more than once.

IMHO one reason to lean toward a Mac is that Hartzell has a poor track record with regards to expensive ADS on a lot of their props.
Followed a few years later by AD's on the expensive replacements.

hotrod180 wrote:IMHO one reason to lean toward a Mac is that Hartzell has a poor track record with regards to expensive ADS on a lot of their props.
Followed a few years later by AD's on the expensive replacements.

I don't buy this to much anymore. Sure it has cost people money, but there was a serious issue with corrosion. I'd rather a company say they have safety issues and do something about it instead of just waiting for something bad to happen. There is no ADs on the top props that have been out for a long time now. I've had Macs overhauled that had lots of internal corrosion and were very expensive to overhaul. It was caught at the 10 year calendar OH we have in Canada. How long until it would've come apart if it weren't for that? Who knows. But either brand can become very costly.

A1Skinner wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:IMHO one reason to lean toward a Mac is that Hartzell has a poor track record with regards to expensive ADS on a lot of their props.
Followed a few years later by AD's on the expensive replacements.

I don't buy this to much anymore. Sure it has cost people money, but there was a serious issue with corrosion. I'd rather a company say they have safety issues and do something about it instead of just waiting for something bad to happen. There is no ADs on the top props that have been out for a long time now. I've had Macs overhauled that had lots of internal corrosion and were very expensive to overhaul. It was caught at the 10 year calendar OH we have in Canada. How long until it would've come apart if it weren't for that? Who knows. But either brand can become very costly.

I was considering a new Hartzell for my 205 project,, but was concerned about the same thing Hotrod was thinking. Glad to hear your opinion Skinner.

Cannon wrote:I’m the OP, and before I pulled the plug on a 401, Hartzell developed the Voyager. So I bought one.

It’s absolutely incredible. Better T/O, better climb (much better), and a minimum of 6 kts faster in cruise over the 3-blade round tip Hartzell Top Prop. It’s now as fast lean-of-peak as it used to be rich-of-peak. Not sure how they did it, but they did. Couldn’t be happier.

Thanks for the follow up. Can you or anyone else help me get Hartzell's marketing names straight? I hear "Voyager" and "Buccaneer" and "Top Prop" and not really sure what's what. The PPonk site refers to the " PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8068+2" prop, which I *think* is what Hartzell refers to as the "Buccaneer" prop. Is that correct? What is the difference between the "Buccaneer" and the "Voyager" ? They're both scimitar blades, I think?

FWIW, I'm trying to decide on a prop for my soon-to-be PPonked 180. It's flown mostly on floats (plus wheels and skis)

The Voyager is a brand new prop that just got developed especially for the 180/185. The Top prop is hartzells round tip fat blade e blade prop, and I believe the buccaneer is the same hub but with scimtar blades. Although on hartzells website they are still referred to as top props.

A1Skinner wrote:Glad to hear Cannon. Is it 86" long?

Yes. 86” - not sure you can get them any other length at the moment, though they can be cut down per the manual.

AAlexander wrote:.... Can you or anyone else help me get Hartzell's marketing names straight? I hear "Voyager" and "Buccaneer" and "Top Prop" and not really sure what's what. The PPonk site refers to the " PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8068+2" prop, which I *think* is what Hartzell refers to as the "Buccaneer" prop. Is that correct? What is the difference between the "Buccaneer" and the "Voyager" ? They're both scimitar blades, I think?....

Numbers are easier than numbers...except Hartzell's model numbers, which are a yard long.
Mac is easier: 88" C201, 86" C401, etc. Short & simple.

hotrod180 wrote:

AAlexander wrote:.... Can you or anyone else help me get Hartzell's marketing names straight? I hear "Voyager" and "Buccaneer" and "Top Prop" and not really sure what's what. The PPonk site refers to the " PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8068+2" prop, which I *think* is what Hartzell refers to as the "Buccaneer" prop. Is that correct? What is the difference between the "Buccaneer" and the "Voyager" ? They're both scimitar blades, I think?....

Numbers are easier than numbers...except Hartzell's model numbers, which are a yard long.
Mac is easier: 88" C201, 86" C401, etc. Short & simple.

You have to compare apples to apples Eric. McCauley has similar PNs to hartzell. Example: D3A34C402/90DFA-10. I know this is a 80" blade by the PN, but I know the hartzell example is a 70" blade. What's this difference between a C66, C201, C 401? Not really much easier unless you know the real specifics of the prop you are dealing on.

A1Skinner wrote:You have to compare apples to apples Eric. McCauley has similar PNs to hartzell.

Yeah, my "C66" is actually a "2A34C66-NP/90AT-2"

Macs are pretty commonly shortened to C66, C203, etc.
I'm not that familiar with Hartzells, is that a common practice with those also?

hotrod180 wrote:Macs are pretty commonly shortened to C66, C203, etc.
I'm not that familiar with Hartzells, is that a common practice with those also?

Yup, 84" top prop, 80" buccaneer, 86" voyager etc...