I have a 170b with the stock motor, I am wondering how much the Sportsman helps for the take off roll? I am at sealevel and wondering if this is a good mod to have.

I know it helps on the slow flight and landing, but I can already land in some places and not have enough length to take off.

Will this help with the plane having just a stock o300?

Simple answer: Yes. The kit reduces stall speed and softens up the stall. Lower stall speed not only permits you to land slower, but to takeoff slower, thus less space required for either.

MTV

Absolutely, but an 80x42 probably helps more. Both add fun factor.

mtv wrote:Simple answer: Yes. The kit reduces stall speed and softens up the stall. Lower stall speed not only permits you to land slower, but to takeoff slower, thus less space required for either.

MTV

Thanks, I have one in the box still wasn't sure if it was worth installing.

I've been looking into a new 180hp, but with only 600 hours or so on this o300 its kind of a hard swap to pursue.

daedaluscan wrote:Absolutely, but an 80x42 probably helps more. Both add fun factor.

I've been looking around for a used one and have come up short. I have a 7652 and a 7650, was thinking to repitch the 50 down to a 49, would the 80 be an improvement over that? It has 26"s so diameter shouldn't be an issue?

alaskan9974 wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Absolutely, but an 80x42 probably helps more. Both add fun factor.

I've been looking around for a used one and have come up short. I have a 7652 and a 7650, was thinking to repitch the 50 down to a 49, would the 80 be an improvement over that? It has 26"s so diameter shouldn't be an issue?

Do both, prop first. It's the quickest and easiest swap. I don't know if I'd pitch a 76" prop below 50". Although it's a different beast, I made the mistake of underpitching my 74" Pacer prop and don't like how it performs now. Not much extra takeoff performance, but cruise is just weird now because I can't get trimmed right at normal cruise power. That may or may not translate to the 170. The 80" prop is totally worth it.

Zzz wrote:

alaskan9974 wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Absolutely, but an 80x42 probably helps more. Both add fun factor.

I've been looking around for a used one and have come up short. I have a 7652 and a 7650, was thinking to repitch the 50 down to a 49, would the 80 be an improvement over that? It has 26"s so diameter shouldn't be an issue?

Do both, prop first. It's the quickest and easiest swap. I don't know if I'd pitch a 76" prop below 50". Although it's a different beast, I made the mistake of underpitching my 74" Pacer prop and don't like how it performs now. Not much extra takeoff performance, but cruise is just weird now because I can't get trimmed right at normal cruise power. That may or may not translate to the 170. The 80" prop is totally worth it.

I had a 7649 on my Sedan and it worked very well but they cruise slower than a 170. Superior in every other aspect though.

I would bet a steak dinner on it that you'll love the way the 8042 performs minus losing a little cruise speed. You'll still be faster than cubs and slower than skywagons so it doesn't really matter, right?

akaviator wrote:

Zzz wrote:

alaskan9974 wrote:

daedaluscan wrote:Absolutely, but an 80x42 probably helps more. Both add fun factor.

I've been looking around for a used one and have come up short. I have a 7652 and a 7650, was thinking to repitch the 50 down to a 49, would the 80 be an improvement over that? It has 26"s so diameter shouldn't be an issue?

Do both, prop first. It's the quickest and easiest swap. I don't know if I'd pitch a 76" prop below 50". Although it's a different beast, I made the mistake of underpitching my 74" Pacer prop and don't like how it performs now. Not much extra takeoff performance, but cruise is just weird now because I can't get trimmed right at normal cruise power. That may or may not translate to the 170. The 80" prop is totally worth it.

I had a 7649 on my Sedan and it worked very well but they cruise slower than a 170. Superior in every other aspect though.

I would bet a steak dinner on it that you'll love the way the 8042 performs minus losing a little cruise speed. You'll still be faster than cubs and slower than skywagons so it doesn't really matter, right?

I have a faster plane, so don't care much about speed.

I'd rather have bought a cub but needed four seats, two for the kiddos.

I'll keep an eye out for a 80" I keep seeing it recommended.

I have a leading edge cuff, VG's and a seaplane prop on my 170B with an 0-300. I don't give a hoot about cruise speed and I'm very happy with its performance both on floats and wheel skis.

alaskan9974 wrote:I have a faster plane, so don't care much about speed.

I'd rather have bought a cub but needed four seats, two for the kiddos.

I'll keep an eye out for a 80" I keep seeing it recommended.

It wasn't so much an issue with speed as it was the cruising pitch attitude, like it couldn't get up "on step" very well unless engine RPM was like 2550-2600. At least for the Pacer, with its short coupled fuselage, there is a minimum speed to trim out normally, and with the finer pitch prop you have to wring it out harder to get to that airspeed.

Zzz wrote:

alaskan9974 wrote:I have a faster plane, so don't care much about speed.

I'd rather have bought a cub but needed four seats, two for the kiddos.

I'll keep an eye out for a 80" I keep seeing it recommended.

It wasn't so much an issue with speed as it was the cruising pitch attitude, like it couldn't get up "on step" very well unless engine RPM was like 2550-2600. At least for the Pacer, with its short coupled fuselage, there is a minimum speed to trim out normally, and with the finer pitch prop you have to wring it out harder to get to that airspeed.

Got it.

Maybe I'll turn the 52 pitch into a wall hanger.

Sportsman STOL is at the hangar should be done next week.

My 170 has 26" GY and a Scott 3200. Is the 3200 adequate on gravel/sand bars?

Threw a baby bushwheel on, unfortunately a broken lifter resulted in a tear down, so I sent the cylinders out and we cracked the case for an IRAN.

Would be nice to fly it sometime this summer

Even with the backseat out and the jump seats in the rear it’s still almost 1340 empty, with myself and one more and half a tank I figure I’ll be about 1900. What can I expect for an average ground roll at sea level at that weight

Even with the backseat out and the jump seats in the rear it’s still almost 1340 empty, with myself and one more and half a tank I figure I’ll be about 1900. What can I expect for an average ground roll at sea level at that weight[/quote]

I would expect approx 300' for two people and half fuel, if you are using proper techniques.

Don't know if this will help, but I had the 76-53 McCauley on the O300B that's hooked to the front of my '56 172 repitched to 49 inches some years ago. As I remember, I gained about 80 RPM static. Normal cruise went down 5-7 MPH. I thought it was worth it. I believe you can repitch the McCauley props 4 inches. Other makes may only be able to be changed 2 inches. My "prop guru" told me that you may not be able to "feel" a 2 inch pitch change, but a 4 inch change is noticeable. If I could, I would install the Seaplane prop. YMMV.