Rhyppa wrote:Do you have any vibration with your new prop and the SW engine mount?

No Russ - prop is smooth as a babies backside,.... The seaplanes west mount is pretty impressive too. On wheels, I'm very impressed with this performance. I spoke to a Prop shop the other day here and they say the performance results of the 8068 are impressive, primarily for thrust / clime performance.

I'm definately not in the market for a new prop at this point (wife would kill me) after just purchasing the 8068, but I'm interested in understanding all the pro's and con's. Would really like to meet you this summer, say at Crane Lake or something, and do some comparison testing, seeing how our aircrafts are virtually identical everywhere else. As I mentioned before, i have a hangup on being legal "officially" and the 8068 will do that for me whenver seaplanes west finishes up the 400 lb upgross STC. Having said that, someone mentioned on the cessna site that MT will certify same or better performance on their prop compared with the prop i have and will somehow make the MT approved with the upgross but i can't see that. If the perfromance of the MT is the same as the 8068 and i can take some weight off the nose, i'd be interested in spending the money. I've got $$$$$ into this thing already, so $ more won't likely make too much difference. Just need to remember to tell the wife it is a safety thing

I'm likely going to see how the aircraft perfroms this summer, and decide from there. I will admit that I'm a little nervous about my control authority in the flair after all i've read on the W & B, but i'm sure i'll be a lot more comfortable after some stick time with it. The Maule was tail heavy so i had the opposite problem. Quite certail that I'll be doing wing X and possible STOL in the next month, so that will help too.

garth

flattie45 wrote:I like simple solutions- the easiest thing would be to have the passenger ride in the back. When riding as a passenger I like to be up front, but not if it puts the CG out of limits. You could even remove the co-pilot seat to get rid of that weight, and the passenger sitting in the back would have tons of leg room. Of course you'd have to do a W&B calculation to see if that would get the CG in a better spot.

It wouldn't cost anything, and seems a little unorthodox, but if it changed the CG enough it would be very simple.
-Nate

I can't see doing that Nate - If i was a passenger, i would have no interest in riding in the back with an empty front seat. The CG issue isnt that bad, i just need to be aware of it and may need ballast in the back when there are only two of us. When there are back seat passangers, there is no issue at all.

Garth, we'll definitely get together next summer. If I had to choose one or the other for a float plane, I'd choose the wing X before the stol. If you can do both more power to you. Some say the sportsman STOL doesn't make that much difference on the post 72 cessna wing, but I have no personal experience to back that up. Sounds like you're really going to have a nice setup when all finished. Russ

I flew a 1985 Cessna 185 for a few thousand hours before it was modified with the Sportsman STOL cuff. It made a big difference in the way that airplane flew.

I like the Sportsman, but have little experience with the WingX extensions. I have heard nothing but good things about the Wing X, however, and usually, you hear some negatives from someone....so I'm betting it's a good deal.

Just be aware that if you keep the airplane in a T-Hangar in winter, you'd best measure the width of the door before you pull the trigger on wing extensions. Or plan on finding a bigger hangar.

I think a good plan might be to tackle these things a bit at a time. Fly the airplane on floats for a bit first, then decide if you really need these mods..... Of course, NEED and WANT are completely different forces...

MTV

Needs and wants - yup - Garth, remember, if you put extensions on and plan to do the sportsman later, they then end up doing some mod to the original extension to blend it into the sportsman leading edge. On the other hand, if you do both at the same time, they put on an extension that is already premade to fit the sportsman. When I put my extensions on, they said if I ever planned on sportsman now was the time since they would put the different extension on right away. I haven't heard any bad things about the Sportsman either. You'll gain 3 feet of wingspan so measure the hangar. I'm anxious to fly your plane already. I'll bet it will perform well.

yup - i was told the same thing - if your planning on doing both at one point, doing them at the same time will be cheapest overall. I'm fairly certain that i wont need to fly the aircraft first to see how i like it before i put them on - i've been told by so many people who have flown aircraft without them, then with them that the performance is much better. Jeff at Park rapids says if your only doing one - you definately want to do the extentions but if you can do both, improvements will still be noticed with the STOL kit as well.

Of course, after that is done, VG's will be next, and so on, and so on,....

Anyone have experience ballasting the tail vs a rearmost float locker? The tail has a longer CG arm and would require less weight vs the arm of the rear float compartment but the float compartment would be more secure. Need to add about 20-50 lbs depending on flying solo or lightly loaded with a passenger. Could add ballast to both tail and floats if needed. Not a problem while heavy loaded due to very forward empty weight CG. Considerations unique to float plane stability are vertical center of gravity, center of buoyancy, and metacenter while performing water operations.

Skytour wrote:Anyone have experience ballasting the tail vs a rearmost float locker? The tail has a longer CG arm and would require less weight vs the arm of the rear float compartment but the float compartment would be more secure. Need to add about 20-50 lbs depending on flying solo or lightly loaded with a passenger. Could add ballast to both tail and floats if needed. Not a problem while heavy loaded due to very forward empty weight CG. Considerations unique to float plane stability are vertical center of gravity, center of buoyancy, and metacenter while performing water operations.

That’s a LOT of ballast to be adding aft. What type airplane, and have you verified the empty weight numbers?

One fairly common way that c/g gets calculated in error is by using the wrong datum.

I’d really research your numbers carefully before I started adding ballast.

MTV

Aircraft accurately weighed and CG correct. Common forward CG problem with a much larger engine/heavier prop. Not an issue when heavily loaded but a consideration when light with only a single pilot up front. Mounting lead ballast to tail wheel bracket requires least weight addition to aircraft due to length of arm but interested if anyone has ballasted the floats instead. Floatplanes are boats when on the water and subject to the same physics of a boat and taken into consideration are Center or Bouyancy, vertical Center of Gravity and Metacentric height. General speaking for water operations, weight should be kept low for best water stability so rearward float location might be a better location for ballast. On the other hand, once the float or main wheels make contact, the float ballast wouldn’t add a lot of elevator authority whereas the higher up/more aft tail ballast would. Looking for floatplane pilots who might have ballasted both locations and their recommendation.

Again, what airplane and what floats?

MTV