flynengr wrote: No sales tax in OR, which is worth a grand or more to us Californians. The shop in McMinnville (NW Air Repair) is one of PPonk's authorized installers, which gets you the 2000 hr TBO. ..........

Makes a lotta sense, thanks for explaining.

Aktahoe1,

I know you've decided on the Mac, but might still have a look at this test. You may well be walking away from a lighter, better performing prop if MT sells one in the size you need and w/ the appropriate STC.

While the props tested in the link below are not the same size as the one you are getting, I think the test results are still an eye opener. From my own experience w/ the Husky and that of the other posters on FlyHusky.com, the MT is absolutely positively the best performer on the "dog" - bar none. Further, 2-blades perform better than 3, which makes sense, as the less blades the less interferance drag (a 1-blade prop is actually the most effecient - - and they do have 'em!). 3 blades offer more ground clearance and are smoother, though MTs dynamically balance to turbine smooth in my experience.

see:

http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

Disclosure: Flight Resource is the NA dealer for MT . . . so one might expect their test results to favor the MT. In this case, I believe them.

bumper

A couple thoughts....

While I am certain Steve Knopp is cautious about who get the 'approval' to build his engines, it is a very simple fact, that not all builders build the same...

I have no doubt all Pponk builders take pride in their engines, and have no doubt they all will be well built. I also have no doubt they will all have 'personalities' of their own. Fly behind an engine built by Lycon, Pponk, or Bart, and then fly by a more common rebuild, and you too will get it....

I have no experience with other builders mentioned in this thread, so this is not meant as a reflection of their product, but $1,000 price difference on a $25k - $30k investment that should last me years just isn't enough to sway me away from the best of the best....

One more point onthe above subject.... Pponks in general are smooth, and live long, because they are loafing along, but smooth engines ( not to be confused with smooth props ) are a direct result of build quality.... Period... Will your builder weigh each piston, rod, etc, etc and do what it takes to assure that reciprocating mass is balanced ??

bumper wrote:Aktahoe1,

I know you've decided on the Mac, but might still have a look at this test. You may well be walking away from a lighter, better performing prop if MT sells one in the size you need and w/ the appropriate STC.

While the props tested in the link below are not the same size as the one you are getting, I think the test results are still an eye opener. From my own experience w/ the Husky and that of the other posters on FlyHusky.com, the MT is absolutely positively the best performer on the "dog" - bar none. Further, 2-blades perform better than 3, which makes sense, as the less blades the less interferance drag (a 1-blade prop is actually the most effecient - - and they do have 'em!). 3 blades offer more ground clearance and are smoother, though MTs dynamically balance to turbine smooth in my experience.

see:

http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

Disclosure: Flight Resource is the NA dealer for MT . . . so one might expect their test results to favor the MT. In this case, I believe them.

bumper

Unfortunately, IMHO, the current MT 2 blade just isn't quite enough blade for the Pponk. It is really, really, good, just a tad bit under propped. I have run both back to back....
BUT... If fwd CG is an issue for you, it is the best solution out there... Bar none

MT truths and myths...

Wood core, yes.... Composite sheath yes.... The Mac will undoubtedly make a better tree trimmer, if that is your thing, this is the prop for you...

It is my opinion (and Steve Knopps) that a Mac will beat the MT off the ground at an airport in sterile test conditions, by about 3'. If Valdez style competitions are your thing, than this is the prop for you.... I try not to get into places that leave me a +\- 3 ft. Margin for error...

The Mac is uncontestedly cheaper, although not on the magnitude Russ reports. My 2 blade was factory new at $10,400, my 3 blade also new at A bit over $12k.If cheaper is your thing the Mac is again your choice.

Spool up make make a difference in your ops? The MT spools up like a two stroke, if you land short in the sticks, there is a good chance you are a 'throttle jockey' ... Simply no contest here.... The MT spools up (and down) almost as fast as you move the lever...

There are a group of pilots, that truly enjoy the feel of a good flyer in the air... It is also pure fact that the more weight you add to the nose of an airplane, the more it will lose from that wonderful feel, it will fly slower on the top end, it will fly faster on the bottom end...if you are one of those pilots who enjoy feeling an airplane fly, the MT will be your uncontested choice.

Want to simulate it? The weight difference is 35#s and all of that is ahead of the CG... It is simple math to figure out how heavy of a front seat passenger you will have to fly with (and without) to simulate the weight exchange...

Personally, if I were on the losing end of $40K - $50K for an engine / prop upgrade (and I have been there) I would not put weight in any internet hearsay type advice, I would get in and fly every engine /
Prop combination I was considering....

Take care, Rob

Confused Rob but not....

Steve is building mine and then shipping it to my mechanic. Hopefully thats good. Assuming all the rods and whatnot will already be installed by Steve. My guy will just need to plug and play I am hoping...

I hear you load and clear Bumper. I DO want an MT (for the lighter front end if nothing else) I am just a bit skeptical from all the hear say and internet quarterbacks...The 35lbs off the nose is very attractive but that 401 has been tried and trued for so long.

I am just not certain...I will be sending someone a check this week

aktahoe1 wrote:............I will be sending someone a check this week

PM coming your way with my address.

aktahoe1 wrote:Confused Rob but not....

Steve is building mine and then shipping it to my mechanic. Hopefully thats good. Assuming all the rods and whatnot will already be installed by Steve. My guy will just need to plug and play I am hoping...

I hear you load and clear Bumper. I DO want an MT (for the lighter front end if nothing else) I am just a bit skeptical from all the hear say and internet quarterbacks...The 35lbs off the nose is very attractive but that 401 has been tried and trued for so long.

I am just not certain...I will be sending someone a check this week

It is my Internet opinion that Steve K is one of the 'best of the best'

Think my post was misread.......

182dude and/or Splashpilot can confirm, but NW Air Repair does not build the engine. They uninstall and reinstall it IN OREGON. As I understand it, Pponk still does the build. Because there is a resale event between Pponk and NW Air Repair, instead of you picking up WA or CA sales tax for all those shiny new parts you buy, it is instead subject to OR sales tax, which so happens to be zero percent. Same goes for that five figure prop, no matter which one you choose.

Spend all the $$$ you want, guys. If I can get the same exact thing for a couple grand less, I'll take it. Thanks to Rich for letting me in on this approach.

Flynengr

Steve is building the engine up in wa. they are yanking it and reinstalling it up at nw air repair, its one of pponks registered shops and there will be 0% tax on it spinner to firewall!

Mike

flynengr wrote:Think my post was misread.......

182dude and/or Splashpilot can confirm, but NW Air Repair does not build the engine. They uninstall and reinstall it IN OREGON. As I understand it, Pponk still does the build. Because there is a resale event between Pponk and NW Air Repair, instead of you picking up WA or CA sales tax for all those shiny new parts you buy, it is instead subject to OR sales tax, which so happens to be zero percent. Same goes for that five figure prop, no matter which one you choose.

Spend all the $$$ you want, guys. If I can get the same exact thing for a couple grand less, I'll take it. Thanks to Rich for letting me in on this approach.

Flynengr

182dude wrote:Steve is building the engine up in wa. they are yanking it and reinstalling it up at nw air repair, its one of pponks registered shops and there will be 0% tax on it spinner to firewall!

Mike

You are correct, I did not get that impression from your initial post. Sounds like a good way to save some cash on a great product. A couple $k is nothing to sneeze at, sounds like enough to cover a new exhaust, baffles , or any other of the many incidentals that will go with such a project.
Take care, Rob

Addition after clarification by the next post:
Don't bother to read this post.
I evidently read the wrong meaning......

-----------------------------------------------------------


From the third link in an above post:

The wooden core is reinforced by layers of epoxy fiberglass, Kevlar® or carbon fiber and sealed by several coatings of acrylic-polyurethane paint.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that doesn't sound like "just wood" in the core to me. If the laminations of the core wood is sandwiched with thin layers of any/all of these products, the core ALSO would be a TRUE 'composite'- just one that uses wood (in this case a high percentage of wood) as a component. When it breaks, with the naked eye you would see WOOD.

NO?

I would assume the prop is 'made as claimed'. Do we have evidence/reason to doubt?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I have an interested in 'materials' such as composites.....
lc

For those interested in the core of the MT Prop, here is a breakdown.
It starts with a single species of tight grained spruce that must be harvested within a 1200' wide range of growing altitude from a stand growing in northern Germany. MT inspects, grades and buys the individual living trees on the stump. They are harvested by hand, brought to a German specialty mill were they are quarter sawed then stacked and dried to 10%. When dry, they are sawn again to strips about 1" square with all sides planed true. When a blade is needed, they are then dried to 8%. Then they are stacked by hand so the grain of each strip is 90 degrees to the one next to it. Epoxy is applied to all sides of each strip. Then the entire block of composite wood/epoxy is placed into a massive press until it is cured. Then the process of shaping by CNC machines is done, then layers of Kevlar/epoxy cloth are hand layed with the weave of each layer 90 degrees to the one below it. Then the stainless steel leading edge is bonded to the blade, the Kevlar cloth weave is epoxy filled and hand sanded. The primed and final coat of PPG enamel sprayed for color.

Wood is a perfect stable and fatigue free material. The Kevlar wrap adds stiffness and seals the core from damage and moisture. The stainless leading edge is additional guarding (7x harder than the alum of your metal props). Wood is not subject to stress risers and has no resonance frequency that interferes with the engine. To maintain an MT prop, just keep the core sealed from moisture and don't worry about the look of your owner applied patches of JB Qwick Weld epoxy. When you do have a prop strike, I will offer 1,000 to one odds on a bet there will be no resulting internal engine damage.

Watch this FAA Ice ball test and birds strike test of an MT composite blade. The MT blade still retains it's airfoil shape and strength. The metal blades (yes, MT makes metal props too) bend, curl and sometimes break at point of impact. In all cases, dangerous levels of vibration resulted. http://flight-resource.com/VideoGallery.aspx

Last summer we had a customer with a M14 powered Yak 52 wearing an MT3-blade prop hit a deer as he was landing. Instinctively, he pushed the power to full and the plane accelerated back in the air. He circled, cleared the landing area and brought her down to discover 8 to 10 inches of each blade was ripped off from the strike and yet the MT prop still produced thrust to do the go-around. He said the vibration was noticeable, but countered that the M14 is no sewing machine anyway.

John Nielsen

I, as I'm sure many others do, always appreciate John's responses to these threads. If there has been participation from McCauley or Hartzell on any of these, I sure haven't seen it.

All very good beta! Thanks for your input John!

What is the thought on this video and prop comparison as well as the fact sheet here provided by Knopp?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lumj1RV5gV8

Where does MT fit (comparing the 86" 3 blade Mac) into the following in terms of pull power John?
http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

Where does the Mac I reference above fit in to the following? What MT prop compares to the 86" 3 blade mac?
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

I know that every take off and landing can be very different. Whats the thought on the fact the MAC in this video looks as though its pulling the plane off the ground and the others are being flown off the ground as the pilot pulls it up?

Still in no mans land on the prop....

I have spoken several times with Steve Knopp and respect his opinions on motors, props, etc. I love the Pponk motor in my plane. But, have you also considered he sells the 3 blade MAC's, and will profit a bit if you or someone else puts one on your plane versus brand H, MT, or whatever? Just viewed his test and could the difference of 25 feet between the 3 be replicated in multiple runs? A puff of wind here of there could change the results. You'll never really know what works best on your plane without trying all the different combo's out there. As I stated before in my particular plane, for my missions on floats, the 401 came off and the 2 blade MT went on, and the difference was very noticeable. The handling difference due to the weight change was huge. Landing shorter due to the lighter nose. In my 3rd season on floats with the MT and it looks absolutely like new, and it has definitely chopped some spray. Have you personally talked to an MT owner who removed their prop in favor of H, M? I couldn't find any. Before switching I spoke with 4 owners who went from M or H to MT and all told me they would never go back. It's easy to get the stories from your wife's sisters hairdressers boyfriends brother-in-law busting on any particular product. You'd be better served by talking to the brother in law. Prior to my purchase flight resources offered for me to fly my plane down to their shop, they would bolt on an MT to try, and if I didn't like it they would put my old prop back on all for no charge. Don't know if that offer still stands but that's putting your money where your mouth is. Will your M or H dealer do that? All I'm saying is you're making a huge investment and a few thousand $ one way or the other up front will be a decision you'll live with for a long time. I'd fly all my options before buying. Russ

I certainly wish I could fly all the combos. Knopp tests the MT in the above video.

MT is sure making a strong case thats for sure!! I am on the Skywagon email list and this conversation is turning into the same kind of topic as if we were discussing wheel vs three point landing.

For my needs personally, I have zero interest in pavement flying. I always land on the grass next to the pavement if thats my only option. I do have aspirations to do the Valdez thing next spring just for the fun of it and its kinda my thing. How short can I go in this 180, in and out. I do not like the weight on the nose that the MAC will give but its seems to have a better pull? MT spins up quicker and is lighter...(am I answering my own questions here??) It is a big drop in the bucket $$ but dont want to wish I had done this or that.

This site continues to be great with all of the insight for certain.

Thanks!

Also takeoff is not everything regardless of which prop you choose. You need to land short? Climb to clear obstacles? Have quick power changes available instantly? vibration on motor mounts and airframe? All these things vary from prop to prop and can mean more than a few feet rolling on the ground. The difference on takeoff roll was 5 feet between the MT and Mac, which to me is meaningless. Do it 10 times in a row with each prop and average. Climb to 500 feet times? How about landing distance over obstacle? for this hamfisted pilot it is much easier to get a lighter nosed plane in short than a heavy one. Also, angle of attack at liftoff for the props will be different from tri gear to taildragger to float plane, and I'd bet that affects the performance of each. What I'm saying is that performance of any prop on someone else's plane will probably only give you a very loose idea as to performance on yours. Even in the hour of so to change props conditions will never be the same. I sure like the idea of the 550 magnum eagle motor! Russ

aktahoe1 wrote:Where does MT fit (comparing the 86" 3 blade Mac) into the following in terms of pull power John?
http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

Where does the Mac I reference above fit in to the following? What MT prop compares to the 86" 3 blade mac?
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

Right here:

http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna185.pdf

and coincidentally, the IO-520 powered C-185 used in this test makes a closer reference to what you will be achieving than the O-470 powered 182.

Having said that, I put very little faith in 'pull tests' I have no intention of holding brakes until full power (max pull) is achieved, and I have zero doubt in my feeble mind that any composite MT (for this engine / airframe combination ) will accelerate you out of the hole faster than a comparable metal prop... it just winds up that much faster...

It is splitting hairs though... All the props available to the Pponk engine, and a couple that must be FA'd, are good choices.
The best one for you simply depends on what you want out of your airplane the most...

BTW, I am by no means suggesting you buy an MT prop, because I have no whether or not your mission matches mine. But I must agree with Russ on one thing here... there was a post on another thread where a guy was saying that everyone he met that tried an MT was unhappy and traded out? weird.... Like Russ, I don't know anyone that actually has one and is unhappy... there are many people on this site with them, have you heard any negative press? I like mine, and liked the one before it too... he said, she said ? fact? fiction? imagination?

Take care, Rob

Just letting everyone know here, the honeybadger (C182) is in mcminville. I took it up yesterday, what a great trip up there it is!! I encourage anyone interested to take that trip, just wonderful..my first impressions of northwest air repair are...that shop is spotless and it looks like a great crew that im more than happy to have working on tripple 8-2. Gram the guy there tells my by monday the engine will be out and he is going to personally take it up to PPonk, im very happy and excited to see how it all goes and i will keep you guys posted!

Mike

This thread has been very informative reading for me since my 88" C66 Mac just "packed it in" and now I'm faced with bolting something new on the front of my C180.

It certainly appears that most of the discussion revolves around the sea level takeoff/climb performance of the C401 vs the MT prop, with no clear-cut winner (maybe a slight edge to the C401). But what about high altitude work? Jump up to 6500'; would the wide chord of the C401 have an advantage in the thinner air? What about just cruising along at 8 - 10,000 feet, would there be any advantage one way or another?

I'd be curious to hear from anyone that has done any of that sort of flying with either prop.

Chris