a3holerman
Registered User
Cape Cod
What about speed? Three feet seems like it might knock off 3-5kts of speed.
Cessna 180 Seaplane prop question
- Thread starter a3holerman
- Start date
B
Barnstormer
No speed change at all on my 185, at any altitude, at any load. I'm not an aeronautical engineer so can't definitively explain it. My pea-brain postulates that perhaps the additional lift allows the wing to fly just a bit flatter (less angle of attack), causing less drag on the wing with negates the additional drag caused by the increased width. Don't know if I'm right or not, but I do know there is no speed penalty.
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
Simplified, it is reduced induced drag due to the increased aspect ratio. Think about a glider wing.
Last edited:
A stock Skywagon wing is more capable for private ops than most pilots. The assumption that a 180 "needs" stol mods isn't true for the majority of owners. A good driver with an average load can get in and out of 500' assuming there aren't tall obstructions on the way out. If there are, the solution is power. I understand the benefits of extended wings for some operators. They are not a requirement for all operators. I have stock wings by choice.
hotrod180
FRIEND
Port Townsend, WA
I agree. The limiting factor on my 180 is me.
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
I love the Sportsman STOL. What folks aren't discussing in this thread is the improvement in safety that the Sportsman cuff provides. Frankly, while I like the increase in takeoff and landing performance, what I really like about the mod is the very significant modification of the stall characteristics of the airplane. That is a big safety improvement.
Yes, it adds weight, as does the Wing X kit. But, you're creating more lift, and more lift offsets that minor increase in weight of the kit. I agree, keep them as light as possible, but the added safety of the Sportsman is well worth doing in my opinion.
Now, if you're operating on floats, you may want to install the Wing X kit first or instead of the Sportsman. The longer wings really shine on floats, where getting up on step and then out of the water is much more challenging than on wheels.
Both kits offer great improvements to the aircraft. Neither is inexpensive.
And, a stock wing works just fine, if that's your preference. But, you'll be amazed at the improvements either of those mods offers.
MTV
Yes, it adds weight, as does the Wing X kit. But, you're creating more lift, and more lift offsets that minor increase in weight of the kit. I agree, keep them as light as possible, but the added safety of the Sportsman is well worth doing in my opinion.
Now, if you're operating on floats, you may want to install the Wing X kit first or instead of the Sportsman. The longer wings really shine on floats, where getting up on step and then out of the water is much more challenging than on wheels.
Both kits offer great improvements to the aircraft. Neither is inexpensive.
And, a stock wing works just fine, if that's your preference. But, you'll be amazed at the improvements either of those mods offers.
MTV
little wing
Registered User
President Rusk once told me it wasn't so much about the spot you could fit it in to or out of, if you have to ask you yourself that question you probably shouldn't be doing it, it's about margins. All kinds of margins, pilot skill, mistakes, equipment problems and/or malfunctions etc. If you have a little extra margin you might just be able to turn a really bad day into an OH $#!@ ain't gonna do that again, kind of day. Without the VGs and ABWs I would have recently had a bad day, those margins allowed for a little embarrassment instead of bent parts or stitches.
As a reminder to you all, I and at least one other friend still go back and read his square corners thread every so often, good thing to do especially if you haven't ever read it to begin with.
My '78 185 has a stock wing with a Robertson kit, 550 with an 88" Mac, seems pretty incredible to me, but still may give VGs a try to gain a little extra margin.
As a reminder to you all, I and at least one other friend still go back and read his square corners thread every so often, good thing to do especially if you haven't ever read it to begin with.
My '78 185 has a stock wing with a Robertson kit, 550 with an 88" Mac, seems pretty incredible to me, but still may give VGs a try to gain a little extra margin.
RaisedByWolves
FRIEND
Tx
I have a bunch of time in early 180's, and recently flew one with the sportsman, and was thoroughly impressed with it. I would like to fly it some more. I have flown stock with vg's and Horton with no vg's and the sportsman was the biggest most noticeable improvement
Theoretical question. Operating on and off a narrow strip, no room for diagonal ops or drifting off line. The wind's blowing across at 45* from runway heading. Let's say the wind is blowing 25 with gusts to 35. It's already a little bumpy but expect wind rotors and mechanical turbulence close to the ground. Which wing mods do you favor and why?
What about in a Cub? Favor a cuff? Extended wings without extended or relocated ailerons? Just curious.
What about in a Cub? Favor a cuff? Extended wings without extended or relocated ailerons? Just curious.
I'd opt for long range fuel so I can go somewhere else because the limits on my man card prohibit a 25 knot cross wind component.
B
Barnstormer
Awesome response!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
45 degree crossing 25 to 35 mph? Operating on and off a narrow strip? Multiple operations, rather than just getting in the air to leave?
what are you thinking SB? We are trying to get our airplanes to leave the ground at slower and lower speeds and you are trying to get us to wreck our planes.
this is a question answered by.....PA-20....or F-16
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
The conditions are not unusual, this is true. However, your scenario suggests multiple operations TO and Landing. Narrow, no room to drift. 45 x-wind gusting 35.......Playin with Fire!
Sportsman STOL and MicroAerodynamics vortex generators and 6.00x6 tires and a 14 inch tail wheel......and hope that I am heavy going in and light coming out.
.....and hope that at the end of a day of operating at this location I have learned something and not embarrassed myself!
Heck, why not add a sloping beach and the wind crossing and offshore?
I tried to add a smiley to this post. But my answer is still honest.
Sportsman STOL and MicroAerodynamics vortex generators and 6.00x6 tires and a 14 inch tail wheel......and hope that I am heavy going in and light coming out.
.....and hope that at the end of a day of operating at this location I have learned something and not embarrassed myself!
Heck, why not add a sloping beach and the wind crossing and offshore?
I tried to add a smiley to this post. But my answer is still honest.
Last edited:
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
:smile:Whatever. The point is that adding mods to fly slower isn't always a good idea. In my use it would limit the plane's utility, not enhance it. New owners love to add gadgets to planes. In my opinion they'd be better served by flying the plane and letting their requirements drive the improvements list. I do appreciate the reply.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
SB. Sorry about how you took my tone.
Dave Calkins
Registered User
Anchorage, Alaska
You said you had an honest question, but you really were making a statement.......which post number 77 is....
Thank You. Your words are always food for thought and valuable to the discussion
Thank You. Your words are always food for thought and valuable to the discussion
soyAnarchisto
MEMBER
Boulder, CO
Could someone explain why the old C66 88" prop seems to be preferred/desirable over the newer C203 88" props? Is it weight? If so, what exactly is the difference?
soyAnarchisto
MEMBER
Boulder, CO
I perhaps misunderstood. But I thought that you could not use a 88" 203/201 with the p-ponk?
I would like to upgrade my 82" mac to an 88" prop - and retain the possibility of p-ponking. I'd like to stay with a 2-blade prop for various reasons (weight being the principle one).
I would like to upgrade my 82" mac to an 88" prop - and retain the possibility of p-ponking. I'd like to stay with a 2-blade prop for various reasons (weight being the principle one).
soyAnarchisto
MEMBER
Boulder, CO
I hate to bother the Knopps since I'm pretty much a tire kicker at the moment. I would like to get some more climb performance out of my new-to-me 180 by upgrading to an 88" seaplane prop. If I make an investment in a prop, either new or overhauled - I'd like to have the option to p-ponk without having to buy yet another prop at that time. Maybe that's not possible - I'd like to know.
p-ponk does not (or no longer) lists a 2-blade option for the 180 on their web site. They list only the older C58/C66 threaded props for the 182:
http://pponk.com/engines/
p-ponk does not (or no longer) lists a 2-blade option for the 180 on their web site. They list only the older C58/C66 threaded props for the 182:
http://pponk.com/engines/
Last edited:
I believe the 2a34c58 can be had in an 88" version, original io-470 equipped 185 prop with a redline of 2625 rpm. The following was out of the type certificate data sheet.
3. McCauley constant speed propeller installation
(a) McCauley D2A34C58 hub or D2A34C58-0
(oil filled) hub with 90AT-2 blades
Diameter: not over 88 in., not under 80.5 in.
Pitch settings at 36 in. sta.: low 9.2°, high 22°
However the later io-520 equipped 185, 2850 rpm redline specified the following
1. (a) McCauley D2A34C58 hub or D2A34C58-0
(oil filled) hub with 90AT-4 blades
Diameter: not over 86 in., not under 84.5 in.
Pitch settings at 36 in. sta.: low 8°, high 25°
I talked with Steve Knopp a couple years ago and I recall him telling me that the 2a34c58 prop was approved for their engine but I'm not sure in what length.
3. McCauley constant speed propeller installation
(a) McCauley D2A34C58 hub or D2A34C58-0
(oil filled) hub with 90AT-2 blades
Diameter: not over 88 in., not under 80.5 in.
Pitch settings at 36 in. sta.: low 9.2°, high 22°
However the later io-520 equipped 185, 2850 rpm redline specified the following
1. (a) McCauley D2A34C58 hub or D2A34C58-0
(oil filled) hub with 90AT-4 blades
Diameter: not over 86 in., not under 84.5 in.
Pitch settings at 36 in. sta.: low 8°, high 25°
I talked with Steve Knopp a couple years ago and I recall him telling me that the 2a34c58 prop was approved for their engine but I'm not sure in what length.
algonquin
MEMBER
Seldovia,Ak
I had a 180 (56') with a 82" and now a 185 (520) with a 86" that was a 88" when I got the plane. The 180'with the 82 was a great performer and joy to fly. It would go about anywhere the 185 will. The 88" was a waste but the 86" is a good thing on the 185. If I were to get another 180 I'd be putting a 82" on it. The big props are not neighbor friendly at ALL.
Rob
MEMBER
AZ06
My experience has been that a 401 as SB's is pretty much king of the thrust hill on a Pponk'd 180. But at the obvious Wt/CG penalty if that makes any difference to you.
The C2 series are a moot point on a Pponk, because they are not applicable on a Pponk. They are a good modern prop, but due to harmonics, were never added to the STC (Steve tried).
The C66/58 in an 86-88" flavor will not match the 401 in pull, but out of the hole it will give an MT a run for the money at similar wt. and will cruise faster to boot and all that at a ton less $$$… THAT is the appeal to the C66… it works very good at a very reasonable price (IF… big IF, you can find full meat blades, as they have not been made in decades ) It is on the Pponk 182 STC, but not the 180, however there have been many FA'd to 180's (did it on mine if you ever need a copy) so repeating shouldn't be an issue.
Our 180 pulls better with higher RPM with everything except the MT. For some reason it likes to be turned a touch slower?
Lastly, the fact that an MT may create less thrust at static does not mean it won't get off shorter, in fact in my experience it does, but at a premium in price and a couple other potential gotchas / sacrifices..
Take care, Rob
The C2 series are a moot point on a Pponk, because they are not applicable on a Pponk. They are a good modern prop, but due to harmonics, were never added to the STC (Steve tried).
The C66/58 in an 86-88" flavor will not match the 401 in pull, but out of the hole it will give an MT a run for the money at similar wt. and will cruise faster to boot and all that at a ton less $$$… THAT is the appeal to the C66… it works very good at a very reasonable price (IF… big IF, you can find full meat blades, as they have not been made in decades ) It is on the Pponk 182 STC, but not the 180, however there have been many FA'd to 180's (did it on mine if you ever need a copy) so repeating shouldn't be an issue.
Our 180 pulls better with higher RPM with everything except the MT. For some reason it likes to be turned a touch slower?
Lastly, the fact that an MT may create less thrust at static does not mean it won't get off shorter, in fact in my experience it does, but at a premium in price and a couple other potential gotchas / sacrifices..
Take care, Rob
Last edited:
Good post, Rob. My memory was flawed. All I know is my 88" 470 prop was a no-no on my 520. I had it cut to 80" and sold it to a Hawk XP friend who got a FA for a seaplane prop on tires. Win-win.
TX Skyways has a different propellor list. The C238 is offered for 520s and 550s. http://media.wix.com/ugd/a06ad1_83e580e768db47adbcf7ede89b64dfb7.pdf
TX Skyways has a different propellor list. The C238 is offered for 520s and 550s. http://media.wix.com/ugd/a06ad1_83e580e768db47adbcf7ede89b64dfb7.pdf
