• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Best prop for a (certified) PA-18.

J

jokerswe2008

Registered User
Hello all you cub experts. I’m new here!
what prop could you recommend?
with 180 HP I belive is taking of quickly?
better cruise performance is the only.
which prop would you recommend?
 
What type of flying will you be doing. Mostly paved/grass strips, Sandbars/gravel strips, or hardcore brush cutting mud slinging strips?
DENNY
 
DENNY said:
What type of flying will you be doing. Mostly paved/grass strips, Sandbars/gravel strips, or hardcore brush cutting mud slinging strips?
DENNY
Click to expand...

it will be sandbars and fields when I have trained enough. I just got the tailwheel rating yesterday.
I believe I should be looking for a climb prop.
Something I don’t think is mentioned in the discussion climb/speed prop, is that a climb prop will help an inexperienced pilot to get out of trouble in takeoff and landing.
 
Steve Pierce said:
You might want to read this thread. http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?54710-Prop-Choices-for-O-360-C4P
Sensenich will cruise faster, McCauley 1A200 will take off and climb way better but longer and needs extended gear or big tires. Look at your STC for the 180 hp engine.
Click to expand...

I got 26 ABW, 3’ extended gear and 180 HP. The STC does not cover all options.
could I find the STC with the prop? (“With extended gear and 180 HP this prop can be used”)
 
The metal props will take a whooping and keep going all day long!! So if you said you would not be trimming any brush or slinging mud or rock into the prop I would go with a Sensenich. Nothing wrong with owning two/three props. Learning to do a proper off-field runup/turns/takeoff helps protect the prop. I believe you need 9 inches of clearance in level flight for a prop to be legal. Good news is now you might need a set of 31inch bushwheels!! The pitch is what will pull you off the ground and/or pull you faster. Example a 160 hp cub with borer 82/40 vs 82/43, at 2400RPM the 82/40 is 7 mph slower. You will loose 30-40 feet on takeoff with the 80/43 but it will still pull a massive load off the ground and get you home before the sun sets. CHT,s are 15-20 degrees cooler with the 82/40. The best thing to do is find someone that has one one you might like laying around (heck just pull it off his plane) and take it out for a week or two. Climb props are a lot of fun but it you want to fly 400-600 miles a day it can get old fast.
DENNY
 
Well since your "certified" then your certainly going to need a legal prop....... Even though a very high percentage
Of Cubs being flown would likely not have the correct paperwork to satisfy a picky inspector....... So a compleately legal prop really isnt legal at all; unless you have all the Prop logs, (not likely)from one that Piper called out in the TC of your aircraft?
If you slap a "Pawnee type" prop on, your going to need an STC for It ; on your "certified" airplane. And so it goes on and on
Most prop STC's will call out some exact specs, but often props get Shortened and repitched out of those . However in real world flying; often times things are not always as it seams.( Some very interesting nomenclature hiding under lots of those spinners ):-?
Good luck finding a great prop for your cub, it is probably the one thing that makes any cub even better!
 
Last edited:
Your STC for the engine calls out the propeller approved for installation on your airplane. I believe both 180 hp STCs include bothe the metal Sensenich and McCauley 1A200. You should also have a flight manual suppliment with that info.
 
TurboBeaver said:
Well since your "certified" then your certainly going to need a legal prop....... Even though a very high percentage
Of Cubs being flown would likely not have the correct paperwork to satisfy a picky inspector....... So a compleately legal prop really isnt legal at all; unless you have all the Prop logs, (not likely)from one that Piper called out in the TC of your aircraft?
If you slap a "Borer" prop on, your going to need an STC for It ;on your "certified" airplane. And so it goes on and on
Most prop STC's will call out some exact specs, but often props get Shortened and repitched out of those . However in real world flying; often times things are not always as it seams.( Some very interesting nomenclature hiding under lots of spinners ):-?
Good luck finding a great prop for your cub, it is probably the one thing that makes any cub even better!
Click to expand...

I have not seen prop logs until recent years. Haven't seen a requirement to have a prop log. An IA signs the airplane off as airworthy if he deems it so.
 
As far as the getting an inexperienced pilot out of trouble NO PROP will do that it takes a lot of money and rebuilding of the airplane to do that after you learn the hard way. Practice short landing and take offs and there will still be a pucker factor for a while.
 
Steve, I agree about prop logs. But thats the way its leaning. However like welding a simple tube into the topdeck, to Xbrace. Hundreds have em with no paperwork. Hundreds more have it with Atlees paperwork, that he would pass you for "nothing". But now that is all different: you legally need to bow down to Univar and pay for that, or you know the rest of the story...........
The new generation of mechanics will have the paperwork all "perfect"; to cover their ass, and the airplanes will go out the door halfassed; because in the future because of govt policy, they will have the priorities backwards.
If anyone wants to see how far out of control this govt is: Just keep watching this judge, trying to get appointed......
 
Last edited:
If the paperwork doesn't take as long as the repair, you're doing it wrong - or so it seems. As far as prop logs. I get them wtih new props or overhauled but they never get a single entry in them until they are at TBO and go back to the prop shop. One sign-off is all you need for your annual/100 hour.
 
Steve Pierce said:
I have not seen prop logs until recent years. Haven't seen a requirement to have a prop log. An IA signs the airplane off as airworthy if he deems it so.
Click to expand...
If you want to get technical there is no requirement for a separate engine logbook either. ( See disclaimer below)

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
 
I dunno how they feel about prop logbooks,
but I know a couple IA's who maintain that an entry in the engine logbook isn't required to document an annual inspection.
One refused to put an entry in the engine book, and stuck to his guns even though it ended up losing him a customer.
The other signed off in the engine logbook as a 100-hour.
Maybe more IA's believe that, but most will put in an "inspected IAW an annual inspection...." entry anyway,
as that's what the customer (the guy who's paying the bill!) wants to see.
 
hotrod180 said:
...but I know a couple IA's who maintain that an entry in the engine logbook isn't required to document an annual inspection.
Click to expand...
Those IAs are correct. It is the air frame which gets the annual inspection. Any work which is done to the engine at the same time is only incidental work on the engine. Only that work should be entered in the engine log book. There was a very good all around nice guy FAA man by the name of Bill O'Brien. He was the head guy in Washington in charge of all of the FAA inspectors who oversee all of the IAs World wide. He used to travel around giving talks at the annual IA meetings. I heard him tell the IAs at one of those meetings that the Annual inspection is only signed off in the airframe logbook. Not in the engine log.

That customer who disagreed and took his plane elsewhere has lost the services of an IA who knew what he was supposed to be doing.
 
skywagon8a said:
Those IAs are correct. It is the air frame which gets the annual inspection. Any work which is done to the engine at the same time is only incidental work on the engine. Only that work should be entered in the engine log book. There was a very good all around nice guy FAA man by the name of Bill O'Brien. He was the head guy in Washington in charge of all of the FAA inspectors who oversee all of the IAs World wide. He used to travel around giving talks at the annual IA meetings. I heard him tell the IAs at one of those meetings that the Annual inspection is only signed off in the airframe logbook. Not in the engine log.
Click to expand...

I've got the article he wrote in one of the Aviation publications about that saved somewhere.

another take on the issue ( not mine )

ALL props come with log books! They have to, they're Type Certificated Products. It seems though that the fixed pitch props are in the Rodney Dangerfield category and don't get enough respect. You know, the late, great Bill O'Brien once told me [paraphrased] I don't care if you make your entry on a piece of toilet paper and staple it between two brown paper bags-that's a log entry! And he's absolutely correct! It's not the wrapping that makes the statement, it's the contents inside...

I think the writer is confusing logbooks and aircraft records, but that's another issue.
 
skywagon8a said:
….That customer who disagreed and took his plane elsewhere has lost the services of an IA who knew what he was supposed to be doing.
Click to expand...

I know the IA in question and it wasn't a great loss IMHO.
He was a know-it-all type and had the bad habit of trying to make sure everyone knew how smart he was,
to the point of unnecessarily costing his customers money & down time.

FWIW the logbook issue I mentioned came up as a renter was taking his PP checkride in the airplane,
and the DPE (apparently wrongly) decided that the airplane wasn't airworthy because of no annual inspection entry in the engine book.
Applicant went home, complained to the airplane owner, who complained to the IA.
Owner wanted an engine book entry, the IA refused, so that was the end of that business relationship.
Oh yeah, that customer was the airport owner, the resulting hard feelings culminated in the IA getting kicked off the private airport.
The whole drama could have been avoided if the IA had just p​
ut an entry in the engine book--
​
after all I don't believe it's illegal to do so, just not required.
FWIW right or wrong, when I pay someone for an annual inspection, I expect (and get) entries in all three logbooks.​
 
Student and owner should file a complaint with the faa against the DPE.
If I was still doing customer annuals and an owner wanted it in all of the log books. id do it and charge him according.and I would say aircraft in each entry because I can't annual a propeller

See if you can find the word log booK referenced in any FAR for anything but pilot records.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Yep, had a quiz right after my latest annual was signed off: IA showed me airframe log, “Inspected IAW an annual” Gaza, ya a..... then he showed me engine book.....entry was inspected IAW 100 hour inspection. I said looks good to me but why do I need a 100 hour on the engine? He smiled, I smiled, I passed.

MTV
 
Can't the IA say "Inspected IAW manufacturer's ICA and found airworthy at this time" in the engine and prop logs? Or something similar.

Gary
 
Last edited:
hotrod180 said:
I know the IA in question and it wasn't a great loss IMHO.
He was a know-it-all type and had the bad habit of trying to make sure everyone knew how smart he was,
to the point of unnecessarily costing his customers money & down time.

FWIW the logbook issue I mentioned came up as a renter was taking his PP checkride in the airplane,
and the DPE (apparently wrongly) decided that the airplane wasn't airworthy because of no annual inspection entry in the engine book.
Applicant went home, complained to the airplane owner, who complained to the IA.
Owner wanted an engine book entry, the IA refused, so that was the end of that business relationship.
Oh yeah, that customer was the airport owner, the resulting hard feelings culminated in the IA getting kicked off the private airport.
The whole drama could have been avoided if the IA had just p​
ut an entry in the engine book--
​
after all I don't believe it's illegal to do so, just not required.
FWIW right or wrong, when I pay someone for an annual inspection, I expect (and get) entries in all three logbooks.​
Click to expand...
Ah Hah! The rest of the story. In this case the DPE was uninformed as to the annual records requirements. The entries in the engine and propeller logs should not refer to an annual inspection, only to that work which was accomplished on that product.
 
skywagon8a said:
Ah Hah! The rest of the story. In this case the DPE was uninformed as to the annual records requirements. The entries in the engine and propeller logs should not refer to an annual inspection, only to that work which was accomplished on that product.
Click to expand...

And the PP applicant was unprepared and didn’t understand the regulations sufficiently to explain it to the DPE. 91.409(a) specifies “Aircraft” there is nothing in 91.409 that says engine or prop. 43.11 provides the correct words to be used for inspections, and 43.9 identifies what needs to be recorded for maintenance. Finally 91.417 covers what maintenance records are to be kept. If the student/applicant can’t articulate that, he shouldn’t pass the test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I sincerely doubt any one of us know the nuances of every applicable FAR. We couldn't even get people to agree on flying in Class E airspace if there was a cloud over the airport.
Even if he knew it, I doubt he could get the DPE to change his mind. Had one here the same way.
Try arguing with an FAA inspector when he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
I have, and actually went and flew an aircraft he questioned the Airworthiness on and I challenged him to file a violation on me and told him I’d see him in court if he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
S2D said:
Try arguing with an FAA inspector when he's wrong.
Click to expand...
That is so much fun when you know that you are right. Just eliminate the arguing and replace it with explaining. When you do this often enough the FAA inspector will respect you and come to you for advise. I used to work for a respected old timer who used to tell the FAA inspectors to "go jump in the lake" and they would respond with "which one?".
When you have earned the FAA's respect, doors will open.
 
skywagon8a said:
Just eliminate the arguing and replace it with explaining.
Click to expand...

I asked my inspector once if we needed a compass in a Part 137 spray plane. Instead of a discussion on the regs he just said cause that's the way it came and went and inspected all my planes to make sure they had a compass in them. I don't ask questions any more.
 
dgapilot said:
I have, and actually went and flew an aircraft he questioned the Airworthiness on and I challenged him to file a violation on me and told him I’d see him in court if he did.
Click to expand...

Just to play devils advocate, the same wording is used for 100 hr as is used for annual in 91.409. Yet per 65.85 and 65.87 the mechanic can sign off just the airframe or engine. I think this is where all the misunderstanding came from and at some point the FAA was telling people it had to be done that way.
 
dgapilot said:
And the PP applicant was unprepared and didn’t understand the regulations sufficiently to explain it to the DPE. 91.409(a) specifies “Aircraft” there is nothing in 91.409 that says engine or prop. 43.11 provides the correct words to be used for inspections, and 43.9 identifies what needs to be recorded for maintenance. Finally 91.417 covers what maintenance records are to be kept. If the student/applicant can’t articulate that, he shouldn’t pass the test.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're a tough grader, I'm glad I didn't do my checkride with you!
And good luck "explaining" to the DPE.
Don't think I've ever met one that would allow himself to be corrected by a mere PP applicant.

I guess the proper response would be to fail the student, sue the DPE, and award a gold medal to the IA.
Wouldn't it be an easier "path to yes" to just put the entry that most people expect to see in the engine logbook?


S2D said:
If I was still doing customer annuals and an owner wanted it in all of the log books. id do it and charge him according. and I would say aircraft in each entry because I can't annual a propeller. ...
Click to expand...


"Aircraft" is fine, substituting "engine" and "propeller" respectively would be better.
Is it that big of a deal? Would you lose a customer just to stand on your principals?
And just how much more would you charge for making two more entries?
Most IA's print out logbook entries on labels and paste them into the logbook.
I figure it'd take about 5 minutes to modify the entry twice ("airframe" to "engine" and "propeller"),
print out 2 labels, and paste 'em in.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
90hp cruise props - Sensenich vs. McCauley
Replies
10
Views
7K
JimC
J
D
Prop selection for PA-18 150 A2B
Replies
13
Views
6K
MainlandCub
M
Bouncer
Prop pitch for PA-12?
Replies
22
Views
13K
Tim
Tim
wpbrady
Pa-18 Engine and Prop
Replies
2
Views
2K
mvivion
mvivion
C
PA-12 Cruise Speed with 180 hp?
Replies
16
Views
11K
WhiskeyMike
WhiskeyMike
Back
Top