banner
banner

25 Sep 2020, 19:19 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Aviation Fabricators (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 362 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 25  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2019, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 05/29/14
Posts: 2262
Post Likes: +2057
Location: CEA3
Aircraft: PA24-260, C340 Ram 7
Love the mini bike too!

Murray


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 16:15 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/29/12
Posts: 532
Post Likes: +218
I have been looking forward for your report Chris. Thanks! I had asked Hartzell what I would gain from going from a 80" top prop to the new 86" voyager. This is what they replied.

Although we flew the Voyager primarily against the 86” threaded McCauley , and the 86” Black Mac, I think the primary advantages of the 8429 over the 8068-2 are reduced weight of 8 or 9 lb., the diameter related climb performance, and maybe a couple of knots, although I’m guessing there as the 8068 -2 is pretty fast.



On the flip side, the 8429 is MUCH louder


Glad you are enjoying it!!
Rgs,
Patrick


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 21:34 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/12/11
Posts: 146
Post Likes: +156
Aircraft: J3C, C185, Pitts S1S
My old Hartzell was the round-tip version (the non-scimitar F8468 blades). I’m sure the F8068 scimitar blade is faster, but I don’t know by how much. A good friend has a 206 with the scimitar, and he was consistently 5 kts faster than me.

I find it amazing that the leading edge radius of the Voyager feels the same, if not smaller, than the trailing edge radius of the Top Prop. The Voyager trailing edge is almost sharp - it was painful to torque the hub nuts without some sort of hand protection from the blade TE.

And yes, it is WAY louder outside. My dad says it was like a T-6 when I went by at 2850. Much more tolerable below 2700.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 23:52 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/28/17
Posts: 559
Post Likes: +254
Location: Washington, OK
Aircraft: Cherokee 180C
I finally got some left seat time in a friends 180 last week. We took it to lunch and was able to get 3 take off and landings to a full stop in a couple configurations. I wheeled the first on and 3 pointed the other 2. Wind was blowing so it was a little extra work but had alot of fun. I will be getting more time in it next year as he want to add me on his insurance so we can keep it liberally exercised.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
"Some parts for all, all parts for some"


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 08:18 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/12/11
Posts: 146
Post Likes: +156
Aircraft: J3C, C185, Pitts S1S
I forgot to add one thing re: weights.

According to the paperwork, the Voyager is 1-2 lbs lighter than my old prop (I’ll have to look next time I’m at the hangar for the exact figure).


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 10:56 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/19/16
Posts: 78
Post Likes: +10
Aircraft: B-55, Skywagon
Hello all,

Many have commented on landing the 180/185. I fretted over the same thing. All of my tailwheel time until I bought the 180 was in Stinson 108’s with big engines. The Stinson is probably the easiest of tailwheels to land. While I continued to look for perfection and consistency. A 45 year TW tail wheel pilot told me expect every landing to be different in a TW. After that I adopted the if it is safe it is good theory... Then getting a 180 my frustration reached new heights because the spring gear is the king of bounce-o-matic. After about 50 hours still frustrated I turned to a friend with 28,000 hours mostly in floats and bush type planes. He solved the whole thing and I am a very happy 180 driver now!
1. Wheel land
2. Carry power and flaps all the way in like 11-13 inches, flaps depend on wind
3. When the wheels touch apply a little forward pressure like 1/4-1/2” to pin the wheels

This has been the best advice and seems to work well in all winds and I feels I can stop faster/land shorter than bouncing along.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2020, 11:10 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/19/16
Posts: 78
Post Likes: +10
Aircraft: B-55, Skywagon
Attachment:
ED56B473-4118-4899-8BB3-10362858E4E6.jpeg
Here’s the fleet:


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 11:34 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/29/12
Posts: 532
Post Likes: +218
Username Protected wrote:
Hello all,

Many have commented on landing the 180/185. I fretted over the same thing. All of my tailwheel time until I bought the 180 was in Stinson 108’s with big engines. The Stinson is probably the easiest of tailwheels to land. While I continued to look for perfection and consistency. A 45 year TW tail wheel pilot told me expect every landing to be different in a TW. After that I adopted the if it is safe it is good theory... Then getting a 180 my frustration reached new heights because the spring gear is the king of bounce-o-matic. After about 50 hours still frustrated I turned to a friend with 28,000 hours mostly in floats and bush type planes. He solved the whole thing and I am a very happy 180 driver now!
1. Wheel land
2. Carry power and flaps all the way in like 11-13 inches, flaps depend on wind
3. When the wheels touch apply a little forward pressure like 1/4-1/2” to pin the wheels

This has been the best advice and seems to work well in all winds and I feels I can stop faster/land shorter than bouncing along.



The spring gear can sure cause some pilot stress when landing, but following your friends steps you will start to love the airplane. Also, watch your speed. A few knots too fast and up you go!
However, when you land and its all good you have a :rock: day!!!.

Rgs,
Patrick


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2020, 22:38 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 10/19/08
Posts: 1114
Post Likes: +1021
Location: Far West Texas
Aircraft: Baron 58, Pitts S2A
Steal 50% of the bounce from the Cessna "Boing-O-Matick" gear by bringing the upwind main just a tad before the left. As you gain confidence, you can actually, given enough cross wind, land on one main and keep it that way for a good while, using aileron and rudder, until you gently lower the other one down to the pavement, or grass.
Three-pointers may seem cool but are rough on the tail structure. Bets have been won on wheel vs. three point short landings, at the infamous Lajitas New Years Eve bash from many years ago.
Once at the FBO you deplane nonchalantly, put on your weathered Stetson, and make your way past the uniformed young'uns to the trusty 25-year old 3/4 ton waiting in the parking lot.
A Skywagon trumps everything else on the ramp.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2020, 22:16 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 06/19/16
Posts: 78
Post Likes: +10
Aircraft: B-55, Skywagon
You are so right. I have gone a lot of places with the Baron and am always greeted like an executive. In the Wagon everyone stands around and stares and seems to be in awe. I always wonder if it is because they are afraid of flying it or its just that cool. I do feel like Clint Eastwood every time i get out of it....


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2020, 23:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 145
Post Likes: +116
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
Question for those of you who own and operate the 185's:
I'm interested in getting into amphibious float flying (for fun, not work) and started my search with a "wide-open" field. I am progressively narrowing down the field and am leaning toward either a C185 or C206 as I want to be able to carry more than two people and still have some cargo room with range and "reasonable" cruise speed. I understand that to make the T206 competitive with a 185 it would need the wing cuff and wing extensions (but since those also can be put on a 185, I'm not sure the performance difference wouldn't still remain between the two planes). I live at 7300 MSL so turbocharging or supercharging is probably going to be helpful. I owned a T210 for 14 years and am familiar with the more detailed engine operations needed in turbocharged planes. I've spoken with Forced Aeromotive Technologies based just south of me (belt-driven supercharger) but they told me they can't install their system on a seaplane 185, just a landplane because the hardware installed during the 185 seaplane conversion is in the way of their system under the cowl. I've also spoken with the STC holders for aftermarket turbocharging conversions. If you had to choose between the aftermarket turbo-normalizing systems offered by Metal Innovations, Oregon (about $40K, manual wastegate) or Tornado Alley Turbo, Oklahoma ($45K, automatic wastegate) which would you choose for an IO520 or IO550 powered C185 on amphibious floats and why? Or, if there is another, more suitable option that I'm not considering, please advise. Thanks.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 00:28 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 5982
Post Likes: +651
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185
The modified IO-550 TAT turbo C185 will give you the better performance over a T206. That is the only turbo mod that I would consider on a C185.

However a T206 with stol kit and WingX is not a bad aircraft if well setup and will give you more room inside and easier for loading but will never outperform a C185.



Username Protected wrote:
Question for those of you who own and operate the 185's:
I'm interested in getting into amphibious float flying (for fun, not work) and started my search with a "wide-open" field. I am progressively narrowing down the field and am leaning toward either a C185 or C206 as I want to be able to carry more than two people and still have some cargo room with range and "reasonable" cruise speed. I understand that to make the T206 competitive with a 185 it would need the wing cuff and wing extensions (but since those also can be put on a 185, I'm not sure the performance difference wouldn't still remain between the two planes). I live at 7300 MSL so turbocharging or supercharging is probably going to be helpful. I owned a T210 for 14 years and am familiar with the more detailed engine operations needed in turbocharged planes. I've spoken with Forced Aeromotive Technologies based just south of me (belt-driven supercharger) but they told me they can't install their system on a seaplane 185, just a landplane because the hardware installed during the 185 seaplane conversion is in the way of their system under the cowl. I've also spoken with the STC holders for aftermarket turbocharging conversions. If you had to choose between the aftermarket turbo-normalizing systems offered by Metal Innovations, Oregon (about $40K, manual wastegate) or Tornado Alley Turbo, Oklahoma ($45K, automatic wastegate) which would you choose for an IO520 or IO550 powered C185 on amphibious floats and why? Or, if there is another, more suitable option that I'm not considering, please advise. Thanks.

_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.

Marc Bourdon


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 00:34 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 12/01/13
Posts: 342
Post Likes: +296
Location: Airdrie, AB
Aircraft: Cessna A185F
Agree you need the turbo at your altitude. If it’s just for fun, add no mods without careful thought. Keep it light, light, light. One radio, one transponder.

I like the 185 for the tail wheel challenge. I decided I wanted my tactile skills to be the challenge. Chose the 185 over getting serious about IFR in my T210. Sold the T210. No regrets, other than I wish I could afford a travelling machine on the side.

I have wheels, skis, (not flown yet-next week), straight floats, and amphibious floats to choose from.

You can get a T206 straight off the shelf, but you’ll want a door STC for the right hand side. Egress for your rear seat passengers may be impaired when the flaps are down, as they are for landing, because they interfere with the front right barn door. Drowning risk if you go upside down, all to frequent on amphibs. The 206 has bigger flaps, and a deeper chord wing for more wing area, and a higher gross weight, but still on the same power. I haven’t flown one, but doubt it can outperform the 185.

If you want a turbo in a 185, it’s TAT. After all you’re on the Beechtalk forum. For $5K extra it’ll be worth it. Has no barn doors. Passengers load and egress through the main doors. Narrow cabin. Manual flaps. Cool factor. Some wish for a 206 wing on a 185, but I like the way mine flys, and the shape of it all. Potential for skis. In Wyoming, yes! You did say it was for fun! My airplane with an unmodified wing and Aerocet amphibs is a two plus gear, or three in trunks and bikinis airplane. Not actually that bad for payload, but I’m setting the mood! 1400 lb. useful on wheels, 950 lb. on Aerocets. Would I trade it for a T206? Maybe, but not yet. Still having too much fun.

A 182 like the Boss 182 from Wipline has potential. Not turboed though. Wider cabin, not as heavy as a 206. More windows. Nice enough, but doesn’t have the romance of a true history making bush plane like the Skywagon if you’re trying to make believe you’ve gone back in time and are pioneering the North. (Important to a guy I know all too well).


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 07:28 
Online


 Profile

Joined: 12/12/12
Posts: 142
Post Likes: +145
Company: Go Aviation
Aircraft: E90, PA18, 310, 185
I have a 185 on edo 3500 amphibs, with the metal innovations turbo. I have 960 useful load, with wing x and rstol. It used to live at ktrk and was the only thing other than overpowered Cubs that cold perform at 6-10k altitude. I think the turbo system is decent. The exhaust is a bear and I don’t look forward to any future repairs, the cowl sucks to get on and off. But man is she a BEAST!

_________________
ATP, CFII, MEI, Commercial Rotor/SES, A&P. I like to fly things, sometimes I fix them.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flying the Skywagon
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2020, 09:48 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 3352
Post Likes: +1705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Username Protected wrote:
If you had to choose between the aftermarket turbo-normalizing systems offered by Metal Innovations, Oregon (about $40K, manual wastegate) or Tornado Alley Turbo, Oklahoma ($45K, automatic wastegate) which would you choose for an IO520 or IO550 powered C185 on amphibious floats and why?


Just a question from one of the uninitiated... is there an advantage to having a manual wastegate over an automatic one?


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 362 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 25  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2020

.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Edmonds_85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.jpg.
.airplanesusa-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.New_Horizon_85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.westsky.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.tas-85x50.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.Showalter.jpg.
.ATCO_85x200_2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.aeroturbine-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.Electroair.jpg.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.wildblue-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.metarmap_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.luminary-85x50.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2020-09-17.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jaair-85x100.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.airorlando-85x50.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.Summit_Logo_85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.SCA.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.