Greetings all,

I'm curious to receive any feedback from folks that have had experience changing to a MT Prop on a Cessna 180/82. My airplane is a 76' 182Q with a new O-470TS, and it's something that I'm considering in the future.

I've set my airplane up for speed (252HP, Powerflow, Surefly, All the Knots 2U fairings), so the 2-blade for speed is appealing, but I like the look of the 3-blade and think the improvement in runway performance and climb would be great too. The increased performance is exciting, but the reduction in vibration and noise is also a big part of my interest.

Looking forward to hearing any feedback.

Regards,
Erick

Do you do your own oil changes etc? If so, think about removing the cowl with a 2 blade vice with a 3 blade.

Really, on a 182 the trade off is speed vice acceleration, cowl removal ease/difficulty and, of most importance to me, weight. Nose weight on a 182 matters, the 10 lbs+ that a 2 blade MT saves matters.

RAS

PS, save the folks that have had maintenance issues, the folks I know who have MT props love them, quieter/smoother.

I had a 182P that I had overhauled at P.Ponk. Originally had a Hartzell Scimitar 3 blade prop. I switched to a 2 blade MT prop. I was very happy with the weight reduction especially because the 182 can be nose heavy. The 3 blade vs 2 blade debate has been going on for as long as I have been reading airplane forums. My observation is most respondents favor the 3 blade. I prefer the 2 blade. I never had any concern with takeoff distance or rate of climb in a 182 let alone a 182 with a 520 upgrade.

A subsequent 182P I had came with an AirPlains IO520 with a Hartzell 3 blade prop. I switched that to a 3 blade MT prop and flew with that for a while. Ultimately I swapped that to a 2 blade MT prop. The 2 blade is a bit faster, a bit lighter and easier to ship. Looks are obviously a personal preference. I think the 2 blade looks lighter and faster. The majority of time it's spinning when its in my field of view and I have a hard time counting the number of blades.

My 180 is P-Ponked, with a McCauley 3-blade that has given excellent service. I chose three blades because: 1.- I like the look, and 2.- I needed it to fly out of my ranch, where the main house is in a deep, narrow river valley that required the best ROC on departure.
I am no longer involved in the cattle business; most of my flying is into more civilized airstrips, such as Johnson Creek, or more distant destinations.
I have been considering the 2-blade MT, as well as Titanium landing gear, in an attempt to gain a bit of speed and efficiency.
I am also going to install the Javelin 18-gallon fuel tank in the baggage hold, so I have to do all the W&B calculations to be sure I don't fall off the aft limits.
More on this as it develops.

TN

Beautiful airplane.. interested to see how it goes..!

Looking at your other aircraft types.. I used to teach aerobatics in Dallas in a Great Lakes, what a jem of an airplane.. loved it to death. And the BE58.. my wife wants our 182 to turn into that sometime in the future.. sounds like we should have a few beers!

Absolutely on the brews!
The 182 is one of the best general aviation values in existence.
All you have to do on the day of a good cross country with a 600 miles range is leave one hour earlier. (Not a good theme to be brought up with the wives).
And, excuse the thread drift, but agree that the Great Lakes is the best biplane value around. (But I am biased).

TN

You're right, and we're blessed and love ours. It's been a great airplane for us. I've tried to close the gap a little on time by speeding my aircraft up.. I cruise pretty comfortable at 155KTAS, and am adding the cowling kit and thinking about the prop for the future. My hope is that I end up with a 182 that will hang between 155-160 KTAS..

Your GL is beautiful. The one that I flew was white and red, but I sure like the look of the red/blue..

The difference in acceleration between a 2 blade and a 3 blade in sub-300 HP planes is barely noticeable to the average pilot. The same for climb rate. Your best option would be a Hartzell 2 blade composite, if it's available for your engine & airframe combination.

I would avoid an MT prop for a multitude of reasons.

[quote="Glenn Jube“
The difference in acceleration between a 2 blade and a 3 blade in sub-300 HP planes is barely noticeable to the average pilot. The same for climb rate. Your best option would be a Hartzell 2 blade composite, if it's available for your engine & airframe combination.

I would avoid an MT prop for a multitude of reasons.[/quote]

That’s interesting. It seems the opinions on the MT Ultra etc vs Trailblazer is a real Ford/Chevy kinda thing. Seems they are both really good props. Can you elaborate a bit on what you’ve seen in the 2 Bladers? I’ve been warned to stay away from the big 5 & 7 blade MT’s for my Mitsubishi, but I haven’t heard many bad things on the 210 and 205cm props.
I just arranged to have my 210cm MT overhauled in 3 weeks. It is 12 years old and has seen its share of abuse on my 180hp Husky as I use the Husky mostly for off-airport fun and ski flying. I have the old SS leading edge which isn’t as strong as the nickel edge the props come with now. But I’ve been able to do minor repairs with JB Weld as per the manual and it’s been maintenance free (other than filling dents from rocks) for the entire time. I’m just sending it in because it’s past time.
The performance difference compared to the standard prop was unbelievable. Like a different plane! But I suspect the Trailblazer would perform equally well compared to the old metal OEM prop.

Thank you, Mr Juber, for your advice.

Tom

Morning Glenn,

Thanks for the reply- and I'm all ears, I'd love to hear about your experience(s) to make the best decision. I know a few people who have had some serious service heartburn with MT in the aerobatic world, I think one was even in a lawsuit.. so my gut tells me your pointing towards the service aspect? I'm here to learn as much as I can so let me know your thoughts. I've personally spent a lot of time behind MT's in various high perf aerobatic aircraft; and have had an overall positive experience.

-Erick

Is yours a 76 or a q?
77 was the first q

I have run both the 2 blade and the 3 blade MT's, and the Trailblazer Hartzell, on my 182, it has an IO-550 in it with a seaplane mount.

The 2 blade is a no go due to vibration WHEN compared to the 3 blade MT. Just no way I would take the knot to two in speed increase on the 2 blade when you compare how incredibly smooth the 3 blade it. I have flow the 3 blade on a Bonanza also and it is very impressive also.

John at MT/McFarlane Aviation is the nicest guy in aviation to deal with also. You want a prop tomorrow, he could probably deliver, they keep an impressive inventory at all times.

You will not be disappointed.

Bill

This is our 182 with an MT three blade prop. After 11 years in service, I wouldn't change a thing. I like it so much that I have another one, in my basement, for my RV-14.

.

Tom,

My “Q” was on one of the first production runs in late December of 1976, it came off the line the week between Christmas and New Years. It was built as a Q but a few snuck in just prior to 1977.