Backcountry Pilot

[Barnstormer offline]

Out working on the A185F this morning and noticed a red-dye oil on the windscreen. Guess I'm not quite done with forward of the firewall like I'd hoped.

Currently running an 86" Mac 2 blade which is headed to the prop shop in the morning. Naturally this got me looking, reading, and talking to PPonk and MT about new propellors.

Anyone have any experience with the MT 2 blade prop vs a MT 3 blade on a 300hp 185?i

[180Marty offline]

I thought when you got up to 300 hp that a three blade was the only option.

[Scouter offline]

JIm Strange in Maine is running 3 blade MT on his 206 I know he did a lot of research before pulling the trigger. Great guy and a straight shooter
Jim

http://www.katahdinair.com/

[aktahoe1 offline]

No disrespect but that's not worth deliberating over....3 blade MT all the way for that aircraft.

Call Neilson @ flight resources. He is a straight shooter.

Akt

[mtv offline]

I wouldn't consider anything but a three blade prop on a 185. Don't listen to the fans of two bladed props on these airplanes....they just haven't flown one with a MODERN three bladed prop yet.

MTV

[Skywagon550 offline]

I'm running the 88"Mac 401 3 blade on my '79 185 and it pulls nicely. But it's obnoxiously loud, even at a redline of 2700 with the IO550. I'll takeoff at 2500 and it'll still rattle the bolts out of hangars. Wouldn't mind being a little more aviation friendly, if you know what I mean. I'm really curious about the performance and noise change with the new MT 3 blades. What is the cost, etc?

[GumpAir offline]

I wouldn't consider anything but a three blade prop on a 185. Don't listen to the fans of two bladed props on these airplanes....they just haven't flown one with a MODERN three bladed prop yet.

MTV

Yeah, what he said!

Gump

[JamieG offline]

Except MT claim on their website the 2 blade is 5 knots faster on the 185, so if speed is your priority the 2 blade might be the one.
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna185.pdf
JG

[skywagon guy offline]

I have three friends that are using the MT-3 blade. Two are 550 powered and the other the 520. They all love the prop. I've had the Mac 401-3 blade on my 520 185 since 1998 and like it. I like the airplane noise at 2850. If you don't like that much noise, pull it back on take off. The Mac-3 blade pulls best around 2725-2750. The tests that have been ran show the MT-3 blade coming out a little ahead of the Mac-3 blade. No one can say for sure how long the life is on the MT, time will tell.
Ron

[aktahoe1 offline]

The MT pulls at 2500 what the Mac pulls at 2750. Not to mention you get rid of the 30lb dumbbell out on the front. I could not be happier with my MT. Just over 50 hours on the new MT and it looks brand new. Have flown in the rain and its seen a lot of snow.

AKT

[mtv offline]

Except MT claim on their website the 2 blade is 5 knots faster on the 185, so if speed is your priority the 2 blade might be the one.
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna185.pdf
JG

If you want to go fast, buy a 210 or a Mooney.

Drop the boat anchor off the nose. Three blade props are soooo much smoother and quieter....no brainer to me.

MTV

[Rob offline]

No disrespect but that's not worth deliberating over....3 blade MT all the way for that aircraft.

Call Neilson @ flight resources. He is a straight shooter.

Akt

John Neison IS a straight shooter, but in your position I would skip him and go right to Larry (The owner). Larry has 2 C185's and has run both 2 and 3 blades on them extensively. Last time I talked to him he was selling off the 2 blade, as all testing for him had ran it's course. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what does?

Except MT claim on their website the 2 blade is 5 knots faster on the 185, so if speed is your priority the 2 blade might be the one.
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna185.pdf
JG

This was not my experience by a long shot, although I believe these airplanes are so individualistic it's going to vary by the specific airframe. My experience was that you didn't even need to hit the 300 hp 'threshold' before the 2 blade just wasn't enough prop. Not saying that all 2 bladed props would be the same, but for my combo, the current MT 2 paddle offering just wasn't enough... and I ran them long and hard for good averages of speed, climb, fuel burn etc... ;




Take care, Rob

[Barnstormer offline]

Fantastic info guys, many thanks. Time to set aside $15k. Assuming nothing major with the prop at the shop that one will go back on first. I'll be sure and document (unscientifically) it's performance.

Then once I've got the 3 blade I'll do the same with it and report back.

[Oldcrowe offline]

I'm at the same decision point. IO-520 in a 180 swinging the Big Mac (88"-3 blade) and boy does it go when it's all in but man is it LOUD. Being mostly a XC traveler in this plane, at this point, I'm looking pretty hard at the MT for noise, speed (just don't want to go slower), and mostly for CG benifit. Had a great discussion and the suggestion was made to order a 2 blade to try and if it didn't pull like I could then return the hub within 30 days for exchange and order a third blade. Just saving up at this point but I really like how smooth a 3 blade is and looking for a buyer for the Mac with about 800 hours on it.

[mtv offline]

Both John and Larry at Flight Resource are great guys and will work with you, as in bend over backwards to make sure you're happy with your prop. There was a period of time several years ago when some props were exhibiting some minor surface cracking in the paint. If an owner wanted that fixed, MT fixed it, no charge.

Good companies, BOTH...MT and Flight Resource.

MTV

[motoadve offline]

Wouldnt the 2 blade MT have more braking effect when full pitch for landing because of the larger diameter than the 3 blade?
I know the 3 blade looks cooler, and its quieter, but I wouldnt change my 2 blade MT, love the braking power when full pitch and can make you do very steep approaches at slow speed, its awesome.
My MT has more than 200hrs now and seen dirt, mud, grass, and gravel and so far its been great (knock on wood) and its on a 182 which is clores to the ground than a tailwheel.
Although no off airport landings, which are not allowed in Costa Rica

[Rob offline]

Wouldnt the 2 blade MT have more braking effect when full pitch for landing because of the larger diameter than the 3 blade?
I know the 3 blade looks cooler, and its quieter, but I wouldnt change my 2 blade MT, love the braking power when full pitch and can make you do very steep approaches at slow speed, its awesome.
My MT has more than 200hrs now and seen dirt, mud, grass, and gravel and so far its been great (knock on wood) and its on a 182 which is clores to the ground than a tailwheel.
Although no off airport landings, which are not allowed in Costa Rica

Negative.... The 3blade MT for the C185, or Pponk'd C180 is the same length, in fact the same blades as the 2 blade. Not only does it pull better on the bigger engines, it brakes better

Take care, Rob

[motoadve offline]

Wow that's a nice prop then

[wagonflyer offline]

Let's talk engine mounts. I've got a '74 with the factory seaplane mount and the 88" McCauley 2-blade.

Will an MT 3-blade bolt on without any consideration for a new engine mount? Pros/cons on the factory mount versus a Seaplanes West or alternative?