86" Mc 401 prop with 6:00 x 6 tires nose gear

[skykank]

Hi :

Just looking for some advice here, I 'm making the Pponk conversion (275hp) on my 182E, I'll also put the airglass nose wheel fork STC and will use 6:00 x 6 tires in the nose gear, with this size of tires, is there enough prop clearence for a 86" Mc 401 tri blade?? I ll use the plane as a jump plane so climb rate for me is the most inportant factor, and all the runways that we will be using are paved .
If any one run the same set up would like to hear from.

Thanks a lot for the help.

[mtv]

More to the point, is that prop approved on that airplane? Check the stc. I doubt you'll have enough clearance anyway.
MTV

[skykank]

More to the point, is that prop approved on that airplane? Check the stc. I doubt you'll have enough clearance anyway.
MTV

Yes the 86" is approved for the 182 PPonk conversion.
If anyone else have any info about this set up I would appreciate.

Thanks

[aktahoe1]

Pavement only? And weight is a concern? Go MT! Otherwise I would say MAC

I have done A LOT of research on this very topic. Personally I am going with the 86" Mac (FOR MY NEEDS ONLY). If my needs were what your needs sound like, it would be the MT.

Check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lumj1RV5gV8

Not that this means much because every TO and LNDing is different but, this at least gives you an idea of the of the very small difference. Weight for you on the nose is not necessarily a concern considering your load in back but...

Good luck

[skykank]

Thanks for the reply aktahoe1, but my main concern is the Prop clearence here, if the 6x6:00 tire on the nose wheel is enough for the Mc 401c 86" (landing only on pavement), I already emailed Steve Knopp at Pponk I ll let you guys know what was his aswer, but if anyone else knows anything about this set up please give me some info ok.

Thanks a lot for the help !!!

[rfinkle]

The current Airglass stc calls for same size tires all the way around. Are you planning on keeping 6x6 on the mains?

[skykank]

Yes , will keep 6X6:00 all around, less drag to get a better climb performance.
Thanks for the infos guys, but found a thread at dropzone.com and there's a guy who has a 182 with a 86" Mc and 6X6:00 tires on the nose gear , and works pretty good, lots of prop clearence.

[skydivemd]

Hi, I would be very interested in hearing what steve knopp had to say about the larger prop? I have a 1975 P model that we are doing a 550 conversion on and I'd really like to do the airglas fork so I can add the Mac 401 prop. I saw the thread on DZ.com, but that guy was flying a 1956 182. A '56 182 sits significantly higher than the later "wide bodies". As much as I want the improved performance the larger 401 prop would give, I don't want to risk a prop strike on a $50,000 engine.

[SixTwoLeemer]

Yes the "Mc 401 Tri Blade" as you call it will fit but you will have to define "enough room"-

If your strut is properly serviced and your tires are properly serviced and your pilot is aware that his E model Skylane has the heavier wide body and smaller tail feathers which make the flare slightly more difficult and now has a heavier engine that will make the flare slightly more difficult and now has a heavier prop that will make the flare slightly more difficult and when he drops his cargo and has nothing in back and a pilot up front which will make the flare slightly more difficult........he shouldn't have any problems

[maules.com]

Prop clearance requirement is with nose strut fully deflected downward and nose wheel tyre deflated, 9 inch clearance.
This was what was needed by FAA for STC in 1990 anyway.
Noise was measured 8200 ft from brake release useing VY climb rate.

[skykank]

I will try to reach Steve Knopp tomorrow , and I soon as I have his point of view about this , I will post here.