bigmal wrote:Thanks for the replys. I am still shopping but it seems there are more 180 fixed pitch airplanes available than the constant speed. I have flown a 235 Maule with the constant speed but I have not flown a 180. I have flown an RV-9 with a fixed pitch but I guess that would be comparing apples to oranges. I know the constant speed has many advantages but as I said, I did not want to pass up a nice Maule 180 only because it had a fixed pitch prop. Thanks again.
I just noticed that you are at Lebanon...have we met? There are not many pilots out there that I have not met. There is another fellow named Ralph Mallicoat that is based out there as well, he had a very nice looking Maule but I think he just sold it. He did not seem to fly it very often...I would have liked to have done some formation and photo flights with him.
I fly ours at least once a week if not more and it is a MX7-180B with the constant speed prop on it. Give me a shout sometime, I'll be glad to give you a ride so you can find out what the constant speed prop is like.
-Chris
"To most people, the sky is the limit. To a pilot, the sky is home."
Still a bit cloudy when it comes to aviation insurance? Find some clarity: Clear on Top
Ernie wrote:The question to me would be, is the small performance gain worth the additional maintenance cost associated with a CS prop vs. a fixed pitch.
I think you would have to consider the fuel burn difference between them as well in order to determine which would cost you more over time. If you had a fixed cruise prop it would probably comparable to a contant speed prop concerning fuel burn on cross country trips. If you have a climb prop or sea plane prop I would be the fuel burn will be quite different on a cross country. With fuel prices these days, the constant speed prop might add up to worthy savings over a TBO period.
I would think that using the correct pitch setting for the applicable need is always more efficient than a one setting fits all setup.
I do not have any facts on that theory, but I would be willing to bet on it.
"To most people, the sky is the limit. To a pilot, the sky is home."
Still a bit cloudy when it comes to aviation insurance? Find some clarity: Clear on Top
Ernie wrote:The question to me would be, is the small performance gain worth the additional maintenance cost associated with a CS prop vs. a fixed pitch.
That's just it, I don't think it is a small gain.
Now some airplanes that are light and high powered, some RV's come immedately to mind, they do better with a fixed pitch prop because of the weight. Some airplanes, little low powered ones, C-140, Luscombes, etc. do better again because of the weight. But a 180 hp. 2500 lb airplane, I think falls right in the middle. I bet a 180 needs a constant speed more than a 235 or 260. A 260 may have enough power to get good T/O and climb out of a cruise prop.
Is there any engineering data on the climb performance and cruise performance difference for a constant speed prop vs. a fixed pitch prop for a Maule 180hp? I have a 1986 MX-7-180 with a constant speed prop. I've never flown a Maule with a fixed pitch prop. My constant speed prop seems to be very efficient in cruise flight, which is important to me because of the soaring price of fuel. Having no experience with a fixed pitch prop Maule, I don't know how much climb performance improvement you get on takeoff with the constant speed prop. It would be good to have some objective data on this, but I'm of the "every little bit helps" school of thought, so I prefer the constant speed prop.
I fly the fixed pitch. If I bought new, I would have probably gone with the CS prop, but I have been happy with the FP. In low altitude cruise at 2500 I get 130 mph indicated, in econo cruise at 2450, I get 125 mph and burn 8.5 gph. Under light loading conditions, full tanks and solo I can hold 1200 fpm at climbout. I am quite conservative on off airport landings and like 1000 ft, there are a few places I go that are 800 or so with no obstructions.
This plane works well for my purposes, so I see no point in an expensive upgrade. I would however, like to fly a CS 180 and experience the actual difference.
I have the FP 180 ad I love it...... there are times I wish I had the Cruse and Climb but for what I doo in the local area I don't need the speed so much, if I were doin more Cross country (long) flights I would have to throw my cruse prop back on and go but that limits the places that I would stop to play if they were short. Now that I have more time PIC I am going to go back to the cruse prop and see what differences there are in the performance. I think the CS prop is alot more versitile and would like to see the difference with 2 180 hp Maules side by side I am sure there is going to be some there but it would be interesting to realy dig and see all the points.
I think it depends on what you're mostly flying. I have a field approved longer fixed pitch, climb prop, and love it, but it is somewhat lacking in cruz performance. On floats which is where most of my hours are spent, it would be hard to beat, my cruz on floats is near as fast as other similar 180HP C/S airplanes at similar gross weights and load carrying ability is definitely better, operational costs are cheaper, short field performance is awsome on wheels / skis, and it's less weight to carry around. However cruz is probably 25-35 MPH slower then the C/S on wheels? I would like to have a longer C/S, but have the solid crank engine so no choice for me. All things being equal on wheels, I think the C/S is probably the best comprimize between short field performance and cruz performance and probably hard to beat.
Up to 200hp there is little performance difference between FP and CS.
Beyond that and a FP prop starts to struggle to deliver as well as a CS prop.
I think it is more down to what the individual aeroplane has to offer rather than just the difference between FP/CS that would sway me if I was in the market for a 180 Maule.
Other than at the time of replacement/overhaul there is little difference in running cost between the two.
Ralph,
There is a bunch of A.D's on the hubs of Hartzell props, some of which were used on Maules. Just went through this on my '85 180C. Prop went in for an grease seal nuisance leak, AD was issued a week before I sent the unit out. Now the fun part. New design hubs which must be installed per AD are six months backorderd from Hartzell, (just snuck in under the 50% off price deadline, whoopie)
sooo...fix the prop/overhaul with eddy current/dye penatrant, order new hub, wait six to eight months, pull prop, do overhaul with new hub, re-install. Two off and ons, two overhauls...etc. Total cost not known yet as the new hub is "scheduled" for August!!
The old fixed stick is looking better all the time!
Only speaking for myself, I use my CS on virtually every flight. I find it lowers the noise, gives a little better cruise speed, and saves gas. It is also used to slow me down when approaching a field. As most of my flying is off of 2 - 3,000 ft turf fields, it gives me that added ability to jump off the ground a bit better.
I specifically sought out a 180 with a CS when I was looking to buy a couple of years ago.
Yes, I had to comply with the A.D. but that's life! It was no big deal and was done in a couple of days.
