Ive been talking to MT Propellers trying to get a constant speed prop for the 0-300. They said that they have a prop but the STC work isnt done. The Mod is about 10,000. The engineer told me that if I could get 10 people that wanted to do the same mod, then they could start the STC work and get it done. I believe that a constant speed prop would be a great asset to the 170's and the older 172's. It would help during high density altitude situations and hopefully, help me get out of remote locations alittle easier. What's your opinions. Is it a waste of time, or do you all have any better suggestions. I know 10,000 is high, but its cheaper than a whole engine conversion and it would help the 0-300 utilize most of the 145 horsepower.
There isn't a prop in the world that will make a silk purse out of a C-145/O-300 in a Cessna C-170/C-172. That engine is just fine for the purpose it was intended. What you want can be found in the installation of a 210 H.P. Continental IO-360 engine and a suitable propeller, and, in my absolutely non humble poinion, in no other way. Ask the guy who has owned one!
HEY BLUELDR>>>!!!!! GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE BACK ON-LINE!!! I was getting concerned that our connection to down-to-earth logic had disappeared on us!
lovetaildraggers wrote:Hello to all,
Ive been talking to MT Propellers trying to get a constant speed prop for the 0-300. They said that they have a prop but .....
How in the heck are they going to obtain a constant-speed prop STC for an engine with NO PROVISIONS FOR A PROP GOVERNOR? (Unless they plan an electric pump...???)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
I had an email exchange a few months back with MT about an electrically controlled constant speed prop for an O-300 as well.The quote I was given was closer to $14,000 including the electronic control unit and no approval.
I wonder how much more they will charge for the STC.
That's a lot of money for a wood bladed propeller that has thrown more blades than the (unfounded) infamous Aeromatic prop which has only two recorded cases of thrown blades. (Lots of broken lag bolts but not thrown blades)
With wood blades, MT should have all the same problems as other wood props. They aren't composite blades. They are thin wood laminate, fiberglass wrapped....the same design as the Aeromatic and an F200 prop can be had new for about $5,000.
lovetaildraggers wrote:Does the Aeromatic prop do what they claim it will do? Does anyone have any experience with one?
The Aeromatic is like a Franklin engine..... great history....great anecdotal/stories.....great expectations...due to unrealistic promises of unfunded dreamers... but...
no production, no true support, just wannabe makers ..with no money, no demand for an obsolete
product, and no airframe makers with any interest, for the same reasons already mentioned.
If you want more performance youre gonna have to pull out your wallet and buy an engine conversion and accept the inherent compromises.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
lovetaildraggers wrote:Does the Aeromatic prop do what they claim it will do? Does anyone have any experience with one?
I am yet to find anyone with direct experience with the propeller that can provide actual performance numbers on the propeller vs a EM7653 for example.
Lots of anecdotal statements that say its not as good this or better than that but no direct comparisons.
Not even from Kent Tarver, current owner of the type certificate seems to have such information.
My only experience with the Aeromatic Prop was on my Stinson L-5G up in Alaska sixty some years ago.
It really did give the airplane a kick in the ass for take off when compared to the stock fixed pitch wooden Sensenich. However, there were other considerations that precluded investing money in one of them. My Aeromatic happened to be one that Sam, my uncle, no longer had a desire to test and ended up in salvage.
Last edited by blueldr on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gahorn wrote:The Aeromatic is like a Franklin engine..... great history....great anecdotal/stories.....great expectations...due to unrealistic promises of unfunded dreamers... but...
no production, no true support, just wannabe makers ..with no money, no demand for an obsolete
product, and no airframe makers with any interest, for the same reasons already mentioned.
Hey George, I took this pic at OSH just for you! "Still beating the odds." I didn't ask them about price and delivery.
P7220176.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The answer they always have is, "Just as soon as we find an investor...."
I could be wrong but when they find him.... he's gonna find his wallet a lot lighter...
....and we'll I'll still be waiting for engines.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
blueldr wrote:There isn't a prop in the world that will make a silk purse out of a C-145/O-300 in a Cessna C-170/C-172. That engine is just fine for the purpose it was intended. What you want can be found in the installation of a 210 H.P. Continental IO-360 engine and a suitable propeller, and, in my absolutely non humble poinion, in no other way. Ask the guy who has owned one!
i agree. but for what it would cost you to repower to a 210hp continental and prop, you buy a nice used 182. and still have your nice litte tail wheel 170.
3454terryg wrote:
... for what it would cost you to repower to a 210hp continental and prop, you buy a nice used 182. and still have your nice litte tail wheel 170.
I have no interest in a more powerful different airplane. Just a more powerful 170.
That and you wont buy much of a 182 for the cost of a motor conversion. You could buy a screamin' RV4 tho.
Sell the 170, put the prop money with the airplane money, and buy a 180!
They will never even try to get an STC for the 170. There just aren't enough airplanes to justify it. For the 172? Maybe, but a helluva lot of them have the "Other" engine now.
blueldr wrote:Sell the 170, put the prop money with the airplane money, and buy a 180!
They will never even try to get an STC for the 170. There just aren't enough airplanes to justify it. For the 172? Maybe, but a helluva lot of them have the "Other" engine now.
I doubt it would ever be MTs top priority to get an STC for our Continental powered 170s but it would not surprise me they include or add our 170 to another STC such as the 172 that does have a larger market. Adding aircraft to an existing STC seems to be easier than getting the original STC approved.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.
(Unless they plan an electric pump...???)
