82" prop on M-4220C

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:53 am

I think, no I'm pretty sure there is now an STC for a prop for the 220. I believe it's just been approved.

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:13 pm

chetharris · Post by **chetharris** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:31 pm

What is the complete model on that prop?Did you start the process by contacting the FAA, or did you buy the prop and go? I think a field approved prop is in my future, if I can come up with a continental io-360 for my m-5. Just want to stay on top of my prop options.

How do you like the more aggressive prop. If nothing else, you can wear thos blades down for years and still have a longer prop than the original.

Chet

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:06 am

chetharris · Post by **chetharris** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:42 pm

Right now I am in need of a new engine --my prop is serviceable. Still, a Mccauley prop is in my future. I have been looking, and though they have put some of the new threadless props on io-360 s, there is no stc for a new prop on the Maule. No stc and McCauley says they are not aware of any field approvals for the io-360 Maule combination.

My current McCauley prop is only approved at 74", but they have put the new 78" props on other io-360 s, so that is what I will try when the time comes.

I am glad to hear you have increased performance. I am glad the 337 went well. As for trimming, I know nothing about trimming or files or gravel or.... Do you worry about ground clearance on the new longer prop? One last thing, please excuse my ignorance, what does c.a.r. stand for.
Chet

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:40 am

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:24 am

Maulewaco,
Would you tell us more about the differences between the two props?
And how it has effected fuel burn?
My prop is going to be replaced shortly and I think a larger diameter one would serve me well. MAYBE!!! If anyone knows how diameter effects high altitude performance, I would like to know

Thanks
David

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:57 pm

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:41 pm

I don't understand how all is better except a decrease on the cruise speed??
I have a 77' prop (2 blade) and burn about 11.5 gph at 115 kts (indicated). This does vary, but my averages are close to 11.5 (overall).
Gallon for Gallon, mph for mph I think you would make mine look bad.
I want better cruise, I have no need to climb better.

MauleWacko · Post by **MauleWacko** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:49 pm

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:47 pm

When I say better cruise, I mean, I would like to get my fuel burn down for the speed I crusie at.
I have a cross country plane, but I take my Maule on long distant trips into area's that you cannot take most aircraft and fuel is hard to find.
Much of this is confusing, I was told if I put for example a tree blade on the Maule I would loose cruise performance, however I attached a 4 blade MT on my cross country bird and I lost a little on the top end , but my fuel burn at crusie went up and now I am burning betwenn 1.5 to 2.5 gph less than any other like bird's.
Has anyone writtin a book "idiot's guide to prop's" ?? This is an area that I have little knowledge.

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:40 am

a64pilot wrote:I think, no I'm pretty sure there is now an STC for a prop for the 220. I believe it's just been approved.

Let me correct myself, The STC is for a 210 Cont., not the 220 Franklin. It's just been approved very recently.
Contact David Wright in Moultrie Ga. at (229) 324-3163 if your interested. He is the STC holder.

82" prop on M-4220C

82" prop on M-4220C

C201

Prop

Who is online