Something new for a 182....

[PilotDAR]

Sometimes flight testing something new is lots of fun!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNKE64Z ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]

[bmc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNKE64Z ... e=youtu.be

Link fixed

[iflyforpie]

Purposes of Beta:

1) To provide reverse thrust to shorten the landing distance.

2) To allow a zero blade angle to enable easy fixed-shaft engine starting and zero thrust when on floats.

3) So you can show the world that your plane can back up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aarkJyi0Ghk

[pelmet]

How do they steer those amphibs. Is it through a link from rudder pedals to nosegears?

Never seen a nicer Seebee than that one. First time I ever saw reverse on a piston was that video.

[PilotDAR]

The 182, like any amphibious floatplane I know of has only castoring nosewheels. These steer very nicely with differential braking only. I have found that the back up trick works better when you enter from a turn, so the nosewheels are already part way around.

The reverse in this plane is not intended for runway operations, and can only be engaged at slower than 35 knots, and 1300 RPM. It is of little use for runway braking. It is, however magnificent for water maneuvering, which is why I recommended it to the owner. It is also available on Lake Amphibians, on which I have demonstrated many times, but this works even better than it does on the Lake.

[Cat Driver]

My first experience flying an airplane with a reversing prop was in 1954.

It was one of the best airplanes I ever flew.

[skymarc]

Is that trough an MT prop?

[PilotDAR]

Yes, it's an MT prop, with a reversing feature added at purchase. The reversing MT propeller has been STC'd on the Lake Amphibian, where I first flew it, and was so impressed. I ordered this one, so as to have the same (though it is actually even more capable) feature for the 182.

I toured the MT factory, and was extremely impressed with the quality and innovation. I will serialize STC this propeller to this plane. Otherwise, the propeller was purchased through Flight Resources, who have STC'd this propeller in its standard (non reversing configuration) to the 550 powered 182, without an RPM limitation (which the MT STC has (2500)). Limiting the RPM kinda takes the ummff out of the bigger engine we just put in for the power!

This aircraft will be exported to Norway, so I will be doing noise testing on it for EASA certification.

And Cat Driver, if you remember the 182 I flew to visit you in 3 1/2 years ago - this it it!

[Cat Driver]

And Cat Driver, if you remember the 182 I flew to visit you in 3 1/2 years ago - this it it!

Yup, sure do.

When are you coming back?

[GyvAir]

It was one of the best airplanes I ever flew.

What was it? Idly inquiring minds want to know..

[Cat Driver]

Republic Sea Bee.

I was fortunate to have flown it for four years for keeping it clean and stuff for the owner. He and I got our PPL at the same time and he bought the Sea Bee and I got lots of time on it.

[ruddersup?]

I considered an MT prop for my amphib because of the light weight but they did not have a long enough 2 blade to match or better what I had, so we had to consider 3 blade with shorter blades. Research told me the performance was not equal to what I had. Also considering the reversing 3 blade indicated no saving in weight so with light useful load on most amphibs I don't see the benefit of the MT. How does the blade hold up on water opertions? Where do you have to send the prop for repairs? What's that reversing prop worth, about $25,000?

[PilotDAR]

We have saved some weight with the three blade MT, though I don't have exact figures. I can get them. The reversing system does not add significant weight. The long two blade prop is not an option for this plane, as it has to go to EASA land, and meet noise limits there. MT has this prop STC'd of the 182, but at a lower RPM than Flight Resources FAA STC. I believe that FLight Resources MT propeller also has different blades than the regular MT propeller.

I find this plane has lots of get up and out, and have had no problem with presentable water takeoffs at its gross weight of 3350 pounds.

The blades have the optional nickel leading edge, so I'm not expecting water erosion to be a worrying point - I'm still careful with it though. The MT blades are more reparable than any other propeller, in that they can splice on a new half blade if need be. I had a factory tour, and was shown the process, and am very impressed. The prop can be repaired at Hope Aero in Toronto, and other shops too, I'm sure.

$25,000 would probably cover it, I don't think ours was that much, but I would have to look back through the paperwork. You can ask MT to quote it - they will know exactly which one you're talking about! That said, it's not STC'd yet, I'm working on a serialized STC for this plane. There will be cost there, which is not quantified yet.

For the value of this plane, on brand net Aerocets, I see reverse as very economical insurance against much more expensive damage. I have never hit anything with a floatplane, but there is always the first time! As I joked with the Transport Canada Test Pilot, who will fly this plane with me, if I went to TC and told them I was going to approve a more than ton and a half aircraft, which had very poor directional control, and even less ability to stop while maneuvering on the surface - would they let me? Why not have reverse?

You pull up to exactly where you want to stop, and select reverse. You sit for a couple of seconds - if you like where you are, you shout down motionless, if not, you pull away in forward, or back away, and make it better. This propeller can also be stopped, so as to start the engine next time in flat pitch, so you can warm up the engine stationary at the dock, then select forward to pull away when you're ready. Though once in forward or reverse, you cannot re-enter flat pitch with the engine running.