3 blade prop upgrades

[Ccagle]

Looking for experienced folks to provide feedback on a 3-blade prop upgrade. Based on what I’ve read, price, and delivery - the Mac seems to be the leader. Curious to hear real experiences and temper expectations before spending that kind of money. Thanks. 78 R182

[scottrsellers]

Our 1978 R182 is running a Hartzell HC-C3YR-1RF 3 blade on a IO-540-K1G5 Air Plains conversion and seems to be doing alright. At annual we pump in a few squeezes of white lithium grease on the 3 locations on the hub with no leakage viewable yet. It was 0 time overhauled in May of 2021 with about 375hrs on it since. Before that it was new in 2003 at time of engine conversion and ran about 1500hrs til May 2021.
When you say Mac presumably you mean McCauley? We had excellent results with McCauleys on our straight leg 182 and Cardinal.
You might also investigate MT propeller's composite options. Have heard R182 owners area pleased with MT as well.

[TajMahal]

I'm running the same 3-blade Hartzell as Scott on my '80 TR with the F8068 blades, now at 222 hours since new 3 years ago by the prior owner. A bit heavier than the 2-blade, but smooth running, strong climb and maintenance free so far. Can't compare cruise performance vs the 2 blade since it was installed before I got it, but I'm consistently seeing at or better than book speeds at altitude/gross weight/temp combos, FWIW. Only downside I can see (aside from cost) is the extra weight penalty out front. MT offers their MTV-9-B/200-52 prop for the TR182's, but interestingly that STC doesn't specify R182's, so ??? It's 64.6 lbs compared to the 85 lbs of the Hartzell, a good 15 lbs lighter weight that far forward.

[scottrsellers]

For a comparison of McCauley vs. Hartzell check out Propeller Ground Ops - Best Practice for Cycling at viewtopic.php?t=289
The McCauley design hub design looks simpler to me and we found it to be low maintenance as well.

[wlloyd03]

I upgraded from a MAC 2 blade to a MT 3 blade in 2023. The engine and prop combination were dynamically balanced. The MT improved the climb rate and did not negatively impact the cruise performance. The aircraft did require a bit more power during the flare to provide a smooth touchdown sequence. There is far less vibration in the cockpit with the MT 3B vice the MAC 2B. This makes quite a difference on trips longer than 3 hours in the cockpit.

[Ccagle]

Thanks for the input. FWIW - MT requires field approval and there are no MT 3 blades stateside for the r182. Will have to come from Germany with unknown tariff implications.