john54724 wrote:The 83" 2-blade 'Expedition Series" composite prop from MT performs equal to the 88" mac at 46lbs, no AD's erosion or life limits. About $15K.
https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/media ... asheet.pdf

Cheers,
John

That 83" prop is not going to make the same music as a 88" Mac turned up to 2700

john54724 wrote:The 83" 2-blade 'Expedition Series" composite prop from MT performs equal to the 88" mac at 46lbs, no AD's erosion or life limits. About $15K.
https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/media ... asheet.pdf

When I was looking for a seaplane prop about 5-1/2 years ago,
a new 88" Mac C203 was going for about $8500 including spinner assembly.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're up to about $10K now.
Not cheap, but only 2/3 the price you cite for a 2 blade MT.

BTW John, I got a quote for a 2 blade MT from you back then--
I think it was about $12K or a bit more for the prop, plus crating & shipping.
So, bottom line, it would been somewhere not too far south of $13K--
again, pretty much 50% more than a comparable Mac.

I think a lot more people would be considering an MT if the price point wasn't so much higher than a Mac.
Do they really cost that much more to manufacture? is the exchange rate really unfavorable?
Is there a big shipping and/or duty bill for a german-made prop? Or is it some combination of these?

Hotrod, doesn't the MT just "look" like it is worth more? Ha Ha

Oh yeah, it looks pretty cool!
Another skywagon guy I know installed an MT on his airplane a few years ago,
when I asked him about it he said "it looks cool doesn't it?".
But he ended up telling me that he didn't think it was really much of an improvement over his old Mac.
FWIW he's running a Hartzell Voyager now, which he really likes.

[/quote]FWIW he's running a Hartzell Voyager now, which he really likes.[/quote]
Yeah, Brian at Adventure Seaplanes put a 550 and Voyager on his 185. I was going to go up to Tower MN and fly it but didn't . I don't think I have enough power but the Alaska sweepstakes 180 from last Spring had the high compression O-520 and they got approval to install Voyager.

The Mac you have is the best 2-blade prop we test and develop against. It took a lot of design work to be able to get improved performance from our 83" 2-blade Expedition Series composite prop. Each MT prop is essentially hand made with a lot of labor and expensive machines used to cut the shape. The solid billet of Alcoa aluminum that is used to make each hub is much more $$ than stamping out and bolting together 2-piece hubs...but the advantage is no fatigue and ability to be rebuilt to new specs at each O/H. Those Nickel-Cobalt leading edges are electro formed...not stamped so they can be thick at the apex and razor thin where the trailing edge ends. The Mac 3B Composite that never made it to market was nearly $30K. The Hartzell 3-blade composite prop used on the SR22 is $34K...so MT is actually lower cost for the composite prop world. The factory has sold out of 100% of production capacity each year by July for the last ten years in spite of two new mfrg buildings and many more staff hired.

Call me with any questions anytime.

Thank you for your support.
John

BirdyinBOI wrote:I need an opinion...(well, we all know what those are like!). However...

I have a grease filled prop on my 182. It’s a 2A34C203-B. It’s been on the plane for 20 years but only has about 300 hrs on it, the prop shop (Precision Propeller) wants $2000 to rebuild it. $1000 for the general refurbish and $1000 more because they have to convert it from grease to oil. It’s got a 1000 hr TBO. It doesn’t throw any grease out. My mechanic says to just fly it and not worry about it. (Part 91 only) The blade model is G-90DCA-8...or is that supposed to be an “X”at the end? I saw the X suffix in this thread but mine could be an X that was written incorrectly as an 8. I don’t know. From the blade number above, does that indicate it’s a 90” prop.

I think for that kind of money (cheap) I would definitely have this done. Piece of mind and if there is something actually wrong it will be discovered possibly saving your life. Prop failures, although rare are really really bad.

Kurt

The 90 is the basic blade length (diameter of the prop in inches) and the -8 is minus 8 inches off the basic which makes it a 82 inch prop.
For what it is worth that is the prop diameter for a 182 or a 180 land plane. The sea plane 180 with engines other than the "U" are -2 88 inch props and the "U" which is 2400 rpm instead of 2600 rpm uses the full 90. When the blade length is not known or specified they replace the -number with a -X for unknown. Hope this helps.

Tim

Resurrecting an old thread since my C66 seems to have reached end of life. The prop shop is trying to find the ferrules to rebuild it but is coming up short.

Instead, I'm leaning towards a C203. Has anyone swapped between the two and know if the spinner, back plate and governor are compatible? I started digging through data to match up part numbers but figured someone on here has already gone thru the process.

You should check the C180 TCDS #5A6

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... Rev_68.pdf

Checking the props approved for the early 180,
looks like the governors that are listed for the C66 are also listed for the C203.
What governor do you have now?