Well, I guess an MT prop is out of the question for me . I'm just a poor ole non-government trucker

Scout,

The "deal" that Hartzell offered on their replacement hubs was half price on the hub, but even though my blades were almost new, I'd have to have had the blades shot peened as well, and there is a limit on the number of times you can do that. That would have lowered the overhaul price to NO LESS than $4000, plus shipping, and removal/install, which isn't a small thing. In fact the closest prop shop wanted a good bit more than that. I passed on the "deal" because the buggers had screwed me once before, and because the other alternative to replacing the hub was to complete an eddy current inspection annually or every 100 hours. The prop shop down the road a piece did that for $50. By the time the "deal" became known to me, my prop was already past the "deal" in calendar time.

Then, the prop shop realized that Hartzell had essentially dumped all the liability for those Hartzell hubs on THEM, as in the prop shop. They informed me that they'd do one more eddy current inspection, then I was on my own. I sure can't blame them, either. Why should they take the liability for something that Hartzell built?

And, $15 K is NOT the price on this prop. Maybe for a 182, but not on this one.

My previous Hartzell hub was condemned by the earlier AD. I received the old hub back from the prop shop, and it looked great. Unfortunately, according to the prop shop, and a couple others I talked to, the AD basically condemned any hub of a certain age. So, the point is, it didn't make any difference whether you followed their overhaul schedule or not. To bring up overhaul RECOMMENDATIONS is a red herring, for several reasons. Overhaul schedules are RECOMMENDATIONS for MOST manufacturers. For Hartzell, they seem to be REPLACEMENT schedules, though. The point of an inspection schedule is that the prop comes in, they dissassemble it, look it over and reassemble it. But, what these AD's do is ensure that in ten years or less you're going to REPLACE a BIG, expensive piece of that propeller. Not overhaul it, but replace it. Oh, and they'll give you a heck of a deal on a replacement.

Go for it. I'm hoping you will really like your Hartzell. I'll take much better performance, MUCH lighter weight, no rpm limitations, and no BS Airworthiness Directives, thank you very much. Costs a little more??? Really??? Give me a call in five or six years, when Hartzell issues their next AD on your new hub.

MTV

I bought a 3 blade Hartzell Top Prop for my 206 about 3 months ago. It was in stock at a dealer in Montana. The shop sent in for the STC paperwork, gave Hartzell factory all the numbers from my airplane as well as the prop, factory says yep, it's legal, here is the STC...that will be $500 more please (I have all the documentation from the transaction). So the shop ships the prop to Alaska, mailed the paperwork separately which arrived before the prop. I read it, my airplane is not listed on the STC. I call the prop shop. Prop shop says call so and so at Harzell. I did. Spoke with the ACTUAL person who SIGNED the STC. I explained the situation. She had to call me back. A couple of days later they call. We (Hartzell) made a mistake, can't use that prop on your airplane, it is an extended hub. Then the best part comes..."But, since you are in Alaska, go ahead and put it on and get a Field Approval". A field approval for a prop when there is another model from the same manufacturer that is STC'd already? Not at our FSDO.

So, long story longer, we ship it back to the prop shop, he eats the freight both ways plus the $500 STC charge.

If they can't treat their dealers any better than that, then they do not need my business. I will be getting a 401 McCauley or MT when I have the budget for a new one.

gb

GB
So what your really saying is the prop shop sent you the wrong prop. Then the refugee that signed the stc paperwork that didn't list your plane told you they have another prop that is STC'd but what, you said NO or the prop shop didn't want to send you the correct one.
It seems like there are a lot of license to steal shops out there. I had the big name one out here several years ago tell me my prop was junk needed a new hub and blades $6500. I called BS and sent the parts to the factory it was $1600 or $1800 I cant remember which.
The Top Prop I just bought was on the list of there STCs on the Hartzell web site I have gotten wrong prop parts before from another place so now I am prop shy. I made sure mine was on the list before I called. I then dealt direct with the factory they sent it to the dealer.
Don't get me wrong if I lived in Florida I would use another MT prop. If I was there I would be retired and probably more worried about my golf game than a airplane. Who knows I may get another at some point but I wont let myself be held hostage for long periods of down time right now so the top prop made sense.

Scout I catch your drift on that one and under most conditions I would agree with you. But this time, I have the fax that the shop sent to Hartzell with all the numbers from everything and Hartzell's reply that all was OK to go. The prop was one that had been pulled off after a few hours for a Big Foot conversion (that should have given me the first clue) and had been in stock for a while so he was selling it to me below cost. He could not order the one they were trying to stuff him with for the kind of money he was selling the one he had in stock and I wouldn't expect him to absorb that much of a hit on it...gotta leave a little meat on the bone. I don't mind that Hartzell made a mistake reading their own paperwork, hell I do that all the time! It was their wrong to right as they mistakenly approved the STC before he shipped it to me and should have helped the guy out. And you are absolutely right about the "refugee" term you used for the folks working there.

The biggest mistake I made was not taking him up on the new 401 McCauley that he offered to order me for $9700 bucks to try to make it right. Just didn't have the extra cash to make it happen. So, I still have the old shaky 2 blade Mac on there.

Yes, Florida is a long way away for me for MT service, especially when Dominion up in ANC is an easy ride on AK Air Cargo to work on an aluminum club. Hadn't thought of that.

gb

germans used a laminated wood prop on the fw190 wich had allott more than 180hp!

FYI my aircraft mechanic built a beautiful RV8 with this german 3 blade prop and it performs and looks like a million bucks, unfortunately it has started slinging oil so back to germany and a 4-6 downtime on plane-ouch! I believe the engine is a lycoming 390 hotrod.
gary

I meant a 4-6 week downtime on the previous post-sorry.

I thought I would put in a report on my new MT propeller. My plane is a 1973 Cessna 182, PPONK motor, wing extensions, on Aerocet 3500 straight floats. It came with an 80 inch Mac 401 3 blade prop. I have flown about 70 hours last float season with this prop, and performance was good, however when VERY heavy and hot days, I could use a little water to get airborne. Float flyers here will understand VERY heavy. Anyway, I just got the plane out of annual with a new MT MTV -15-D/210-58 two blade prop, this is 83 inches (210cm). I played with it for about an hour yesterday. One word describes it -WOW! My seat of the pants feel for it is it gets on step in 1/2 the time, water run is 2/3 to 3/4 of what it was with the mac, and climb - incredible. I could hold 1500 fpm at 80 mph indicated at 25 squared, elevation was about 1000 asl, temp 68, wind 10-15mph. I was at about 2800 gross, not HEAVY, but not light. 1500 fpm in a float plane of this size at this weight is impressive. The prop is extremely quiet- and the guys on the ground commented on that first thing - and very smooth. It spins up to 2700 rpm instantly, I suppose because it is so much lighter. Top end speed I would also estimate to be a few mph faster. I was indicating 138 mph at 3000 feet, 22 squared. Also, that 40 pound weight savings on the nose of the plane is very noticeable. I used to run out of trim when landing with just me and full fuel, no longer and issue. Front of the floats also seem to be a little higher out of water due to weight savings - better for prop wear. I am looking forward to getting HEAVY and seeing what it does. Thus far, I am impressed. Russ

Sounds like if you have a 175 with an 0-360 and a constant speed prop you need one of these for the weight savings on the nose.

Tim

I think any plane could benefit from less weight on the nose, got to be better for the crank, the mount, the airframe, everything. Plus in my case I gained 40 pounds useful load over the 3 blade Mac.

Russ, Thanks for the report. I was supposed to pick my new prop up Tues. up in WI but a shipping problem means they will send it to me instead. Sounds like the prop you have also works on my 230 HP 470 K. Should make for easier resale since it works on the bigger engines like yours too.

Rhyppa wrote:I think any plane could benefit from less weight on the nose, got to be better for the crank, the mount, the airframe, everything. ...........

Unless you've got an aft CG issue, then a lighter prop would just exaggerate things. Otherwise I agree.

Marty, I assume you are getting the 83 inch prop - you are going to love it. The first time you cycle the prop you won't believe the instant response. Hotrod -agree on aft CG. Most bigger Cessna's floatplanes with float lockers will easily allow you to put some heavy stuff forward if you need to. On the Aerocet straight floats and long range tanks, its easy to get to forward CG limits without rear seat passengers. I have to believe this prop would be the ticket for amphibs where you are almost always front heavy. The climb rate is just incredible. Never thought I would see 1500 fpm sustained in a Cessan 18- series float plane at 2800 pounds. I suspect I can and will get more performance out of it with a little practice. Also I could leave rpm at redline of 2700 and pull back more if I really needed to clear an obstacle. Going to try that if the weather breaks around here. I'll report back after I fly the plane with a real world load in it.

180Marty, I have the K engine as well and am curious about the MT prop. Please post a pirep when you've flown your new MT prop for a while. Seems like a pretty sweet setup, especially if you also move the battery to the firewall.

180Marty, I have the K engine as well and am curious about the MT prop. Please post a pirep when you've flown your new MT prop for a while.

Will do---Russ' post got me kinda excited.

Rhyppa wrote:I thought I would put in a report on my new MT propeller. My plane is a 1973 Cessna 182, PPONK motor, wing extensions, on Aerocet 3500 straight floats. It came with an 80 inch Mac 401 3 blade prop. I have flown about 70 hours last float season with this prop, and performance was good, however when VERY heavy and hot days, I could use a little water to get airborne. Float flyers here will understand VERY heavy. Anyway, I just got the plane out of annual with a new MT MTV -15-D/210-58 two blade prop, this is 83 inches (210cm). I played with it for about an hour yesterday. One word describes it -WOW! My seat of the pants feel for it is it gets on step in 1/2 the time, water run is 2/3 to 3/4 of what it was with the mac, and climb - incredible. I could hold 1500 fpm at 80 mph indicated at 25 squared, elevation was about 1000 asl, temp 68, wind 10-15mph. I was at about 2800 gross, not HEAVY, but not light. 1500 fpm in a float plane of this size at this weight is impressive. The prop is extremely quiet- and the guys on the ground commented on that first thing - and very smooth. It spins up to 2700 rpm instantly, I suppose because it is so much lighter. Top end speed I would also estimate to be a few mph faster. I was indicating 138 mph at 3000 feet, 22 squared. Also, that 40 pound weight savings on the nose of the plane is very noticeable. I used to run out of trim when landing with just me and full fuel, no longer and issue. Front of the floats also seem to be a little higher out of water due to weight savings - better for prop wear. I am looking forward to getting HEAVY and seeing what it does. Thus far, I am impressed. Russ

Well you've got my attention!!
We've got a 75 185 on edo 2790's right now, and it has the Mac 403 80".
It works supprisingly well, but is right at the forward limit when light, and there is always room for more thrust.
Is there a reason you went with the 2 blade instead of the 3? The numbers show the 3 blade having even more thrust.

I have a setup with a load cell that I hook onto my truck, and the aircraft to show how much pull each plane/prop has.
While I have not done the 185 yet, will try soon, the ones I have done have shown some interesting results, especially composite vs. aluminum.

Two reasons for the two blade. First, I got a heck of a deal. This prop had 75 hours, the blades were damaged when the prior owner tried drive his float plane through a dock. The prop was sitting at the FL center, waiting for new blades. The shop that had converted my plane to a seaplane had bought the prop damaged, apparently at the right price, and I happened to call them about props and they told me of this one they owned. I have new blades, the hub zero timed (no damage was done), and I saved a few thousand bucks over the price of the new 2 blade. Second, I spoke with Larry at Flight Resources and he said my engine was right on the line between 2 and 3, rated at 285 hp. He said I could probably spin either, but said he would go with the 2 blade. I emailed a guy in Alaska who had done extensive testing on his IO-520 powered 185, and the 2 blade MT out performed the 88 inch 3 blade 401 Mac hands down. I figured if this 2 blade could out pull the big 3 blade Mac, it should do the job for me. Seeing how well my motor spins the 2 blade, I feel it would also spin the 3 blade just fine. But the large price savings and I think 15 pound weight difference between the 2 and 3 blade MT were the deciding factor - mainly the $$. Russ

For the 2 vs 3 blade question; first our 2 and 3 blade props use exactly the same blade and exactly same diameter, so with that as a constant, the 3 blade really should have 280 or more HP to work better than the MT 2 blade.

Dominion Propeller in Anchorage is a great prop shop and has just completed the very difficult MT training to be approved to service and overhaul MT props. Just waiting now for FAA approval of application of license.

Here is a couple of YouTube videos I made last week while in Anchorage showing the MT prop with reversing option on a 200hp PA-18. Real fun and good on floats too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2zfnPakVjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYIvOFsGNOY

John

Even though I didn't end up purchase my prop from Larry and John atflight resources because I stumbled across the deal on a used one, they were both extremely helpful with my questions, and I would definitely do business with them. Larry has a 185 that he ran both the 2 and 3 blade on, and he gave me the name of "real world" people to call and ask their unbiased opinion on the prop. I called both of these people, and both loved the prop. Russ