Hoeschen wrote:My 1956 O-470 L says to reduce power to 23" after takeoff, but I hear about folks running 24" all the time. Is that OK, or is that for certain model engines?

The highest setting on the pwer chart in the 1957 C180 POH is 23" / 2450, but I seem to recall 24" / 2450 was mentioned in the text. Don't have it here at home but I'll try to remember to check it later today at the airport.

bigrenna wrote: Yes its expensive, but not sure how your comment answers his question as there is no comparison between the 88" and the MT. I have 350+ hrs now behind the MT and would do it again in a heartbeat.

The OP asked for opinions on the MT prop, and I posted mine. Would you like me to delete it?

Wow! Reading these comments from experienced users makes us feel like proud parents of kids that are always doing the right things and making folks feel good. Thank you VERY much to you all.

Best regards,

John & Larry

We have a MT on the Super-D that we used to use for flight training. As others mentioned it tends to hunt at max RPM. At about 300 hrs since new it began slinging grease and developed a bit of play in one of the blades. The prop shop replaced a broken spring, some seals, and bearings.

About 350hrs later a renter got the prop tips into the runway. When the prop shop disassembled it, they found issues not related to the prop strike. IIRC they found some excessive wear in the hub. They packed the whole thing up and sent it to Germany, which added ~$950 in shipping charges to the bill. They ended up selling us a replacement overhauled hub. This process took >6 months.

It does perform significantly better than other props I've flown behind on Super-D's. I'm guessing there was something wrong with that hub from the beginning that was the cause of these issues. Most people seem pleased with their MT props, so this one was just probably one that slipped trough QA.

Want to add.
I have had mine for close to 1,000 hrs.
Flying out of gravel, grass, mud and sand.
The leading edge has been doing its work, only a couple of tiny dents, it is very strong.

hotrod180 wrote:

Hoeschen wrote:My 1956 O-470 L says to reduce power to 23" after takeoff, but I hear about folks running 24" all the time. Is that OK, or is that for certain model engines?

The highest setting on the pwer chart in the 1957 C180 POH is 23" / 2450, but I seem to recall 24" / 2450 was mentioned in the text. Don't have it here at home but I'll try to remember to check it later today at the airport.

The POH for the 1953 C180 (which was equipped with an O-470A engine) says "maximum power setting for cruising is 24 inches of manifold pressure at 2450 rpm". It also says climb out at 100-120 mph at 25" / 2450.

The POH for the 1957 C180 (which had the O470K engine) says maximum cruise power is 23" / 2450. And to climb out at 100-120 mph at 23"/2450.

I know people who like 24 squared if they're in a hurry. I like 21"/2300, feels good and clips along at 135-140 mph burning around 11 or 12 gph.

Every time this comes up you guys jump on anyone with negative input. Doubt you'll get a lot of honest negative feedback.
I searched forums a bunch when replacing my fwf. Was really leaning toward one. I like to see the POS and NEG no matter what those are and make my decision.
Just saying - when I searched, I noted it.

The two I knew of that came apart (not "third hand") didn't scare me completely. Both arguably poor pilot input. (A metal prop would've been fine on one)
When I was actually ready to order, a neighbor who recently got one had it pulled off to go back to factory at 40hrs because of "out of limits rock damage" or verbiage similar. (Seemed like a small dent to me)

Having to pull a prop mid season for a DAY makes it a no go. (For me personally) Let alone the week or 2 he was out for.
Last time I talked to him- he loves the prop as most every mt owner does. That says a lot.

To say they aren't more fragile than the Mac (etc) and that could be a problem is disingenuous. To say they aren't better in every other way may be too. I was planning to find that part out.

Couldn't snub the Mac for taking a beating, pulling hard and reliability. I'll own a MT on another wagon just cause I wanna. Prob soon.

Price wasn't that really a player when I looked. Something like $1k over a Mac shipped to AK.....

Cheers
Kevin

FWIW They just could be the cats meow when it comes to performance.
I have never run one personally but....
How many commercial operators are out there running them on their 206's 207's???
I have never seen one on a 207.
Is there some reason for this?
Also never seen one on a 206 on wheels.

It seems that on floats they should be great.
The stainless leading edge should do better with water spray than aluminum. Just a guess though.

TangoFox wrote:How many commercial operators are out there running them on their 206's 207's???
I have never seen one on a 207.
Is there some reason for this?

Perhaps because they haven't needed to replace what they have and it would be less expensive to overhaul. The old "if it ain't broke don't fix it adage." An MT certainly isn't a necessity, just a few more creature comforts i suppose. Sort of like a glass panel[emoji6].

AK-HUNT wrote:Every time this comes up you guys jump on anyone with negative input. Doubt you'll get a lot of honest negative feedback.
Kevin

I'm not sure there was any "jumping" on someone with negative input. More like, question: "Anyone have new comments about bananas?" Answer: "I bought some tuna fish."

I think MTV hit it on the head, and that's most everything you read is "my buddy..." or "I heard..." I've yet to read a first hand negative report on the boards, and belive me... When I was looking, if I had picked up on any really bad reports, I probably would be swinging alum out front. I will also say that if you've met any of the folks here in person who have given positive reports on the subject (Mike V, Greg A, Squash, Kevin Q, Sam H) you would probably have to say that none of the lot would hold anything back RE: PIREP even if they had a negative experience. Pretty good solid testimony for me.

That said... There is one negative aspect to the MT which has not been brought up. It seems that every some props are shipped with/ or develop relatively quickly small blisters on back and or face. MT states that this is a "cosmetic" issue only from sap drying out of the wood and instruct the mech to lice the blister, squeeze out the sap, and fill the pinhole with epoxy. I have seen this on the face of one prop I ordered for a 182, as well as a very small (almost undetectable) blemish on the back of my personal prop. There is no perf issue, but it is understandable that if you drop a hefty hunk of coin, you should expect a 100% perfect item... Perhaps if John is reading, he can speak to this more eloquently.

With respect to price... (as Kevin points out) there a bit of misinformation floating around. When I bought my MT, I too priced out a Black Mac. The quote I got from Nancy at Rocky Mt Prop + STC (Nov 2014) was $8800 for the prop. Yes this is cheaper and what folks typically use to wave around... But you also need the spinner, which was another $3300. With shipping, the NET was around $12.2k for the Mac. The retail price (at the time) for the MT (shipped) was $13.5k. Close enough for me to bite...

With the weight savings, quick response, slower winter cooling, and amazingly quieter ops, I am still happy.

akgreg wrote:I love my MT.
350-/+ hours on it so far.
My MT also would 'RPM surge' a bit when dialed up to 2700 RPM. We did a pull test and found that it had more thrust at 2650 and setting it there eliminated the surge.
I REALLLY LOVE MY MT.

I fly the MT on my Husky and really like it. But I also get that "RPM surge" on takeoff RPM (2700). Kind of dis-concerning on short strips. I could stand on the breaks until the surge passes, but I don't want gravel to be sucked up into the prop while stationary. I don't know if a new governor is in order or just dialing back the RPM is best as you have done.

For the guys that are having the power surge issues.... We just went through that issue on a 0-360 powered 170B.... Did all the limit stop adjustments and even changed governors with a spare that the owner had.... Problem was solved by buying the new governor from MT that is designed for the prop... It is lighter than the old one also...

I highly recommend talking to the guys at Flight Resource, they were extremely helpful at getting the issue resolved.... That airplane is now smooth as silk through all power settings..

Brian

Brian-StevesAircraft wrote:For the guys that are having the power surge issues.... We just went through that issue on a 0-360 powered 170B.... Did all the limit stop adjustments and even changed governors with a spare that the owner had.... Problem was solved by buying the new governor from MT that is designed for the prop... It is lighter than the old one also...

I highly recommend talking to the guys at Flight Resource, they were extremely helpful at getting the issue resolved.... That airplane is now smooth as silk through all power settings..

Brian

Thanks for the advice. I'll see what Flight Resources has to say prior to my next annual. Mine is also an 0-360. But if I check out there website, they say that any existing governor will work -- doesn't imply any diminution in performance if you don't buy their MT governor.

When people ask me if the MT prop is worth the cost of admission I tell them the exact same thing I tell them if they are buying any other aircraft or aircraft component. Evaluate your mission and it's requirements, the competition, and your pocket book and then select accordingly. A quick glance at this thread and you'll notice the vast majority of the happy campers are Cessna 18X users, and a few high horsepower 17X users. We'll let them be called 180 Lites. You'll also quickly notice they're all guys with backcountry inclinations, and consequently tend to be a bit more weight conscientious. With their STC's John and Larry have created a one of a kind in this field. There is NO other certified option that will do several of the things the MT will do (all at once). There are a few choices that come extremely close for some aircraft / engine options, but then the certified ones are rare as hens teeth, and the balance are for the experimental market. Will it be as well received on a Supercub board? They make a great cub prop, but the market is flush with other options, and the mission tends to require even lighter weighing choices, so probably not… I see the OP appears to fly a Maule, perhaps the Maule forums would be a better place to pose the question?

Having said all that, the MT is not all magic. Like absolutely every other aviation part (at least the ones I have experienced) it does come with some compromises. Some of the compromises are severe enough that they should probably be a deal breaker (and often are) for some folks. My experience has been that if the compromises are something that are design related, the factory wants to know about it, and more importantly wants to do something about it. That, is what keeps an MT on my airplane…. While I appreciate and value the STC work Flight Resource and others have done, the good sales department is of less importance to me on a big ticket item. What is paramount is, where the factory's mindset is. If you've had good hubs or cylinders condemned, then you should understand exactly what I mean there. This company has a great mindset.

As to the question posed re 135 ops on the 206/207 series. I would hazard a guess that while the MT would be valuable for many of its attributes in that arena, it just can't win full circle… yet. Every 135 operator I know of is running on an extremely tight budget. We've already established that regardless of how much price difference you find, the MT isn't going to be the cheapest (read; economical) economy is paramount to those guys. We also know that guys in that arena need their aircraft to be field repairable, in other words they need every part on that plane to be easily attainable, off the shelf, locally. Being the only one to run anything is a recipe for disaster in a seasonal arena. Lastly, unless your mission and aircraft really emulates the pt.135 C206/7 guys, is there really any relevance to what they're doing?

RE surges… before you immediately blame the prop (and why wouldn't you? it is what's surging after all…) the only experiences I have had with propeller surging (both in my C180 and in a banner tow Huskys) were not propellor related. Remember this propellor is light. It responds to what your engine is doing amazingly fast. In the banner tow planes it has been the indicator for mag timing every time it happened. In my Cessna it was an indicator of fuel starvation on take off due to a partially plugged finger strainer. Neither of these problems would have surfaced in a propellor with more flywheel effect.

I have only owned three of these props, flown behind a few more (to include turbine flavors), and personally know of plenty others. Would I buy another? If it fit all the requirements of my second sentence in this post, then you bet. It's a good product from a great company. Is it the only flavor of prop I'll buy? not by a long shot, they simply can't fill every mission for very plane… no single prop can.

Take care, Rob

I have the MT prop and governor on my 170B, when I first flew it I would get a just perceptible surge after I pulled the prop back to cruse rpm. I thought it was a governor thing but my mechanic, or the guys at flight resources I can't remember which, told me to change the spark plugs before I messed with the governor and sure enough that cured it.

hotrod180 wrote:I got a quote last summer for a 2-blade for my C180, and it was about $13K plus crating & shipping.
I'm sure they're the right stuff but that's above my pay grade.
I ended up buying a run-out 88" C201 Mac and having it OH'd (including being modified to the newer style oil-filled hub), for a total investment of about $5300-- so about 40% of the cost of a new MT & performs great.

I think this is a valid response to the OP. You cannot ignore the price tag when asking for opinions of something, as value for money is a huge part of the equation. Anyone out there thinking they'd have a MT prop if they were $100K, or if you could get a new Mac for $800? Of course not.

In considering the qualities of MT props or anything else it's beneficial to hear peoples' thought process for why they do, or do not believe them to be good value.

I'd love to have a MT, and if I ever need to replace my Hartzell I'll consider them for sure, but price is going to be part of my decision. I appreciate hearing about how great MT props are, and I appreciate hearing about some of the less costly options as well.

I think it's also a valid point that most people who pay an additional 120% for an upgrade are going to be hesitant to see it in a poor light. That's just human nature. Someone out there flying company work planes, one with and one without a MT prop would probably give a more impartial answer. Doesn't mean their answer would be any different, but their perspective would be.

Just my take on it.

In my experience- price difference was inconsequential vs 86" Mac. Too close to be a real factor with macs price increases (Prop/spinner/papers)

Having an unairworthy prop ding 200 miles from anything was my speed bump. Pay for-
-another prop
-AOG shipping
-Someone else to do my work
-Loss of that work.
Too big a gamble for that specific operation. Looking at another build and sniffing out the idea again.

To the guys with MT on 180/185,
1. was the approach/landing noticeably better with the weight off the nose? Speed/deck angle, etc? Other?
2. Do u believe it pulls harder than a Mac or nearly same or less? (I think I read a report from Renna last yr but refresh me)

I'm glad we at have good options to mull over!
Thx
Kevin

I've never flown behind one, but regarding the price- I was quoted 12.5k for an 88" mac w/spinner and 17k for an MT. That's after conversion to CAD funds. For my pocket book it's more then enough to discourage me from purchasing one, regardless of how good it is.

A1Skinner wrote:I've never flown behind one, but regarding the price- I was quoted 12.5k for an 88" mac w/spinner and 17k for an MT. That's after conversion to CAD funds. For my pocket book it's more then enough to discourage me from purchasing one, regardless of how good it is.

Right now, I think many of us are wishing they were Canadian-made.

^^^Haha! No kidding. I even do! This was in the fall and the exchange rate wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.