motoadve wrote:

7acdriver wrote:I went through Dave Stoots to put the 83" TrailBlazer on my O-360 170B recently. Cost was $13,400 out the door (I didn't need a new spinner or govenor though). Performance is much improved from my old 74" aluminum Hartzell. We'll see how it holds up durability wise. I've read horror stories on both sides of the MT/Hartzell battle. I guess I went Hartzell because I get the sense more shops are comfortable servicing them, a lot of the AK guys have run them without complaint, and it's what Husky/Carbon Cub are offering standard now. Figured they had the same options and chose Hartzell.

What horror stories? Have had an MT 2 blade for more than 2,000hrs of backcountry flying in my 182, really abused it, and also have one in my 170.
They have been great, no issues, and love the performance.

Personally I like the 2 blade MT better than the Ultra MT, Ultra is lighter and quicker acceleration, which is nice, but the 83" 2 blade MT has lots of braking power which I really like for short fields or gravel bars, but you cant go wrong with either one.

There's been issues. We had a customer puck up a small rock on pavement, prop had to go back to Germany for repair as it damaged the face of the prop. Guaranteed a metal prop would gotten a small file job and carried on. Heck, even Kevin Q had issues with his first MT on his 180, had a thread on here when it first happened but disappeared quickly. Our prop shop has had issues with them as well, such as trailing edges splitting after sitting on the plane unused for 5 years. Not saying they are a terrible prop, I'd love to try one on my 206, but they aren't God's gift to propellers either. They all seem to have their own issues.

I love all the second or third hand stories about the MT vs the Hartzell Trailblazer.

The propeller and the tailwheel on your airplane both work in a really difficult environment. In my opinion, it’s amazing these things don’t have far more problems than they do.

Bottom line is that MT pioneered small composite props in this country. There were bound to be issues like longer waits for repairs, etc, since the factory was in Germany, and the support structure in this country took a while to develop.

For years, many in the Hartzell camp bad mouthed composite props…..until Hartzell came out with one.

Composite props have a lot of advantages over metal props.

BUT, as I said, that’s a tough place to work, and no prop is perfect or bullet proof.

Back when I was still running Hartzell metal props, Hartzell issued ADs on their line of compact hubs. Note the plural on ADs, by the way. I had two of those hubs condemned as a result. Did Hartzell offer discounts on replacement hubs, which were condemned because of manufacturing faults? Nope.

So, I switched to MT, and I will state that I have had NO issues with their props AND I’ve had excellent support from John Nielson.

That is my experience with Hartzell, and why I will not purchase a Hartzell prop.
That’s not an “I heard…” or someone else’s experience.

Go visit a prop shop and ask them about Hartzell compact hubs. Buzz Maxwell of Maxwell Propeller gave me that tour, which included several of these hubs, close to failure, and one that had failed.

I sincerely hope that Hartzell has solved those problems by now.

MTV

I agree Mike. No prop is perfect, and Support trumps all. One thing I've been curious about is why we don't see more composite props in the Ag world. I've yet to see on on an ag plane. Seems like if one of the manufacturers could break into that market and it performed well, it would he quite a money maker. We're always looking for performance advantages that help us haul a load off short strips, and quieter the better. We just switched one of our 502s out to 4 blade prop which spins a few rpm slower. What a difference is noise.

A1Skinner wrote:I agree Mike. No prop is perfect, and Support trumps all. One thing I've been curious about is why we don't see more composite props in the Ag world. I've yet to see on on an ag plane. Seems like if one of the manufacturers could break into that market and it performed well, it would he quite a money maker. We're always looking for performance advantages that help us haul a load off short strips, and quieter the better. We just switched one of our 502s out to 4 blade prop which spins a few rpm slower. What a difference is noise.

Good question. When I first switched to a composite prop, a good friend was DOM of a 135/121 outfit that operated Beech 1900s on and off a lot of gravel runways. I asked him how much maintenance their composite props required. These were very large props, and prop clearance isn’t great. His response was they spent less time on the composite props than they did on the Navajo’s metal props.

I’m amazed that ag operators aren’t running some of the multi blade composite props. Only things I can think of is that those props are generally optimized for speed.

And then there’s the old: “We don’t use them because we’ve never used them.” argument.

For an industry that benefits from higher loads, I would think that the weight savings alone would be attractive.

They are not cheap, however. I’ve seen AT 802s in fire fighting trim with composite props.

MTV

mtv wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:I agree Mike. No prop is perfect, and Support trumps all. One thing I've been curious about is why we don't see more composite props in the Ag world. I've yet to see on on an ag plane. Seems like if one of the manufacturers could break into that market and it performed well, it would he quite a money maker. We're always looking for performance advantages that help us haul a load off short strips, and quieter the better. We just switched one of our 502s out to 4 blade prop which spins a few rpm slower. What a difference is noise.

Good question. When I first switched to a composite prop, a good friend was DOM of a 135/121 outfit that operated Beech 1900s on and off a lot of gravel runways. I asked him how much maintenance their composite props required. These were very large props, and prop clearance isn’t great. His response was they spent less time on the composite props than they did on the Navajo’s metal props.

I’m amazed that ag operators aren’t running some of the multi blade composite props. Only things I can think of is that those props are generally optimized for speed.

And then there’s the old: “We don’t use them because we’ve never used them.” argument.

For an industry that benefits from higher loads, I would think that the weight savings alone would be attractive.

They are not cheap, however. I’ve seen AT 802s in fire fighting trim with composite props.

MTV

That may he the problem. A quick search shows only the 602/802 is STCd for a MT. With all the 402/502s out there it may be worth them getting approval for them as well.

Mapleflt wrote:

shadow585 wrote:Hello ,, looking for info.. thinking of purchasing a 56 170b.. it has had the wings of a 172 placed on it.. is there a stc on that changeover.. thks.

Yes there is, you can view the STC as a member of the International 170 Association if you hold membership in it. I believe you may also be able to purchase the STC through the Association as well.

I’m not aware that one exists. I’d like to see that STC.

The association owns 4 STC's and 2 of them are modified versions of the other 2.

One for 180 gear on 170 and another for replacing an O300 for another O300.

They have a large inventory of 337 copies which cover swapping wings, tanks and the like. You would need field approval. Helpful to use the wordage in those forms.

shadow585 wrote:Hello ,, looking for info.. thinking of purchasing a 56 170b.. it has had the wings of a 172 placed on it.. is there a stc on that changeover.. thks.

Were the wings not approved?
How were you made aware they are from a 172?
If so, what year 172?
21 gallon tanks?

A1Skinner wrote:I agree Mike. No prop is perfect, and Support trumps all. One thing I've been curious about is why we don't see more composite props in the Ag world. I've yet to see on on an ag plane. Seems like if one of the manufacturers could break into that market and it performed well, it would he quite a money maker. We're always looking for performance advantages that help us haul a load off short strips, and quieter the better. We just switched one of our 502s out to 4 blade prop which spins a few rpm slower. What a difference is noise.

Hi A1,
I did not respond to this initially mostly because it is OT. But also because the answer for me could easily be painted as bravado, or worse yet cast a negative light in the career path I enjoy so much.

Never the less, it was a good question and one I asked Jon Neilson many years ago when I bought my first MT. He didn't seem too excited about ag then, and it really didn't take me too long to figure out why it would probably be a poor fit for pilots, operators, an even MT themselves.

Mind you, I am merely a small time operator and can not speak for the industry, but this is why I wouldn't run an ag specific midsized or larger airplane with an MT, as a pilot or an operator.

Wires.

Again, I want to say, this is not misplaced bravado, nor meant to suggest we are running cities out of power wherever we fly, but the truth of the matter is, they constitute one of our biggest obstacles. I don't know a single ag pilot with what I would call substantial time that hasn't hit a wire. I'm sure they are out there, somewhere. Conversely I know many, who have hit many.

The following only holds true for head on strikes, but that's the lions share. Obviously any not involving the prop will not care what's on the nose.
In a midsize ship the scenario is that the pilot usually snaps to the fact that he is about to hit a wire an instant too late. But probably 90% of the time he will hit it squared up. Entering, leaving, or hitting one in the middle that had hidden poles. In almost all of these scenarios, the wire will be no match for the 10,000# airplane doing 140 mph.

I'm not saying it will walk away unscathed, or that a guy will be able to head home and pick up his next load. What I'm saying is by far the vast majority of the time, a guy is going to get through the wires and have a flyable airplane that will get him home. In a million dollar 60foot wide turbine carrying a substantial amount of economic poisons and fuel, this is a big deal. These are not Pawnees that can just set down on a turn row, patched up, or trailered home. Of the survivable wirestrikes I can think of off the top of my head (which is probably 90% of them) almost all of them hit the wire with the prop and virtually all flew home. Conversely a wire strike with an MT would yield an oversped $.5 million$ motor as the hub shed all its blades, and then left said pilot with an out of CG lawn dart to navigate into a neighboring field... or maybe just a neighbor.

On the prop / engine note, last year I watched a 602 land without booms (wire strike). Just a nick on the 5 blade Hartzell. Mechanics had the prop off and engine split that day. Hot went in for inspection / IRAN and was back on the plane in 3 days. New spray gear was installed in the interim. Given the vintage of that 602, that very well could have been a total, had it been sporting an MT.

Anyways... I enjoy the MT where it makes sense. I just don't think this is that application.

And as to my comment about it being bad for MT? As I said, wire strikes are not uncommon. It certainly wouldn't take long for people to connect the dots that the only airplanes hitting a wire and not coming home are those sporting carbon.

Take care, Rob

PS, that load master is the best thing that happened to 500 gal. -34 powered ships

Rob wrote:

A1Skinner wrote:I agree Mike. No prop is perfect, and Support trumps all. One thing I've been curious about is why we don't see more composite props in the Ag world. I've yet to see on on an ag plane. Seems like if one of the manufacturers could break into that market and it performed well, it would he quite a money maker. We're always looking for performance advantages that help us haul a load off short strips, and quieter the better. We just switched one of our 502s out to 4 blade prop which spins a few rpm slower. What a difference is noise.

Hi A1,
I did not respond to this initially mostly because it is OT. But also because the answer for me could easily be painted as bravado, or worse yet cast a negative light in the career path I enjoy so much.

Never the less, it was a good question and one I asked Jon Neilson many years ago when I bought my first MT. He didn't seem too excited about ag then, and it really didn't take me too long to figure out why it would probably be a poor fit for pilots, operators, an even MT themselves.

Mind you, I am merely a small time operator and can not speak for the industry, but this is why I wouldn't run an ag specific midsized or larger airplane with an MT, as a pilot or an operator.

Wires.

Again, I want to say, this is not misplaced bravado, nor meant to suggest we are running cities out of power wherever we fly, but the truth of the matter is, they constitute one of our biggest obstacles. I don't know a single ag pilot with what I would call substantial time that hasn't hit a wire. I'm sure they are out there, somewhere. Conversely I know many, who have hit many.

The following only holds true for head on strikes, but that's the lions share. Obviously any not involving the prop will not care what's on the nose.
In a midsize ship the scenario is that the pilot usually snaps to the fact that he is about to hit a wire an instant too late. But probably 90% of the time he will hit it squared up. Entering, leaving, or hitting one in the middle that had hidden poles. In almost all of these scenarios, the wire will be no match for the 10,000# airplane doing 140 mph.

I'm not saying it will walk away unscathed, or that a guy will be able to head home and pick up his next load. What I'm saying is by far the vast majority of the time, a guy is going to get through the wires and have a flyable airplane that will get him home. In a million dollar 60foot wide turbine carrying a substantial amount of economic poisons and fuel, this is a big deal. These are not Pawnees that can just set down on a turn row, patched up, or trailered home. Of the survivable wirestrikes I can think of off the top of my head (which is probably 90% of them) almost all of them hit the wire with the prop and virtually all flew home. Conversely a wire strike with an MT would yield an oversped $.5 million$ motor as the hub shed all its blades, and then left said pilot with an out of CG lawn dart to navigate into a neighboring field... or maybe just a neighbor.

On the prop / engine note, last year I watched a 602 land without booms (wire strike). Just a nick on the 5 blade Hartzell. Mechanics had the prop off and engine split that day. Hot went in for inspection / IRAN and was back on the plane in 3 days. New spray gear was installed in the interim. Given the vintage of that 602, that very well could have been a total, had it been sporting an MT.

Anyways... I enjoy the MT where it makes sense. I just don't think this is that application.

And as to my comment about it being bad for MT? As I said, wire strikes are not uncommon. It certainly wouldn't take long for people to connect the dots that the only airplanes hitting a wire and not coming home are those sporting carbon.

Take care, Rob

PS, that load master is the best thing that happened to 500 gal. -34 powered ships

Great post, and one I hadn't thought of. Although I hear about how much stronger the Nickel leading edge is then any aluminium prop, but I agree that it probably wouldn't hold up to a wire strike.
And yes, so far we are happy with the load master. She's not an XP, but definitely woke her up.

Thanks for that reply, Rob. Yes, that makes extremely good sense, and maybe suggests why the wildland fire guys are less concerned with it.

Several years ago, I wrote an article for AOPA Pilot magazine about the spray operations in NW Minnesota and eastern North Dakota. In the article, I mentioned the wire cutters on the airplanes and noted that wire strikes happen, but often don't cause a lot of damage.

A few days after the article ran, I received an email from Tom Haines, the Chief Editor for Pilot. He forwarded a rather scathing note from a reader who stated unequivocally that any ag operator who hit a wire should be grounded permanently. Tom asked if I'd respond to this reader.

Now, I'd interviewed a number of the local ag operators for this article, so I was very comfortable blowing the guy off, but it was a windy day, so I drove out to the airport to see if any of the ag guys were around.

Walked in to the pilot lounge and there say six of them, all veterans. A couple of them complimented me on the article and they all liked the photos that AOPA's lead photographer had taken of the operator based there.

I read the "reader's" comments about every ag operator who hits a wire should be grounded permanently to this crew, and they all burst out laughing, slapping knees, etc. I said "Guys, it ain't that funny, is it?". To which they responded: "Go out in the maintenance hangar and take a look."

I walked into the hangar, and there sat the AT-502 featured front and center in the article, with a very ugly crease down the leading edge and a chunk taken out of the prop. Well.

So, I went back to the crew of ag guys, and they were busy teasing the unfortunate one who'd hit a wire that morning. Their comment was, in slightly more colorful language: "Tell that dumb SOB that any sprayer worth his salt has or will shortly hit a wire. And, tell the Editor in Chief that the "reader" doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground".

I did, in somewhat less colorful language. Never heard back.

MTV

The wire strike protection is a big deal, as is how much abuse the Hartzell prop we practically all run. I’ve seen the blades of them worn down so much you can bend the tips with your hands and they whistle in takeoff, and they still haul a load. They can have 2” taken off the tips and they still pull decently. It’s not a perfect prop, but I’d have a real tough time getting away from it, and I love the MT I have on my Husky. I would imagine quite a bit of counterweight would need to be added to run a composite prop as well, on top of the counterweight already added or the overbuilt firewall forward that adds weight.

Funny thing about the loadmaster, the shop that holds the stc for it also has the turbine stc for Cat’s that quite a few of us run. They don’t seem to have any interest in putting a loadmaster on a Cat.