Flown MT (205 and 210cm) props on several 0-360 powered airframes, floats, off airport, and skis. The MT is a candy-coated wood core prop that does a very good job at dampening out the vibrations on a 4 cyl Lyc. It is very smooth running in the 1900-2100 RPM range and makes a loud rattling cockpit in a Husky quiet down. I’ve imparted my share of wear and tear on them and used the MT Service Letter to field repair.

I’ve flown the Hartzell Trailblazer a bit and am impressed. It is a full carbon fiber composite prop and the Hartzell folks like to demonstrate it’s durability with a hammer during their maintenance training. It is equally as field repairable as the MT. It likes 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. I fly with people that could destroy anything and not one Trailblazer has been taken out of service, same can’t be said for MT.

The 76” Hartzell is an underwhelming prop and the 80” is ungodly heavy. An 0-360 really deserves an MT or Trailblazer. Go fly both of them and decide for yourself.

Double

Kaptain_K wrote:Flown MT (205 and 210cm) props on several 0-360 powered airframes, floats, off airport, and skis. The MT is a candy-coated wood core prop that does a very good job at dampening out the vibrations on a 4 cyl Lyc. It is very smooth running in the 1900-2100 RPM range and makes a loud rattling cockpit in a Husky quiet down. I’ve imparted my share of wear and tear on them and used the MT Service Letter to field repair.

I’ve flown the Hartzell Trailblazer a bit and am impressed. It is a full carbon fiber composite prop and the Hartzell folks like to demonstrate it’s durability with a hammer during their maintenance training. It is equally as field repairable as the MT. It likes 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. I fly with people that could destroy anything and not one Trailblazer has been taken out of service, same can’t be said for MT.

The 76” Hartzell is an underwhelming prop and the 80” is ungodly heavy. An 0-360 really deserves an MT or Trailblazer. Go fly both of them and decide for yourself.

Well.... My brothers Trailblazer on his late model Husky isn't doing so well. Came off for early overhaul due to suspicious material seeping from hub. Thought it may be nothing but since he was only a year or so out of overhaul calendar time he decided to send it in for overhaul. Prop has about 250 hours on it. Sent it to competent shop for overhaul. They found some sort of counter balance tube or something (I’m not sure exactly what it is or how to describe it) that was loose. Blades had to be shipped to Hartzell, been there almost a month with no word on competition time. Pretty darn frustrating to say the least. At least his hub wasn’t condemned. So is this normal for a 250 hour prop? So for all of you who think these Trailblazers are tough as nails and can be repaired by any prop shop might want to dig a little deeper. If you have blade damage say from a rock or some object that exposes the foam core on a Trailblazer the hub must be retired according to the Hartzell service/overhaul manual. The MT has no such requirement and the core on the MT is wood, not foam. MT’s are not perfect and neither are Trailblazers, but for my money its MT all the way. I can get just about anything done to my prop including a down to the core overhaul at my prop shop 3 hours away. Also having flown both and side by side comparisons we have found the MT Ultra out performs the Trailblazer by a small margin in climb and cruise. Just our experiences with both.

Kurt

Correct it's an A1A, 1996. useful load 700 pounds. The new ones added 200 pounds to the useful load.

As Kurt pointed out, the Hartzell Trailblazer has a foam core. And there are potential issues with those props, like any prop.

I’ve had two Hartzell compact hubs condemned over the years, one for corrosion, one for a cracking AD. It’s a much newer design than the MT.

Time will tell.

I’ll stick with MT props.

MTV

G44 wrote:

Kaptain_K wrote:Flown MT (205 and 210cm) props on several 0-360 powered airframes, floats, off airport, and skis. The MT is a candy-coated wood core prop that does a very good job at dampening out the vibrations on a 4 cyl Lyc. It is very smooth running in the 1900-2100 RPM range and makes a loud rattling cockpit in a Husky quiet down. I’ve imparted my share of wear and tear on them and used the MT Service Letter to field repair.

I’ve flown the Hartzell Trailblazer a bit and am impressed. It is a full carbon fiber composite prop and the Hartzell folks like to demonstrate it’s durability with a hammer during their maintenance training. It is equally as field repairable as the MT. It likes 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. I fly with people that could destroy anything and not one Trailblazer has been taken out of service, same can’t be said for MT.

The 76” Hartzell is an underwhelming prop and the 80” is ungodly heavy. An 0-360 really deserves an MT or Trailblazer. Go fly both of them and decide for yourself.

Well.... My brothers Trailblazer on his late model Husky isn't doing so well. Came off for early overhaul due to suspicious material seeping from hub. Thought it may be nothing but since he was only a year or so out of overhaul calendar time he decided to send it in for overhaul. Prop has about 250 hours on it. Sent it to competent shop for overhaul. They found some sort of counter balance tube or something (I’m not sure exactly what it is or how to describe it) that was loose. Blades had to be shipped to Hartzell, been there almost a month with no word on competition time. Pretty darn frustrating to say the least. At least his hub wasn’t condemned. So is this normal for a 250 hour prop? So for all of you who think these Trailblazers are tough as nails and can be repaired by any prop shop might want to dig a little deeper. If you have blade damage say from a rock or some object that exposes the foam core on a Trailblazer the hub must be retired according to the Hartzell service/overhaul manual. The MT has no such requirement and the core on the MT is wood, not foam. MT’s are not perfect and neither are Trailblazers, but for my money its MT all the way. I can get just about anything done to my prop including a down to the core overhaul at my prop shop 3 hours away. Also having flown both and side by side comparisons we have found the MT Ultra out performs the Trailblazer by a small margin in climb and cruise. Just our experiences with both.

Kurt

I've had similar experiences with MT. Had to ship a blade to Germany to repair damage that a small rock did to the face if the blade. 10hrs on that prop and it was operating on pavement. My last visit at my local shop they were showing me a 3 blade MT with 50hrs on it. Had been sitting for 5 years on the plane without being run and the trailing edges were all split open about 1/4". One very well known user had issues on his first MT on his 180 as well. Any prop is going to have issues and like you said its all about individual experiences. My experiences with them haven't been great...

EB wrote:Correct it's an A1A, 1996. useful load 700 pounds. The new ones added 200 pounds to the useful load.

The first Husky was the A-1. It has an 1800 lb gross weight.

The A-1A, has a 1890 lb gross weight

The A-1B has a 2000 lb gross weight

The A-1C has a 2250 lb gross weight

The early airframes were significantly lighter. Our A-1A is 1295 lbs empty. Some of the newer planes are over 1400 lb.

A1Skinner wrote:

G44 wrote:

Kaptain_K wrote:Flown MT (205 and 210cm) props on several 0-360 powered airframes, floats, off airport, and skis. The MT is a candy-coated wood core prop that does a very good job at dampening out the vibrations on a 4 cyl Lyc. It is very smooth running in the 1900-2100 RPM range and makes a loud rattling cockpit in a Husky quiet down. I’ve imparted my share of wear and tear on them and used the MT Service Letter to field repair.

I’ve flown the Hartzell Trailblazer a bit and am impressed. It is a full carbon fiber composite prop and the Hartzell folks like to demonstrate it’s durability with a hammer during their maintenance training. It is equally as field repairable as the MT. It likes 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. I fly with people that could destroy anything and not one Trailblazer has been taken out of service, same can’t be said for MT.

The 76” Hartzell is an underwhelming prop and the 80” is ungodly heavy. An 0-360 really deserves an MT or Trailblazer. Go fly both of them and decide for yourself.

Well.... My brothers Trailblazer on his late model Husky isn't doing so well. Came off for early overhaul due to suspicious material seeping from hub. Thought it may be nothing but since he was only a year or so out of overhaul calendar time he decided to send it in for overhaul. Prop has about 250 hours on it. Sent it to competent shop for overhaul. They found some sort of counter balance tube or something (I’m not sure exactly what it is or how to describe it) that was loose. Blades had to be shipped to Hartzell, been there almost a month with no word on competition time. Pretty darn frustrating to say the least. At least his hub wasn’t condemned. So is this normal for a 250 hour prop? So for all of you who think these Trailblazers are tough as nails and can be repaired by any prop shop might want to dig a little deeper. If you have blade damage say from a rock or some object that exposes the foam core on a Trailblazer the hub must be retired according to the Hartzell service/overhaul manual. The MT has no such requirement and the core on the MT is wood, not foam. MT’s are not perfect and neither are Trailblazers, but for my money its MT all the way. I can get just about anything done to my prop including a down to the core overhaul at my prop shop 3 hours away. Also having flown both and side by side comparisons we have found the MT Ultra out performs the Trailblazer by a small margin in climb and cruise. Just our experiences with both.

Kurt

I've had similar experiences with MT. Had to ship a blade to Germany to repair damage that a small rock did to the face if the blade. 10hrs on that prop and it was operating on pavement. My last visit at my local shop they were showing me a 3 blade MT with 50hrs on it. Had been sitting for 5 years on the plane without being run and the trailing edges were all split open about 1/4". One very well known user had issues on his first MT on his 180 as well. Any prop is going to have issues and like you said its all about individual experiences. My experiences with them haven't been great...

You shouldn’t have to ship it to Germany any longer, there are shops in the US that can do just about everything. You would have thought that since my brother shipped his Trailblazer blades to Hartzell here in the US he shouldn’t have had to wait as long, he is still waiting. Oh well....

What is the difference between an MT std and an MT Ultra? Thanks G

shortfielder wrote:What is the difference between an MT std and an MT Ultra? Thanks G

Your best bet is to talk to John at Flight Resource. He can tell you all the differences. The earlier MT props used a stainless steel leading edge sheath. Now they’re using a nickel leading edge.

The shape of the props is different. When I unpacked my current Ultra, I thought it had relatively small blades. But, I was amazed at the performance once it was on the plane.

Call John.

MTV

Thanks Mike

I haven't seen it mentioned here but I believe that McCauley makes a 3 blade for this application.

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.

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.

Same spinner and governor as the old Hartzell?

All the old stuff works fine, literally just R&R the prop and do some tuning. Stoots gives you the whole story on getting it tuned up

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

This is from an old post but I ended up buying the 170B after going back and forth between it and a husky. Really happy I did!

So it looks like we are going to have a very similar airplane once I upgrade mine. I haven't upgraded mine yet but the plane came with an o-360 A1A and I took the place of the previous owner in terms of STC wait time. I should have the STC by end of August. I'm going to get the same propeller you have, a three bladed MT composite.

My question is: what kind of performance do you get take-off, landing? Climb, etc. If you don't mind such a general question greatly appreciated.

2 blade MT Ultra is a much better prop for your 170 than the 3 blade. I had a 3 blade MT and replaced it with the Ultra. Ultra has better speed and climb. A 3 blade MT on that airplane would be a poor choice considering the cheaper and better performing option of the Ultra. The 3 blade is not a bad prop by any means, the issue is there are better options available 2 of which cost less. My choices for your project would be

1. Ultra
2. Original 2 blade MT
3. Trailblazer

I would NOT put any of the metal Hartzell props or 3 blade MT on it. I know John may disagree with me on the 3 blade MT but having owned or flown them all that is my opinion.

Kurt

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.

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.

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.