Backcountry Pilot • MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

Lycoming, Continental, Hartzell, McCauley, or any broad spectrum drive system component used on multiple type.
43 postsPage 1 of 31, 2, 3

MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

Here is the test-

MT MTV-9-D/210-58 3 blade composite propeller
VS
McCauley D3A3C401 86” 3 blade aluminum propeller

This is what MT has to say:
http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna185.pdf

So it looks as though its going to happen middle of next week just looking at our weather. Obviously looking for zero wind. Field elevation is 4980'. I will try to get the K factor for sea level figures. We have a lot of folks looking to help as I know there will be some serious scrutiny.

My objective is to decide which prop is best for MY needs and mission.
My needs are:
The best prop that allows the greatest thrust for the shortest take off for my 180.
Best time to climb
Best time for a 1 mile distance at a given power setting.
Best weight on my nose
Best overall durability (this one will be hard)

Can you think of anything else you would like to see?

We finally opened the box today and out she came...
Image
Image

And a big thanks to John Neilson at Flight-Resources. He is letting me use their Strain Pull Gage. This tool is going to be fun.
Image

So if you would like to be a part of the testing just let me know and I will keep you in the loop. Looks like Wednesday/Thursday of this next week will be our day.

I look forward to your feed back.

Thanks

AKT
Last edited by aktahoe1 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
aktahoe1 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Hot damn! My bet's on the MT.

Durability is going to be tough to test, as you really don't want to weather the damage just because.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Way cool.

No experience with either, but I can speak to prop damage. We ran 2 blade seaplane props on 180's and a 185 for years. Lots of off- road. The only time we injured one was when we were too lazy to take the 26 Goodyears off and put the 29" Bushwheels back on.

Even with minimal prop saving technique, the big tires will take care of you, which ever one you decide to keep.

If I were to make a bet on gut feeling alone, I'd wager the Mac will pull a tiny bit harder but you'll end up liking the MT better overall.

Thanks for sharing!

gb
gbflyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: SE Alaska

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

woot - this should be good! I just picked up a 3 blade MT from John, looking forward to hearing how it does...
Vick offline
User avatar
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... WUk8CX06AP
Solum Volamus

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

I run the 86" McCauley on my '79 185, and like it, but especially on floats alot of folks rave about the MT. I know there is a 55o in my future, based on your tests I might swap to an MT. Keep me posted!

-Brad
Durango Skywagon offline
User avatar
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Durango, Colorado
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 0mZtv6OxWk
How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your Tee Vee; kill your own beef; build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it. - Edward Abbey

My Spot Page

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

I think you will find that the Mac pulls a tad better (more thrust)

I think you will find that thrust alone will not always make for the shortest take offs because the MT will spool up quicker. (unless of course you are one of those that holds brakes and pours on the coal)

The next two items will be affected by wing and weight also, so I can't speak to your combination.

The weight question is a no-brainerd, but more important than the weight is how it affects your CG, and again I can't speak to yours. CG was the single biggest factor to me, but it's not for most people.

The durability question is not hard....The only thing the MT takes better than the Mac is water erosion. I can tell you two unfortunate pitfalls to the MT... The MT does not tolerate extremely arid environments well, and certain types of leading edge damage (damage that will appear minor) will require blade removal for repair.
Go easy on the power on shale, and be mindful of the sun if you live in a desert environment and neither of these should be a deal breaker...

I will be interested to see how you results compare...

Take care, Rob
Rob offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:34 am

Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

My bet is the Mt.
It will be another interesting thread from the Truckee area


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Juan80 offline
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:53 pm
Location: nor.cal
Chuck

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Kevin, I recently replaced my 3 blade Mac with the MT. Mke sure you to do the dynamic balancing after installation. Although it was a new prop and I couldn't feel a difference afterward, my A&P told me it required a significant amount of balancing. The combination of the MT and Gami's make for a smooth running engine. Can't wait for the test results!
4Whitey offline
User avatar
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:57 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

I look forward to your test. I have the same prop on my 520 and need a overhaul. Maybe I should consider a swap to the MT.

Are you switching for performance or you at overhaul or what?


73. 182 Amphibian with Aerocets
pilotjpw1 offline
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:34 am
Location: usa

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Hi there, can't wait for your results - I am in decision for a new prop for my A185E, summer on amphibs 2790, winter on skis
Ed
skyede offline
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:40 am
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

keep me in the loop, Ed
skyede offline
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:40 am
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Any news ?
bcdpilot offline
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: scottsdale

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

Monday as of now. The weather has just not been conducive to do such.

AKT
aktahoe1 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com

Re: Here we go - MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley

We finally completed this today...

I can tell you in short, the MT kicked the Mac's ass 10 ways to Sunday. It was not even close. Thats honest.

I dont have the time to report all numbers and info but will try and get back to this tonight if not in the AM for certain.

The MT out pulled the Mac by almost 100lbs at 2700rpm at 4900'. Heck, the MT out pulled the Mac when it cleared 2500rpm.

Stay tuned for photos and all specs. We gathered alot of information.

AKT
aktahoe1 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Alaska and Lake Tahoe = aktahoe
If it looks smooth, it might be. If it looks rough, it is...www.bigtirepilot.com ...www.alaskaheliski.com

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

This does not help me, talking myself down from saving for an MT...

BRING ON THE DETAILED RESULTS!! =D> =D> [-o<
Battson offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:19 pm
Location: New Zealand
Aircraft: Bearhawk 4-place
IO-540 260hp

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

Holly shit now I have to buy an MT instead of the McCauley as soon as I get the $15,300
bcdpilot offline
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: scottsdale

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

You do realize you are going to cost a bunch of people here a bunch of money posting this stuff...

Luckily for me my bird is too rudimentary to be in line for an MT...
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

bcdpilot wrote:Holly shit now I have to buy an MT instead of the McCauley as soon as I get the $15,300

Jeez Billy, another week of sittin on your ass and you can pay cash for one......frickin corporate pilots. :D

Oh wait........maybe Obama will buy you one! :shock:
Hafast offline
User avatar
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: KDVT
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

Your just jealous :D and your right I am sitting on my ass away from home that MT would sure be nice though
bcdpilot offline
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: scottsdale

Re: MT 3 Blade vs 86" 3 Blade McCauley TEST COMPLETED

Hell I am poor as a church mouse I can dream though
bcdpilot offline
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:59 pm
Location: scottsdale

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Next
43 postsPage 1 of 31, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base