Looks awesome Kevin! Give us the numbers.

Kevin,

SHOW US SOME VIDEO!!!

First off, I must say, I was VERY skeptical about the MT prop. I also know that my report here may bring some of its own skeptism and I realize that. This report is for you to ponder on and please remember, this test was done for me, by me and for my own airplane. Yours is different.

I have heard all the various reports from folks, good and bad along with the "you know, you may end up liking that MT prop, but its MAC that will end up coming to grab you from somewhere when you stranded"...Probably because they simply did not try out the MT.

After flying both the MT and the MAC as well as the big 2 blade MAC, I can say they both have their own pros BUT I have "yet" to find a con with the MT.

Additionally, dealing with both Larry and John at Flight Resources has been nothing short of honest and great to deal with. I tried to call McCauley several times and did not get very far only to get a rep of some short dissing the MT with zero experience using one. Just hearsay from them and lots of speculation. The folks at Flight Resources have never dissed the MAC and have only said, "Just wait until you try the MT. It will speak for itself". I can tell you here, it has!

The "Pull Test" for both props was done with the very same conditions. My mechanic and I were going to do all the conversions and K factors for sea level and honestly, it made our/his head hurt. I know some of you are incredibly smart here so I ask you to do that for us, please....and then report here obviously. I am very curious what the sea level numbers would look like. My engine is 285hp.

Here you go-
Field elevation: 4900'
Temp: 15c or 59f
Dew: 1c
RH: 39%
Altimeter: 30.30

We did the test twice for each pull starting at 2000rpm and noted the Manifold Pressure. The prop was all the way in and the engine was leaned out and then brought back to peak. Not lean of or rich of, just peak. We also wanted 2700 RPM for the MAC and 2675 for the MT. I know that will bring a question and I will let the professionals speak as to why MT only wanted 2675.

MAC
RPM Manifold Pull #1 Pull #2
2000 2150 375 380
2300 2200 540 531
2400 2250 600 593
2500 2300 686 662
2600 2400 750 755
2700 2470 823 811

Overall Average for the MAC = 817 lbs

MT
RPM Manifold Pull #1 Pull #2
2000 2150 470 460
2300 2200 670 665
2400 2250 778 770
2500 2300 868 870
2600 2400 (Did not reach above 2500rpm on these two tests. We then changed the "Fine Pitch Setting")
2700

MT with fine pitch setting change
RPM Manifold (same as above) Pull #1
2000 378
2300 537
2400 597
2500 674
2600 737
2675 832

Overall Average for MT 851 lbs

So here comes the math questions for you really smart number guys???
So we came up with 243 horses pulling at 4900' on this day. a .79 difference between sea level and 4900'..does this sound correct? That would mean the engine pulled 3.36 lbs per each horse. Sound good?
For the MAC we got the 817lb average
For the MT we got the 851 lb average

What would sea level show? Steve Knopp was able to get over 1100 at his factory in WA with his Mac test you can watch on You Tube. Every scale is also different. I got mine from Flight Resources. I am curious about sea level numbers.

The actual weight difference:
MAC with spinner = 77lbs
MT with spinner = 55lbs

22lb difference or 33% less off your nose

Some notable differences.
At start up, the MT "clicks" as you hit the start button. The MAC has very heavy clicks with some continued momentum. Once the MT fires, it goes now. (actually startled me as it went into high speed revolutions quickly and I brought the throttle to neutral immediately).

The breaking power as you roll the prop back in was similar to the MAC however I feel as though it was noticeably different. I almost came out of my seat.

One thing I really thought was incredible was the spool up for a go around when power was applied at the vey last moment. I was purposely set up to land with all configurations set, flaps at 40, prop in and back to almost idol and then went to apply power and it was NOW!! The climb and power was incredible.

On take off you really notice the PFactor on both. The MT at first almost caused me to ground loop. (not really, but I needed more right pedal than what I have been used to). One of my buddies watching got on the radio and said "woaaahh, how was that?" My response was "WOW, very powerful"

The two props are designed very differently. I did the time to climbs and short take off tests with the MAC but have not done them with the MT yet. I just have not had the time.

The numbers above are very accurate and I owe a big thanks to my mechanic Kevin who works at Nervio Aero Service. Those guys are very good out there. I also owe thanks to the several individuals that came out to help with this.

Take these numbers as you see fit. I am not a 135 guy but I do fly a lot and in rough conditions. Time will only tell how the durability with the MT ends up. For now, I am sold. It was only $3500 more than the MAC but the thrust to me is worth every penny.

AKT

WOW...sounds like a done deal to me. But, like you said, your plane and other's mileage may differ.

Now, if they just had an STC for Maule...

Jeremy, Unfortunately the Maule STC being worked on is useing the wrong model prop for optimum performance because they are trying to do one prop for all engine models 2400rpm through 2700rpm.
I spoke with Larry recently and was told the blade is 79.5" though there is an 83" available.
As I was half of the team who did the Mac STC for the Maules back in 1990, and Larry understands that, I am hoping MT will work the 83" two and three blade units into the tests.
Kevin, What is the length of your MT 3 blade and what comments regarding noise v the painful Mac??

maules.com wrote: what comments regarding noise v the painful Mac??

+1 on that one, any chance you got some "measured stats" on noise as well??
By the way, good work on the info and stats so far.

I think most all new Huskys are sold with MT's now. Most are 2-blade and either 205 or 210 cm. If you look at the MT from the side, compared to a Mac, with both blades a fine pitch, the MT has more twist in the blade so that at the tip the angle of attack is less (at least comparing the MT on my Husky and the Mac on my Mooney).

On the Husky, the 2-blade MT loves to turn slow, 1800 to 2000 rpm is my normal cruise range with MP around 21" (Minden is at 4730'). 1950 rpm nets me 105 knots while burning under 6gph. Turning 2700 and full throttle get's 117 knots and over 10gph, so hardly worth pushing for the extra speed (that with 26" tires).

Again, on the Husky, the 3-blade MT is a bit smoother and has more ground clearance, but gives up several knots to the 2-blade
Echoing AKTahoes experience, the MT spools up quick and accelerates rapidly. Power pulled off it's a great airbrake for steeper descents. And if the idle is set to about 450 rpm, it idles nice and smooth while making this cool whistling sound.

bumper

I've run the MT behind a 520 and 550 on my 185 for several years now and obviously concur with Kevin's report. Hands down the spool up and climb will put a smile on your face. It forces you to look out the side of the windshield on the climb.

Looks like once you had the MT rpm set where it should have been the MAC pulls within 5 to 10 lbs and in some cases more, making me think for best pull you would have to set the MT to the lower setting. But might have some airworthy issues since you would not pull the proper rpm for take-off. Did you by chance try pulling the rpm back to 2500 with the vernier knob ( once you had the rpm set higher on the MT ) and then going to full throttle and see what it pulled a higher number ? I have heard someone doing that and said it performed better on t/o in that configuration. I do like the weight reduction and quick spin up plus it looks cool.

Having had some mediocre experiences with propeller manufacturers, it has always been a real pleasure to deal with the folks at Flight Resource. Larry and John are a class act, and as Kevin noted, they don't badmouth other's products to promote theirs....they don't need to, and they know it.

Fly an MT and you'll have a grin on your face as well. They are a quality product, and they perform.

MTV

An update for Maule readers re my comment below from yesterday

[ Unfortunately the Maule STC being worked on is useing the wrong model prop for optimum performance because they are trying to do one prop for all engine models 2400rpm through 2700rpm.
I spoke with Larry recently and was told the blade is 79.5" though there is an 83" available.
As I was half of the team who did the Mac STC for the Maules back in 1990, and Larry understands that, I am hoping MT will work the 83" two and three blade units into the tests.]

Today, MT has described to me, the prop blades being tested for the various Maule models, and it appears there may be performance and noise advantages to this shorter 3 blade. Testing has apparently proven this with other 180 and 200hp aircraft makes.
So I look forward to see what the results will be for the 235 and 260hp Maules after testing is complete.

Jeremy, I know the cut down Hartzell Qtip that I had on my M6 was very quite and pulled really well. (tow bar and a Bonanza with a Lyc in it, cold outside and hurry to close the hangar doors?? )
Have never left a towbar on an aircraft since
GT

It looks to me like it pulls harder at 2500 rpm than 2675 after the reset.

I installed a 3 blade MT on my MX7-180C last March. I wasn't as scientific as you about it but did note that it seems to pull harder at around 2500 rpm than it does at 2700. I have intended to do some T/O testing using lower rpm settings but have not gotten around to it yet. I've tried it but cannot accurately measure the distance from the cockpit, need a ground observer. It feels like I get off the ground quicker than with the old Hartzell prop but that may be my brain trying to justify the cost. I don't think the prop made a huge difference in climb performance. No time to climb tests were done but I haven't noticed any significant improvement.

Like Bumper, I've discovered that dialing the prop back to 1900 rpm costs me no speed reduction and gets me back to 8.4 gph as opposed to 2300 rpm at 9.8 gph. This is with 31" tires. Plus it's nice and quiet there. This thing likes to turn slow.

It looks and sounds cool and makes my balls feel bigger.

Thanks for doing the testing and posting the data.

Ed

So after a morning of many short field take offs with full tanks (55g) I am getting off the ground 15-20' shorter we are feeling. I am doing this test with full tanks so that I have confirmed I always have the exact amount on board.

People have asked about the noise. The guy at my airport said this am he noticeda big difference. Having never heard my plane from the outside I am not certain but from the inside it is much quieter...and like Bumper said, there is a sort of whistle to it. Sounds cool. Honestly, if I were going for sound alone, the Mac would probably win. Only for the sake that I like things really loud!!! I like the loud airplane, motorcycle, music, gun, explosion etc. This prop is very neighborly and will make people happy at JC when I depart at 6am for places unknown. Overall still impressed with the new prop.

AKT

Did you fly over the ranch last week late afternoon on the way to Susanville?
A plane flew by and made a more whooshing turbinish sound. Figured it was not you because it was quiet at a cruise RPM.
So much for a noisey sneak attack down the canyon!
Chance

So, what'ya going to do with the Mac?

I agree with AKtahoe .

I changed to a 2 blade MT in my 182 about 150 hrs ago.
Love it, light, smooth , powerfull, instant power, and compared to the Hartzell prop I had, super braking power!
Dealing with Flight Resource Larry and John has been a great experience.
I would do it again for sure.

I go to grass and dirt strips all the time and durablity has been great (knock on wood).
And mine is a nose wheel plane with a long prop.
A 3 blade prop with a tailwheel plane should be even easier on the prop.

The MT props make a very different sound than other props. Many people have commented that the have a sort of "rustling" or "rattling" sound, a little higher pitched and just "different". You'll recognize it when you hear one.

MTV

Your 3 bladed is much shorter than my 7 foot two blade but here are some of the cons I have encoutered so far flying in the bush/short strips/gravel/sand you know what I mean.

The MT dents very easily...the leading edge dents easily and the coating chips away quickly...on your first dent/chip you will be bummed out but after 100's...you'll be fine! MT has a repair "how to" and recommend a special epoxy. That's my winter project...to get my MT back to "new"shape. I do have a dent in the leading edge...not sure yet how i'll fix that, probably fill it in with the epoxy.

I suspect your W&B will take quite a hit as I suspect your prop is only 20 pounds or so...mine is 13. If you are willing to spend the time and money, it may be worthed to get a new engine mount and push your prop ahead 3-5 inches...obviously there's some math required here but that's the down side of the light prop...throws the arm/moment out of wack a little.

Cheers, BCT