Looking for advise from people that have 182 O-470R experience with MT props. I am swaying back and forth between an MT 2 blade or 3 blade. I have a Black Mac 3 blade now that is smooth as heck but long in the tooth and I am not going to OH it. The MT 2 blade (Flight Resource) claims of better performance vs their MT 3 blade in all areas with exception to vibration. They claim the vibration of the 2 blade is equal or better than the Black Mac 3 blade that is 78lbs. The two blade is 83" diameter and will shed around 28lbs. The MT 3 blade is 80" diameter and will shed around 21lbs. I operate mainly on grass and will live off a very familiar 2000ft grass runway in a month so ground clearance is a thing high on the list but if the two blade actually out performs the three blade for the O-470R then.....

The two blade is STC for all flavors of the 182 engine STC's. The three blade for the O-470R only is STC for the O-470R. I have no plans on future PPonk, 520, or 550 upgrades.

Help me out here. Does anyone have experience with either on a stock O-470? I feel my TO performance now is poor over 2700lbs. My cruise performance are book numbers. This is a C182J with gap seals and VG's (on the airplane when I got it).

Thanks for any input!

I changed from a 3 blade 86'" McCauley to a 3 blade MT about 100 hrs ago. The Mt took 20 gms on the #1 blade at the hub and is still not near as smooth as the McCauley was. I didn't notice any change in performance either in T/O or cruise. The only benefit was in W/B as it was 15 lbs lighter. The rep at MT blew my concern about vibration off when I called. My other observation is my W/B on the bank account was $20k lighter also. If you do go that route I do have a Spinner and back plate for a 182 I'd be willing to part with as it came with the prop (6 hrs used) and didn't pair with the 180. BTW I'm Pponked so were no not apples and apples.

I did put fine wire plugs in the engine 15 hours ago, it remarkably did smooth the engine out a little bit but it's still not as clean as the McCauly was.

Cough need a 185 cough cough…..

Kidding of course. Howdy neighbor. Hopefully you get some good feedback.

I would definitely go with the 2 blade versus the 3 blade for the 470R.


Just my opinion, but I wouldn’t do the MT for performance or for smoothness. I would do it for weight and CG. I’ve had a few MT props now on both 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders. I think it’s easy to drop $20k and tell yourself and your buddies that it’s turbine smooth and performs so much better, but in reality, for me at least, those improvements are negligible at best. I do love the CG improvement and reduction in weight. From what I’ve seen, they wear well with both stainless and nickel leading edges. My IO-520 cruises about 5kts slower (at the same power settings) after going from the McCauley to the 3 blade MT with no other changes. I’d still consider another MT when the time comes. I’m interested to see the new carbon voyager that’s supposedly almost ready for prime time.

I have a 2 blade MT since 2010 and like it. It started out on a 470K and that was converted to Pponk low compression 4 yrs ago and still like it.

Have had MT two blade since 2012 in my 182 with an O470R, then 5 years ago Pponk conversion.
Great prop, durable, smooth, light, quick acceleration and great braking power, highly recommend it.

The big 83" 3-blade MT requires at least 270HP or so. The 2-blade 83" MT will be the best option for the current engine. It will also work fine for any variation of a -520 or -550 you might install later. If you think you want a 3-blade version at that time, McFarlane will work with you to make a trade.

For right now, if you want to see for yourself the improvements; buy the MT 2-blade prop, install it and go for a quick test flight. If it is not what you were hoping for, simply return it to McFarlane for a refund.

Cheers,
John

I’ve owned and flown several MT props on different engines and aircraft. I like the blade design. It is definitely efficient. I like the weight and field repairability. They simply do not live up to the hype though.

I prefer the MAC 401 on a big bore continental. Unbelievably smooth, pulls really hard, durable, and pretty fast up high. It is much more confidence inspiring for me when flying with my family in and out of strips with steep and rugged surroundings. I’ll eat the weight penalty without hesitation.

I know of at least two MTs that have come apart in flight, one leading to a disastrous outcome. Having a propeller failure in flight is an extremely serious emergency. I’ll never own another.

It has been a year, and figured I would give an update on what was decided and how the performance is.

I decided to go with the MT 2 Blade mostly due to the mass savings. It is smooth but not as smooth as the old 3 blade Black Mac that was on it, but this was expected. It is no faster in cruise at the same power settings (stock O 470R).

What it is, is a massive savings in weight on the nose and it has shortened my take off roll everywhere I am. The useful load went up ~65lbs as put an EarthX battery in at the same time.

The airplane flies very different in a good way. Roll is less effort and smoother (less correction) on the yoke and pitch control is much easier. I was shocked at how the aircraft changed in pitch and roll.

Very noticeable in decent braking with the prop forward. The Black Mac 3 blade was almost zero braking with the power back and flattening the prop. Not the MT 2 blade. The MT can be felt.


So all in all, worth it. Was a touch disappointing that speed was no change but the mass savings, takeoff roll, and positive change to pitch and roll makes it worth the investment to me. If what I got was known going in, I would still have made the same decision.

Thanks for the valuable feedback a year ago!

delete

Scolopax wrote:I’ve owned and flown several MT props on different engines and aircraft. I like the blade design. It is definitely efficient. I like the weight and field repairability. They simply do not live up to the hype though.

I prefer the MAC 401 on a big bore continental. Unbelievably smooth, pulls really hard, durable, and pretty fast up high. It is much more confidence inspiring for me when flying with my family in and out of strips with steep and rugged surroundings. I’ll eat the weight penalty without hesitation.

I know of at least two MTs that have come apart in flight, one leading to a disastrous outcome. Having a propeller failure in flight is an extremely serious emergency. I’ll never own another.

Boy, I'd sure love to hear more about those blade failures. That's slightly terrifying.

losing a bunch of weight off the nose is very tempting. If I were in the market for a new prop I'd sure look around, but I'm not. I run a 401, I've heard people say they are slow. After being at the 180/185 club get together at Johnson Creek yesterday and talking with several people, it sounds like my 401 isn't that slow. I cruise at 18", 2300rpm at 8500 to 11,000 feet getting between 125 and 131kts true depending on the day. According to several people they get that speed at far higher power settings. I'm running 29" bushwheels.

I like my 401.