I'm looking for information from anyone who has switched to an MT prop, what performance improvements were or were not observed. I'm thinking of making the switch from my 76" Hartzell to an MT. I haven't decided weather to go with the 80" two blade, 83" two blade or the 78" three blade. Information on the web from MT sellers show that I will get 19% to 21% better thrust output (in a static pull test). Information from a Hartzell seller site doesn't show nearly that much difference.

Any first hand information would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

Denis

I have the 83in on my 170 to be fair I never flew it with a hartzell but I love the prop it is super smooth and pulls really hard. When you put it in fine pitch and pull the power it is like pushing a wall and takes some getting used to but once you are on to it you can come down like a helicopter, i really miss that when i fly the cubs now.
you will loose a few mph of cruise speed with the big two blade, acording to the guys i know who put them on huskies, but gain lots of bottom end. less so with the three blade I assume.
The other thing is most planes handle better with less weight on the nose plus you will notice your controles. expecally your alerons, are more effective because the lightweight blades make for less gyroscopic effect.

They just did on a 185 in the hangar next door to me. I helped get it off the shelf and two of us could easily lift it into position. It didn't weight a whole lot. Not sure of the exact weight savings but it took a hoist to lift the Hartzell off the plane. That and they sure are purty! It's just too bad they cost more than my plane did.

Also i know a guy who actually did a static thrust test and it was well over 100lbs diference between the hartzell and the 80in MT. On a 180hp 172.

Lot's of good reading on MT props via the search.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4989

and

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3781&p=47877

I put the MT prop model MTV-15-B on my Cessna 175B w/180 Lyc in Oct of 2007. Its the 205cm, which I think is 80 inches. I believe that it took approximately 22 lbs off the nose and I would do it again in a heartbeat. I may have lost a knot or two of top speed but it spins up very fast, has shorten the take off run quite a bit and once you learn how to fly it, makes for a pretty good short field a/c. After flying the ole girl 30 years, it felt like a new airplane. Word of caution though, plan on a possible overhaul of your governor and mags. Since it is so much lighter than the Hartzell it appears that the slightly leakage in the governor or weakness in the mags will make it surge in cruise. After chasing and fixing those gremlins its been terrific.

Pat

I was involved in some flight testing where the program looked at using Hartzell and MT for an engine change STC. This was on the Lyc. 0-360. Both were three blade types. The Hartzell had better climb performance and better cruise performance. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the difference in climb was larger than the cruise comparison. Long story longer, the Hartzell was better in both categories in this instance.

The O 360 Husky now comes with the three blade MT. I spoke with John and Larry both at MT and said their new three blade is just a slight improvement over their own two blade but the three blade really smoothes out the O-360 four and is much quieter plus adds prop clearance. I would have thought a long two blade would have out pulled the three. About 11-1200 more than the two blade. Oh and no rpm restrictions except over speed.

I installed an MT 3 blade on my IO-520 powered S35 Bo last spring. I saved 10 pounds over the McCauley 2 blade that I used to have. Using the same load, myself and 40 gallons, my takeoff roll went from about 560 feet to about 490 feet at a DA of about 4500. So that's about a 12% decrease in the takeoff, my rate of climb increased about the same. The deck angle at an initial 80 MPH dirty climb is noticeably higher. I lost 2-3 MPH true airspeed where I normally cruise. Prop is much smoother and I don't notice minor differences. The sound that you hear in the cockpit is also different, much higher pitched now, which makes it quieter to those inside as headsets can block that easier. Prop is 2.8 inches less in diameter than my 2 blade so I gained a little ground clearance.

I put MT props on Huskys and a 180 hp 170.

Just do it. The two blade MTs are incredibly smooth right out of the box. Maybe the three bladed MTs are even smoother, but I'm really happy with the 210 cm (83 inch) MT on my airplane, and I'd flown it with a 74 inch Hartzell for several hundred hours, then an 80 inch Hartzell for a few hundred hours, and now the MT. I'd never go back unless I had no choice at all.

The MT pulls very hard on takeoff. It is incredibly smooth. It took 29 pounds off the nose, compared to the 80 inch Hartzell, which requires a harmonic damper.

What's not to like?

MTV

I put MT props on Huskys and a 180 hp 170.

Just do it. The two blade MTs are incredibly smooth right out of the box. Maybe the three bladed MTs are even smoother, but I'm really happy with the 210 cm (83 inch) MT on my airplane, and I'd flown it with a 74 inch Hartzell for several hundred hours, then an 80 inch Hartzell for a few hundred hours, and now the MT. I'd never go back unless I had no choice at all.

The MT pulls very hard on takeoff. It is incredibly smooth. It took 29 pounds off the nose, compared to the 80 inch Hartzell, which requires a harmonic damper.

What's not to like?

MTV

I have an 83" on my Tundra and it goes like stinks! doesnt vibrate one bit...put a glass of water on the dash and barey any ripples... Dont know what to say other than with the 13 pounds MT, I wish I would have extended the engine mount by 2 or 3". I have to do some rock chip fixing though every so often...follow MT guidelines with Epoxy filling..really easy. I operate in many grave strips and nothing to complain about, Cheers

Not to highjack as I follow these threads with great interest.

I have read and also heard second hand that the government has been pulling them off of the Husky's and is going back to Harzell because of the increase in maintenance costs. Not sure if it is pilot issues or other. Wondering if anyone has the low-down on that or if it's just hearsay.

There have been several instances (again second hand info) of de - lamination as well as the metal leading edge leaving the blades.

It's winter in Alaska and the rumors abound, hopefully someone can get the facts.

gb

gbflyer wrote:Not to highjack as I follow these threads with great interest.

I have read and also heard second hand that the government has been pulling them off of the Husky's and is going back to Harzell because of the increase in maintenance costs. Not sure if it is pilot issues or other. Wondering if anyone has the low-down on that or if it's just hearsay.

There have been several instances (again second hand info) of de - lamination as well as the metal leading edge leaving the blades.

It's winter in Alaska and the rumors abound, hopefully someone can get the facts.

gb

Cabin Fever!!

gbflyer wrote:Not to highjack as I follow these threads with great interest.

I have read and also heard second hand that the government has been pulling them off of the Husky's and is going back to Harzell because of the increase in maintenance costs. Not sure if it is pilot issues or other. Wondering if anyone has the low-down on that or if it's just hearsay.

There have been several instances (again second hand info) of de - lamination as well as the metal leading edge leaving the blades.

It's winter in Alaska and the rumors abound, hopefully someone can get the facts.

gb

Just talked to one of those "government pilots" yesterday about the MT prop on the Husky he's flying. He loves it, and isn't giving it up. Neither is anyone else.

There have NOT been any cases of "delamination" in these props that I know of. There have been some cases of VERY tiny cracks that got folks wound up. All these were repaired at no cost to the owner, other than shipping one way. And, frankly, every one of those I saw were cosmetic in nature. The company has been really good with customer service.

I know of ONE case of an MT prop that leaked oil, and had to be repaired. That too was done under warranty.

I do not know of any cases of the SS leading edge strip coming off an MT prop, though it certainly could happen, I suppose.

Give Flight Resource a call and talk to them about these issues. Those guys are good guys and they'll tell you honestly about any issues they've seen with the props.

Now, try dealing with Hartzell. All they do is issue an AD on your hub, and let you deal with it. At your cost.

MTV

Just get the MT you will never regret it once your bank account is replenished

Im also interested in a MT prop.
How about in humid weather and operating in dirt strips

motoadve wrote:Im also interested in a MT prop.
How about in humid weather and operating in dirt strips

Well that is the kicker...the dirtstrip...it does take a little bit of a beating...dents but mostly small chips but every so often you repair them with the epoxy and the "fixing it yourself" manual that MT provides which is very easy to use. I do have a dent on the metal leading edge which will eventually repair but for now its really not causing any problems whatsoever. You have to be a little bit more careful with the MT on backcountry strips for sure although same theory applies with an all metal prop ie: dont stay still, always have a bit of movements, find a grassy spot or a place where there isn't too much little stuff that will get sucked up in the prop effect, etc.. I'll take a photo if I can this week-end and post to show you what 6 monts in the dirt did to my MT...really not much, mostly cosmetic. The thing works like a hot dam

Seems like I heard something about an electric (?) controllable (not constant speed) MT prop. That'd be just the ticket for my O-320-E2A.

hotrod150 wrote:Seems like I heard something about an electric (?) controllable (not constant speed) MT prop. That'd be just the ticket for my O-320-E2A.

Automatic or manual, does not list applicability to engines/airframes. Too bad they don't allow reversible on fixed wing applications, that would be perfect on a normally fixed-pitch floatplane.

http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/pro_elec.htm