That is the TBO of the prop. Not required if operating under FAR Part 91.

MTV

Photos, as promised.



.

Z,
I apologize .... That is most certainly not the blistering we so commonly see here in the desert. Pure speculation on my part, but to me it looks as though the PO did not seal a rock chip and you are now losing a leading edge. Does it occur on all blades? Most good shops will not replace just one leading edge. Reason being they want to build up all blades at the same time to get the initial weights as close as possible. In any case it sounds like you are in for an entire overhaul anyways.

So, for discussion purposes and general info, is this warrantee work or an overhaul on your dime? What kinda bucks are you looking at to bring it back to service? I've been on the fence for awhile about an MT for my 185. Waiting and watching how this all works out for you and how you get taken care of by factory network. Hope this turns out positive.

Great timing for this post as I am trying to decide what prop to put on our seaplane. Just put on a boerer 8241 (MacCauley) good old solid aluminum, for testing, borrowed it from a freind. Leaps off the water compared to the standard prop (7458) we were using. Been talking to Catto about his props. Anybody on here have any time on one? Supercub guys seen to like them quite well. Not sure which to buy, composite vs aluminum. Do not like the thought of sending MT prop back to factory in Germany for repair. Also would rather spend money with some one in kaliforna (Catto)(which is kinda still in USA) than Germany.

Had a friend of mine while flying home from Alaska commerically this spring, sat next to Catto. Talked to him quite a bit. He came away with the impression that he was a straight up guy, who knew what he was talking about.

Besides the MT Prop, and the Hartzell 2 & 3 blade props, what other models are approved for a 1994 Scout-8?

Thanks!

ZPilot wrote:Besides the MT Prop, and the Hartzell 2 & 3 blade props, what other models are approved for a 1994 Scout-8?

Thanks!

I think that's it, but not sure. You could go fixed pitch, there's an approval for one on the TCDS.

Wouldn't be my first choice....

What is MT telling you about repair time and cost. I've heard that they fix a lot of stuff under warrantee, but sometimes takes a while.

MTV

Update Tuesday July 3rd:

Peter at MT Props in Florida consulted with their lead repair guy. They've determined it is likely repairable using epoxy...so as long as the metal leading edge is still secure. If the leading edge checks out, the repair is safe and effective. They admitted it won't necessarily look pretty when done. They sent over Service Letter #32 that addresses this repair. Unfortunately, I can't attach it here in the forums, but would be happy to share that Service Letter with interested parties...just PM me.

The likely cause of this type of delamination: too much resin used to attach the leading edge to the rest of the assembly during the manufacturing process. It causes the resin to eventually bulge out of the leading edge area..causing a chain reaction problem that ultimately results in what you see. My airplane was not flown often with this propeller initially, I suppose that's why we are only seeing the problem manifest now....of course, as I am outside of the one year warranty window.

The nice thing about that Service Letter is that it authorizes any shop, not just MT Prop shops, to make the repair. The MT Prop shop up here in the PNW is booked out for a month, so they can't offer any solution for us.

MT Propeller does not have my model # of blades in stock, new, used or overhauled. To overhaul my blades, they need 5 weeks, as they're swamped now. To get new blades from Germany....15 weeks.

Hopefully my shop is willing to give this repair a go, and soon...I need to get the Scout up in the air, as this is the prime time of year for it.

ZP

...sigh ...

The plane is still grounded. Where we are at right now is three different opinions about the severity and repair-ability of the blades from three official MT Propeller shops. Florida tells us to fix it with service letter 32, Washington says...well, that's fine and all, but the repair is going to last you a whole 5 hours max....send it to Florida to have it re-wrapped in Carbon-Kevlar (6 week turnaround). Wisconsin agrees with Washington, except...they also say we can just fly with it the way it is for a while...it's fine.

We can't find any other shops in the area that are willing to do the repair despite the service letter.

I want to embrace this emerging technology with composite props, but, when you need a repair you're grounded for weeks or months because only a limited # of shops are willing to work on them.

I am hoping to source some used MT blades as a temporary solution until we finish out the season.

More than likely we'll be going back to Hartzell Props. With that said, can anyone point me in the right direction here...I need a prop shop that stocks used or overhauled Hartzell props. I am new to owning airplanes, and I was not expecting to have to deal with a prop overhaul / new props for one or two thousand hours.

Thanks

Zpilot

I used to utilize American Propeller out of Redding or Red Bluff just south of you a bit.

Would have replied earlier but took me forever to find where Zzzz HID the login.

Cheers

Trim

There was a guy at my mechanic's shop with a MT prop in worse conditiond that yours.
He bought it and put it standinging in a vertical position in a shelf and never used it.
When he needed it was horrible.

They called MT and told them to fix it with epoxy.
Looks like new now.

I dont know how many flights they have done after the fix though.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5979_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 5442_n.jpg

I've recently installed a MT on a Husky and the performance and weight savings are great. However the price isn't so great, and I personally believe it isn't good on the engine when you shut it down. With the weight reduction you loose the flywheel effect and it suddenly stops and shakes the engine abruptly, where as the heavier Hartzell would wind down a lot smoother. I just don't believe it could be good on any of the accessory gears or the crankshaft, but I've also never heard of anybody having any serious engine issues either.

interesting thought, I had not considered this

Just finished up our Bushcaddy L164. We have a 3 blade MT prop with a io375. It runs so smooth on the ground.
Nothing to compare it to, but I think it was a pretty solid choice. Love the look too!!

Not trying to be a smart-ass here... But reading through this post has me wondering why anyone would want to use one of these guys' composite prop. Seems like if you're working/flying in harsh conditions, you're asking for problems (which is fine as long as you understand the ramifications of using these props).

My understanding is that these are somewhat more expensive than the Hartzell? I'm scratchin my head on this one - The performance of the composite can't be that much better???

Jim

jaudette wrote:Not trying to be a smart-ass here... But reading through this post has me wondering why anyone would want to use one of these guys' composite prop. Seems like if you're working/flying in harsh conditions, you're asking for problems (which is fine as long as you understand the ramifications of using these props).

My understanding is that these are somewhat more expensive than the Hartzell? I'm scratchin my head on this one - The performance of the composite can't be that much better???

Jim

Jim- I am not being a smart ass back at ya either but...when you fly one you will know the answer to this question that keeps coming up.

Losing the 30# dumbbell on the nose is also a huge bonus when trying to land as slow as possible. (thats of course comparing 3 blade props - I had a 2 blade but its just no comparison to the 3 bladders) I figure its a $1000 per 1000#'s. The price difference is really only about $3K. Not much when you spending thousands on performance in other areas.

As for harsh conditions, maybe I am just plain stupid or dumb as to where I like to land my plane, maybe its a lot of luck, maybe is my confidence in my airplane due to the performance I am getting, maybe its my brass balls. Its probably all of the above however, if and when I get another prop strike I will be very glad I had the MT. I will most certainly buy another and continue to tells others the honest truth about how happy I am with the prop. There is no comparison between the MT and the others. Its truly that good.

Of course this being the internet, there will be neigh sayers but I would ask them how hard do they really fly their plane and where do they really land on a daily basis. Pictures are worth a 1000 words.

Deep sand


Tall grass


Water


Large rocks and gravel


Mountain tops


And of course snow


Did I mention how much I like the MT prop...

AKT

jaudette wrote:My understanding is that these are somewhat more expensive than the Hartzell?
Jim

A forum member recently got quotes for his 185, and the 3-blade MT was cheaper than an equivalent design of new 3-blade (Aluminium) Hartzell.
Still, both are pretty pricey.

AKT,IF and When you do ding it, (with those Big Brass Balls) I sure hope they give you a discount for all the advertising for them you do !

jaudette wrote:Not trying to be a smart-ass here... But reading through this post has me wondering why anyone would want to use one of these guys' composite prop.
Jim

What AKT said...

I am not exactly thrilled about paying out what a simple cub Borer cost, let alone what a 3 blade MT does, but having a snorter engine is only advantageous if you have a prop that can convert that power to thrust. The simple fact of the matter is that the MT does it better, and with much less weight, which in the case of airplanes like early 180's that tend to run too far fwd on CG is as much a factor as well.

As to the second part of the equation... most folks tearing it up out there with a gusto are doing it on big wheels... a C180 on big wheels has a prop clearance approaching 3 feet! If you are still sucking up rocks with that kind of ground clearance, the prop is not to blame

more MT eye candy;


Strip bagging on the Copper


Downriver from Childs Glacier


Upper Tebay


Hinchenbrook


Polly Creek

It's just that good....

Take care, Rob

edit.., reviewing these pics, I can honestly say that in every one, the airplane was loaded for an extended camping trip to gross weight and no more... When I am heavy and on some trashy rock hole that looked much longer while landing, I am always more than happy to have the lighter prop that hooks up better, regardless of what rock ding I may pick up. Very much like the feeling you get about your bush wheels when the pea gravel turns out to be cantaloupe sized

been there done that, never again will I own an MT...