Anything new int he MT prop front. Was looking to see if they had an STC for my 182S.

They are saying they can get me a field approval.

Pros?
Cons?

Thanks,
D.

The 83" 2 and 3-blade versions popular with the TCM -470-, -520 and -550 powered crowd for nearly 20 years has been improved as a result of feedback from you. The new version with all these features has been re-launched as the 'Expedition' Series.
Same blade design and diameter... MT Engineers tried variations to the design but could not improve it!
Improvements:
--> Nickel-Cobalt Leading edges (60% harder and 50% deeper than the stainless steel they replace).
--> DuraBond Paint that will stand up to 3500psi pressure washer 1" from the tape/paint edge w/o failure.
--> Added layers of Carbon Fiber Cloth in the jacket covering the core for more impact protection and eliminates epoxy cracking of the tips (some called it de-lamination, but that is not a correct term).
--> Improved design/material of blade bearing races to improve life.
--> Improved blade root seals to cure grease leak issue.
--> CT Scanning of raw material (Spruce) to locate and remove from production those pieces with hidden resin pockets to eliminate possibility of the rare cosmetic 'blister' trapped between the core and the jacket.

Still no AD's, no life limits and all MT's are user repairable for common damage with 2-part epoxy by the OWNER and the only prop offering REVERSE thrust capability!

Thank you for the wonderful words and support of our product.

Best regards.
John

MT in Florida has had my prop for almost two months and I won't have it for Memorial weekend at the lake. I had dozens of the "rare" cosmetic blisters. The prop looked scary. Pax worried. So, even if they're cosmetic, they're bad. The prop only had 800 hours on it and I'm spending about $8,000 repairing it and upgrading to nickel.

On the plus side, I liked the performance and light weight. Performance has degraded despite no changes in engine nor airframe. I'm hoping this prop rebuild will restore performance. The blisters and lengthwise wrinkles made the blades very rough. I was told it was due to shrinkage of the wood core. I also had made numerous epoxy patches to the trailing edge.

Broke two starter adapters on the first 200 hours on the IO550D. Had to get towed off Tahoe. Previous owner and his buddies managed to hand prop the beast on a remote Canadian lake. Switched to a classic rebuilt adapter from Niagra and haven't had a problem since.

Pierre

I have had my 2 blade MT for more than 2,000 hrs and abuse it, gravel, mud, water, sand.

Performance is great specially for backcountry flying, quick acceleration, very smooth, lightweight (16 pounds lighter than the metal prop I had , which feels great on a 182) and also works as an air brake at full pitch and reduced power, slows you way down quick , allows for very steep approaches or tight approaches, plus looks real nice, highly recommend it.

I am interested in a 2 blade MT prop for my 182S.

No STC

$16,800 including fee for field approval.

My factory 2 blade Mac seems pretty good. I would like the weight reduction.

Doesn't sound like they want to STC it for the 182S.

Still thinking about it,
D.

If you zoom in, you can see the wrinkles and blisters, as well as the rock ding in the ss edge. Photo taken in March, when I shipped it out for rebuild.

MT speculated that the low humidity of Nevada caused "excessive" shrinkage of the wood core. I'm skeptical. It previously lived in coastal British Columbia and the wrinkles/blisters had started to form.

Again, I appreciate the lightweight and performance. The quick acceleration was undoubtedly a factor in winning the four place division championship at the 2016 STOL-Drag. On the other hand, $8,000 after 800 hours is a little hard to swallow. By comparison, the original Hartzell on my Cirrus was well over 3,000 hours when my A&P and I decided to overhaul it just on principle. It had no damage and no oil leaks. Granted, seaplane and unpaved runways when on bush wheels are tougher conditions.

Pierre

That sucks. Any idea when you will have it back.

In my case not a lot of options for the 182S with the lycoming is-540.

Factory 2 blade is plugging away.

D.

I bought a 3 blade MT from John at Flight Resource (for my IO520). I’ve owned a MT before, so knew what I was getting into. It’s holding up well so far and the performance great (new in 2018). I have heard horror stories of guys trying to deal directly with MT when it comes to service (of any kind really). I do enjoy the MT performance, but honestly, the only reason I was willing to purchase another one was because of the reputation and support of the Flight Resource folks. Without them, I probably would shop around more.

Also keep in mind for those of you who have MT props. MT in Florida is NOT the only game in town for service, overhaul and major work. Tiffin Aire in Tiffin, Ohio is an option. I used them a couple years ago for a reseal of my MT prop and was very happy with their work, fast turn around and their facility which I toured while I was there. Just a heads up, could save a bunch of time...

Kurt

PS, I will echo the awesome support of John and Larry! I wont buy an MT anywhere else.

I wrote this a couple of years ago and posted it on the Husky site. I repost here in case it may be of interest to some of you. I am in NO way connected to MT, John, Larry or anyone else financially, I just like the product.

Kurt




As many of you know I had a 3 blade MT on my 180hp 2012 Husky and decided to try the New MT Ultra. After about 50 hours on it I thought I would share my impressions. I did not want to say too much about it too soon without giving it a fair evaluation. I will comment and compare it with the two metal Hartzell's and the other MT props certified and available on the Husky, I have experience with all these props however I do not have any experience with the new composite Hartzell prop itself and only limited experience with the 80 inch metal Hartzell.

My overall objective was to increase the cruise speed over the 3 blade and hopefully gain some climb rate but for the most part, increase cruise speed was the main objective.

I was very happy with the original 2 blade MT 210cm prop I put on my first Husky I owned in 2004, I was one of the first to put this prop on a Husky and I was glad I did, it was far and above better than the original 76 inch metal Hartzell. This original MT prop has been out long enough and talked about in sufficient depth and detail that I do not need to go over it again here except to say it is a fantastic prop. When I bought my second Husky, a 2012 180hp A1-C, 4 years ago it came with the 3 blade MT. The airplane was an inventory airplane the dealer had in stock so there was no ordering it with the 2 blade MT, also at the time the 2 blade original prop was limited to 2,600 RPM due to noise certification issues with the higher gross weight of the 2,250 pound gross weight of the Husky A1-C, I was not willing to give up 100 RPM, no way. ( I think I have this right, correct me if I am wrong)




In the back of my mind I was wondering how this 3 blade MT was going to perform in comparison to the original 2 blade I had on my previous Husky, my initial thought was it will probably be smoother, pull a bit harder on take off, cruise a bit slower and have more drag at idle. All my initial assumptions were pretty much spot on except it seemed to pull about the same on take off as the original 2 blade MT prop. It took a while to come to these conclusions and actually at times I thought it was a bit faster but then again at times I thought it was a bit slower. This was all pretty much seat of the pants, IAS on the airspeed indicator at various temperatures and so on, not very scientific to say the least. It wasn't until my buddy bought a 2007 Husky with a 2 blade original 210cm MT prop did it really sink in as to the speed difference between the 2 props. He was on 29 inch Alaska Bushwheels and I was on 8:50's and he was only one inch of manifold pressure slower than me. Wow, that was very telling for me. I also asked many of you who had experience with the 3 blade and 2 blade original and 2 blade Ultra your opinions in the past and all of you pretty much echoed what I discovered. 3 blade is slower than both of the 2 blade MT's. Ok, so Im convinced now after bending everyones ear. I did not want to just give it an expensive try without some good reports from others. I know, Larry and John say if you don't like it then return it for a refund but I did not want to go thru that process if at all possible.

I called Larry at Flight Resource, the holder of the STC's for the MT props on the Husky and many other airplanes. I have dealt with Larry in the past when I put the original MT prop on my Husky in 2004 and that was a very nice experience so I knew this time would be no different and it was fantastic. Larry had one in stock so I bought it. AS luck or tragedy would have it, I had to attend a funeral real close to where the prop was located. I called Larry and asked him if I could meet him the next day and pick it up, Larry was out of town but his partner in the company John dropped what he was doing on a Sunday morning and met me at their facility so I could pick the prop on my way back home! Thanks John!




I installed the prop (very easy) and flew the airplane, initial impression were very favorable. I wanted to fly next to my buddy's Husky on 29's for a comparison. Well, he had a failure with one of his tires and put a set of 8:50's on it. I was disappointed I was not going to be able to do a side by side comparison of how it was set up when we flew side by side with the 3 blade. Well, if I had the 3 blade prop on now Im sure he would pass me with both of us having 8:50's, only seems logical, right? I was pleased when at many different power settings I passed him! By how much? Not sure exactly but it was by a noticeable amount.

Flight Resource claims about 4-7 mph faster than the 3 blade MT and I can honestly say that is about right. I also noticed an improvement in climb, a couple hundred feet per minute or so, not scientifically measured but seat of the pants and VSI indications. So, all in all I am very pleased with the switch.

Some differences other than speed between the New 2 blade Ultra and the 3 blade.



3 blade smoother but not by much, both incredibly smooth, 2 blade lighter, 3 blade has much more drag at idle which makes it better for descent control and spot landing, the 3 blade makes the Husky come down like a tool box when throttle closed! 3 blade may be a better choice for Idaho back country for the wider descent envelope, they pull on take off about the same, 2 blade better if you fly over water and need to extend glide in the event of an engine failure.

Overall my objective was met with the switch to the 2 blade Ultra.

So, what should you do you ask? Should you switch? Well, tough call since it involves money. If you have either of the metal Hartzell's I would say definitely switch! The 80 inch metal Hartzell performs ok but it is HEAVY and having a lot of friends that have been stung by the Hartzell hub AD's in the past makes me leery of them. I considered the new Hartzell composite but since from what I gather the performance between it and the MT Ultra are close and with the Hartzell AD's and how they treated my friends who were affected I chose the MT, I have always had great success with the MT. Now if you have the original 2 blade MT that makes the decision to switch to the Ultra more difficult. I think the Ultra is a better prop all the way around than the original 2 blade MT but they are close enough that only you could decide if the money difference is worth it to you. If you are ordering a new Husky I would definitely order it with the new 2 blade MT Ultra, no question. As far as switching from the 3 blade MT to the 2 blade MT Ultra, well, I think you know where I stand on that, I took a leap and did it and for me it was well worth it.

All 3 MT props are fantastic props, they do not have ANY RPM restrictions that the metal Hartzell's have but for me, the Ultra is my choice, great prop.

Kurt Wien
Last edited: Dec

I've had challenges with MT in the past as well. I did not feel taken care of, and will not consider them for new props moving forward.

This occurred on a two year old 2 bladed prop on a Scout, about 5 years ago. The blades had 108 hours on them.
As John mentioned above, my prop blades were subjected to epoxy cracking on the back of each blade.

The Scout was on straight floats and operated on occasion for float ratings in Seattle. The epoxy cracking appeared to be blade failure to both flight instructors and FAA examiners that flew in the plane. MT props (John) explained, and I was satisfied, that this was not really blade failure...however, in my opinion, with this defect, the wood core was now subject to water operations, and we could eventually see some sort of blade failure. Furthermore, this defect was a liability to the flight school.

With a two year old prop with 108 hours, I was hoping that MT Prop \ Flight Resource would take care of this issue for me. However, I concede that it was technically out of warranty. Additionally, this issue came up at the beginning of float flying season...May or so. All "solutions" listed below would have knocked me out for the season.

Solutions offered (from John, Flight Resource) were:
A. Comply with a service bulletin to refinish the coating. After talking to three prop shops in the PNW, as well as the flight school mechanic: two prop shops and the flight school mechanic declined to perform the service bulletin. The authorized shop for MT Props in the PNW, NWPropellor, admitted this "fix" will last a month, and re-crack. They were back-logged with other work and could schedule me in four months later.

B. I could uninstall the prop blades and send them to Flight Resource. Turn around time was three months. I want to say...$4k to $5k for this.

C. I could get new blades from Germany, for $9k if I recall correctly....in about 8 months.

I found these "solutions" unworkable for me. They (Flight Resource) had the audacity to try to sell me a new three blade MT prop for $16k when I was trying to get the current prop resolved. Talk about tone-deaf! You've got a customer with a really new prop, low hours, barely out of warranty, that is failing, and you won't take care of me, and you think that I'd actually buy your product again?! hah!

What happened was they purchased the prop from me for $5k and I shipped it to an overhaul shop at my expense.
I was able to find an overhauled Hartzell in my local area to put on the Scout and salvage that summer season of flying.

The performance difference is notable, and I did miss the MT.
I found that network\support\infrastructure was not really there for MT props as of 5 years ago.
On a technical standpoint, they did not really do anything wrong regarding me and my prop. Although two years old and 108 hours, the prop was indeed out of warranty. The cracked epoxy was not technically an unairworthy condition...but....when a fed is inspecting your plane on a weekly basis...they (feds) and the school were not comfortable with it.

I did not ask or want free prop blades. However, to feel taken care of, I was expecting an exchange for a set of overhauled\refinished blades for a nominal fee, or, perhaps, some sort of expedited servicing arranged for my blades. Or, at the very least, a substantial (50%+) discount on a new prop from them because hey, my blades were barely out of warranty.

Just think what could have been saved by taking care of me a little: I'd be on here giving positive reviews of MT Propeller & Flight Resource. My next propeller set would be a MT Propeller...some of the folks in the Lake community like the MTs with reverse (although there are issues with some planes getting it to reverse when the oil is warm).

But no, I'll go with Trailblazers for my next prop.

ZP

Thanks for the post ZP. Your experience is what I worry about. I’d consider walking your path too if I had or end up having the same issues.

Wow - glad I asked. Maybe I'll stick with my factory 2 blade Mac.

D.

I’ve had very good experience with MT props and with Flight Resource.

On the other hand, I’ve had pretty bad experience with Hartzell props. Hartzell has a history of cracking hubs, corrosion in hubs, etc. they got two of mine. Their response was: “We’ll sell you a new hub, you pay for installation of blades, or we’ll sell you a new prop.” Discounts? That’s funny, right there.

Pay your money and take your chances. Sometimes you don’t have a lot of choices.

MTV

The people who tend to respond to "what do you think of XXX" on the internet are usually those at the polar extremes: They've either had a horrible experience with XXX, or they had an amazingly good experience with XXX...

When I read threads like this, I try to keep that in mind. The operative statement is: "Your mileage may vary..."

My airplane came with a 2 blade MT prop. It's been on there 700 hours and 10 years. I have not flown the same plane with any other prop, but a major difference I can see if the W&B and the disregard for the restricted RPM range that would be there if I had a metal prop. I have 50 hours on the prop since Feb.

The previous owner's mechanic did 2 epoxy repairs due to gravel strikes in Alaska. 1 on the face, 1 on the leading edge. It seems easy to repair since the epoxy spec'd is JB Weld. I carry JB Weld in my flight tool kit for this reason. Other than those gravel repairs (which would be filed areas on a metal prop), there is no sign of age or damage.

The only thing I don't like is the color. I wish it were black instead of white. I'd get it painted but the current coating is sticking awfully good and would hate to fuck it up.

If I have to buy a new prop for this airplane in my ownership, I'd buy whatever makes more sense at the time between the Mt Ultra and the Trailblazer. Don't see a need to ever go back to metal. With composite, I have those 2 dings which are adequately repaired and otherwise there is zero wear or change to the airfoil so theoretically it's efficiency should be right up there with where it started.

I think you will find, as this thread demonstrates, that there are a lot more good experience’s than bad concerning the MT. I had a seal issue with one of my MT props and it was fixed right away and free of charge, MT Germany picked up the bill. Tiffin Aire did the work. I have had many friends fall victim to the Hartzell hub AD.

I had composite props with stainless leading edges on my Widgeon, although they were not MT. They help up with water erosion much better than my friends Widgeons with their metal props. The blanket statement made by many that composite props don't hold up has been the exact opposite in my experience.


Kurt

asa wrote:My airplane came with a 2 blade MT prop. It's been on there 700 hours and 10 years. I have not flown the same plane with any other prop, but a major difference I can see if the W&B and the disregard for the restricted RPM range that would be there if I had a metal prop. I have 50 hours on the prop since Feb.

The previous owner's mechanic did 2 epoxy repairs due to gravel strikes in Alaska. 1 on the face, 1 on the leading edge. It seems easy to repair since the epoxy spec'd is JB Weld. I carry JB Weld in my flight tool kit for this reason. Other than those gravel repairs (which would be filed areas on a metal prop), there is no sign of age or damage.

The only thing I don't like is the color. I wish it were black instead of white. I'd get it painted but the current coating is sticking awfully good and would hate to fuck it up.

If I have to buy a new prop for this airplane in my ownership, I'd buy whatever makes more sense at the time between the Mt Ultra and the Trailblazer. Don't see a need to ever go back to metal. With composite, I have those 2 dings which are adequately repaired and otherwise there is zero wear or change to the airfoil so theoretically it's efficiency should be right up there with where it started.

ASA, your MT as well as all the other props have a TBO that most people ignore. I realize some of the TBO requirements are very conservative but on the other hand some people go 20 or 30 years without overhauling. You the owner must decide what it prudent.

That being said, your prop on your Scout will be made into an essentially new prop after overhaul including any color you wish. Your blades will be completely refinished as well as the hub completely inspected and reassembled. The cost I was quoted for a 2 blade MT overhaul by Tiffin Aire 2 years ago was 3-4 grand, I don't remember exactly. I thought that was pretty reasonable for the amount of work they do.

As far as Trailblazer vs Ultra, I have flown both and flown both side by side in our Husky’s (3 different airplanes) I have an Ultra and my brother and buddy both have Trailblazers. We have found that the Ultra is smoother, climbs a bit better and cruises a few mph faster at a given power setting and fuel flow, we have done a lot of side by side comparisons to verify our findings. Not a big performance difference but there is some. My buddy’s prop was balanced by Hartzell, we took it to Piqua and had Hartzell dynamically balance it. Even after that, the Ultra is still smoother at all RPM’s including cruise from 1,900 to 2,500. Also, as reported by others the Ultra is about 2 pounds lighter than the Trailblazer.

The Trailblazer is a good prop and would be my second choice for a Scout or Husky, the MT Ultra would be my first. My third choice would be the original MT 2 blade you now.

Kurt

I just realized that after uploading and inserting the photo of my MT prop in the shipping crate, I couldn't zoom in enough to see the wrinkles like I could on my phone, so I found a couple of closer up photos.

This photo shows the wrinkles (aka "blisters") that are supposedly due to excessive wood core shrinkage. Also shows the extensive epoxy patching along the trailing edge.



An epoxy repair that didn't hold up.



Other than the two broken starter adapters, the frequent need for epoxy repair on the trailing edges, the blistering, the one epoxy repair that wouldn't hold, the two and a half months downtime, and the almost $8,000 expense at 800 hours prop time, I like the prop. I am looking forward to getting back on the water to see if the old performance is back! Just don't know yet when that will be.

Pierre

Pierre_R wrote:I just realized that after uploading and inserting the photo of my MT prop in the shipping crate, I couldn't zoom in enough to see the wrinkles like I could on my phone, so I found a couple of closer up photos.

This photo shows the wrinkles (aka "blisters") that are supposedly due to excessive wood core shrinkage. Also shows the extensive epoxy patching along the trailing edge.



An epoxy repair that didn't hold up.



Other than the two broken starter adapters, the frequent need for epoxy repair on the trailing edges, the blistering, the one epoxy repair that wouldn't hold, the two and a half months downtime, and the almost $8,000 expense at 800 hours prop time, I like the prop. I am looking forward to getting back on the water to see if the old performance is back! Just don't know yet when that will be.

Pierre

Wow, trailing edge damage is really weird, in my experience. Wonder if that’s also related to shrinkage?

MTV