I have been looking at all the possible options available for the IO-520D. The aircraft is a experimental Cessna type which will eventually be mounted on amphib floats. My question is what 3-blade propeller offers the best performance for the dollar value? Below are the options I have looked at.

Hartzell "standard blade profile" (78"-86")
Hartzell Trailblazer
Hartzell Scimitar (80"-82")
McCauley Blackmac

MT Propeller MTV-9-D/210-58'
MT Propeller MTV-9-D/210-58' "reverse option"

Another question I have regarding the lightweight propeller is if there is a loss of flywheel effect on the motor.

Thanks!

This ought to be fun.

Went with a used McCauley. 600 hours remaining..$1,500. Overhaul $900. Don't recall the air freight bill RT from PTU to ANC. Permold heavy case. No RPM restrictions with the Counterweight arrangement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

m_moyle wrote:Went with a used McCauley. 600 hours remaining..$1,500. Overhaul $900. Don't recall the air freight bill RT from PTU to ANC. Permold heavy case. No RPM restrictions with the Counterweight arrangement.

Sure can't wait to see that thing fly!

~Chris

What kind of airplane is that?
Your avator signature says PA20 but I haven't seen too many Pacers with IO-520's.

Ha!.. it's a Bearhawk


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Forgive the thread drift:

Mark, that's already a great looking plane, and I'll bet the finished product is going to look amazing.

What provisions are you making to insulate the footwell? The IO-520 makes a lot of heat, and in the summer I think it could be a problem.

When I was flying 207s, if my passengers were bringing hot carry-out food back to their village, I'd put it in the nose baggage compartment to keep it warm! Once (early on in my 207 days) I made the mistake of putting ice cream in the nose, and it was completely melted after 30 minutes!

I would go with the MT. On amphibs you will be nose heavy and taking weight off the nose is a big plus. The MT with the nickel or even the stainless leading edge will be more durable and resist water erosion. I had a Grumman Widgeon and it had composite props with stainless leading edges (not MT) and is was incredibly durable, no water erosion what so ever. I have had MT and metal props on my Husky's and I much prefer the MT for reasons that have been discussed a lot on various threads and websites. Based on my experience I would go MT.

Kurt

PA12_Pilot wrote:Forgive the thread drift:

Mark, that's already a great looking plane, and I'll bet the finished product is going to look amazing.

What provisions are you making to insulate the footwell? The IO-520 makes a lot of heat, and in the summer I think it could be a problem.

When I was flying 207s, if my passengers were bringing hot carry-out food back to their village, I'd put it in the nose baggage compartment to keep it warm! Once (early on in my 207 days) I made the mistake of putting ice cream in the nose, and it was completely melted after 30 minutes!

Probably foil/insulation/foil....and good boot cowl ventilation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I like the MT for all the reasons Kurt cited. Reduced water erosion, exception is mine has lost some gel coat where it overlapped the stainless leading edges. Weight, I have Aerocet amphibs and they're a bit nose heavy, also, haven't seen a single rock dent in the leading edge when I'm on wheels and I operate on a gravel taxiway. It's also very smooth and quiet.

Only other prop I bought new was a Hartzell Scimitar for a T210. Picked up a few rocks when it was still very new. It was heartbreaking.

MT for me from now on, unless something better comes along

Thanks for the replies back regarding the propeller. What is the delivery like for the MT? I have heard that its about 5 months to receive the prop and that parts can take a while to get as well....What are your thoughts on the reversible pitch option for float flying? It certainly seems like a good idea but I wonder about all the moving parts and added weight. Thoughts?

I just flew a 185 floatplane with a reversible MT last week, it's kind of a joke for float ops.

Granted my opinion is colored with thousands of hours in turbine powered otters which have a very elegant reverse setup.

With the 185, which is setup in accordance with the new Flight Resources STC, the prop is brought into reverse using a momentary on toggle switch on the yoke and then the amount of reverse is regulated by throttle inputs, all the while holding the prop in reverse with the switch. If you should let go of the switch while the engine is revved up you're going to have a scary surge forward. With some practice a pilot could get better, kinda a pat the head rub the belly type motion. Additionally if you should shut the engine down in reverse there is some danger of over revving the engine upon restart, especially with a hot injected continental restart.

Contrast this with the PT-6, single lever operation and reverse prop latches make it very easy. Ok, it's an apples and oranges comparison with the great price disparity between these two systems but there's very little else out there in the world of reversing seaplane props.

So, I would consider the MT system little more than a novelty, fun but difficult to operate safely around docks.

Sam

Hangar 24 wrote:Thanks for the replies back regarding the propeller. What is the delivery like for the MT? I have heard that its about 5 months to receive the prop and that parts can take a while to get as well....What are your thoughts on the reversible pitch option for float flying? It certainly seems like a good idea but I wonder about all the moving parts and added weight. Thoughts?

Delivery can be in stock ship today to weeks, just depends. My prop for my Husky was in stock. As for parts? I don't know about that but when I had my MT overhauled in Florida they were backed up but no more than any other prop shop that does the other brands. Make sure if you do buy one, buy for Flight Resource in Wisconsin and if you need work or overhaul then have MT in Florida do the work. Flight Resource sells more MT props than any one and they have more and less restrictive STC's than anyone else. Call Flight Resource and ask them about all these questions you pose, Larry knows his stuff and will give you a lot of great info.

Interesting information on the reverse pitch operation. Its good to hear the pros/cons by someone who has flown with the MT reversible option. Regarding the delivery of a new prop and/or parts perhaps its just a local concern up here in Western Canada. So there is really no concern about the MT's having damaged blades due to picking up small rocks like a conventional aluminum prop? If I decide to go with MT it will be mounted on a tricycle gear with 8.50 main gear and 8.00 nose gear "hopefully" and amphibian floats. I am worried that due to the propeller being closer to the terrain compared to a taildragger that the propeller will be more susceptible to picking up stones especially on non paved surfaces causing costly damage. Are there any negative features of the MT prop that I should be aware of before purchasing one?

The Nickel and stainless leading edges on the MT are both more durable than the aluminum leading edges on a metal prop. In your situation I would want the MT. If you do damage the MT there is an incredible amount of damage you can field repair. You can repair nicks in the back side of the blade with epoxy and any water erosion on the painted area, if any is usually cosmetic and can be field repaired. These are tough props that perform extremely well. I too would pass on the revers, if were silky smooth like a PT-6 maybe so but as it is, pass. Now, if you NEED it, then get it but for a lot of us it would just be an expensive novelty.

Kurt

Double check me, but I think the MT is limited to 2700 RPM. Your IO-520D will produce 300 HP at 2850. You'll only get 285 HP at 2700, so there's a bit of a downside. It probably makes up for some of that horsepower loss by being a bit more efficient, IE, you're not losing 5% of the thrust when you lose 5% RPM.

I have an IO-550 that makes full power at 2700, so I'm not affected by that limitation.

We recently re-propped our experimental Bearhawk.

Our research, including help from many good people on this forum, led us to the Hartzell Trailblazer.

We were shown a lot of bad photos of MT props which don't make the public forum. The composite-over-wood construction seems to have some maintenance weaknesses. The Nickel leading edge is the MT's advantage apparently, if you risk a stone strike. The stainless steel one seems to be a relative weak spot for stones.

The Hartzell had a few advantages from my point of view, including the solid carbon fibre construction and ease of maintenance / repair at home. I also liked the shape, blade size, and the price compared to the MT. Downsides? The blades have stainless leading edges. Again, this seems to be vulnerable to a big stone strike, but may be better on water.

It's all a crap shoot in my opinion. It's hard to know which factors will end up being a saving grace or a point of regret...

All I know is, composite props are EXPENSIVE!! I never thought I would buy one, five years ago.

"The Hartzell had a few advantages from my point of view, including the solid carbon fibre construction and ease of maintenance / repair at home."

How is the solid carbon fibre construction an advantage over the wood core MT?

Ease of maintenance? Easier than an MT?

The MT can be "repaired at home" like the Trailblazer, probably to a greater extent than the Trailblazer.

These pictures you mention, was the damage due to hitting something or did they just start coming apart? I seriously would like to know.

I do know that there have been many Hartzell hub AD's with horrible customer support in the past, this is a big reason I went with MT years ago, I have been very happy ever since and have had no issues.

Im not trying to say the Trailblazer is a bad prop but some of this stuff I hear about how horrible MT props are is getting a bit old. Im sure there have been issues on some, but amount of the pure BS I hear from some ignorant people, some who should know better is amazing to say the least. One thing I do know for sure is that when there is an issue with the MT prop which is usually cosmetic and non airworthy for the most part MT stands behind their props, when Hartzell condemns their hubs they leave their customers high and dry. That right there should be a big consideration for someone in the market for a new prop.

Kurt

Any stone strike that will cave in a stainless leading edge would certainly do even more damage on a metal prop. You can only file out so much of nick on a metal prop before the blade needs replacing, on a MT and possibly a Trailblazer just replace the leading edge. Now, the nickel is even stronger than the stainless.

Hmmm interesting about the lower RPM's with the MT. Is the Trailblazer propeller RPM limited too? Price wise how much cheaper is the Trailblazer compared to the equivalent MT? Are the Trailblazers similar in weight and performance to the MT?