G44 wrote:"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

Try not to sound too one-eyed about it.... Everything has it's downsides. Examples:

The separately fitted leading edges can detach. That's old news, but it's a nod to the metal props.

The Nickel L/E is harder and more brittle than the stainless steel, but it's not stronger or more ductile.

Carbon has the other advantage of being lighter and stronger than wood or fibreglass etc. Whereas the wood is probably more flexible.

I think you get my point.

The wooden cores aren't 100% dimensional stable, and it sometimes shows in extreme environmental conditions. There were photos of several MT's where the surface finished had wrinkled all over. This was apparently completely airworthy and not a warranty item which MT wanted to address, but looked like crap.

What is the price difference between the MT and the Trailblazer? Is the Trailblazer heavier or light than the MT?

Hangar 24 wrote:What is the price difference between the MT and the Trailblazer? Is the Trailblazer heavier or light than the MT?

I can get the book weight for the 83" Trailblazer two blade, later today. It is noticeably lighter than an equal size metal prop, when you lift it.
For me, the Hartzell was quoted 1,200 USD cheaper than the MT. We do get a discount with Hartzell though.

By the way, those Hartzell Hub ADs applied to older hubs. The new hub has the same 6 year or 2,400hr overhaul life as the MacCauley. No ADs yet, but the future is always a risk with anything that flies.

Hangar 24 wrote: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?

I wouldn't say a MT can't get hurt by small rocks. I have experience with one on a bushmaster that had to get sent back to te factory within 5 hrs of install die to face damage from a small rock on pavement. An aluminium prop wouldn't have had much damage...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

But but but...MT is "The Winners Propellor"

Get a real prop, that is tried and true!!! McCauley or Hartzell [emoji1303]

I've had an MT, did not work well at all. Have a McCauley now, but in the market for a Hartzell Scimitar. Sounds like I'm prolly super ignorant though [emoji857]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hangar 24 wrote:So there is really no concern about the MT's having damaged blades due to picking up small rocks like a conventional aluminum prop?

Quite the opposite actually!

A friend here had the same thing on his new 3 blade MT. One small stone chip on the aft face of the blade turned into months without a prop and replacement parts from Germany. This was a working plane during the busiest season, so the loss was considerable.

This is my single biggest concern about a composite prop of any variety.

While I was researching composite props, I got sent several photos of rock damage to leading edges and fibreglass. It's often repairable on the glass or carbon, but not always. If you put a good ding into the metal leading edge, you are talking a whole new set of balanced blades to repair it...

A1Skinner wrote:

Hangar 24 wrote: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?

I wouldn't say a MT can't get hurt by small rocks. I have experience with one on a bushmaster that had to get sent back to te factory within 5 hrs of install die to face damage from a small rock on pavement. An aluminium prop wouldn't have had much damage...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

One here made it 30-40 hours. Same story.... Mid cord ding, prop down for substantial time (shipped back to MT for a blade if I remember) One failure from snow and another from a fairly small stick. These are local. First hand failures.

I was going down the MT route when I re-engined last time but decided to go another route. A few days of down time in the middle of my flying season was much more negative than any potential benefit so I bought another Mac. Reliability was biggest factor.

I post the above because these are failures I have saw personally. There are a couple more local failures I have pics of but I never saw those in person. I know a few guys running them that love them. If I ran a float operation, I would. To imply that they are the end all-be all of propeller is quite an overstatement. They are simply another option/tool that needs to be HONESTLY evaluated pro AND con for ones personal situation. (like most things)

Here is a very good comparison from this site: https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/mt-3 ... eted-11046
He and others have concluded that the MT is superior.

On the other hand; I like my 86" Mac 401 very much. (C-180, PPonk O-520, floats, skis, wheels). There are not many rocks back east here, so can't speak to that. Water erosion, somewhat a function of float size and operating technique, is basically non-existent.

The 401 pulls very strong, with many gross weight takeoffs on floats and skis as our sample.
It is very smooth, I run it at 2450-2500 for climb, cruise.
Noisy? Somewhat at 2700. Most, including me, think it sounds great. At 2500 the noise drops off considerably. Comfortable for those in the airplane, and on the ground.

Finally, if I were getting an MT; I'd get it painted in whatever color the actual composite is(grey?). On floatplanes, I often see the paint (usually white) worn off from the leading edge back a bit. Cosmetic, but it doesn't look good..

Anyone have first hand knowledge of the Hartzell Trailblazer composite propeller for the 185? What is the weight comparison? Is it RPM limited? Price?

Hangar 24 wrote:Anyone have first hand knowledge of the Hartzell Trailblazer composite propeller for the 185? What is the weight comparison? Is it RPM limited? Price?

Do they make one for the 185?

Battson wrote:I can get the book weight for the 83" Trailblazer two blade.

It's 41.2 pounds. That includes a hefty 3" spacer to suit my cowling, but without whatever spinner is chosen.

For a 185 you would need the three blade version, if its 300hp or more. If it's even STCd, G44 makes a good point...

Edit: A Google reveals:
https://www.wipaire.com/aircraft_page/c ... -skywagon/

Hartzell Trailblazer Propeller Upgrade

Cessna 185 With a Trailblazer Prop

The new carbon fiber composite Hartzell Trailblazer series 82″ propeller is available for Cessna 185 models with the IO-550-D engine installed via Wipaire STC SA1522GL or Texas Skyways STC SA09960SC in both landplane and seaplane configurations. The Trailblazer propeller offers the following features.

- Durable, field-replaceable nickel cobalt leading edge
- Nickel erosion screen for foreign object damage protection
- Thinner blade with a wider chord for improved performance
- Designed to be quieter than comparable propellers
- Carbon fiber composition is 5-10x stronger than natural fiber propeller cores
- 14.6 lbs lighter than the Hartzell metal 80″ prop (model: PHC-C3YF-1RF/F8468A-6R)
- 3.1 lbs lighter than the McCauley 80″ prop (model: D3A34C401/90DFA-10)
View Pricing
(Their STC with prop is $19,900)




I didn't think it had a Nickel leading edge.... ???? Maybe I didn't do thorough research like I thought I did.

But hey, happy to find out that I have accidentally purchased a Nickel leading edge which can be replaced in the field!

Obviously this STC isn't much use to you. Maybe someone else has an STC for the -520.