|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, it was interesting to re-read this entire thread.... Has anyone heard any updates from Richard on his progress???
It would be nice to know if those were completed or not.. 
|
|
#18
03-13-10, 08:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Since there is already a thread designiated MT Propeller, I figured I'd add a reply to Jack about his interest in the Composite 3-blade props.
I recently mounted them on the front and rear of my bird and I'm quite pleased. The biggest difference is decreased vibration....think of it like this: the wop-wop-wop of a two blade huey...you can hear it coming miles away. The high-speed buzz of the OH-6 "Loach" (Hughes 500) which is virtually silent until its on ya. or Harley vs. ninja. its smooth....and its quiet. In fact, the tips actually whistle ever so slightly at idle. Much of the smoothness may be due to Owen Bell's dynamic balancing. Whether its the props and proper balancing, or the stars and the moons...whatever it is....I likes it!!!! Bug juice wipes away increadibly easily (be careful what cleaner you use). And be SURE you clean the rear prop after EVERY flight. The rear prop os only a few inches from the blistering hot exhaust from the rear engine. No problem...the heat doesnt seem to be bothering it (only 15 hrs so far). HOWEVER, the exhaust carbons get baked onto the prop....turinging a stark white blade....tobacco-tan. Easy enough to clean off if you get it while its freash. But if you wait too long, I have a hunch it will prove increasingly difficult and could theoretically stain the finish permanently. Take the extra few seconds to use your cleaning cloth to "floss" between the rood of the prop and the base of the spinner. (sorry about the lack of technical lingo....but if you have one, you'll know what I mean). In all.... I am VERY please. As with any upgrade ( and I've done A LOT of upgrading) I dont recommend doing it unless the existing quipment is due for replacement or significant repair. But if its time to do "something", I can say that the MT Composite 3-blade is an exceptionally good option. It wont work miracles. But it will put a smile on your face. Cole
|
|
#19
03-14-10, 11:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have 7 years on my MT's to date. Still love them and would do it again. I will be leaving for Deland, Florida in about a week to visit the US MT Prop facility. There my props will undergo a complete overhaul for a fresh new start. Estimates for the job are around $7K. Not too bad for both ends.
Like Cole described the benefits of the wood-composite blades are very noticeable in smoother operation and less vibration. This is primary due to the wood blades ability to absorb the common harmonics and vibrations of aircraft engines. Whereas the standard metal blades just can't decrease the waves but in some cases transfer it to the rest on the airframe. This vibration dampening with the MT's has been also noted in component life such as exhaust systems. After having this current aircraft for the last 34 years I just thought that having to repair the rear muffler every other annual was normal maintenance. Since having the MT's the frequency of repairs are more than 1/2 of what they used to be. When I had the airplane painted last year I painted the rear blades, on the engine side, black. Much easier to maintain and no worry of all the cosmetic finish to maintain. I made a suggestion to MT about this and they were very interested because they had not thought about the position of this unit relative to the exhaust. The other benefit of the MT's is the new spinners. The design is much more pleasing and better materials. All in all it's a winner. You have to replace both front and rear together so this is where most owners find it difficult because of the large cost factor. You won't be disappointed if you do it. How about FOD on the rear? Has anyone had damage issues?
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years
|
|
#20
03-14-10, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fod in rear prop
I purchased a T337G with two MT props and like most aspects but have had to repair the rear blades twice and that is with no un paved strip exposure. Now at strange airports after a little cool down run I shut off the rear and just taxi with the front as I am perinoid about the damage potential.
Sandy Loutitt N81C, 1973 T337G
|
|
#22
04-03-10, 09:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The damage issue to the rear can be annoying but it's not a real big deal to repair. I have found that leading with the rear is a must. On take off I lead with the rear and then bring the nose up a little before adding front power. This has all but eliminated any issues with the rear. If I have a long taxi on a hot day I will taxi with the front as primary but as long as you taxi with the rear and don't use the front to blow anything back to the rear you'll be fine. I have had some bad damage on the original rear prop also. So there is no cure for the potential issue, just live with the system. The only time I bring both engines to power at the same time would be taking off on a short field.
The MT props are fantastic
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years
|
|
#23
05-15-20, 10:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
MT Service Bulletins
For those of us with newer MT props, MT released SB 30 r4 a couple months ago. Applies to a small number of MTV 12 props & blades built or overhauled in 2013-2014 & requires replacing blade lag screws.
Here’s the whole list of MT service bulletins: https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/serviced.htm The actual Service Bulletin mentioned above https://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/sbs/sb30r4.pdf Last edited by hharney : 05-15-20 at 11:13 PM.
|
|
#24
08-10-20, 04:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To be, or not too MT!
Hi all,
Bumping an old thread here... Just got word my front prop is a 'boat anchor' - too much corrosion to overhaul. I am faced with a decision - do I go with new McCauley's, or new MT's? Price is around the same (maybe a small advantage to MT) - but that is not the issue. I want to make the best choice for reliability, damage tolerance, performance and maintenance costs in the future. Herb has posted some great feedback on the MT's and I am looking for some more views on propeller choices, and why you may choose one over the other. Thanks in advance. Jeff
|
|
#25
08-11-20, 09:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
+1 MT Props
I like the MT props. But, I am a "concrete" flyer and not a bush pilot--My bird has only touched grass once since I've owned it--everything else has been nice, clean, smooth and long runways.
Consider TBO on the MTV-12D's (2000hr/72 mo, per SB1R5) vs your two-blade. Mine were installed in 2014, have about 400 hours on them. Mine are "due overhaul" this year, and have an issue with the wrong lag screw installed at manufacture. SB (see prior post) says I must change out offending lag screw at overhaul. MT Props rep highly recommended accomplishing overhaul on time, and taking care of the lag screw issue. I go into annual this winter, so I'll go ahead and get 'em done then. Got a quote from a "local" MT props shop in Tulsa: approx $8K for both. And, they said they'd come get them and bring them back to me in about 10 days time (I'm a few hours drive from Tulsa). Not too bad, if you compare to Herb's quote in his post from a few years ago. There seem to be quite a few shops ready to service your MT Props, should you need it. https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/services_usa.htm PS: I think you can still get white with red tips like Herb's, or black with white tips like mine. Last edited by Learjetter : 08-11-20 at 10:49 AM. Reason: Added AFM Supp attachment
|
|
#27
08-12-20, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Dave Last edited by DrDave : 08-13-20 at 02:38 AM.
|
|
#28
08-13-20, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dr. Dave - you have my attention...Potentially a much faster way to get back into the air. MT prop lead times are 8 to 10 weeks!
PM or call me; we can discuss a price. I still have a decision to make though... the front prop that was removed did not have many hours since overhaul, but a few years for sure. The rear prop has way more hours and years on the aircraft, so based on the reason the front got rejected at overhaul, I am guessing the rear is in the same condition and will be scrap at next overhaul as well. The issue is internal corrosion on hub and on blade roots inside hub. This is due to an aircraft that was sitting and not utilized AND being in south Texas in the humid environment. I had to remove the front prop due to an oil leak, but I am pretty confident that the rear prop is not much further behind in giving me problems. These old props are not supported with parts anymore, and McCauley is pushing the current ones. I believe it's a case of deciding "when" I buy new props, not "if". Jeff
|
|
#29
09-12-22, 07:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
MT Service Bulletin #30 (blade lag screws) to be an AD
Information about the MT Prop Service Bulletin SB-30 is posted below in this thread. It seems the FAA has taken EASA's lead and determined the SB needs to be an Airworthiness Directive.
The latest version of the SB can be found on the MT Prop site here The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) plans to issue the following AD effective 16 SEP 2022: 2022-18-02 If the link doesn't work, or you're not enamored with the new FAA Dynamic Regulatory System, I'll attach the proposed AD from the DRS site.
|
Linear Mode
