MT Propeller
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:48 am
- Location: Gilespie Field KSEE
- Contact:
I am very curious how well this prop performs. I am stuck with the solid crank O-360 so it would be mega bucks for my conversion. I really hate flying at 110 mph at 2500 rpm with the throttle pulled way back! Would be nice to put those ponies to work without reving the engine too high, easy to exceed 2,700 if you are not paying attention.
- maules.com
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:01 pm
- Contact:
- Russnrenea
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:16 am
- Location: NH
- Contact:
- maules.com
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:01 pm
- Contact:
MT prop
Things may have changed very recently, you'd have to check with the MT folks but..........I recently (since January) inquired about the MT prop for the O360 C1F. What I was told by the MT guys in WI was that they were expecting approval of the STC very soon for the 2 blade MT prop on the Maule. What was not in the works, hasn't been started or even seriously considered, is an STC for the 3 blade 78" MT on the Maule.
I bought the 3 blade and just got it installed about a week ago on a field approval. Still evaluating the performance of the prop at this point. Will post more information as I play with it more. Initial impression is that the initial takeoff acceleration is significantly increased. Nice not having the rpm restriction in cruise.
Mr. Ed
I bought the 3 blade and just got it installed about a week ago on a field approval. Still evaluating the performance of the prop at this point. Will post more information as I play with it more. Initial impression is that the initial takeoff acceleration is significantly increased. Nice not having the rpm restriction in cruise.
Mr. Ed
- Duane
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:58 pm
- Location: moultrie ga
- Contact:
- NZMaule
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:24 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
- cooker
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:02 pm
- Contact:
we put a two blade MT on our experimental. Old prop was unserviceable and MT was the about the only logical replacement primarily due to the light weight and the compatibility with our engine. We went with the 2-blade because Flight resource suggested that a 2-blade would provide better short field and float performance for engines under ~275hp. Beyond 275 the 3 blade would be the logical choice. The reason for this was the blade has a large profile and the drag of a 3rd blade counters the thrust it produces until you get to the higher power where 2 blades can't efficiently handle all the power ...... makes sense i guess ..... im not an expert this is what i was told.
When i asked why the husky guys all have 3 blades on their 180hp engines i was told "because they look sexy, and those guys have lots of money"
I only have about 5 hours on the prop now so I won't offer much of a report yet although climb and take off do appear better, we also made quite a few other changes to the aircraft at the same time so its hard to say how much of the better performance is due to the prop.
I have not experienced the "extremely smooth" operation that lots brag about yet. We will have it dynamically balanced next week if the weather smartens up and hopefully we can really test it out so that i can provide a better pirep.
When i asked why the husky guys all have 3 blades on their 180hp engines i was told "because they look sexy, and those guys have lots of money"
I only have about 5 hours on the prop now so I won't offer much of a report yet although climb and take off do appear better, we also made quite a few other changes to the aircraft at the same time so its hard to say how much of the better performance is due to the prop.
I have not experienced the "extremely smooth" operation that lots brag about yet. We will have it dynamically balanced next week if the weather smartens up and hopefully we can really test it out so that i can provide a better pirep.
- Sam Rutherford
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:10 pm
- Location: Europe
- Contact:
- bobguhr
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:57 pm
- Location: West Milford, New Jersey
- Contact:
Im buying a two blade prop from MT and part of the process involves measiring distance between the trailing edge of the existing spinner to the engine crankshaft flange, distance between the engine cowling and the engine crankshaft flange, distance between trailing edge of existing spinner to engine cowling and the top cowling trim angle in relation to the the plane of the spinner. Just as much if not more of a PIA than it sounds to measure accurately. Has anyone installed a two blade MT on their O-540 J1A5D 235hp
Maule? Mine's an M6. MT referenced three part 's for similar but slightly different spinners, the MT #'s are P-271-2-C P-902-4. and P-277-3
Can anyone share which spinner part # was used on their similar install?
Maule? Mine's an M6. MT referenced three part 's for similar but slightly different spinners, the MT #'s are P-271-2-C P-902-4. and P-277-3
Can anyone share which spinner part # was used on their similar install?
Last edited by bobguhr on Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- maules.com
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:01 pm
- Contact:
- bobguhr
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:57 pm
- Location: West Milford, New Jersey
- Contact:
Kind of what I thought, I took the measurements of my specific install and I'm trying to cross check with other installs to see if I come up with the same MT spinner model. I ordered an 84" MT as that is the limit of their TC according to the folks,specifically Larry Schlassinger, at Flight Resource.
- Mog
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:01 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
- DeltaRomeo
- 100+ Posts
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:05 am
- Contact:
Got 70 hours on the 2 blade MT on an O-360. No leaks. Smooth ops and no rpm range limitation (and no AD). When Hartzell condemned my hub, I couldn't locate ANY serviceable Hartzell props on the market so we were looking at buying a new Hartzell: $12K for the same set of problems. For 2K more the MT was a lot more attractive; lighter, smoother, more performance, and no rpm operation limitation. With the nickel leading edge it is a great prop. After installation, I had the balance checked and out of the box it was at .18 ips; dialed it down to .05 ips. Also learned that the tachometer was reading 200 rpm low. Not much in the way of legal options for its replacement with a digital tach without buying a whole EIS system (thread drift...). The low pitch stop from MT is set at 5.5º; the Hartzell was set at 12º.
As far as spinner clearance goes, I just measured the distance from the trailing edge of the Hartzell spinner assembly to the prop mounting flange and picked the choice from MT that was the closest match to that dimension. Worked out fine.
As far as spinner clearance goes, I just measured the distance from the trailing edge of the Hartzell spinner assembly to the prop mounting flange and picked the choice from MT that was the closest match to that dimension. Worked out fine.
M5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], PCH and 25 guests