MT 4 Blade Pirep

[carusoam]

http://mt-propellerusa.com/

http://hartzellprop.com/products/top-prop/mooney/m20r-no-anti-ice/

stuff I googled a while back...

I went with the thin, scimitar shape... the MT wasn't available yet...

The weight of the composite blades are very attractive...

Hartzell also has composite options.

Best regards,

 

-a-

[kmyfm20s]

I am really interested in getting the 4 blade prop! Do you or will you have any before and after T/O experience in high altitude airports and/or high altitude cruise climbs? I’m really impressed with my 3 blade props performance on my screaming eagle but that would probably seal the deal on a purchase if you felt like there was an appreciable difference. In the summer time I fly in the high teens on my longer trips on usually fully loaded, the airspeed on climbs can get pretty slow to keep a good rate up. If you ever have a chance to climb for 12,000 to 17,500 I would be curious in your data.  Thanks!

[Raptor05121]

Bump again- where did OP get that HUD? 

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

I am really interested in getting the 4 blade prop! Do you or will you have any before and after T/O experience in high altitude airports and/or high altitude cruise climbs? I’m really impressed with my 3 blade props performance on my screaming eagle but that would probably seal the deal on a purchase if you felt like there was an appreciable difference. In the summer time I fly in the high teens on my longer trips on usually fully loaded, the airspeed on climbs can get pretty slow to keep a good rate up. If you ever have a chance to climb for 12,000 to 17,500 I would be curious in your data.  Thanks!

I dont have actual numbers to share with you - but it is a difference in all categories.

[Aviationinfo]

Wow Russ, that prop looks GREAT on your airplane.  Holy cow.  You have created a whole group of "prop-aware" fans!

We installed the MT 3-blade on our E model and have been very happy with it.  Although the dynamics are surely different with one fewer blade than yours, we noted immediate differences with the Hartzell 2-blade prop.  The first one was the lack of inertia / flywheel effect of the heavier prop, and a much faster response to rpm changes.  We definitely improved our takeoff and climb performance, (although it's by no means scientifically derived data).  It accelerates more quickly on the ground.   Our cruise speed has not seemed to suffer and remains the same before / after the change.  When we shut down the engine it stops nearly immediately, which gets one's attention.  It has made me much more conscientious about ensuring the boost pump is turned on prior to takeoff---the engine spins down so fast that I don't think I could get the switch flipped on fast enough, should the engine-driven pump ever fail at a bad time.   Overall we really like ours.   Congrats to you!

[Txbyker]

18 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Bump again- where did OP get that HUD? 

Alpha AOA.

Russ

[Txbyker]

20 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

I am really interested in getting the 4 blade prop! Do you or will you have any before and after T/O experience in high altitude airports and/or high altitude cruise climbs? I’m really impressed with my 3 blade props performance on my screaming eagle but that would probably seal the deal on a purchase if you felt like there was an appreciable difference. In the summer time I fly in the high teens on my longer trips on usually fully loaded, the airspeed on climbs can get pretty slow to keep a good rate up. If you ever have a chance to climb for 12,000 to 17,500 I would be curious in your data.  Thanks!

I don’t have any real hard numbers for you but butt dyno says yes, a big difference.  I use Cloud Ahoy to measure take off difference and I sometimes see 10-20% reduction in roll if I purposely perform a short field take off.  I have the 310 STC too.  Cruise climb is very smooth.  Sounds like a turbine on the ground as Erik can attest.

Russ

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Txbyker said:

I don’t have any real hard numbers for you but butt dyno says yes, a big difference.  I use Cloud Ahoy to measure take off difference and I sometimes see 10-20% reduction in roll if I purposely perform a short field take off.  I have the 310 STC too.  Cruise climb is very smooth.  Sounds like a turbine on the ground as Erik can attest.

Russ

Affirmative-  turbine sound.

All things are better but I did not do flight test engineering to quantify how much.  Better climb, faster cruise,  and clearly better ground clearance and better weight and balance (better balance makes the airplane feel much less heavy in pitch), and....looks cooler.

[Awful_Charlie]

This is high on my list of upgrades (the lower noise opens up more German airfields, and most of the rest of the EU is moving a similar way, albeit at different speeds) Weight (and balance), shorter take off and better climb are high on my list too, but despite the practicalities, giving up cruise speed feels bad!

One of my main concerns is about getting the lower cowling off though - it's just about do-able single handedly with the three blade - is it much more difficult with the extra blade getting in the way?

[LANCECASPER]

Here's another PIREP on the MT Prop for an M20M: 

 

This past week I took my McCauley prop from my M20M in for a re-seal and to my surprise found that one of the blades had corrosion near the snap ring groove.

 

 

 

The other 2 blades were like new. I debated on whether to go with the MT prop, but the shop that I was dealing with said that they had been an MT dealer early on and had experienced problems with the product and with support. Some issues couldn't be fixed in house and had to be shipped back to Germany.

To get a balanced viewpoint I reached out to @Cody Stallings who has a prop shop and he basically said the same thing plus a few more specifics, such as problems keeping the coating on (which may have improved) and problems with leaking. As much as I wanted the benefits and the looks of the 4 blade, and the price I was quoted was excellent, I decided to go with a new blade for mine for now. Keep the MT Pireps coming though, I am interested in how they hold up.

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, Awful_Charlie said:

This is high on my list of upgrades (the lower noise opens up more German airfields, and most of the rest of the EU is moving a similar way, albeit at different speeds) Weight (and balance), shorter take off and better climb are high on my list too, but despite the practicalities, giving up cruise speed feels bad!

One of my main concerns is about getting the lower cowling off though - it's just about do-able single handedly with the three blade - is it much more difficult with the extra blade getting in the way?

Hi Awful,

Why do you feel you will go slower with the MT? As for my plane I think it is a tad faster than it was with the Mcauley 3 blade it replaced. I know all things being equal 3 should be faster than 4 (and fastest) but all things are not equal.The rocket's McCauley was part of the C340 setup and and its old school prop design I believe from the late 1960s.  So a highly modern scimitar prop design was faster, even though it is 4 blades. So for me as I said, faster cruise, and clearly better climb. Yes quieter and smoother too.

Getting the Lower cowl off.  With 3 blades I just couldn't do it myself and it was already a 2 man job, so it is about the same job now with the 4 blade - always nuisance but quite doable.

P.S. I know I still owe you a ride for that fantastic tour around Switzerland a few years ago!!!

Edited March 24, 2018 by aviatoreb

[FoxMike]

I installed a 4 blade MT on my Bravo in January.  I have had the cowling off twice since the prop replacement.  I can get it off myself but it is more difficult because the new spinner is fits slightly more snuggly than the McCauley.  I have not figured out how to reinstall it without a helper.  

On the subject of cruise speed I have found that turning the engine RPM at 2200-2250 and using 30-32 inches get me a little better speed but at a higher fuel flow (17.5/hr).  The speed gain (a couple of knots)  seems to offset the greater fuel flow so I average 10NM/ gal.  With the McCauley I used 2300 and 28-30 inches.  The MT has more blade area so I guess turning it slower lowers the drag a little.  So far I like the prop.  It is quiet and smooth on the flight deck.  Biggest like is nose heaviness on landing is gone.  Be sure to get the nickel steel leading edge.  I think MT's claims about the performance are reasonably accurate.

[Awful_Charlie]

Thanks guys, and bad luck or the corrosion Lance

12 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Why do you feel you will go slower with the MT? As for my plane I think it is a tad faster than it was with the Mcauley 3 blade it replaced.........Yes quieter and smoother too.

Getting the Lower cowl off.  With 3 blades I just couldn't do it myself and it was already a 2 man job, so it is about the same job now with the 4 blade - always nuisance but quite doable.

P.S. I know I still owe you a ride for that fantastic tour around Switzerland a few years ago!!!

IIRC the early PIREPs suggested the MT may be up to a couple of knots slower in the cruise, and that (along with finances!) was one of the reasons to hold back - yep - I know on a three or four hour leg it doesn't make a difference worth looking at, but it still wrankles. With these newer reports it looks it is just a financial decision now! (hmmm, this is being an expensive hobby, 2016 - Avionics, 2017-LRT and China, 2018-Engine, 2019-MT or paint?, 2020-the other one!, 2021-Transatlantic to Erik for a ride  )

I can just manage to do the cowl on my own with the three blade - replacement involves sitting on the floor in front of the prop with the lower cowl on my legs, shuffling forward to one foot either side of the nosewheel , then use my knees and feet to raise it up and popping in one or two fasteners (not the b*tch just above the nosewheel - that one is normally last!) before getting up and buttoning up the rest. If I'm always going to need to find and collar someone else to help me with this, it is going to make to oil and filter changes require a bit more organisation!

4 hours ago, FoxMike said:

I installed a 4 blade MT on my Bravo in January.  I have had the cowling off twice since the prop replacement.  I can get it off myself but it is more difficult because the new spinner is fits slightly more snuggly than the McCauley.  I have not figured out how to reinstall it without a helper.  

On the subject of cruise speed I have found that turning the engine RPM at 2200-2250 and using 30-32 inches get me a little better speed but at a higher fuel flow (17.5/hr).  The speed gain (a couple of knots)  seems to offset the greater fuel flow so I average 10NM/ gal.  With the McCauley I used 2300 and 28-30 inches.  The MT has more blade area so I guess turning it slower lowers the drag a little.  So far I like the prop.  It is quiet and smooth on the flight deck.  Biggest like is nose heaviness on landing is gone.  Be sure to get the nickel steel leading edge.  I think MT's claims about the performance are reasonably accurate.

Burning more fuel should mean more knots, but my normal cruise is normally in the 12-14GPH (30" 2200) area, which puts me in the 12-14NMPG ball park so we're in a somewhat different operating regime. I'm still gathering data on fuel and performance after fitting Avidyne IFDs so will hopefully have a good basis on which to do a before and after comparisons after the job gets done (assuming it goes ahead!)

The MT factory is only an hour and a half flight from home base (and happens to be where I get my avionic work done - last time I was there I had MT do an IRAN on the standard McCauley prop whilst the avionics were being done), but it's a right pain getting to/from without the aircraft, so day visits are preferred. I'll certainly go nickel leading edges, and keep my fingers crossed on the paint

The weight and CofG is a benefit I'm looking forward to as well - I currently have 2 charlies in the back, so if a lighter prop on the front means I can ditch one of those means I get another 6 lb of usable back. Of course the ideal would be to lose both of them *and* have the CofG go back and inch or two, but back in the real world....

Thanks again

Ben

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Awful_Charlie said:

Thanks guys, and bad luck or the corrosion Lance

IIRC the early PIREPs suggested the MT may be up to a couple of knots slower in the cruise, and that (along with finances!) was one of the reasons to hold back - yep - I know on a three or four hour leg it doesn't make a difference worth looking at, but it still wrankles. With these newer reports it looks it is just a financial decision now! (hmmm, this is being an expensive hobby, 2016 - Avionics, 2017-LRT and China, 2018-Engine, 2019-MT or paint?, 2020-the other one!, 2021-Transatlantic to Erik for a ride  )

I can just manage to do the cowl on my own with the three blade - replacement involves sitting on the floor in front of the prop with the lower cowl on my legs, shuffling forward to one foot either side of the nosewheel , then use my knees and feet to raise it up and popping in one or two fasteners (not the b*tch just above the nosewheel - that one is normally last!) before getting up and buttoning up the rest. If I'm always going to need to find and collar someone else to help me with this, it is going to make to oil and filter changes require a bit more organisation!

Burning more fuel should mean more knots, but my normal cruise is normally in the 12-14GPH (30" 2200) area, which puts me in the 12-14NMPG ball park so we're in a somewhat different operating regime. I'm still gathering data on fuel and performance after fitting Avidyne IFDs so will hopefully have a good basis on which to do a before and after comparisons after the job gets done (assuming it goes ahead!)

The MT factory is only an hour and a half flight from home base (and happens to be where I get my avionic work done - last time I was there I had MT do an IRAN on the standard McCauley prop whilst the avionics were being done), but it's a right pain getting to/from without the aircraft, so day visits are preferred. I'll certainly go nickel leading edges, and keep my fingers crossed on the paint

The weight and CofG is a benefit I'm looking forward to as well - I currently have 2 charlies in the back, so if a lighter prop on the front means I can ditch one of those means I get another 6 lb of usable back. Of course the ideal would be to lose both of them *and* have the CofG go back and inch or two, but back in the real world....

Thanks again

Ben

Ah-so awful Charlie wants to get rid of those awful Charlie weights.  How about a diet?

Yeah - I also have a total of 19lbs of Charlie weights - and your idea was my original idea. Save some weight of the nose and the tail too and get back a lot of useful load.  But I am so happy with my CG much more centered a few inches back now, and the airplane feels much more nimble esp in pitch... that I think I will leave it as is.

My guess is that early reports of loosing speed with MT props is for early mt props. They looked pretty simple aerodynamically. The newer generation is much more modern scimitar design.  And as I said, at least for a rocket moving away from that old school McCauley it was an improvement.

One more think besides aerodynamically, is the power it takes to turn a mass saps power,  so the saved power tips toward the lighter prop.

So AwfulC, in 2021 when you come...there is a direct flight Zurich to Montreal which is pretty close to here.  See you then!

[Awful_Charlie]

49 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Ah-so awful Charlie wants to get rid of those awful Charlie weights.  How about a diet?

Yes - but my diet has got as far as my MT thus far.....

49 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

So AwfulC, in 2021 when you come...there is a direct flight Zurich to Montreal which is pretty close to here.  See you then!

Even with the help of Mr. P Tube and his tanks, I don't think I can do it direct - stops at Wick and at least one other I expect

 

[kmyfm20s]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Ah-so awful Charlie wants to get rid of those awful Charlie weights.  How about a diet?

Yeah - I also have a total of 19lbs of Charlie weights - and your idea was my original idea. Save some weight of the nose and the tail too and get back a lot of useful load.  But I am so happy with my CG much more centered a few inches back now, and the airplane feels much more nimble esp in pitch... that I think I will leave it as is.

My guess is that early reports of loosing speed with MT props is for early mt props. They looked pretty simple aerodynamically. The newer generation is much more modern scimitar design.  And as I said, at least for a rocket moving away from that old school McCauley it was an improvement.

One more think besides aerodynamically, is the power it takes to turn a mass saps power,  so the saved power tips toward the lighter prop.

So AwfulC, in 2021 when you come...there is a direct flight Zurich to Montreal which is pretty close to here.  See you then!

Take out the Charlie weight and carry a 5 gallon jug of water in the baggage compartment. The water can be taken or poured out and replaced with baggage when needed, effectively increasing your useful load.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Awful_Charlie said:

Yes - but my diet has got as far as my MT thus far.....

Even with the help of Mr. P Tube and his tanks, I don't think I can do it direct - stops at Wick and at least one other I expect

 

Well - a portly pilot as you are....

Hey silly I meant a direct flight in an airbus a320....

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, kmyfm20s said:

Take out the Charlie weight and carry a 5 gallon jug of water in the baggage compartment. The water can be taken or poured out and replaced with baggage when needed, effectively increasing your useful load.

I know...I know...

In fact I made a duffel bag filled with several gym weights that I kept back there many years ago for solo flying.  I forgot the ratios but 6 lbs in the tail takes a lot more weight in the baggage compartment. But nothing matters when solo - because luckily I am not close to max gross when solo.

Meh - maybe Ill take those weights out at some point.  It was my original intention - I just life how it feels now.  Feels like a much lighter airplane.

[carusoam]

Anti grav.... OFF!

Just cleaning up a few things left out....

-a-

 

[xavierde]

My prop is due for OH soon and I'm considering the MT 4-blade as I like the extra ground clearance and the weight loss. Apart from these, I'm not sure I would see any perf gains with that engine/prop set up.

[SkepticalJohn]

Resurrecting an old discussion, but it sounds like my new prop ships today! I ordered it on 11 Nov 20, so I'm surprised they wrapped it up so fast during the holidays. According to the folks at MT, it'll be the only one that has a certain feature 

Erik, et al., have you thought about pulling/pushing the tail to the ground for more clearance when removing the cowling? Would that even help? The 3-bladed prop was difficult and I'm trying to think of a way that the 4-bladed could still be a solo job.

John

[LANCECASPER]

16 minutes ago, SkepticalJohn said:

Resurrecting an old discussion, but it sounds like my new prop ships today! I ordered it on 11 Nov 20, so I'm surprised they wrapped it up so fast during the holidays. According to the folks at MT, it'll be the only one that has a certain feature 

Erik, et al., have you thought about pulling/pushing the tail to the ground for more clearance when removing the cowling? Would that even help? The 3-bladed prop was difficult and I'm trying to think of a way that the 4-bladed could still be a solo job.

John

$29700???   I was quoted $12875 for a four blade MT for my M20M in March of 2018 from Mt Propellers USA in Deland FL. I realize that yours is for a K model and there may be some differences, plus the Dollar/Euro may have changed, but 2.3 times more money??

[aviatoreb]

23 minutes ago, SkepticalJohn said:

Resurrecting an old discussion, but it sounds like my new prop ships today! I ordered it on 11 Nov 20, so I'm surprised they wrapped it up so fast during the holidays. According to the folks at MT, it'll be the only one that has a certain feature 

Erik, et al., have you thought about pulling/pushing the tail to the ground for more clearance when removing the cowling? Would that even help? The 3-bladed prop was difficult and I'm trying to think of a way that the 4-bladed could still be a solo job.

John

 

Hi John,

Good for you!  You will love it - lots of great things about it!

We don't bother to push down on the tail.  The trouble with a four blade and the cowl isn't too different from a 3 blade.  Basically the bottom cowl needs to go straight down (put down a blanket to keep it from scratching) and then straight to the side.  The top cowl has to come straight form the side and above or even slightly from behind. It is do-able.

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

$29700???   I was quoted $12875 for a four blade MT for my M20M in March of 2018 from Mt Propellers USA in Deland FL. I realize that yours is for a K model and there may be some differences, plus the Dollar/Euro may have changed, but 2.3 times more money??

It seems like it has gone up a lot since I bought mine (5?) years ago.

[slowflyin]

10 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

$29700???   I was quoted $12875 for a four blade MT for my M20M in March of 2018 from Mt Propellers USA in Deland FL. I realize that yours is for a K model and there may be some differences, plus the Dollar/Euro may have changed, but 2.3 times more money??

Looks like he will have Beta.