carusoam Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 Had the same feeling towards the really low inertia of the composite props... If you see them during the shut down... it is more of a shut-off... Sure the counter-weights should be considered... my thoughts were more on the more fundamental parts of the reciprocating engine... MT has a US office that is easy to contact, and get tech answers from... I’m sure the answers come from the European tech center... so it could take a day or two... So many of their customers have mechanical backgrounds... this question has been asked dozens of times in different ways. My feelings faded quite a bit knowing a particular pair of MS engineer/mathematician(s) are using MT props without any engine issues reported... Other reports were related to leading edge materials, and paint adhesion... which have been figured out along the way... So many OWTs falling by the wayside... plane driving the engine was a big no no... Mooney pilots avoid this because it ruins the efficiency calculations... Question: How do we know an engine has or doesn’t have counter weights? (Without reviewing every drawing of every Mooney engine...) Best regards, -a- 1 Quote
aviatoreb Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Austintatious said: I am so curious about the MT 4 blade. My reservation is the whole counterweight issue which seems to be an unknown. I cant shake the feeling that a field approval is required because Continental wont sign off on putting that prop on the TSIO520-NB. I know this is not the case. At the time I got mine - there was initially discussion of using my airplane as the STC platform to get the certification, but then they decided the market was not large enough on Rockets to justify their investment in getting that STC so I worked with them to get the field approval instead. Meanwhile there is no problem with the TSIO520NB to prevent the STC of the MT - the twin engine Cessnas with the TSIO520NB do in fact have the STC for the very same prop. In the Cessna 340: https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/cessna_340_2.htm In the Cessna 414: https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/cessna_414_1.htm and it was from these planes that our original prop/engine combination TSIO 520/Mcaulley was deprived for the Mooney rocket. E Quote
carusoam Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: and it was from these planes that our original prop/engine combination TSIO 520/Mcaulley was deprived for the Mooney rocket. E Siri editing alert, or am I missing the point? i underlined the issue... Best regards, -a- Quote
aviatoreb Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, carusoam said: Siri editing alert, or am I missing the point? i underlined the issue... Best regards, -a- Uh oh - .... Siri stop helping me spell! Please substitute deprived -> derived 1 Quote
Austintatious Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 10 hours ago, carusoam said: Had the same feeling towards the really low inertia of the composite props... If you see them during the shut down... it is more of a shut-off... Sure the counter-weights should be considered... my thoughts were more on the more fundamental parts of the reciprocating engine... MT has a US office that is easy to contact, and get tech answers from... I’m sure the answers come from the European tech center... so it could take a day or two... So many of their customers have mechanical backgrounds... this question has been asked dozens of times in different ways. My feelings faded quite a bit knowing a particular pair of MS engineer/mathematician(s) are using MT props without any engine issues reported... Other reports were related to leading edge materials, and paint adhesion... which have been figured out along the way... So many OWTs falling by the wayside... plane driving the engine was a big no no... Mooney pilots avoid this because it ruins the efficiency calculations... Question: How do we know an engine has or doesn’t have counter weights? (Without reviewing every drawing of every Mooney engine...) Best regards, -a- its my understanding that they all have counterweights, it is just that some of them cannot tolerate the lighter composite prop. I did not know that other variants of this engine had STC's for the MT. That gives me some comfort. Perhaps I will revisit the MT. Quote
carusoam Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 Austin, You can start looking around here... My saved page starts with the LBs... http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/mooney_7.htm Best regards, -a- Quote
Austintatious Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 32 minutes ago, carusoam said: Austin, You can start looking around here... My saved page starts with the LBs... http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/mooney_7.htm Best regards, -a- Ohh, I have spoke with them... those 550 engines have counterweights that specify safe to use with composite propellers. I may need to just call continental and get an answer strait from the horses mouth. 1 Quote
Sisk Rifles Posted July 15, 2019 Report Posted July 15, 2019 When did Continental start using counterweights on crankshafts ? I thought they used a torsional damper. Charlie Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.