Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

German register query - Can I run my D reg propeller on condition?

That’s a very interesting account of your experiences, “RXH”.
May I add that the version of the MTV-14 I will get has the the wide nickel leading eadges, which are much harder than the stainless steel ones.

Mentioning MT props to a few maintenance organisations in the UK and US leads to some raised eyebrows. While hardly scientific a few shops I rate highly find it is a difficult make of prop to maintain and service.

EGTK Oxford

That’s a myth that probably set up by their competitors. I remember reading bad comments by Mike Busch, but when he was explicitely asked on COPA what the technical problems were – he reacted insulted and never answered.

The MT props have proven many times (like in Aerobatics or Red Bull Air Races that props don’t get better than MT. One of the reasons Hartzell and others are pissed off is that the MT 3 blade wood/comp. prop is about half the price of the Hartzell comp. prop and even less than their 3 blade metal prop

There’s many Cirruses flying MT props and except some minor paint problems in the past no problems have been reported.

As an acquaintance of mine said when an MT representative asked him why he wasn’t using one of their props at the World Aerobatic Championships… “I don’t like splinters” Link A mutual friend of ours makes the higher tech (carbon fiber) prop he was using, so it was kind of an inside joke. Apparently the guy just turned and walked away

I own and operate a 3 blade MT. I have no comment of the vibration level having never flown the plane with anything else. The rotational inertia is low so it spins up fast, which is fun although not particularly beneficial. The construction is old fashioned but works: lag screws into the end grain retaining the blades, a thin layer of glass to protect the wood that sometimes delaminates at the blade roots etc. I’m not interested in paying to replace the MT and I like that the blades can be repaired, so it’s OK for me.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 01 Mar 23:17

I am the owner of a 4 blade MTV-14-D propeller and here are my thoughts:

- The MT company is very nice to deal with. They have competitive pricing for overhauls of their own propellers, overhauls of other brands and sales of new composite propellers.

- The MT composite propellers are a little more expensive to overhaul than the aluminium propellers but in the process no material is lost, so there is basically unlimited blade life. The same applies to damages. You do not loose a big part of the aluminium when a dent is in the blade at overhaul.

- With this new propeller we got a new noise certificate for “reduced noise” which is very valuable here in Germany but worthless in many other parts of the world.

- BUT I do not like the MT performance claims. They often claim all kinds of performance improvements etc.

1) First as a data point in our plane the performance is exactly the same as with the old 2 blade prop.

2) Second when I asked them to write any of the performance claims in the firm order such that I would not pay if the numbers are not met the only thing they agreed to put in there was the noise rating. But why claim on the website “Enhanced cruise performance by 5 to 8 kts” if they are not willing to guarantee those in writing when ordering?
http://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/stcs/pa46_5.htm

3) Third you do not get a new version of the POH with new performance numbers. They just assure equal or better performance compared to the original propeller.

They told me all performance numbers are measured in flight and I assume they probably take the best measurement of the day. No testing in a lab environment so you never know if they just caught a good day of the engine, a little updraft etc.

My summary: The MT propeller is an excellent product if you are in need of a new propeller. The MT company is very nice to deal with. But selling those propellers as a big improvement in performance is marketing voodoo which I dislike.

If you need a new prop consider the MT product. If your current prop is fine leave it that way!

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ

My comments were specific feedback from people doing work on them. Albeit a small sample size I confess. Nothing to do with myths.

I met them and like the guys there as well.

EGTK Oxford

Silvaire
all of the newer MT blades are covered with carbon fibre (not glass) at the root, plus glass fibre on top, AFAIK. I do know the MTV-14 is made like that.

Also MT also produces full composite/carbon props. They are more expensive, but available – but MT says there is no advantage when compared to their props with a wood core

Last Edited by at 02 Mar 07:30

Enhanced cruise performance by 5 to 8 kts

Given that this improvement would be happening at the top end of the perf curve (well, obviously ) where most of the drag is parasitic, and given that 5-8kt is about 5% of the IAS, that would correspond to about 10% more thrust, and where is this amazing free lunch going to come from?

If the efficiency of the Hartzell prop is say 90%, it would imply that the MT prop is approximately 100% and that would be Nobel Prize material, at a level similar to discovering a method of interacting with gravity that doesn’t involve the manipulation of impractically large masses.

It is easy to get extra 10% by increasing the RPM (by about 5%) but they aren’t doing that. You would also have ~10% more fuel flow.

If I could get 5kt extra at the same fuel flow, and measurably less vibration, I would buy the MT prop tomorrow.

Also MT also produces full composite/carbon props. They are more expensive, but available – but MT says there is no advantage when compared to their props with a wood core

Why do they offer them?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There was some stir in 2014 which caused Gerd Muehlbauer, the president of MT, to publish this open letter which can still be found on their website, see link below.

Allegedly Hartzell made some public claims about MT-propellers, including showing a video in which an MT-prop blade was destroyed by an object simulating a bird strike, which brought forward this reaction. I have not seen the video and could not find it on the net but MT claim that the set-up to the demonstration by Hartzell was done with the sole purpose of destroying the blade and not in line with the tests required by EASA and FAA simulating a bird strike for the certification of props. MT further mention that the “Hartzell-test” would destroy ANY prop blade regardless of which material it would be made of, implying that Hartzell props would also be destroyed if they were subjected to such test.

Link

RXH
EDML - Landshut, Munich / Bavaria

This statement of Gerd Mühlbauer clearly was a low-light in the history of the company. A very childish and unprofessional answer to unfair competition.

A simple statement stating the facts would have been enough, possibly combined with a cease and desist. MT has nothing to fear, they have been eating Hartzell’s and McCauley’s lunch for years and they will continue doing so. The vast majority of new GA aircraft are equipped with their props and the retrofits are very popular. They should just continue their work and let the competition do their thing.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top