What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

MT Propellers

captainron

Well Known Member
I'm interested in feedback from anyone using an MT propeller. Specifically, performance, smoothness, maintenance issues, and any other reasons to justify purchase over a Hartzell prop. Any negatives?
Thanks in advance!
 
RV8 Neighbor

My neighbor has one on his RV8. Very smooth. He had two problems; A crack in the back spinner bulkhead after about 20 hours, a known issue, and a leak in one hub after about 140 hours. The factory sent him a new modified parts for the spinner and repaired his hub in about two weeks turn around time. he was very please with their service. They did not know why the Hub leaked, they just rebuilt it.
 
We have an MT three blade on our RV-8. The propeller is very smooth and looks great on the aircraft, but some words of caution. Be sure that the propeller is matched to the engine. We have had some problems with the metal leading edges delaminating and we have had to send the propeller out for repair due to this. Also there are some performance issues with this prop. We have a 200 hp engine and we are 10kts slower than a similar RV-8 with 180 hp 2 blade metal hartzel. When Vans did their testing different models of propellers they concluded that the MT propeller was the slowest of all models available. My advice if you are looking for performance is to go with a two blade fixed pitch cruise prop or a two blade metal hartzel. If you aren't as concerned with performance but want a GREAT looking propeller then go with the MT three blade. Personally I am building another RV-8 and am installing an ECI IO-340 stroker and a two blade metal fixed pitch cruise prop. Best of Luck, Brian
 
Which prop?

There's lots of props out there...instead of just saying Hartzell or MT, it would be helpful to know which props you want to compare, and would also be helpful for posters to specify which prop they are referring to.

One of my neighbors just switched from the Hartzell BA prop (from Van's) to the MT (MTV-15B) prop, which is the two bladed blended airfoil prop (w/aluminum blades). It should be an interesting comparison since he has a good record of his "before" speeds in his 8A and the Hartzell BA setup. He's running a fuel injected Superior IO-360.

His initial response is very positive, but no speed numbers yet. FWIW, my MTV15B setup is smooth like glass, but that's only a subjective observation and not reliant on any vibration analysis. This is a certified prop that is being used on some certified planes running Lyc engines, but not with electronic ignition.

One thing to think about when comparing prices is that the MT props generally come with a beautifully fit balanced and finished spinner, a balanced powder coated front support ring already mounted to the prop hub, balanced covers (that hide the opening in the spinner at the base of the blades), and a complete powder coated backing plate. Someone who has done all of this can give you some idea of how much time it would take to do this in your shop. There's not that much difference in price when you consider these items and your time.
 
Whirlwind?

Ron,

IMHO, you might also consider the constant-speed Whirlwind 200RV propeller. Here's the link to Randy Lervold's Hartzell vs. Whirlwind propeller testing:

http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Prop.htm

Randy didn't test the MT, though.

I have a friend, Robert Paisley, who has a three-blade, variable-pitch (electrically-controlled) MT propeller installed on his really nice Eggenfellner-Subaru-powered RV-7. His RV-7 is one of the fastest RVs in Southern California. That being said, Robert says that if you elect to install an MT, he recommends that you order a narrower-chord model than what MT conservatively recommends for a 200hp engine. He found that he was over-propped with MT's originally-recommended propeller. He thought the propeller was more suitable for a 260hp engine.

Robert switched to a narrower-chord MT model and literally took off! I suspect that some of the reported MT performance issues result from a mismatch between the MT prop, engine, and RV. With the right MT propeller, it appears that the MT is competitive, in terms of performance, with both the Hartzell and Whirlwind propellers. I'm sorry that I don't have Robert's MT model numbers for you, but I know Robert occasionally monitors these forums and is a member of the SoCAL RV List on Yahoo, so you should be able to contact him if you're interested.

One thought: After flying in Robert's RV-7 which has a well-balanced MT propeller/Subaru engine combination, I can say that I've never flown in a smoother-running RV. I've flown in several terrific RVs with Lycomings and Hartzells, but it's like riding on a Harley (Lycoming/Hartzell) versus a Honda Gold Wing (Subaru/MT). I suppose if you're a "Harley Guy," you'll like the Lycoming/Hartzell; if you're a "Cruiser," you'll like the Subaru/MT. That's not to say that Lycoming/Hartzells aren't smooth; it's just that Subarus/MTs are smoother. One more thought: A three-blade prop like the MT on Robert's RV-7 simply looks good - - There's no denying that!

Since I'm building an RV-8A to be powered by a relatively heavy 200hp, angle-valve Lycoming, I'm leaning toward the Whirlwind 200RV, mainly to save 18 pounds on the nose versus the nice, but heavier, blended-airfoil Hartzell. That being said, if I were installing a lighter 180hp, parallel-valve Lycoming in an RV-8 or 8A (or my 8A's "as built" weight and balance turns out to be different than I expect), I'd be installing a Hartzell. Note: For an RV-7, it may be best, for weight-and-balance reasons, to have a relatively heavy Hartzell up-front - - you should check this out with the RV-7 community.

I have also been tempted to purchase the MT as well, since it's a well-proven certified design, but the Whirlwind 200RV (with McCauley hub) appears to be a better value, and the 200RV is now past its initial teething issues (cracking spinner bulkheads, as I recall - - the blades and hub have been fine). Personally, and excepting variable-pitch versus fixed-pitch performance differences, I don't think there's all that much difference in propeller performance if you achieve the right propeller/engine/RV match. I would suggest that weight and balance, plus price, are possibly bigger factors in propeller selection than relative performance. That's just my personal opinion, though. Bottom Line (as always): Select the one you like!

Best Regards,

Bill Palmer
 
Reasons for MT

Ron - I have just ordered my second MT. My reason for an MT over Hartzell would be weight and smoothness. I put a few thoughts regarding 2 blades .v.3 here. They might also interest.
 
Also WW 200RV

My neighbor has a MT on his Lancair and is changing it out for a Hartzell Semitar. The MT has cracked several times. A few others I'm aware of have had problems.

I have the Whirlwind 200RV on my 7 with ECI IO 360. I had a seal problem because of improper initial assembly and the spinner backplate bracket cracked. The backplate issues have been resolved at the factory. No other problems nearing 200 hours. Performance is excellent and the prop is very smooth.

RV6 owner, Robbie Attaway, had an Aero composites prop on his plane. ($14,000). It cracked twice in a very short time so he gave it back to them. He ordered a Hartzell Blended Airfoil with a 5 month lead time. My neighbor has a WW 200RV that he won't be using for a few months so Robbie is "renting" it from him. He has been flying this for a few hours now and said his plane is faster and smoother than it has ever been. I believe he will cancelling his Hartzell order and going with the Whirlwind.

WW is US owned and operated and provides fantastic customer support.
 
I have 3 blade MTs on both my planes. The 1 on the F1 has 500 hrs and the Radial Rocket has a little better than 50 hrs.

Trouble free, look great and perform well.

I expect a 3 blade Hartzell would look great, be trouble free and perform well.
Dealing with the supplier was a pleasant experience and I expect service will be excellent should I ever need it.

Current delivery time on MT props is 16 weeks and on both my props they met their delivery date.

I picked MT solely for weight considerations and reccomendation of others.

If weight is not an issue for you I would go with Hartzell and save a few bucks. If weight savings is important I would consider MT as an option. Don't have any experience with whirlwind or Catto.
 
Not trying to pick nits, but

Brian, Steve, Bill, Darwin, Milt...are you all referring to MT props with composite blades? If so, it would be helpful to come right out and say it. I'm not sure what the original poster was asking, whether he was asking about the preference in the prop manufacturer's logos or whether he was interested in comparing any specific prop to another specific prop.

Seems like in reading back through the posts, we have lumped all Hartzell props in one category and all MT props in another...and it ain't so.
 
Seems like in reading back through the posts, we have lumped all Hartzell props in one category and all MT props in another...and it ain't so.

Bob,

Good point.

My Mts are 3 blade composite and in the post above when referring to hartzell I was comparing to metal.
 
Composite MT

Bob, I was certainly referring to a composite MT prop. I should add that by composite I mean beechwood covered in resin cloth. It is what MT are all about, though they did buy an alli prop manufacturer recently. It seems reasonable since all the reccomended props (by MT and VANS) from MT are (I think) composite.

Hope that clarifys.

Regards,
 
MTV-15-183-33

My MT story goes like this. I bought a flying -4 with this prop installed and well beyond it?s calendar TBO but with only 200 hours (200 hours in 10 years) I figured I would fly it through the summer and send it in, in the winter. At 300 hours and 10+ years it had had enough, due to dried out grease and probably some earlier leakage it trashed its hub and all internals! I sent it to MT USA in FL, after they had it for about a month I had to move my -4 so they sent me a used but serviceable loner that I flew for about 50 hours @ no charge wile weighting for mine to be finished, the loner had no spinner so the plane looked kind of goofy that hole time but it flew just fine. During the end of the time they had my prop we did a very extensive O/H on my angle valve Lyco IO-360 and got the prop back just as the engine was finished and installed, we also reduced compression from 10-1 to 8.7-1.

Having the loner was a blessing but also a curse because it allowed an under staffed MT USA to put my project on the back burner several times and in the end it took way to long to complete. With that said I tend to forgive and forget the long wait because my prop came back a work of art thanks to (Gurgen/spelling sorry) who is obviously a master at his work. Now the prop/engine has 200 hours in less then a year and is flawless! I am determined not to let it wear out sitting.

As to performance I can?t say other then it is stellar but can only compare it to lower powered RVs so keeping up has never been a problem.

Russ
 
Last edited:
I have an RV6 with a O-320D1A and a MT CS model MTV-11-c-193-59 2 blade purchased thorugh Vans. I bought it over the Hartzell mainly due to weight considerations. It also comes with the spinner installed so you save a little time with that. Soon after I started flying I noticed a lot of grease streaming from the hub up the blades. A call to Jurgen at MT in florida confirmed a service bulletin regarding a mod to the hub to resolve the situation. Since I was still within the warranty window this work was done for free with the exception of removing/reinstalling and transporting to the local service center (a repairman certificate is nice!). A month after removal I was flying again. A friend of mine had the same problem with his 3 blade MT on a RV8 but was just outside of the warranty period and they would not honor it. He ended up paying at least $1k. The folks in Germany are not the most customer friendly company in my opinion they should have done it for free as a goodwill gesture. Jurgen in Florida is a stand up guy though, I have talked to him a number of times for various reasons and he was always helpfull and courteous no matter how stupid my question was. My prop has a 72 - 96mo or 500hr overhaul interval which is too low but probably due to the wooden blades and sealed hub (no grease fitting). I have had no other problems other than that. I'm very satisfied with the performance of the aircraft with this combination. It is very smooth and I have no complaints about the climb rate, cruise or top speed.

Would I do it again? Probably not. The low TBO and extra cost is not worth the weight savings. Go on a diet instead.

Doug Meloche
RV6 100hrs
 
<<and any other reasons to justify purchase over a Hartzell prop. Any negatives?>>

Can MT show you the results of a formal propeller blade vibration survey for your engine/prop combination? Same goes for all the others. Bolting together random engine/prop combinations is highly experimental. I enjoy the freedom to experiment and you may too. However, if your goal is an RV that isn't very experimental, you may wish to consider only engine/prop combinations that have been the subject of a strain gauge survey.
 
dmeloche said:
I have an RV6 with a O-320D1A and a MT CS model MTV-11-c-193-59 2 blade purchased thorugh Vans. I bought it over the Hartzell mainly due to weight considerations. It also comes with the spinner installed so you save a little time with that. Soon after I started flying I noticed a lot of grease streaming from the hub up the blades. A call to Jurgen at MT in florida confirmed a service bulletin regarding a mod to the hub to resolve the situation. Since I was still within the warranty window this work was done for free with the exception of removing/reinstalling and transporting to the local service center (a repairman certificate is nice!). A month after removal I was flying again. A friend of mine had the same problem with his 3 blade MT on a RV8 but was just outside of the warranty period and they would not honor it. He ended up paying at least $1k. The folks in Germany are not the most customer friendly company in my opinion they should have done it for free as a goodwill gesture. Jurgen in Florida is a stand up guy though, I have talked to him a number of times for various reasons and he was always helpfull and courteous no matter how stupid my question was. My prop has a 72 - 96mo or 500hr overhaul interval which is too low but probably due to the wooden blades and sealed hub (no grease fitting). I have had no other problems other than that. I'm very satisfied with the performance of the aircraft with this combination. It is very smooth and I have no complaints about the climb rate, cruise or top speed.

Would I do it again? Probably not. The low TBO and extra cost is not worth the weight savings. Go on a diet instead.

Doug Meloche
RV6 100hrs

Did you find the prop to be smother than a 2 blade Hartzell or Mcauley FP?
If so, was it smooth enough to justify the low TBO and extra $??????
 
Propellers

Thanks, guys, for all the useful replies. It looks as if I'll be spending my propeller money somewhere in Ohio! A good place-I'm from there!
 
No electronic ignitions

DanH said:
<<and any other reasons to justify purchase over a Hartzell prop. Any negatives?>>

Can MT show you the results of a formal propeller blade vibration survey for your engine/prop combination? Same goes for all the others. Bolting together random engine/prop combinations is highly experimental. I enjoy the freedom to experiment and you may too. However, if your goal is an RV that isn't very experimental, you may wish to consider only engine/prop combinations that have been the subject of a strain gauge survey.

Dan, you're right. But that line of thought also nixes almost all combinations of propellors (certified or not) with electronic ignitions...yet, we still do it. The aviation world abhors change (even evolutionary change) and perhaps rightfully so, as failure can mean fatality. If you want an RV that isn't very experimental, I urge you to stay away from homemade wood props, fuel injection systems, high compression pistons, electronic ignitions, roller rockers, electronic engine monitor systems, non-certified autopilots and all of the Dynon,Blue Mtn,Chelton stuff. Some of us will continue to fly hours off using what we're using. Statistically, I think I'm much more likely to have a problem due to my piloting technique, unplanned engine stoppage or fuel exhaustion than flying my RV with an uncertified/approved engine/ignition/prop combo...but that's only based on my observation of being around these experimentals all my life. YMMV... Like all of these "what do you think about this product" threads, beauty is in the eye of the beeholder.
 
More MT Propeller Info

Ron,

I talked to Robert Paisley who tried two MT propellers on his Supercharged Subaru (220hp boosted) RV-7. Robert started with an MTV-15 propeller (3-blade, composite, electrically-variable pitch) and found he was over-propped. He switched to an MTV-7 propeller (again, 3-blade, composite, electrically-variable pitch) with a narrower chord. The MTV-7 proved to be a more optimum match for his 220hp engine and RV-7. Robert achieved a significant increase in performance with the MTV-7. That being said, Robert advises that the MTV-7 would not be optimum for a 180hp - 200hp engine. He would recommend trying an even narrower-chord MT model with a similar airfoil, if it exists, or an MT model with a more optimum airfoil. If you're interested mainly in high cruise speed, a 2-blade MT model might be best (composite or aluminum). If you're mainly interested in climb, a 3-blade composite MT is probably the way to go (and it looks great, too!).

In other words, if you decide to go with an MT, you should research the model choices carefully and make sure you have a good performance match with your engine and RV-7. It might be best to work with an MT dealer who would allow you to try a couple of different models to see what works best for your RV-7/engine combo. Also, make sure you have your engine/prop dynamically balanced. Dynamic balancing goes a long way toward promoting reliability and smoothness for any engine/prop combination!

Best Regards and Good Luck!

Bill Palmer
 
WW 200RV

Bill Palmer said:
Ron,



In other words, if you decide to go with an MT, you should research the model choices carefully and make sure you have a good performance match with your engine and RV-7.
Best Regards and Good Luck!

Bill Palmer

That is another reason I went with the Whirlwind 200RV. This prop was designed for the RV with the blade design optimized for the RV design.

Great performance, smooth an fast.
 
RV7Guy said:
That is another reason I went with the Whirlwind 200RV. This prop was designed for the RV with the blade design optimized for the RV design.

Great performance, smooth an fast.
Thanks Darwin, I'm going to take a close look at the Whirlwind prop.
Ron
 
I'm a cruser, 160 kts indicated (over 200 mph) and I can get my fuel burn under 9 GPH. Four blade MT built just for my airpane and nothing is smoother or as silent and I paid MUCH more than a Hartzel.
www.Landshort.com
 
Any reports on the new scimitar bladed MTV-17/18?

Anyone got any feedback on the newer blades (-57?) for the MTV's?
 
Current MT propellers

For the Lyc. 360 on an RV, the current MT propellers being sold are the following:

(hydraulic constant speed)
MTV-15-B/183-402 - An aluminum blade two blade propeller.

MTV-15-B/183-50 - A "natural composite" two blade propeller.

MTV-12-B/183-59b - A "natural composite" three blade propeller.

(electric constant speed)
MTV-20-B/183-50 - A "natural composite" two blade propeller.

MTV-18-B/183-59b - A "natural composite" three blade propeller.

All of these are 183 cm (72") diameter propellers.

Regards,
Jim Ayers
 
Lyc. 360 3 blade MT Propellers - clarification?

Two different 3 blade MT propellers have been commonly sold for RV's with the Lyc. 360 engine:

The earlier MTV-12-B/183-59,

and the current MTV-12-B/183-59b.

Both of these propeller designs have been vibration tested.
An easy way to determine this for any MT Propeller installation is to refer to the MT Propeller website, www.mt-propeller.com
Then select service documents,
Then select service bulletins.
Then select service bulletin # 1.
If the TBO is 1800 flight hours, or greater, then a vibration test has been completed for that specific propeller/engine combination.

The -59b blade design is a totally different blade design from the earlier -59 blade design. Although their appearance is very similar.

Van's Aircraft propeller testing was with the earlier -59 blade.
I do not know of any published flight test data from Van's Aircraft using the current -59b blade.

The earlier -59 blade had mid range RPM restrictions in the 2000 to 2300 RPM range.
The current -59b blade does not have a mid range RPM restriction on the Lycoming 360 engine, even with electronic ignition.

From statements made from flight test data in Australia, the MT 3 blade propeller with the -59b blades performs equal to the Hartzell 2 blade blended airfoil propeller.
Since I have found MT Propeller and Hartzell propeller chararteristics to be very dissimilar, I do not take this as an absolute statement. Only that it could have some relative merit, pending additional testing.

Regards,
Jim Ayers
 
you sure?

"I'm a cruser, 160 kts indicated (over 200 mph)"

Isn't 160 knots alot closer to 180mph instead of "over 200?" Might want to check on that...
 
Bob Brown said:
"I'm a cruser, 160 kts indicated (over 200 mph)"

Isn't 160 knots alot closer to 180mph instead of "over 200?" Might want to check on that...

Not enough information was given. No altitude was mentioned.

With an INDICATED airspeed of 160 knots at 6,000' density altitude, the TRUE airespeed is 175 knots (over 200 mph).
For the same INDICATED airspeed, the TRUE airspeed would be higher for a DENSITY altitude above 6,000'.

Regards,
Jim Ayers
 
Have an RV-8A with a MT model MTV-15-B prop. Started throwing grease from the blades at 37 hours since new. Factory warranted. 640 hours were good then started throwing grease. Resealed, 40 hours later began throwing grease again, resealed. Now at 740 hours it began throwing grease out of one blade.
Anyone have a good buy on a Hartzel?
 
Started throwing grease from the blades at 37 hours since new. Factory warranted. 640 hours were good then started throwing grease. Resealed, 40 hours later began throwing grease again, resealed. Now at 740 hours it began throwing grease out of one blade.

Sometimes I wonder how something like this can happen at all? Who is doing the maintenance on your prop? What is MT saying about this?

Been running my MTV-12-B/183-59B for >1000 hours, and would not change it for anything else. The 3 bladed has loads of pull, and is also a very good speed brake if needs be.
Smooth running, light, and good performance. And no grease/oil leak :)
 
I have had good luck with MT propellers, but their customer service totally sucks! MT USA has to do everything by "mother may I" with the German folks. Many repairs can only be performed by MT Germany! Custom agents both ways, weeks to get the prop back, and very expensive. We run a lot of props on our personal and 135 aircraft, no more MT's!

DAR Gary
 
Prop me up?

I have had good luck with MT propellers, but their customer service totally sucks! MT USA has to do everything by "mother may I" with the German folks. Many repairs can only be performed by MT Germany! Custom agents both ways, weeks to get the prop back, and very expensive. We run a lot of props on our personal and 135 aircraft, no more MT's!

DAR Gary

Yes, I too have had my share of MT adventures, but not with CS but FP props on my RV4 and 6X. Their props perform well but service after the sale as mentioned above is lacking in the USA and is slow & expensive.
MacFarlane Aviation seems to try to alleviate this by providing good service after the sale (from what Ive heard) and DER advice. Time will tell if they can compete with Hartzell and WW now that they have nice composite CS props.
:)
V/R
Smokey

https://www.mcfarlaneaviation.com/products/category/propellers/
 
Back
Top