I have never damaged an MT prop (’can’t say the same for metal :( ), but that said, aside from flight testing them for approvals, I’ve done most of the operation on floatplanes and amphibians, so stone damage is hardly a risk. Metal prop erosion of floatplanes is a problem with careless splashing, MT’s survive that much better. MT allows epoxy repairs, indeed, stating “fill void with 5 minute epoxy and sand.”, which is a happily casual repair. Even the leading edge may have an epoxy repair if it is not punctured, or delaminating.
Some airplane types are simply vulnerable to prop damage, as they are close to the surface, and there is little opportunity to “keep the props light” during run ups. As we do have gravel runways and run up areas in Canada, I’m vigilant about propeller care. No runups over loose ground ( see :( above, lesson learned). When I bought my Cessna 150 34 years ago, I bought it knowing that the prop had been dressed near the minimum limits already, so to take the best care, so as to delay having to replace it as long as possible. 3000 hours later, so far so good, zero blade dressing on it!
But I agree that some twins just do not afford the opportunity to keep the props light off the surface, and do require longer run ups, so the risk is higher. The aforementioned DA-42-L360 I was testing was “borrowed” for a couple of days to be flown to a show. It was a couple of days late being brought back to us. It had left to the show with MT’s and came back with Hartzells. I heard a grumblings about someone damaging props doing a run up on the way back to us.
Experience with the type (I’ve never flown a Seneca) should enable understanding the risks of tip damage. My expertise is that with the prop tips seven feet off the ground on my amphibian, or careful operation on a 150, you can fly a long time with no tip damage!
I flew for about 500 hours with an MTV-15 prop on an O-360 powered Maule
Pros:
Light weight and low inertia = great throttle response
Slightly better performance than the original Hartzell prop
Good after-sales support (which is needed)
It’s easy to fix cracks, blisters and chips in the fibreglass skin with 5-minute epoxy glue
When you flip your Maule onto its back the prop breaks and saves your crankshaft
Cons:
The description “natural composite” seems a bit of a con. It’s wooden propeller with a thin GRP skin (which is not shy of cracking and separating from the timber core).
My maintenance organisation (also a propeller service station) won’t touch them.
It seems expensive for a wooden prop.
I wouldn’t rush to buy another MT. Will probably try a Hartzell Raptor instead. YMMV.
Jacko wrote:
I flew for about 500 hours with an MTV-15 prop on an O-360 powered Maule
Tailwheel? If so, prop stands well clear of the ground and less prone to damage.
prop stands well clear of the ground and less prone to damage
Yes, but with only about 2’ 6” clearance I still didn’t do engine run-ups on gravel.
It was cracks in the trailing edge of the fibreglass skin at the blade root which annoyed me most, although of no structural/warranty significance according to the factory.
