| Author |
Message |
    
Terry Sack
New member
Username: Terrysack
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 10:01 am: | |
I think my conversations with Phil Hodge started much of the discussion on MT props. As far as I know, I found the 200 hour TBO and the 72 month TCI (not certain what TCI means, think it is a condition inspection).
The enclosed e-mail form Mt may help explain their position and the ultimate serviceability of the prop. Like Wayne Norris, I chose the MT to keep weight off the nose. It does exactly that and gives great climb and cruise performance as well.
Who really wants to trade a bunged up prop instead of having to rebuild an engine after damage? It seems a wash to me.
There are four of us with the same engine (IO-550N) and MT four blade prop (MT 14D 188-119) combination:
Phil Hodge
Doug Hoff
Havens
Terry Sack
Any others please speak up. It is the engine prop combination that is important to officially raising the TBO. I would like to see us work together to get the TBO raised based on experience. I think Hodge has the most hours at 170 or so.
>Here's the answer I got from MT today. From several sources now the answer
>seems to be 200 hours. Juergen of MT Prop Florida said as time was
>accumulated on at least three aircraft with the same engine/prop combination
>that, with satisfactory passing of overhaul, the TBO would be raised in 300
>hour increments to 500, 800, 1200 (400 hour jump), 1500. Juergen also said
>if the prop was not shown on Service Bulletin 1Z that the time is 200 hours.
>The MTV 14D 188-119 is not shown.
>
>I think there are at least three of us with this combination: Hodge, Hoff,
>Sack. If we all cooperate with the TBO schedule, I am sure we can pass the
>tests and improve the service limits for everybody else using this
>particular combination.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Greindl - MT-Propeller <eric.greindl@mt-propeller.com>
>To: 'tasack@gcfn.org' <tasack@gcfn.org>
>Date: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:36 AM
>Subject: Prop for Express Aircraft
>
>
>>Offer 368_03
>>
>>Dear Mr. Terry Sack,
>>
>>thank you for your interest in our product.
>>
>>At present time we do not have a vibration test with such propeller and
>>therefore we recommend the TBO of 6 years or 200hrs, whatever comes first.
>>We do not see any problem in that installation from our 4-bladed prop on
>>the TCM IO-550-N engine ( we have already done a few other installations )
>>but as long as we do not have that test we allow only these 200 hrs.
>>Because of the situation that we use that blade design special on the
>>Express and we do not have such aircraft in Europe available we do not have
>>a time frame for such test.
>>
>>An overhaul of that type of propeller will include the complete tear down,
>>crack inspection of all metal parts and anodizing at the end. The blades
>>will be sanded down until the fiber glass coat and than we rebuild the
>>complete blade with or without replacing the leading edge ( depending to
>>the condition ). Therefore our blades do not have a live limit and will
>>have always the same performance after overhaul. At present time a complete
>>overhaul will be charged with US$ 2,700.00 including the exchange of the
>>leading edge and we will need approx. 3 weeks after receipt of the prop.
>>Please find a list of all distributors in the US at our web page, please
>>note that not all shops have done the training for leading edge
>>replacement.
>>
>>The prop we recommend for the Express with the TCM IO-550-N engine is our
>>4-bladed hydraulic constant speed propeller with a diameter of 188cm (74").
>>
>>Type: MTV-14-D/188-119 US$ 10,210.00
>>+ Spinner Assy P-456-3 US$ 1,030.00
>> ----------------------
>> US$ 11,240.00
>>
>>Our propellers are painted in white with red tips, the Spinner Assy is
>>painted in white. These are the standard colors at no charge, other color
>>schemes are possible but will be charged additional with US$ 350.00.
>>
>>For the shipping crate we charge you additional with US$ 300.00 if we send
>>in assembled condition, additional is the air freight to the closest Int.
>>Airport. The second way would be to send the prop disassembled to the
>>closest distributor for assembling, in that case we do not charge the
>>packing and will charge US$ 280.00 for the UPS delivery to the assembling
>>station. Additional are the assembling charges from that station which will
>>be charged direct to you.
>>
>>Prices above are ex-factory Atting/Germany without shipping and handling
>>and subject to our general terms of sale. The delivery time after ARO is
>>approx. 15 weeks, all above mentioned prices are valid for the next 60
>>days. Prepayment and a written order is requested.
>>
>>Please do not hesitate to contact us again by any further questions.
>>Your order will be appreciated.
>>
>>Best Regards.
>>MT Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
>>
>>
>>Eric Greindl
> |
Phil & Margie Hodge
New member
Username: N410mp
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 07, 2003 - 05:47 pm: | |
I have 200 hours on my Express, but only 150 on this prop.
Something I'm not clear on is do we care what TBO is? We're all experimental, Part 91, so it is my understanding that TBO doesn't really mean anything. Comments? |
Terry Sack
New member
Username: Terrysack
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 06:13 pm: | |
Phil, I think it may mean a great deal to your insurance company if there is an accident/incident due to prop failure. |
Jim Oyler
New member
Username: Midniteoyl
Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 09:00 pm: | |
That would be the reason - to stick to the manufacturers recommendations. |
Phil & Margie Hodge
New member
Username: N410mp
Post Number: 5
Registered: 01-2000
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 05:57 pm: | |
Terry & Jim:
I asked Avemco if that was the case. Following is their response:
"Avemco's policy contains no exclusions should you run your propeller past
the manufacturers recommended TBO."
So I don't find insurance companies a valid reason. Any other ideas? Or is it just a habit that started 100 years ago and we all just blindly go along because we always have?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we ignore data. But MT doesn't claim to have any. They say they don't know how long this combination will last, so let's have our customers pay for our R&D to find out. I'd be happy to let them rebuild my prop at their own expense if they were interested in learning more about their product. But I'm not interested in paying $2700 for them to go to school. That's not what I thought I was buying. |
Terry Sack
New member
Username: Terrysack
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 06:02 pm: | |
Phil, I'm more interested in the comment that you contacted AVEMCO for the info. Does that mean they insure amateur built planes again? |
Phil & Margie Hodge
New member
Username: N410mp
Post Number: 6
Registered: 01-2000
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 06:11 pm: | |
Terry:
I've had Avemco continuously since first flight. My understanding is that they placed a temporary moratorium on new policies a little while ago while they re-evaluated the market. Unlike some "temporary" restrictions we've all become familiar with, I believe this one was fairly short lived. I suggest you contact them at http://www.avemco.com to get the straight poop. |
Jim Oyler
New member
Username: Midniteoyl
Post Number: 28
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 09:52 pm: | |
Have to agree with not wanting to 'pay for thier R&D' - which has always seem like a really shoddy practice to me. However, I really would suggest at least brealing the prop down at the intervals mentioned and having a qualified prop guy take a look. Preferably someone familiar with that prop. Cracks would be my major concern. There has to be one somewhere close, these props are not that new.
I would also suspect that very short statement from AVEMCO. While they might not have an explicte policy against it, it doesnt mean that if you fall out of the sky due to the prop loosing a blade after TBO, that they are obligated to pay. I would really drill them on it - in writing.
Under Experimental, TBO means nothing if you so choose it not to.
|
Werner Maag, CH8174 Stadel, Switzerland
New member
Username: Wmaag
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:39 am: | |
I am evaluating the 3 blade MT 9-D/195-63 prop versus the 4 blade MT 14-D/188-119 which means diameter of 195 cm or77.77" versus 188cm of 74.0 ". Has someone an idea about the height of the prop axis of the IO550 with the new Alu gear above ground, just to be shure that both prps would have adequate ground clearance with a flat nose wheel? Thanks for all inputs!
From Gerd Mühlbauer I know thet they have extensively tested Lancair's Columbia and certified the IO550 with the 3 blade MT-9/D195.rgds Werner Maag |
wayne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 03:57 pm: | |
any kind of performance comparison is good, but there are to many different types of apples out here.
I have a MTV-9-B/198-58 prop on my EX2K, but with a 300hp Lycoming. My prop seems to be optimized for TO and climb, as my plane seems to be a slow one, 190MPH true. is all it will do. But it WILL climb,660fpm to 18k. I have about8.5" of prop clearance, but my own gear.
When it comes time for an overhaul, I am going to have them trim it to 196cm,which might get rid of some of my cruise propdrag. that's why it's called Experimental.
BTW I have 233 hrs on it so far. |
Louie Lacy
New member
Username: Llacy
Post Number: 109
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 03:29 pm: | |
In the process of installing new cylinders I took the prop control cable off the prop governor. I discovered that the rod end bearing attached to the prop governor arm had "wormed out" the hole. How can you install the 3/16 bolt thru the rod end to keep this from happening?
Lou Lacy |
Al Kittleson
New member
Username: Al38kit
Post Number: 62
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 05:16 pm: | |
Lou...If you're using a heims rod end bearing and there is a side load that may be causing the bolt to wobble a bit.
It it wobbles, it will elongate the hole...
You may give some thought to a fork type rod end the goes on both sides of the governor arm...that way you can put a -3 bolt in it and it will be held on both sides of the arm.
If there's enough left of the arm, ream it out and put in a bushing to get the hole tolerance down to a tight fit on the -3 bolt and put a little lube on it.
Al |
Jay Villalva
New member
Username: Jay
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 07:14 pm: | |
If the hole in the prop governor arm is what got "worn out", the problem would be that the bolt holding the rod end bearing to the arm was not sufficiently tight to prevent movement between the arm and the rod end bearing. This bolt/nut combination should be torque to the nominal value for the size used. Make sure you’re using castellated nut and cotter pin or lock nut (if you’re using the lock nut in the engine compartment, make sure your using high temperature types).
We just completed a condition inspection that revealed several rod end bearings that were not properly torqued. It's good practice to check the rod end bearings when every time have access to them. |
Louie Lacy
New member
Username: Llacy
Post Number: 110
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 07:42 pm: | |
I don't think a forked end rod end will fit and allow full throw of the prop control arm. I have been told there is a special washer to keep the ball in the rod end from rotating to much. Any ideas. The problem with drilling it out and installing a bushing you leave very little material on the end of the prop control arm
Lou |
Louie Lacy
New member
Username: Llacy
Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 07:42 pm: | |
I don't think a forked end rod end will fit and allow full throw of the prop control arm. I have been told there is a special washer to keep the ball in the rod end from rotating to much. Any ideas. The problem with drilling it out and installing a bushing you leave very little material on the end of the prop control arm
Lou |
Jimmie Kevin Alderman
New member
Username: Vikingpilot
Post Number: 14
Registered: 07-2011
| | Posted on Monday, December 31, 2012 - 03:22 am: | |
Change to a bearing end like is on the aileron push rods. It allows for slight misalignment, and will tighten down on the control arm distributing the load to the area around the worn hole. An alternative would be to go to a mechanic and see if he has an old unit that you could take the control arm off of. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page