X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 10:25:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from carbinge.com ([69.5.27.218] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with SMTP id 5522618 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 May 2012 09:44:42 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.5.27.218; envelope-from=jbarrett@carbinge.com Received: (qmail 2701 invoked from network); 4 May 2012 13:44:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; h=X-Originating-IP:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; s=default; d=carbinge.com; b=jlABHgyz8c5BidNDGk45ELU/pJaS2OhSWGVLCe5QRrOif3k9qEcogteLWCjilVmVvSfLrB7FMwiPZYPTVjrhDm7xnGgQDwsdk4OC31xt8RUXlN+ln1SxWto0g/W3GwZLRs7DLcBVGvWZtkcy5o63nIkuH50Hjg5DibMQGTclKhc=; X-Originating-IP: [24.143.114.61] Reply-To: From: "John Barrett" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MT composite prop X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 06:44:05 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <003401cd29fb$f9caa5b0$ed5ff110$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0035_01CD29C1.4D6BCDB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac0p7po5f/6+pmL1TYKSfxfBjXA6aQADHnKA Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01CD29C1.4D6BCDB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It has seemed obvious to me that the ACI graphite prop is a much better = choice for any application where you don=E2=80=99t absolutely need the = extra weight of metal at the pointy end of the airplane. I originally = put a deposit on an MT prop when they became available, but then changed = to the ACI prop after that for reasons in my mind that related to = structural integrity and durability. =20 I am aware of one IV driver who had to change the MT prop out after = flying fewer than 100 hours off a grass strip. The dirt and gravel = munched the thing. =20 Have only a few hours on my airplane ( and ACI prop) now and am = wondering if my logic is wrong in some way. Any thoughts? Is the MT = better in some way? =20 Thanks, John Barrett =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Robert R Pastusek Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:08 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: MT composite prop =20 At 4 years and about 750 hours, I have almost the identical experience = with a 4-blade MT prop on my IV-P. The prop is smooth, quiet, and has = been maintenance free except for a small grease leak at about 300 hours. = This was fixed by the MT prop shop in Deland, FL, and I=E2=80=99ve had = no issues since. My prop has been painted once, and needs repainting = again=E2=80=A6which I consider good service. I don=E2=80=99t think I = ever had any noticeable paint erosion in rain=E2=80=A6and have flown in = rain quite a bit=E2=80=A6but sleet or ice crystals are a different = matter! This is not something I do intentionally, but even the slightest = encounter with sleet will do a sandpaper number to the prop. Even = knowing this, I=E2=80=99ll be sticking with the MT, and would chose it = again. =20 Bob =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Bill Harrelson Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:21 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: MT composite prop =20 Rob, =20 I have a two blade MT prop on our 320. We have over 2,000 hours on the = plane and prop. We operate IFR regularly including flight in rain. = We=E2=80=99ve had no operational problems due to rain but it does take = the paint off the leading edge eventually. So far the primer has stayed = intact. We=E2=80=99ve repainted the prop twice. =20 Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 2,050 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction =20 =20 =20 =20 From: Stevens Family =20 Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:40 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] MT composite prop =20 Another query for those out there who are already flying. =20 I purchased a partly built L360 kit some time ago, which came with a 3 = bladed, constant speed, MT, composite prop. It has never been assembled, = and is by now about 20 years old. Now that I am getting closer to = completing the project I have been speaking to a couple of propeller = shops. As I intend to operate IFR, I asked about durability of the prop = when operated in rain. The response has been a little confusing, with = statements ranging from =E2=80=9Cthey are not designed for ops in = rain=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9C they are approved for ops in rain, but nobody = actually does so=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cthey are fully designed to operate = in rain and will be fine=E2=80=9D. =20 I would appreciate any comments from those of you out there who have = operated MT composite props, as to their suitability in rain. =20 Thanks again for your input. =20 Rob Stevens Perth, Western Australia =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01CD29C1.4D6BCDB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It has seemed obvious to me that the ACI = graphite prop is a much better choice for any application where you = don=E2=80=99t absolutely need the extra weight of metal at the pointy = end of the airplane.=C2=A0 I originally put a deposit on an MT prop when = they became available, but then changed to the ACI prop after that for = reasons in my mind that related to structural integrity and = durability.

 

I am aware of one IV = driver who had to change the MT prop out after flying fewer than 100 = hours off a grass strip. =C2=A0The dirt and gravel munched the = thing.

 

Have only a few hours on = my =C2=A0airplane ( and ACI prop) =C2=A0now and am wondering if my logic = is wrong in some way.=C2=A0 Any thoughts?=C2=A0 Is the MT better in some = way?

 

Thanks,

John = Barrett

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Robert R Pastusek
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:08 = AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: MT = composite prop

 

At 4 years and about 750 hours, I have almost = the identical experience with a 4-blade MT prop on my IV-P. The prop is = smooth, quiet, and has been maintenance free except for a small grease = leak at about 300 hours. This was fixed by the MT prop shop in Deland, = FL, and I=E2=80=99ve had no issues since. My prop has been painted once, = and needs repainting again=E2=80=A6which I consider good service. I = don=E2=80=99t think I ever had any noticeable paint erosion in = rain=E2=80=A6and have flown in rain quite a bit=E2=80=A6but sleet or ice = crystals are a different matter! This is not something I do = intentionally, but even the slightest encounter with sleet will do a = sandpaper number to the prop.=C2=A0 Even knowing this, I=E2=80=99ll be = sticking with the MT, and would chose it again.

 

Bob

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Bill Harrelson
Sent: Thursday, May 03, = 2012 1:21 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sub= ject: [LML] Re: MT composite = prop

 

Rob,

 

=

I have a two blade MT prop on our 320. = We have over 2,000 hours on the plane and prop. We operate IFR regularly = including flight in rain. We=E2=80=99ve had no operational problems due = to rain but it does take the paint off the leading edge eventually. So = far the primer has stayed intact. We=E2=80=99ve repainted the prop = twice.

 

=

Bill = Harrelson

N5ZQ 320 2,050 = hrs

N6ZQ  IV under = construction

 

=

 

=

 

=

=  

= From:= Stevens Family =

= Sent:= Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:40 AM

= Subject:= [LML] MT composite prop

 

=

Another query for those out there who are already = flying.

 

I purchased a = partly built L360 kit some time ago, which came with a 3 bladed, = constant speed, MT, composite prop. It has never been assembled, and is = by now about 20 years old. Now that I am getting closer to completing = the project I have been speaking to a couple of propeller shops. As I = intend to operate IFR, I asked about durability of the prop when = operated in rain. The response has been a little confusing, with = statements ranging from =E2=80=9Cthey are not designed for ops in = rain=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9C they are approved for ops in rain, but nobody = actually does so=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cthey are fully designed to operate = in rain and will be fine=E2=80=9D.

 

I would = appreciate any comments from those of you out there who have operated MT = composite props, as to their suitability in = rain.

 

Thanks again = for your input.

 

Rob = Stevens

Perth,

Western = Australia

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0035_01CD29C1.4D6BCDB0--