X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 12:12:30 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm15-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([98.139.52.236] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with SMTP id 5522797 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 May 2012 11:03:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.52.236; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.52.193] by nm15.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2012 15:03:04 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.158] by tm6.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2012 15:03:04 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1041.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 May 2012 15:03:04 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 60290.27705.bm@omp1041.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 50386 invoked from network); 4 May 2012 15:03:03 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=e8Dk+t1dqyazqt+8s0AKJKfu7SWTGTgAtVH9CyhOBKql3m3w0T0YDyM/qt0zSasUUblbYK2o7Bg/IiOGNQB71yt/SKXlJ52e78Qo/pPm8f6KguAAViRtHroOksemPDhcTVJPjf1fPBEfY8Tssj1Kuz9TU4muPSGb3G3mQJXEYB4= ; X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: aebwRsYVM1kBZG9qqPa0ERJu1OuZtU9iNrYzVYi196x_PiC f6e8UIoWeWsYWK4vbRTgjodQpLOkDVdVBj1hN7ZAazMPGPEmUDOSdjj1J1Xu eb4SeUGBPL5VtmIXImyRlSCPBvyCA26DQIVvo_cJUCtTmdnZ87V.lM5ZROGo N1.TAjVMZXlvSbPuMfkCz6ecehGh.pkP2yNmD_CrygOZHLlDm4utCjKuwAgZ nH3JwB8JuzLlfBb7PrqOhT7flY48aSEN51F9.YWEBF3PFvvFlWSkIVK.5mFR Ku2h2D5tqpoTuzoWjQlQwjp2IRchi5rrr9dCMOW6XUfNlmJ7EjSgJie.Rd9p PIIOzUQm8CmFiLJ_RYnA0MxIWElf4GMBWxfWHaKbPvKolqlp7K_cYgeo43hF Otjvs35kjtjaIRn8lu0zyRRsoIyzFDLR_e7B9vSX5.jHKIz58 X-Yahoo-SMTP: tg4YEXeswBAq79ZTs5A79J5zDY9lAVNV Received: from [192.168.220.181] (randylsnarr@69.169.190.15 with xymcookie) by smtp113-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 04 May 2012 08:03:03 -0700 PDT References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F44F4114-33C4-4359-8DC2-EB59EF5A3E3C X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A334) From: Randylsnarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MT composite prop X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 09:02:56 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-F44F4114-33C4-4359-8DC2-EB59EF5A3E3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MT told me they could use any material they want but chose a wood core as it= is the only material known that has a near infinite number of flex cycles. I= t also has a natural ability to dampen vibration and they are very light...I= am sure they have other reasons... It is by far the smoothest propeller I have flown behind. Just don't hit ANY= THING with it and you will be fine.=20 Has worked flawlessly in rain, sleet snow and the dark of night for me... Randy Snarr 235/320 N694RS 500 hrs Sent from my iPad On May 4, 2012, at 8:25 AM, "John Barrett" wrote: > It has seemed obvious to me that the ACI graphite prop is a much better ch= oice for any application where you don=E2=80=99t absolutely need the extra w= eight of metal at the pointy end of the airplane. I originally put a deposi= t 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 d= urability. > =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 th= ing. > =20 > Have only a few hours on my airplane ( and ACI prop) now and am wonderin= g 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 Rob= ert 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 wit= h a 4-blade MT prop on my IV-P. The prop is smooth, quiet, and has been main= tenance free except for a small grease leak at about 300 hours. This was fix= ed by the MT prop shop in Deland, FL, and I=E2=80=99ve had no issues since. M= y prop has been painted once, and needs repainting again=E2=80=A6which I con= sider good service. I don=E2=80=99t think I ever had any noticeable paint er= osion in rain=E2=80=A6and have flown in rain quite a bit=E2=80=A6but sleet o= r ice crystals are a different matter! This is not something I do intentiona= lly, but even the slightest encounter with sleet will do a sandpaper number t= o the prop. Even knowing this, I=E2=80=99ll be sticking with the MT, and wo= uld chose it again. > =20 > Bob > =20 > From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bil= l 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 pla= ne and prop. We operate IFR regularly including flight in rain. We=E2=80=99v= e 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 > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 9:40 AM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > 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 bla= ded, 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 p= roject I have been speaking to a couple of propeller shops. As I intend to o= perate IFR, I asked about durability of the prop when operated in rain. The r= esponse has been a little confusing, with statements ranging from =E2=80=9Ct= hey 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 f= ully 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 opera= ted MT composite props, as to their suitability in rain. > =20 > Thanks again for your input. > =20 > Rob Stevens > Perth, > Western Australia > =20 > =20 --Apple-Mail-F44F4114-33C4-4359-8DC2-EB59EF5A3E3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
MT told me they = could use any material they want but chose a wood core as it is the only = material known that has a near infinite number of flex cycles. It also has = a natural ability to dampen vibration and they are very light...I am sure = they have other reasons...

It is by far the = smoothest propeller I have flown behind. Just don't hit ANYTHING with it = and you will be fine. 

Has worked flawlessly = in rain, sleet snow and the dark of night for = me...

Randy = Snarr
235/320
N694RS 500 hrs

Sent from my = iPad

On May 4, 2012, at 8:25 AM, =22John Barrett=22 <jbarrett=40carbinge.com>= wrote:

<=21--=5Bif gte mso 9=5D> <=21=5Bendif=5D--><=21--=5Bif gte mso 9=5D> <=21=5Bendif=5D-->

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Thanks,

John = Barrett

 

From: Lancair Mailing List =5Bmailto:lml=40lancaironline.net=5D On = Behalf Of Robert R Pastusek
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:08 = AM
To: lml=40lancaironline.net
= Subject: =5BLML=5D 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=21 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.

 

Bob

 

 

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

 =

 =

 =

 

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

Subject: =5BLML=5D 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

 

 

= --Apple-Mail-F44F4114-33C4-4359-8DC2-EB59EF5A3E3C--