What's new
Van's Air Force

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

MT MTV12C/180-57 Propeller: Any PIREP(s)?

9GT

Well Known Member
Patron
Searched the forum but could not find anything. Made my mind up and decided to sell the Sensenich FP that came with my RV-9A project before I even installed it and go with C/S. Done deal,,,its sold and gone. Van's has two MT props for the IO-320; a two blade MTV11C/183-59, and three blade MTV12C/180-57. The two blade is almost $2K less than the three blade, but only has a 1000 hour/72 month TBO, where the three blade is 2000 hour/72 month TBO. Looked at Whirl Wind RV200/300 series and although they are a bit less costly, their TBO is only 650 hours/72 months,,, so maybe penny wise and dollar foolish there. The Sensenich composite is out of the running due to its high cost and their aluminum two blade is ugly and 7 pounds heavier than the 3 blade MT. Anyone running the MTV12C/180-57 on their -9 with a PIREP? By the way, Tiffin Aire in Ohio quoted me a price better than Van's.
 
Having owned a 9 and currently running a MTV on my Lancair, I would put a Catto 3 blade with nickel leading edge on a 9 if I were building.

MT is smooth, helps climb, tolerates rain
MT is slower to adjust than hydraulic, sometimes has failed to adjust on mine, is slower than my 3 blade Catto was

On a plane like my Lancair that sucks up runway, a constant speed prop is a safety factor to help getting off the ground on short strips (3000 feet or so). On a plane like a 9 that climbs perfectly well on a cruise prop, it is added complexity and cost without enough benefit to justify the costs.

Just my opinion.
 
Even as a huge MT fan, I would tend to agree - if it is the electric one you are looking at, look again.

The hydraulic prop is much more practical, just more difficult to install maybe with ref to governor etc.

For fixed pitch replacement, I would agree with Catto or look at Prince P-Tip. I fly a 6 with a Prince prop - longer takeoff than ours naturally but when airborne - it's quicker ! Unloads on the climb and cruises really nicely.
 
No, the MT prop I am looking at is NOT electric, it is hydraulic pitch controlled. I am not really interested in entering the FP vs CS debate. Sure the -9 has great performance with a FP, but with a CS, I can get the best T/O performance AND the best cruise performance.
 
My mistake on the electric, sorry for that.

The 3 blade will be smooth, noticeably so. It would be my choice over a 2 blade. Not sure you will find the best cruise speed with a MT however.
 
I fly a friend's 160hp RV-9A with a 3-blade MT fairly often.

It is electric motor smooth.

I recently took it to a paint shop about 4 hours away, with a friend who dropped me off and I followed back with his 180hp RV-7 with a Hartzell BA.

On both legs I can keep up with him in climb, but he would slowly creep away in cruise. At our fuel stop and back home he would arrive less than 10 minutes ahead of me. Very negligible difference in XC speed in 2 hour legs.
 
On a plane like my Lancair that sucks up runway, a constant speed prop is a safety factor to help getting off the ground on short strips (3000 feet or so). On a plane like a 9 that climbs perfectly well on a cruise prop, it is added complexity and cost without enough benefit to justify the costs.

Just my opinion.

I bought a 9A with an O-320, and a CS prop already installed. I love the absurdly (ABSURDLY) good climb performance, but assuming resources are limited, I think I still lean toward your view on this. Given my mission (light IFR travel between decent-sized paved runways), the money would probably have been better spent on avionics. And you're right, there's a lot to be said for the low maintenance costs of FP props.

I'd favor a CS if I was operating in and out of short/grass strips.
 
I would re-examine the Whirlwind, if you're looking at a 72-month TBO either way then the only real delta there is 650 hours and some cost difference. The question you need to ask yourself is do you fly 100+ hours each year? That's 2 hours a week on average. I fly that much and more, but most don't.

I have the WW on my 9A and love it - but I made that choice for the weight reduction on the nose as a priority.
 
MT then.

Will give great take off performance and improve landing roll. May not be the fastest, but it is super smooth in the cruise.

MT now acknowledge low use inspections at 72 months. It is basically a disassemble, inspect, reseal, re-grease and rebuild. Keeps the costs down as they don't strip the blades.
 
A wise choice I think.

Without getting into never ending hair splitting. I simply enjoy the climb I get from my MT prop on a 200HP RV7. Lots of climb and landing performance at a cost. My choice to go that way. Others like FP and that?s fine for them.

I don?t find a penalty on speed or cruise.

Are you sure you need an MT12? Is there a smaller MT for up to 180HP?
 
A wise choice I think.

Without getting into never ending hair splitting. I simply enjoy the climb I get from my MT prop on a 200HP RV7. Lots of climb and landing performance at a cost. My choice to go that way. Others like FP and that?s fine for them.

I don?t find a penalty on speed or cruise.

Are you sure you need an MT12? Is there a smaller MT for up to 180HP?

Thanks for that info. Yes, this is the prop model that both Van's recommends for the RV-9A with 160 hp IO-320, and MT also lists the same prop for that engine on their website. My primary concerns, or apprehensions, are that we put an MT on the IO-360 powered Cozy MKIV my buddy and I built, and it had to go in for overhaul at about 100 hours due to loose blades. Now let me clarify this,,,, that prop was purchased new at least 10 years ago, so when it went to Tiffin Aire, they were able to warranty the hub/bearings and replaced them with something of a new beefier design. Blades were chewed up a bit so paid to have them fixed and repainted while they had it apart. Fast forward to a couple years ago and about 5 years of service on the overhauled prop, during a condition inspection at around 600 hours I found the blades were getting a lot of play,,,,,,Time for another overhaul but this time got at least got another 5 years and 500 hours on the prop. I don't know the model of this prop off hand other than its a 3 blade on a pusher. By now the blades were really chewed up and we had patched them up several times. Found a small patch were there was some de-lamination also. Back to Tiffin Aire and they did a fabulous job stripping the blades down and re-wrapping them and installing new nickel leading edges. Prop was like factory new when picked up. Again its an older prop model and on a pusher, so any prop on a pusher takes a beating from all kinds of FOD picked by the nose wheel and thrown through the prop no matter how careful you are. I am just thinking that I would rather spend a little bit more money for the MT with 2000 hour TBO as apposed to a slightly less expensive Whirl Wind with only 650 hour TBO.
 
OK. I thought the Whirl Wind was less than the MT but that's only the two blade model. They do not offer a 3 blade for the IO-320, just the 360/540. The 2 Blade Whirl Wind weighs 41# with spinner and the 3 blade MY weighs 43# with spinner. A LOT more weight than a 3 blade FP Catto! :eek:
 
OK. I thought the Whirl Wind was less than the MT but that's only the two blade model. They do not offer a 3 blade for the IO-320, just the 360/540. The 2 Blade Whirl Wind weighs 41# with spinner and the 3 blade MY weighs 43# with spinner. A LOT more weight than a 3 blade FP Catto! :eek:

:eek: well who would have thought a more complicated prop would weigh more! Hold the front page!

You pays your money and makes the choice that suits you.

My 7 is about 1090 lbs with its heavy angle valve and LOT (it’s not really much heavier, but some like to try to be dramatic) heavier MT. With the weight up front the CoG is great. But no carpets and little paint etc etc end up with a light plane.

Hope the OP builds what he wants and is not unduly influenced by others prejudices.
 
This probably doesn't help you much...

but I had the MTV-12-D/180-17 3 blade on a Cessna 172 (Conti IO-360DB) That was the smoothest combination of any plane I have ever flown. Looks great too.
 
Thanks for all the comments everyone. Ordered the MT today from Tiffin Aire.
 
Back
Top