VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Model Specific > RV-9/9A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:02 PM
9GT's Avatar
9GT 9GT is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 1,419
Default MT MTV12C/180-57 Propeller: Any PIREP(s)?

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.
__________________
David C.
Howell, MI

RV-9A: Under Construction. N161RV (Reserved)
RV-10: N959RV Completed 12/29/2013 SOLD 08/23/2016

"Donor Exempt" but donated through Dec. 2018
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:20 AM
FORANE's Avatar
FORANE FORANE is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 454
Default

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.
__________________
Lancair 235/320
RV-9A (2013 - 2016)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-20-2018, 03:29 AM
mike newall's Avatar
mike newall mike newall is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 1,597
Default

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.
__________________
"I add a little excitement, a little spice to your lives, and all you do is complain!" - Q

Donated twice in 2017
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:01 AM
9GT's Avatar
9GT 9GT is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 1,419
Default

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.
__________________
David C.
Howell, MI

RV-9A: Under Construction. N161RV (Reserved)
RV-10: N959RV Completed 12/29/2013 SOLD 08/23/2016

"Donor Exempt" but donated through Dec. 2018
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:10 AM
FORANE's Avatar
FORANE FORANE is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 454
Default

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.
__________________
Lancair 235/320
RV-9A (2013 - 2016)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:28 AM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 2,923
Default

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.
__________________
Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N55BC RV-6 borrowed, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:47 AM
Dugaru's Avatar
Dugaru Dugaru is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Richmond VA, USA
Posts: 187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORANE View Post
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.
__________________
N929JA, 2007 RV-9A
Found it in the classifieds here!
Based W96 - near Richmond, VA
2017 Dues Paid
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:02 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 4,101
Default

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.
__________________
Greg Niehues - VAF 2018 dues paid
Garden City, TX
N16GN flying! http://websites.expercraft.com/airguy/
Built an off-plan 9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:31 AM
mike newall's Avatar
mike newall mike newall is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 1,597
Default

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.
__________________
"I add a little excitement, a little spice to your lives, and all you do is complain!" - Q

Donated twice in 2017
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-20-2018, 04:55 PM
tomww tomww is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Default

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 thatís fine for them.

I donít find a penalty on speed or cruise.

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


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.