Flight-Resource has merged with McFarlane Aviation Products. Click here to learn more.
The complete satisfaction of our customers is our top priority
 As you can see by these remarks, many buyers have initial reservations about justifying the slightly higher price for a composite propeller. We always back our sales with a money-back satisfaction guarantee. These reactions are typical of those who had any doubt.
Traveled coast to coast, camping and exploring rural parts of the USA. 
“I love the sound and pull of our MT Prop, it really RIPS! And taking almost 30 lbs off the nose helped... It’s also very smooth and quiet in cruise.” 
Deanna & Carl
Cessna 180

"Performance is definitely noticeable...Very pleased. 3-400 feet better climb and cylinders definitely running cooler. Smoothness is outstanding!" 
T. Jenkins
Cessna 182

In summary, the tests proved to me the MT 4-blade props were lighter, faster, smoother, resulted in reduced engine temps and look really cool. Darn right I’ll keep them! If anyone interested in the benefits of the 340 or the MT’s is ever in the area and would like to go for a ride give me a call or send an email. I would be happy to show off this plane.
Philip Mattison
Cessna 340

After one year of operation, I thought I would offer my assessment of my MT propeller. I have the MTV-9-D/210-58 couple to a P-Ponk O-470-50 on a Cessna 180 and operate on wheels, floats, and wheel-skis. This prop has exceeded expectations in all aspects of flight, including take-off, climb, and cruise. I found the performance especially remarkable on floats and skis, and it pulls exceptionally well on take-off in very demanding situations. When the reviews described the MT as “turbine smooth”, I thought it was an exaggeration. However, after the first hour of flight I was convinced that the claims were true. The comfort level awarded to pilot and passengers is truly remarkable. Overall it is a fine example of true German Craftsmanship. Thanks again for your courteous and prompt service.
Hubert Esquirol
Cessna 180

My MT props are on and I enjoying them. Everything your other clients said about them are true. I have also talked about the props to the guy with the P58 who talked to you.
Jim Reed
G58 Baron

I flew the airplane yesterday, and it was a dream. No vibration, better performance. I will take a pic, next time I go flying, which will be soon, and send it to you. You may refer potential customers to me for feedback.
Wally Azimi

The prop is everything and more than I hoped for other than that I was cited for violating Class B airspeed limitations ;). The best features I noticed right off the bat: * Better balance, less vibration * Noise reduction * Markedly better cooling on climb * Air brake effect superior to anything experienced before * Immediate response on spool up--extremely responsive, like a claw.
Harvey A. Moore, Ph.D.

Long & short of it in comparison to the standard 76" Hartzell:
1) Better engine cooling. The Power Flow Exhaust brings the CHT's up about 25F (more power produced), the 3 blade brings them down about 35F.
2) Very smooth running.
3) Easier starting- doesn't have that "can't get past TDC" feeling as much as the 2 blade.
4) "Seems" like more thrust on takeoff ( a Husky is off the ground so fast it's hard to tell).
5) No change in TAS at altitude- usually a 3 blade costs speed on small-motored/slow airplanes, this seems to equal the 2 blade which is good- it's pretty efficient.
6) Works GREAT at 2200 RPM- smooth and quiet.
7) Looks cool.
8) More ground clearance - never a bad thing.
9) A completely different sound outside the airplane.
10) Weighs about 15-18 lbs. less than the 80" Hartzell.
Jim Taylor, Sales Manager of McCreery Aviation
Aviat Husky

Still evaluating the new MT props. I'm a Physicist and need to be objective. The MT props do transform my old TE-426 BE-55C Baron into a better performance airplane. On the flight back from Lancaster, PA I flew at 5500’ at 25" and 2500 RPM on AP configured for best cruise speed and indicated a solid 190 knots. This is a 1967 55C Baron where fit and finish has depreciated and I suspect more parasitic drag than on the newer models, but I don't recall ever achieving more than a steady 185 knots with my old props. On take-off roll, it appears to accelerate more quickly to Vr. Before, my Baron would hesitate some on this transition but now the MT props 'leap' off the runway and quickly accelerate to Vy. And it seems I can hold a few degrees more ‘up’ pitch while holding this speed. This translates into more vertical FPM… well over 2000 fpm with full fuel load (solo). There is noticeably more ‘air brake’ action on throttle reduction and quickly changing RPMs. Very good for any short field landings. TO thrust is better… also good for any short/soft fields. Can't be really quantitative but I experience a noticeable improvement in performance in all specs. I now have a brand new, and better performing Baron. I'm happy with the changeover.
David Manzolini, Pres. Physicist DEPAC Corp.
55C Baron

I have about 4 hours on the new IO550 and MT. I am very happy we made the choice on this combination. Since we made multiple changes (engine size and prop) I cant say for sure how it compares to my old IO520/Mac C56 combo, but... What I can say is it is turbine smooth, much quieter both inside the cockpit and to those witnessing from shore. I haven’t made any gross weight takeoffs yet, so I cant attest to pulling power just yet, although it appears it may be better. We also installed a JPI 930 engine monitor, so I can really play with engine settings and LOP operation. In my old configuration, I ran rich of peak, 24 inches, 2400 rpm, 16.5-17 GPH and saw about 125 IAS (mph) on PK3500 straights. Today, at 3500 feet running lean of peak, 25 inches, 2500 rpm, 14.5 GPH I saw 134 IAS (mph) on same floats. If I run 24 inches, 2400rpm, LOP 13.5 GPH I can duplicate my "old" 125 mph on 3-3.5 gph less, and much quieter and smoother! This is all unscientific and l initial observations, and over the next few weeks I will be able to report further, as the engine is broke in, and I become more familiar with settings and operation.
Pete Aplikowski
C182 w/ Peterson IO-550 Conversion

I purchased a low time 1979 Cessna 185 the summer of 2010. The plane had been babied and was in great shape overall, but there were significant nicks (including one big one) on the metal Hartzell 3 blade prop that would need to be replaced rather soon. I had been researching composite props, and after reading up on the advantages offered I decided to get an MT. Contacted John Nielsen at Flight Resource who gave me additional data and answered all my questions. John didn’t put on a big sales pitch, just stuck to the facts and let those do most of the talking. John seemed so enthused about the product I figured he had to be exaggerating. He wasn’t. Larry Schlasinger (founding partner of Flight Resource) changed the prop in about an hour at their country shop in Chetek, Wisconsin (Y23). Larry knows more about 185s than anyone I’ve ever met. I got a lot of great tips from him. I’ll be putting the bird on Aerocet amphibs next summer, and the MT will be the perfect prop for that job also. First, the prop is very good looking; with an alluring shape that intuitively says great performance. It’s light; almost 30 pounds less than the old prop. It sounds different too, whether you are inside or outside the plane. Far more pleasant than the intrusive BLAAAT of long seaplane props so often found on 185s. And there is less vibration than any piston plane I’ve ever flown. I would have been skeptical about the performance improvement had I not witnessed it myself. I got 8 KIAS speed increase at 25” MP and 2350 RPM at 3500 MSL. Climb was improved by 350 fpm. Especially noticeable was the nearly instantaneous response to power changes – a real godsend when pushed to the wall in a go-around – no doubt a result of the lighter weight. And who can’t use an increase in useful load? Both Larry and John are first rate guys. They felt more like friends than businessmen. Now if only they’d get an STC for an MT prop on my 1971 Comanche.
Dennis C. Whitehead
1979 C-185 w/ IO-520

Wow, that new MT prop is amazing! My new MT prop does everything it is advertised to do; it is considerably lighter, smoother, quieter, and noticeably outperforms today's "standard" metal prop. During my first takeoff in my 180HP C170B with the MT prop, everything happened pretty quick; the tail came up and shortly thereafter we were off and I remember thinking "Whoa! Already? This isn't supposed to happen so soon!" A similar takeoff with a metal prop previous to that first MT prop takeoff would normally require a little more effort in the pilot technique department. That MT prop climbs better and it has a considerably smoother and quieter cruise over my old 80 inch Hartzell. My airplane has gained weight over the years (with various modifications), now it feels more like the lighter airplane that it used to be; the difference in weight is very noticeable! This prop looks good on my airplane too; one of my buddy's initial comments was: "Wow, that prop is sexy!" I am impressed and very satisfied with my purchase, there is no way that you are getting that prop off of my airplane!
Tom Piscoya
Cessna 170B w/ O-360

The balancing took a little longer than anticipated with the RH engine, but the result was the lowest vibration level that the technician had seen on a piston engine…016 IPS!! My impressions are that the overall level of vibration is about 10% of what it was originally, and the aircraft seems to climb better. The MT composite 4-blade propellers make quite a different sound (higher in pitch) that is far more pleasing to the ear and of lower overall intensity. An added bonus is the incredible “beta” effect when power is reduced after landing. When the props go flat-pitch, the immediate drag presented is remarkable, and should easily result in less wear and tear on the brakes. This effect is almost non-existent with the original propellers. I recently flew 4+ hours 15K at both 55% and 65% power settings. First, the cabin noise level had been reduced to the point where you could actually have a conversation with the headsets removed. As far as TAS, the Aerostar speed attained at least 8 and sometimes 12 knots above the book value for the power This investment resulted in a far different and better flying aircraft than before.
Gary Evans
Piper PA-60-700 Aerostar

I have flown the Wren with the MT Composite prop now for 25 hours, the following are the improvements that I have noticed so far. Let me say that this is the windy season here and severe turbulence is the norm in the mountains where we use this aircraft so I can not offer any precise observations. 1. Climb out is better. Not sure how much but noticeable. 2. Take off improved. 3. Motor runs cooler on climb out (considerable, this surprised me). 4. No Vibration, runs smooth. 5. Biggest improvement for the Wren is in slow speed and landing characteristic. 6. Cruise speed, some improvement. Hard to tell with the wind conditions but for sure running same speed as before the change now with lower power settings. So far this has been everything it was advertised to be; no complaints.
B.P McKinney
Cessna 182 w/ Wren conversion

I thought I would put in a report on my new MT propeller. My plane is a 1973 Cessna 182, PPONK motor, wing extensions, on Aerocet 3500 straight floats. It came with an 80 inch Mac 401 3 blade prop. I have flown about 70 hours last float season with this prop, and performance was good, however when VERY heavy and hot days, I could use a little water to get airborne. Float flyers here will understand VERY heavy. Anyway, I just got the plane out of annual with a new MT MTV -15-D/210-58 two blade prop, this is 83 inches (210cm). I played with it for about an hour yesterday. One word describes it -WOW! My seat of the pants feel for it is it gets on step in 1/2 the time, water run is 2/3 to 3/4 of what it was with the mac, and climb - incredible. I could hold 1500 fpm at 80 mph indicated at 25 squared, elevation was about 1000 asl, temp 68, wind 10-15mph. I was at about 2800 gross, not HEAVY, but not light. 1500 fpm in a float plane of this size at this weight is impressive. The prop is extremely quiet- and the guys on the ground commented on that first thing - and very smooth. It spins up to 2700 rpm instantly, I suppose because it is so much lighter. Top end speed I would also estimate to be a few mph faster. I was indicating 138 mph at 3000 feet, 22-squared. Also, that 40-pound weight savings on the nose of the plane is very noticeable. I used to run out of trim when landing with just me and full fuel, no longer an issue. Front of the floats also seems to be a little higher out of water due to weight savings - better for prop wear. I am looking forward to getting HEAVY and seeing what it does. Thus far, I am impressed.
Russ Hyppa
Cessna 182 w/O470-50

Flew the plane today. Wow, does it climb! Probably picked up a knot or 2 on the top end as well. Very quiet inside and out. No vibration but would like to get it dynamically balanced. There is no one in Bozeman that does it, so I'll just wait for now. Looks great!
Rob Blake
Cessna 180 w/IO-550

After a year and a half flying my Husky with the MT prop, I had to ping you to let you know how much I’m enjoying it. The MT is a superb piece of design, engineering and manufacturing workmanship. It literally transforms the experience of flying the Husky. It is so smooth and quiet that I feel like I’m flying something with a PT-6 on the front of it. Big improvement in all performance parameters over a certain..ahem..other prop. I flew with someone today who is considering the purchase of a Husky and told him the MT wasn’t optional, but required equipment on the airplane (he came to the conclusion after our flight that I’m on commission for you guys). Thanks for supporting such a great product, and please pass along a hearty ‘vielen dank’ to the folks in Germany for creating it. Best regards and Happy New Year.
Chris Carmel
Aviat Husky

I was all prepared to see modest gains...thought for sure I would be sending this back as it would not be worth the price tag...but those Germans are great engineers...all I can say is WOW!!! I can't believe the difference. It is not the same plane. I feel like I am taking off and landing a Cessna but in a Bonanza...we took off at Whiteman airport which is around 4k feet long and I usually start pulling up at 75 kts; well beyond the tower. I was actually flying before the tower...somewhere between 400 and 500 ft sooner... I was so caught by surprise and watching gauges that I forgot to pull the gear up...I spent the next 30 mins trying to figure out why it was only climbing 700 fpm at 105kts... because it so quiet I didn't pick up on it until I saw the three green lights were on...pulled the gear up and it was like someone had taken the reigns off of a racehorse. It hit 160 kts and cruised there with no effort... Landing...I came in 5 kts slower and landed in just over half the distance as normal...because the blade comes almost to a halt there is no inertia to keep pulling it down the runway flying with ground affects. Now I can go to some of my favorite places with shorter runways with a lot more confidence...I can't believe how cool this is...and so quiet...Thank you for persisting with emails and not sending this prop back to the factory...I can't tell you how happy I am.
Jerry Cain
2008 Turbo Bonanza

We have now owned all three of the performance props that are certified for the Cessna 206...Hartzel wide, McCauley long and now MT crooked (sexy). They all have unique qualities. Without writing a book lets say the MT is the most interesting. First the basics: based on around thirty hours of, in the trenches, flight time we believe that takeoff thrust for the MT is equal to or better than the McCauley big foot 86"er. That is quite a feat in itself. Cruse is about five knots faster at equal power settings. With that out of the way we also experienced some other interesting features. MT has almost no prop whine up to about 2550 RPM. "Love thy neighbor." It is smooth as advertised...unusually so through the lower power (RPM) settings, unlike its metal counterparts. What is most interesting, however, is what happens at the lower cruise settings. Think about this:...2400 rpm, 20 inches MP at nine gallons per hr LOP equals 115 kts at GW on floats and 125 kts on wheels. Caution: we have not checked the effect of long-term use at these settings on oil consumption problems due to the unloading of piston rings. But, one can most assuredly use this uncommon "gift" to stretch endurance on extra long "with reserves" flights or (for those who loiter from time to time) to save more than a few dollars. Granted, thirty hours does not a TBO make. All we can say is, So far so good.
Jim Strang, Katahdin Air Service
Cessna U206 Floatplane

We have our 180 in the air now with a Texas Skyways O-520 and the 3 Blade MT. We couldn’t be happier. Take Off and climb is vastly improved. I did a trip last week with a 185 C; ours is a 180J. He had a new IO 520D, we had a new O-520. We both had Sportsman STOL Kits. Same full loads and fuel. He had an 82" 2 blade Mac. We were consistently getting off 50-60 meters (180 odd feet) before him. Only difference was the props.
Jamie Gunson
Cessna 180 w/ Texas Skyways O-520

Finally, last week I was able to make that test flight in similar conditions to the ones I had made with the Hartzell prop. Since my Bonanza is turbo normalized, I make all tests at 12.500 feet, wide open throttle at 2500 rpm, lean of peak at 16.1 gph, which equals to 80% power. The best value I got from the Hartzell prop was 191 knots true airspeed. The MT, under similar conditions, gave me 196 knots true airspeed. The conditions were: pressure altitude 12.500 feet, OAT minus 1 degrees C, indicated airspeed 162 kts, calibrated airspeed 160 kts, true airspeed 196 kts. This was clearly 5 KTS FASTER than the Hartzell. Add to this better take off and better climb, plus less vibration, and I could not be happier with the MT prop. I hope this information helps you, since not all Bonanzas are turbo normalized using your prop.
Gunter Mund
Bonanza V35B, IO 550 B, 300 HP, turbo normalized

Smooth as silk, strong as an Ox. You can quote me. Runs fabulous at 2150 or 2200 with 21 inches, fast economical, and like a sewing machine. More detailed info when I have more time in it. I recommend it to everyone, Husky or Scout, or whatever!
Wayne Mansfield
Aviat Husky

I finally got a chance to go flying. From home (N86) to Lodi for breakfast to KOAK. Went to the A's game and watched my kid play the Star Spangled Banner. Then to BLU for the really sporty crosswinds and back home. Take off roll is shorter, climb rate at sea level is spectacular, true airspeed is an easy 5 kts faster And the 27lb. weight at station -40 was just what the W&B needed. Your follow up is outstanding. Thanks! BTW the 30 ugly lbs. off the nose solved my forward CG problem. Most C180 C182 could really benefit from the weight reduction. Talk to you soon.
Dave Call
Cessna 182 w/ O-520-F

Installed MT prop yesterday 4-26. It showed up while I was in Utah. Too bad I didn’t get to try it in some real backcountry strips. Anyhow, install was a breeze and first flight was uneventful. First impressions are: It pulls hard. Very noticeable. It's noisier in a lower frequency than my old Hartzell. The speed-brake effect is gone so I'll have to adjust my technique. Checking TAS at altitude was not possible due to wind but I'm sure it's faster. The first landing was at Stead (4SD) on RW08. Landed full stop and took off again before the hash marks. Outstanding! I'm going to get it balanced real soon.
Aviat Husky

STC packet was in my mailbox. Got the prop installed and went for a test flight. Serious difference in the smoothness and acceleration.
Paul Gunderson
C172 w/-360

We're running a 2 blade MT on a '54 with a J and its early days but so far its doing all we hoped, smooth, strong, light, quieter. We also find that the prop "cycles" a lot more quickly then the conventional, and I don't wait on full coarse for the rpm to start to drop as it really "bites" quickly. Nice Prop.
Andrew Bowmar
Cessna 182

I had an opportunity to fly for 2.5 hours yesterday and knew you would be interested in a little information and my comments regarding my 1967 C-182K Skylane. As you know it has a stock 0-470 with 270 Hours since zero time rebuild. Rod installed his F. A. T. (Forced Aeromotive Technologies) Supercharger in December. In January, we installed a new MT Composite two bladed prop. Before the installs, max climb was about 800- 900 FPM w/ the conditions below. These two installs have Doubled the R.O.C. All I can say is; WOW! With the Supercharger installed it will maintain 28” Hg Manifold Pressure well above 12,000 ft (That’s as high as I’ve flown it since the install). Since the new prop install two weeks ago, I haven’t had a lot of flight time, but here are the results from my flights yesterday:
1. Columbus, NE (OLU) – 1460’ MSL2.46-54 Degrees F
2. Pressure: 28.4
3. 420# - 2 Ft Seat Passengers
4. 468# - 78 Gal Fuel
5. 170# - Baggage Compartment
6. Max Climb: 28" Hg Manifold Press
7. 90+ MPH
8. 2650 RPM Prop Speed (not yet dynamically balanced but runs as smooth as silk)
Climbs at 1600 Feet Per Minute on takeoff up to 4,000 ft MSL – (conservative) This aircraft flies and performs better than other Skylanes I know of (in my very limited experience). It is even more responsive to the throttle with the new prop (due to the 19# lighter weight I assume) and much quieter at 2400 RPM or less. One really has to fly it to believe it… you would like any further information, please let me know. I haven’t taken it cross country with the new prop yet but, I know it will be great. The Supercharger/Propeller combination is awesome! Thank you, gentlemen, for the great products and service. This airplane may turn out to be one of the safest and fastest 182’s around.
Tom Redman
182 w/ F.A.T. Supercharger

Thanks for sending the docs. The aircraft flies like a turbine: quiet, smooth, and vibration free. It climbs like a home-sick angel. Cruise is very quiet & probably at least 5 knots faster. I've decided to keep the painted spinner {I like it very much}. Thanks again for the great prop.
P. Reardon
1979 A36 w/IO-550 Turbo

First impressions: Compared to the stock 2-blade Hartzell, this prop is LIGHT. (saved almost 15 lbs off the nose, which adds nicely to my useful load.) There is much less of a flywheel effect, so RPM changes are a little faster, such as when starting up and adjusting throttle for idle speed. Climb is significantly improved (have seen sustained 1400fpm), cruise speed appears comparable and possible a couple of knots slower, but I need to do more flying to confirm that. (Just got the plane back yesterday!) First tests are yielding approximately 152kts TAS, and prior prop was yielding about 154kts TAS in similar conditions. I'll do more flying to confirm this, and report back. The single best improvement it offers is a dramatic reduction in noise and vibration- much, much smoother, and definitely quieter. This is going to be a whole lot less fatiguing on long trips. It sounds more like a fan. Another nice thing is that it is easier to decelerate on approach and final- the three blade creates a little more drag when you pull the throttle. (Nice for convenient landings, not sure what I think about that with respect to glide ratio with an engine failure...) Also, there are no RPM range restrictions for this prop, so I tested it at different RPMs to see if I could feel any more vibration, and it's smooth all the way through the range. Another convenience over the Hartzell! Lastly, it looks cool... 🙂 In all, I'm pretty happy with it. It pulls stronger in climb, and the smoothness is amazing- it will be easy to live with.
Mooney M20E

I installed the propeller and flew it today. It is smoother, and it seems like the aircraft has 20 more horsepower for take-off. I haven't had it in cruise yet, but I doubt that I could tell any difference. The lighter weight (less rotational inertia) gives it a much quicker response to throttle changes. It is very responsive. I hope it continues this way for many years.
John Sargent
C182 w O-470

I own the 200 HP with MT that Steve Pierce has flown. I also owned a 180 A1B with 76" Hartzell. The difference is phenomenal. I know that 200 HP helps, but the real deal is how smooth the MT is and there are no RPM limitations in the middle of the spectrum. My airplane would not be a good one to judge speed on since I have 31" ABW and Baby Bushwheel tailwheel. Steve is in process of installing AOSS on it now too. I am sure that it will slow down a bit more. At 23.5" and 2350 RPM, 70 OAT, 2000' MSL the indicated airspeed at near gross weight is 112 MPH. I think the 31's cost me about 5-6 MPH versus the 26" GY's that I had on it. With 8.50's it might be another 1-2 quicker. The bottom line for me is that the MT is great. On short final when you pull the power, it is all gone and right now. There is very little flywheel effect from this prop since it is so light. Flywheel energy is typically described as WR2, Weight * radius, squared. The weight being so light compared to a metal prop it is easy to see why the energy dissipates so quickly.
Gary Fields
Aviat Husky

I've operated a couple MT props on Brand H airplanes (180 hp, CS). I love em!! They are light, as Steve said, they spool up and slow down quick, so they work really well as an airbrake to slow on final. I worked on a LOT on floats, and water erosion is a non-issue. Same with deep snow, which can grind up a metal prop. The stainless leading edge really takes 90 % of the abuse, and it's replaceable, though you'd have to really thrash it before it needed replacement. A few of the early ones exhibited some leading edge separation, and a few had a few small cracks in the tip. A few others leaked a bit. All of these that I'm aware of were repaired at no cost to the owners, so customer service has been good. Try sending your Hartzell in for warranty repairs, by the way. They'll condemn yours in a few years with an AD, like they have with two of mine, and give you a "special deal" on a replacement. It's called limiting liability, methinks. MT props work good, they hold up well, and they'll be close to 20 pounds lighter than that 80 inch. I presume you're not using the harmonic damper since you have the balanced engine?? If you're using a damper assy, you'll actually save ~30 pounds with the MT. Oh, yeah, and they pull like a tugboat....
Mike Vivion
Cessna 170

I went with the MTV-15-B-205-58 with 80" blades. I found the 84" Hartzell was a little too close to the ground when the plane was level. As for weight, I saved about 20lbs off the nose. As for performance, it feels a lot different than an aluminum prop. You don't have the momentum when you cut the power and it is easy to slow the plane down. It is a lot quieter and my takeoff and climb performance is better. If you are going to buy an MT let me know and I will put you onto the best guy around who knows his MT's. Great people to deal with and I checked around.
Simon Rose
Stinson 108-3

Since Installing the MT on my Husky I have put 43 hours on it…here’s the summary of the testing: Cruise Conditions: 23”/2000rpm 7000’ 110 KTAS @ 7.2gph. Hartzell in same conditions 104 KTAS. Climb: 8000’ FT/2400 800fpm 10,000’ FT/2000 600fpm 13,000’ FT/2000 500fpm Closed Throttle Descent (best glide) Low pitch 1200fpm High Pitch 700fpm (Hartzell 500fpm)
The MT Propeller:
Is smoother than the Hartzell at all rpm’s. You can even feel the difference on taxi. It loves low rpm’s, even down to 1800.
On my ship produced about a 6% speed increase at cruise conditions
Produced an estimated at least 20% better rate of climb.
Idles smoothly at 450rpm.
If indexed for horizontal compression, is easy to hand prop.
Has no inertia problems on starting.
Leaked a bit of grease for the first three hours, has been squeaky dry since.
Will hunt a bit at high power, but after a while it’s unnoticeable.
Reacts faster than the Hartzell to power changes.
Improved spot landing performance.
Shortens take-off distance 50’ to 100
Looks good, gets noticed.
Is the best thing I’ve done for my Husky in 16 years!
Jim Wark
Aviat Husky

This will be our fifth season of running MT props in the off-airport environment on multiple Husky aircraft, and dings have not been an issue for us. The stainless leading edge does a great job of protecting the prop from any reasonable damage.
George Mandes
Aviat Husky

I have only flown with the new prop twice. It is awesome, lots of pull. It sure is nice to not have the RPM limits anymore.
Ken Heidorn
Aviat Husky

I am enjoying the MT. The most notable change is the climb performance. When climbing at altitude (say changing from level flight at 6000 and going to 8000), an increase in RPM on the 403 would generate more noise than performance. The MT just pulls. I’m fairly conservative about determining whether or not there has been an increase in the top end. My observation is that I’m able to maintain a given IAS with less RPM’s after this conversion. This is with similar temperatures. So, I would venture to say yes, but I would not be willing to attach a figure to it
Mike Perkins
Cessna C185

I tested the 88 inch Mac and the two blade MT on the same day with our ‘62 C185 with the IO-520 and the MT two blade substantially outperformed the 88 inch Mac in climb to 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 feet. I am especially interested in the three blade MT with our 550 conversion on this plane.
George Mandes
Cessna 185

I wanted to let you know I got the prop hung on my Sukhoi, and it’s absolutely amazing. The additional thrust is so much better. Thanks again for your help. I’ll make sure to refer business your direction if anyone is looking for a prop.
Cory Lovell
Sukhoi w/M14

Just wanted to let you know how the new MT propeller is doing on my Husky. I installed it on Dec. 14th right after the STC came through. I have only been able to fly it 10 hours due to the terrible weather we have been having here, but so far I would say it is the best mod I have done to my Husky.
Here is a list of the really positive changes;
  1. 18.5 lbs off the nose has completely changed the handling characteristics, no more running out of elevator on landing with power off and no weight in the back. The CG with the Hartzell without a lot of weight in the rear was right at the forward limit. With the MT prop it is a couple of inches aft of the forward limit right where it should be. I was a little concerned that I might run into problems with aft CG with a passenger and 50 lbs in the baggage area, but after running the numbers I would really have to work at it to get out of the rear CG limit.
  2. The climb performance is remarkably better. No question this is eye watering.
  3. The removal of the 2000-2250 rpm restriction is a big help during slow flight. Seems that range is where you always need the power at 60 mph with flaps.
  4. Much smoother operation. I took your advice and tried the reduced RPM (i.e. 2100 rpm and 21 in. mp) really a nice smooth power setting with 100 kts true and 7.2 gph.
    T/O performance is improved but is a bit hard to say how much as the Husky get airborne so quickly in the sub-zero weather we have had. Warm temps at the 5500' elevation of my strip will really tell the tale. Once you break ground it is the climb that is so noticeably improved.
  5. This one really surprised me, speed control on approach is much better. I always had trouble slowing the Husky to approach speed without pulling the power way back which I don't like to do (shock cooling). With this longer prop bringing the power back to 1900 -2000 rpm and it slows right back to flap speed. Get the flaps down pull the power back a little more and down she comes.
I really haven't found anything negative about the change to the MT prop. I would not have a Husky without it! Thanks!
Mike McCue
Aviat Husky 
Share this article: