MT 3 blades prop

[Marcelo Porchetto]

Hi there, I´ve changed the old 2 blades hertzell for a new MT 3 blades prop. I made only one flight with another guy on the front seat (80 kg. aprox) and 40 lts of fuel, I felt the eagle very nice, but adjusting the trim tab in full  nose down position the pitch continous going up.
My eagle is in standard config., has the battery behind the rear seat and smoking oil tank below the fuel tank. 
Do some one know how can I fixed it ?
Very thank you!!!

Marcelo Porchetto
Cel: (54911)  3143-8806
Cel: (54911)  4165-0252
Part: (5411)   4771-6744

[Dave von]

Hi Marcelo,

If you were to make that change here in the US, it would be considered
a major alteration by the FAA. The process would require a new weight
and balance and depending on the FAA FISDO office the airplane would
need to be put back into phase 1 flight testing for a number of hours.

Having said that. Have you done a new weight and balance with the MT
prop? Eagles seem to have the tendency to be tail heavy and the down
trim issue is a symptom of that.

I would suggest not flying it until you do an accurate weight and
balance. You may need to move the battery from behind the seat up to
the firewall to get an acceptable CG especially for flying with a
passenger.

Just my 2 cents,

Dave von


On Sep 7, 12:08 am, Marcelo Porchetto <marceloporche...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[Nodorft - N887AS]

Marcello,

My Eagle is set up exactly as yours, battery in back and smoke tank
under the fuel tank, plus 3 blade prop. Mine is very well balanced in
trim. The 3-blade conversion was done before I purchased it, so I do
not know if anything special was done. I wonder if the angle of
incidence of your horizontal stabilizer is correct to begin with?
Might be something to check as well.

Allen Nodorft

On Sep 7, 12:08 am, Marcelo Porchetto <marceloporche...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

[Lew]

My 2007 Eagle 11 was built with the MT-3 prop. I think it is great
but being 25LBS lighter than the Hertsell plus I have a light weight
starter and alternator, I had to move the battery (odissey 680) to
the front of the firewall, which moved the CG 1.3 inches forward in
the envelope. In the flying business everything seems to be a trade
off, but I think the MT-3 is a fine trade off. I have pictures of my
conversion to firewall if the Eagle group will let me post them.
Lewis, Mid. Missouri

> > Part: (5411)   4771-6744- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul]

I'm curious about the MT prop. I hear horror stories of their product
support and how easily damged they are. I also have a friend with an
Eagle/MT prop. I have the standard prop, and when we fly together I
have to run about 22" MP for him to keep up in level flight at 3000'.
He DOES climb a bit better, but its not THAT much, and if we go
vertical he really doesn't have any better penetration, especially if
I can carry my extra speed into it. I realize the weight loss is
good, and less gyroscopics is good, just wondering if they are worth
it? Anyone done a back to back comparo? I can buy a lotta gas for
what one of those things costs!

[Mark Mattioli]

There is an article comparing the Hartzel Claw, Whirlwind 2 and 3 blade
props, and the MT 3 Blade. The Whirlwind 2 blade acro prop performed equal
to the Hartzel and outperformed the MT in all important respects.

Personally, I have a 200c on my Eagle. On my first take off with it I
thought I had gained 30hp. The prop really bites into the air. Vertical
lines are a snap with the new prop.

Here is a link to the article.
http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/which_prop.php

Mark
6GK

[FrancoisMarquis]

I too have a 200c on my Eagle, but bolted in front of a healthy
AEIO-390-X.

I've read the article you linked to a while back on another site.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 200c is indeed a good prop.
I'll play the devil's advocate on this one:

1- From these numbers, the 200c and the very rare 2 blade claw are
figuratively equal, if you accept that 1957 fpm is pretty much the
same as 2000fpm (that would translate to 3-10 feet on the top of a
hammerhead if you want to put it that way)

2- Then the rest becomes a comparison between 2 and 3 bladers. This
is where I get uncomfortable. A 180 hp engine is just badly
overloaded with a 400c. You put that 400c on a IO-540 and boy does it
moves a plane along !

So what does it say about the 3 blade MT prop in that article with an
even larger diameter? No mention about which blade type that were
used. Was that prop coming from a Lancair or a S2C ?

********************

That said, I'd like to hear about differences of performance on an
Eagle while using optimal products such as the 200c, and say, an MT
MTV-9-B-C/C188-18b

Francois Marquis

On Sep 18, 8:37 pm, "Mark Mattioli" <mlmatti...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There is an article comparing the Hartzel Claw, Whirlwind 2 and 3 blade
> props, and the MT 3 Blade.  The Whirlwind 2 blade acro prop performed equal
> to the Hartzel and outperformed the MT in all important respects.
>
> Personally, I have a 200c on my Eagle.  On my first take off with it I
> thought I had gained 30hp.  The prop really bites into the air.  Vertical
> lines are a snap with the new prop.
>

> Here is a link to the article.http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/which_prop.php

[André van Rensburg]

When I researched a prop for my Eagle I found the technical people at
MT in Germany very helpful, best to call MT in Germany for advice.

My combination is:
Lycoming AEIO 390-X
MTV-15-B-C/C193-34

Also get the governor and spinner assembly from MT.
André