BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Sep 2018, 23:49

Adam - check out the KFCH Wheels & Wings fly-in thread in Travel Talk. Sorry for the thread drift... :btt:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Sep 2018, 23:54

Username Protected wrote:

Adam - check out the KFCH Wheels & Wings fly-in thread in Travel Talk. Sorry for the thread drift... :btt:

Wish I could come - she's in for her annual now, and they're so slammed it's gonna take a month, my guess.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Oct 2018, 22:24

Here's one for your Nostalgia episodes Adam...

[youtube]https://youtu.be/RsIyeqrsL48[/youtube]

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2019, 18:22

Just posting a sexy pic of a TC in a cool grey paint job with the 5-blade MT's. Don't mind me.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2019, 20:10

Reminds me of the Phoenix Air GIIIs.

More pics of that TC please, Adam. Looks sweet

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Jan 2019, 20:37

Username Protected wrote:

Just posting a sexy pic of a TC in a cool grey paint job with the 5-blade MT's. Don't mind me.

Wow. Just, wow.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 02:28

Username Protected wrote:

Just posting a sexy pic of a TC in a cool grey paint job with the 5-blade MT's. Don't mind me. ;)

Wen you spend $100K for props, they better look good!

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 04:39

A part from the WoW Factor, are there any REAL performance gains ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 06:26

Username Protected wrote:

A part from the WoW Factor, are there any REAL performance gains ?

Not an expert but my understanding is better climb rates, quicker easier starts due to reduction in mass/inertia, less/different noise and vibration. I’ve thought I had heard of slightly lower cruise speeds (which seems intuitive due to more drag with more blades...) but I may be mistaken, as I’ve heard different things on this front. I’d be interested to hear first hand. I wonder how many of these are flying, it wasn’t long ago that this was getting certified?

I understand the Dowty 4 blade props can be quite costly to overhaul, can’t remember the details as I have Hartzell 3 blade Q-tip props which require 5 year overhaul but generally aren’t costly (knock on wood as mine are due now). From a net cost, I think the MT props may make the most sense if you are facing a costly Dowty overhaul.

As some others have mentioned in other threads and elsewhere, the quicker easier starts is a big appeal. It takes a lot of energy to spin up these big props, reducing the stress on the starter generators/batteries and the risk of something going wrong during the startup phase would be a good thing.

I’m not an engineer and I have no data to back up this up... but if I were regularly operating in areas with risk of loose stones, which I know some Turbo Commanders do, I’d be happier with my metal props than with these composite materials. Part of the appeal for me of my aircraft is the ability to get into and out of shorter secondary or tertiary airports, which in Europe are not as well maintained as their municipal equivalents in the US. For trips to London, I normally use a ~2600 foot long runway and I’m aware of a regular visitor to London which uses another aerodrome which is a bit over 2100 feet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 08:16

Username Protected wrote:

Part of the appeal for me of my aircraft is the ability to get into and out of shorter secondary or tertiary airports, which in Europe are not as well maintained as their municipal equivalents in the US. For trips to London, I normally use a ~2600 foot long runway and I’m aware of a regular visitor to London which uses another aerodrome which is a bit over 2100 feet.

You go into Elstree, Patrick?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 08:38

Username Protected wrote:

You go into Elstree, Patrick?

Fairoaks for me.
I haven’t flown into Elstree but that is the shorter aérodrome I mentioned. Coming from the south and ending up in SW or W London usually, I prefer Fairoaks. Biggin Hill or Blackbushe would be ok, too. I am not a fan of the car ride from Biggin to W London, though, it seems to induce motion sickness in even those not susceptible to it...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 08:48

Username Protected wrote:

You go into Elstree, Patrick?

Fairoaks for me.
I haven’t flown into Elstree but that is the shorter aérodrome I mentioned. Coming from the south and ending up in SW or W London usually, I prefer Fairoaks. Biggin Hill or Blackbushe would be ok, too. I am not a fan of the car ride from Biggin to W London, though, it seems to induce motion sickness in even those not susceptible to it...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 10:03

Username Protected wrote:

Not an expert but my understanding is better climb rates, quicker easier starts due to reduction in mass/inertia, less/different noise and vibration. I’ve thought I had heard of slightly lower cruise speeds (which seems intuitive due to more drag with more blades...) but I may be mistaken, as I’ve heard different things on this front. I’d be interested to hear first hand. I wonder how many of these are flying, it wasn’t long ago that this was getting certified?

I understand the Dowty 4 blade props can be quite costly to overhaul, can’t remember the details as I have Hartzell 3 blade Q-tip props which require 5 year overhaul but generally aren’t costly (knock on wood as mine are due now). From a net cost, I think the MT props may make the most sense if you are facing a costly Dowty overhaul.

As some others have mentioned in other threads and elsewhere, the quicker easier starts is a big appeal. It takes a lot of energy to spin up these big props, reducing the stress on the starter generators/batteries and the risk of something going wrong during the startup phase would be a good thing.

I’m not an engineer and I have no data to back up this up... but if I were regularly operating in areas with risk of loose stones, which I know some Turbo Commanders do, I’d be happier with my metal props than with these composite materials. Part of the appeal for me of my aircraft is the ability to get into and out of shorter secondary or tertiary airports, which in Europe are not as well maintained as their municipal equivalents in the US. For trips to London, I normally use a ~2600 foot long runway and I’m aware of a regular visitor to London which uses another aerodrome which is a bit over 2100 feet.

They were testing a 7 blade configuration...not sure of the program status. Wild looking and sounds like a jet.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/uruXyPEjakU[/youtube].

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Jan 2019, 10:11

Username Protected wrote:

quicker easier starts due to reduction in mass/inertia

Negligible factor. The inertia of the high speed parts completely dominates the engine starting inertia and the drag of the compressor dominates the starting required power.

Quote:

less/different noise and vibration

Seems to be the main benefit, some improvement in runway and climb performance.

The lower vibration has a downside, the props don't tend to shed ice as well as the metal props.

Quote:

I’d be happier with my metal props than with these composite materials.

Leading edge of MT are stainless steel. Much harder than the aluminum props.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Feb 2019, 00:54

The MT on my bush plane has a stainless leading edge. That plane virtually never operates off a paved runway and while there are lots of little dents in the steel, the rest of the composite blade is doing well after many years. But I have heard of minor impacts with fueler's hose elements and other things damaging the composite tips (not at leading edge); they are definitely more fragile than metal props at their terminal ends: a friend of mine had a clod of mud/rock fly off a tire into the prop arc and he lost 5" off his blade. I think many of the new MT props are now delivered with nickel leading edges...substantially stronger (and larger) than the stainless strips on mine.