Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

MT Prop TBO
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

byronmfox(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:28 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

byronmfox(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:28 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

byronmfox(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs. 

I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and looked at the listed TBOs. 

Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.

Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!

Blitz Fox415-307-2405

 [quote][b]

pilotdog57(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:16 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind is in that regard.

Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO- but that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.

DZ



Sent from my iPad



On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox(at)gmail.com (byronmfox(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]

Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs. 

I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and looked at the listed TBOs. 

Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.

Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!

Blitz Fox415-307-2405

  	  Quote: 	
		  



D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

//forums.matronics.com

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D



	


[b]

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:22 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 



I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  



That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  



If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   



This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  



Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 



Mark



-

kregg(at)balancemyprop.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:33 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

If anyone in California is interested in purchasing a new MT prop, I can save you money and I can install and balance it for you also.

Contact me off line



Thanks,

Kregg Victory



Victory Aero 

2502 John Montgomery Dr.

San Jose, CA 95148

408-836-5122

www.victoryhangar.com

www.balancemyprop.com



--

pilotdog57(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:38 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Good points- maybe some versions of MT Props that we run on our M14Ps are certified because of European regulations? 

Don't know if that affects us in the States? 



Sent from my iPhone



[quote] On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:

 

 

 

 DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 

 

 I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  

 

 That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  

 

 If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   

 

 This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  

 

 Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 

 

 Mark

 

 

 

 -

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:45 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Has to be certified in the States for it to matter to us.   Europe is its own bag of worms.



Mark

--

McFly

Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:02 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Generally speaking:

- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. Some experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA 

- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental TBO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only. 

- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.

Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:

[quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>



DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 



I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  



That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  



If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   



This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  



Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 



Mark



-

_________________
Todd McCutchan
Fast Aircraft
T-34A - N134FA
KDVT Hangar 33-13

Cell - 260.402.1740

Email: todd@fastaircraft.com
Skype: tmccutchan
Web: www.fastaircraft.com & www.flyams.com

GeorgeCoy

Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 310

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:06 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

There are still some MT3 hubs out there.

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd McCutchan

Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:01 PM

To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: MT Prop TBO

Generally speaking:

- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. Some experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA 

- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental TBO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only. 

- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.

Todd McCutchan

T-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:

[quote]

--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>

DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 

I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  

That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  

If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   

This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  

Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 

Mark

-

pilotdog57(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Maybe the question that Blitz needs an answer to is how MT would view his future service if he does not comply with TBO?



Sent from my iPad



On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Todd McCutchan <todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)> wrote:

[quote]Generally speaking:

- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. Some experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA 

- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental TBO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only. 

- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.

Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:

[quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>



DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 



I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  



That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  



If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   



This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  



Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 



Mark



-

McFly

Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:44 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

In my past experience it makes no difference. 

Besides, MT proper is unlikely to be the ones overhauling. An authorizes prop repair shop would be. 

Sometimes items well past TBO have much larger repair bills so the shops are usually tickled to see over TBO items.



Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Pilotdog57 <pilotdog57(at)aol.com (pilotdog57(at)aol.com)> wrote:

[quote]Maybe the question that Blitz needs an answer to is how MT would view his future service if he does not comply with TBO?



Sent from my iPad



On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Todd McCutchan <todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)> wrote:

[quote]Generally speaking:

- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. Some experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA 

- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental TBO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only. 

- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.

Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:

[quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)>



DZ said:  "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO" 



I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?  



That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.  



If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.  Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop.  Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD.  As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition.  If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.  So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives for that prop.   



This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular aircraft is spot on.   I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.   If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.  



Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome. 



Mark



-

_________________
Todd McCutchan
Fast Aircraft
T-34A - N134FA
KDVT Hangar 33-13

Cell - 260.402.1740

Email: todd@fastaircraft.com
Skype: tmccutchan
Web: www.fastaircraft.com & www.flyams.com

Dale

Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 178

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: MT Prop TBO

When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I understand.  The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over..  The Hub can be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are complied with and there are some of those.  At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.

I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that would not happen per a agreement with MT.  Same as the Russian MT , No Service at all on those.  Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.

McFly

Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 101
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:42 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

This is very interesting!!!

So an MT prop beyond TBO is just trash then?

I will drop an email to MT to see about a more official word.



Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, "Dale" <dale(at)frii.com (dale(at)frii.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Dale" <dale(at)frii.com (dale(at)frii.com)>



When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I understand.  The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over..  The Hub can be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are complied with and there are some of those.  At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.

I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that would not happen per a agreement with MT.  Same as the Russian MT , No Service at all on those.  Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994





p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator==============================================================================bsp;       - List Contribution Web Site -p;                  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

======================================================





[b]

_________________
Todd McCutchan
Fast Aircraft
T-34A - N134FA
KDVT Hangar 33-13

Cell - 260.402.1740

Email: todd@fastaircraft.com
Skype: tmccutchan
Web: www.fastaircraft.com & www.flyams.com

jan.mevis(at)informavia.b
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:14 pm Post subject: MT Prop TBO

I have an MT prop that has been serviced by an agent of MT in the UK, no problem, with the full consent of Straubing.

But the RUSSIAN made MT props, that's another story (cfr Richard Goode). 

MT Germany refuses to repair or overhaul them because of license fee issues.





BR,

Jan





From:  Todd McCutchan <todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)>

Reply-To:  "yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)" <yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)>

Date:  Tuesday 5 August 2014 07:39

To:  "yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)" <yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)>

Subject:  Re: Re: MT Prop TBO



This is very interesting!!!

So an MT prop beyond TBO is just trash then?

I will drop an email to MT to see about a more official word.



Todd McCutchanT-34A & Yak-50

Cell: (260) 402-1740

E-mail: todd(at)fastaircraft.com (todd(at)fastaircraft.com)

www.fastaircraft.com

On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, "Dale" <dale(at)frii.com (dale(at)frii.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dale" <dale(at)frii.com (dale(at)frii.com)>



When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I understand.  The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over..  The Hub can be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are complied with and there are some of those.  At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.

I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that would not happen per a agreement with MT.  Same as the Russian MT , No Service at all on those.  Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994





p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator==============================================================================bsp;       - List Contribution Web Site -p;                  -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

======================================================









ww.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List

com

ronics.com/contribution



	




    [quote][b]

richard.goode(at)russiana
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:19 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

I will try to set some issues straight:



To make my position clear, I am biased in favour of MT props, firstly

because I sell them and secondly because I really believe they are good. For

me a really important aspect is that they are fully certificated and if you

have had, like me, a propeller failure on a "experimental" propeller you

certainly would never want to have it again!



Then, MT will overhaul any prop of theirs, however old or however much

beyond the TBO.



In terms of the Russian MT props, the situation is simply that MT gave a

licence to Speriot in Russia to make MTV-9 props, on the basis that they

would be given a certain royalty for each propeller produced. In the event,

the Russians only declared every second? third? Propeller that they made, so

clearly saved a huge amount on royalty fees! It took MT a while to realise

what was happening since these Russian props with serial numbers that had

never been declared to MT started coming back to the factory or MT overseas

agents for overhaul.



So MT decided to "black" all these Russian props, which simply means that

you cannot get them overhauled, and since the Russian factory is no longer

in business, owners of these props will end up with quite expensive

ornaments. Because of our relationship with MT they have allowed us to buy

some of these Russian props that they themselves have bought in, but

strictly for non-aviation use, and we have made a number of "wind machines"

with these props and M 14 P engines for film studios.



I have heard excellent reports of the Whirlwind propellers, but I will

always have the basic concern about the lack of certification and the test

program that this implies. Yurgis Kairis had a catastrophic failure when an

entire blade departed from his Whirlwind on his Sukhoi 31. The forces tore

the gearbox from the crankcase; broke most of the engine mounts and a lot of

other frame tubes. Fortunately he was at low altitude with a long runway

ahead. Having said that, I am sure that appropriate modifications were

subsequently made. 



Richard Goode



Rhodds Farm 

Lyonshall 

Hereford 

HR5 3LW 

United Kingdom 

 Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)

Tel:   +44 (0) 1544 340120 

Fax:  +44 (0) 1544 340129 

www.russianaeros.com

I’m currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is

+94 779 132 160.

--

scdawson(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:09 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

I sort of see the logic in blacklisting the Russian MT props because of the licensing issue, but at this point all that does is punish end consumers who didn't know any better.Â  That's too bad.Â  Plus, they are leaving money on the table.Â  If I were in that situation, with a useless MT prop because it was Russian and beyond TBO, I'd be livid, and there's no chance that I'd go back and pet the dog that bit me.Â  I'd end up going Whirlwind.

  



They be well suited to put together a program that would allow for overhaul of those props.Â Â  Perhaps charge enough to cover the license fee?Â  I'm sure the real scenario is more complicated than that, though...

  

Shaun

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:18 AM, Richard Goode <richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com (richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com)> wrote:

  [quote]--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com (richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com)>

   

 I will try to set some issues straight:

 

 To make my position clear, I am biased in favour of MT props, firstly

 because I sell them and secondly because I really believe they are good. For

 me a really important aspect is that they are fully certificated and if you

 have had, like me, a propeller failure on a "experimental" propeller you

 certainly would never want to have it again!

 

 Then, MT will overhaul any prop of theirs, however old or however much

 beyond the TBO.

 

 In terms of the Russian MT props, the situation is simply that MT gave a

 licence to Speriot in Russia to make MTV-9 props, on the basis that they

 would be given a certain royalty for each propeller produced. In the event,

 the Russians only declared every second? third? Propeller that they made, so

 clearly saved a huge amount on royalty fees! It took MT a while to realise

 what was happening since these Russian props with serial numbers that had

 never been declared to MT started coming back to the factory or MT overseas

 agents for overhaul.

 

 So MT decided to "black" all these Russian props, which simply means that

 you cannot get them overhauled, and since the Russian factory is no longer

 in business, owners of these props will end up with quite expensive

 ornaments. Because of our relationship with MT they have allowed us to buy

 some of these Russian props that they themselves have bought in, but

 strictly for non-aviation use, and we have made a number of "wind machines"

 with these props and M 14 P engines for film studios.

 

 I have heard excellent reports of the Whirlwind propellers, but I will

 always have the basic concern about the lack of certification and the test

 program that this implies. Yurgis Kairis had a catastrophic failure when an

 entire blade departed from his Whirlwind on his Sukhoi 31. The forces tore

 the gearbox from the crankcase; broke most of the engine mounts and a lot of

 other frame tubes. Fortunately he was at low altitude with a long runway

 ahead. Having said that, I am sure that appropriate modifications were

 subsequently made.

 

 Richard Goode

 

 Rhodds Farm

 Lyonshall

 Hereford

 HR5 3LW

 United Kingdom

 Â Tel: [url=tel:%2B94%20%280%29%2081%20241%205137]+94 (0) 81 241 5137[/url] (Sri Lanka)

 Tel:Â Â  [url=tel:%2B44%20%280%29%201544%20340120]+44 (0) 1544 340120[/url]

 Fax:Â  [url=tel:%2B44%20%280%29%201544%20340129]+44 (0) 1544 340129[/url]

 www.russianaeros.com

 Iâ€™m currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is

 [url=tel:%2B94%20779%20132%20160]+94 779 132 160[/url].

 

 

 --

christopherjober(at)gmail
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 6:33 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

MT "blacked out" these propellers so now they are screwing their customers. My prop was bought and installed by a MT prop shop in Illinois. MT tried to tell me it shouldn't have been brought into the country. They were trying to blame someone when it was one if their approved service companies that sold and installed it! Now when I try to go back to the same company that installed it, they won't touch it. They're telling me that MT won't allow it. They're using the Russian made excuse to not servicing my prop. They allowed this prop to go to a factory approved center, be installed, then refuse to service it?! What's to stop them from using another excuse next time? I for one will not risk buying another 'single use' prop only to be stuck with a wall ornament! 



Chris 

Sent from my iPhone



On Aug 5, 2014, at 7:18 AM, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com> wrote:






I will try to set some issues straight:



To make my position clear, I am biased in favour of MT props, firstly

because I sell them and secondly because I really believe they are good. For

me a really important aspect is that they are fully certificated and if you

have had, like me, a propeller failure on a "experimental" propeller you

certainly would never want to have it again!



Then, MT will overhaul any prop of theirs, however old or however much

beyond the TBO.



In terms of the Russian MT props, the situation is simply that MT gave a

licence to Speriot in Russia to make MTV-9 props, on the basis that they

would be given a certain royalty for each propeller produced. In the event,

the Russians only declared every second? third? Propeller that they made, so

clearly saved a huge amount on royalty fees! It took MT a while to realise

what was happening since these Russian props with serial numbers that had

never been declared to MT started coming back to the factory or MT overseas

agents for overhaul.



So MT decided to "black" all these Russian props, which simply means that

you cannot get them overhauled, and since the Russian factory is no longer

in business, owners of these props will end up with quite expensive

ornaments. Because of our relationship with MT they have allowed us to buy

some of these Russian props that they themselves have bought in, but

strictly for non-aviation use, and we have made a number of "wind machines"

with these props and M 14 P engines for film studios.



I have heard excellent reports of the Whirlwind propellers, but I will

always have the basic concern about the lack of certification and the test

program that this implies. Yurgis Kairis had a catastrophic failure when an

entire blade departed from his Whirlwind on his Sukhoi 31. The forces tore

the gearbox from the crankcase; broke most of the engine mounts and a lot of

other frame tubes. Fortunately he was at low altitude with a long runway

ahead. Having said that, I am sure that appropriate modifications were

subsequently made. 



Richard Goode



Rhodds Farm 

Lyonshall 

Hereford 

HR5 3LW 

United Kingdom 

Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)

Tel:   +44 (0) 1544 340120 

Fax:  +44 (0) 1544 340129 

www.russianaeros.com

Iâ€™m currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is

+94 779 132 160.

--

richard.goode(at)russiana
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:19 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

Of course, I know nothing about the particular circumstances of your propeller. But, are you saying that an official MT agent sold you this (Russian) propeller; installed it and now won't support it? Or, are you saying that you obtained the propeller and had it installed on your plane by an MT agent? If the first, then I suggest they have a strong responsibility to continue to support it. But I suspect the practicality is the second case, and if so, I would agree with their position. To be specific, did they know what prop it was before installing it?



Then, you are being rather simplistic to think that MT are going to look for reasons not to service your prop â€“ why on earth would they do that, except in this very particular case of removing props from service that were manufactured illegally; did not have MT certification so were, by definition, not legally airworthy.



Richard



Rhodds Farm 

Lyonshall 

Hereford 

HR5 3LW 

United Kingdom 

 Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)

Tel:   +44 (0) 1544 340120 

Fax:  +44 (0) 1544 340129 

www.russianaeros.com

Iâ€™m currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is +94 779 132 160.

--

christopherjober(at)gmail
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:05 am Post subject: MT Prop TBO

It was purchased from Aircraft Propeller Services, Inc. in Wheeling, IL. They are a MT approved shop listed on the MT website for certified service shops. Needing service I called them and they informed me that even though they sold it, they cannot service it. They knew exactly what it was (Russian) when they sold it. Only now under direction from MT in Florida (corporate USA) they cannot service the prop. They said they use to be able to service them. Now they can not. It's as simple as that. 

Sent from my iPhone



On Aug 5, 2014, at 11:18 AM, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com> wrote:






Of course, I know nothing about the particular circumstances of your propeller. But, are you saying that an official MT agent sold you this (Russian) propeller; installed it and now won't support it? Or, are you saying that you obtained the propeller and had it installed on your plane by an MT agent? If the first, then I suggest they have a strong responsibility to continue to support it. But I suspect the practicality is the second case, and if so, I would agree with their position. To be specific, did they know what prop it was before installing it?



Then, you are being rather simplistic to think that MT are going to look for reasons not to service your prop â€“ why on earth would they do that, except in this very particular case of removing props from service that were manufactured illegally; did not have MT certification so were, by definition, not legally airworthy.



Richard



Rhodds Farm 

Lyonshall 

Hereford 

HR5 3LW 

United Kingdom 

Tel: +94 (0) 81 241 5137 (Sri Lanka)

Tel:   +44 (0) 1544 340120 

Fax:  +44 (0) 1544 340129 

www.russianaeros.com

Iâ€™m currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is +94 779 132 160.

--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum