Yes.

When I press it, it says $100,000.

I am perfectly fine if people buy MT props because they look cool. Really. Just don't buy it as a speed mod.

Mike C.

Yes.

When I press it, it says $100,000.

I am perfectly fine if people buy MT props because they look cool. Really. Just don't buy it as a speed mod.

Mike C.

Yup.

You could buy a lot of COOL with $100K in other ways.

Mike C.

Yup.

You could buy a lot of COOL with $100K in other ways.

Mike C.

I think they are cool looking props but I don't think there is a chance in heck it could make a non-pilot like my wife stop thinking it's one of those noisy, dinky "prop plane" things... it there a mod which replaces props with turbofans? Now that would be some cool factor.
the 400LS, in the high 30s, now that is crazy cool (said by a guy with pilot colored glasses on, probably)

The 400LS is insane and has jet performance. Only speed rival would be the Avanti. But, you are flying behind TPE331-14's and as far as I know, they have 3600hr TBO and cost more to overhaul. So the performance-per-dollar value is higher than on Commanders, although still below an Avanti probably.

And jet price.


HSI/OH costs about 3X per hour versus small block TPE331 like the -10. Big premium in costs.

If you can afford the operating costs of a 400LS, you can fly a legacy Citation.

Mike C.

MT definitely makes sense on the 400LS.

It can also make sense on Hartzells coming up to a major overhaul such blades will be scrapped. A set of 4 blade Hartzells on an MU2 cost $83K with all new blades. At that point, yeah, I'd go with the MTs.

My 3 blades props will probably go in for overhaul next inspection. Expected cost is $6K/side assuming no blade rejects. If so, MTs are not indicated.

Mike C.

Just one more...

MT definitely makes sense on the 400LS.

It can also make sense on Hartzells coming up to a major overhaul such blades will be scrapped. A set of 4 blade Hartzells on an MU2 cost $83K with all new blades. At that point, yeah, I'd go with the MTs.

My 3 blades props will probably go in for overhaul next inspection. Expected cost is $6K/side assuming no blade rejects. If so, MTs are not indicated.

Mike C.

Checking this now, but it would be a huge market they're giving up if that's the case. Tons of 690A/B's with -10's on them.

UPDATE: It covers all models of TPE's.

Yes, they are.

Mike Laver, owner of Air 1st who did the MT work on the MU2, has them on his round the world K model, N50ET, which is -10 converted.

https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/st ... mu2b_1.htm

It covers both the 2000 RPM (3 blade original) and 1591 RPM (4 blade original) engines upgraded to -10:

Engines: for the 2000RPM engine: Honeywell, USA
TPE331-25AA, TPE331-1-151A,
TPE331-6(A)-251M or -252M
TPE331-10-( ) installed per approved STCs which
do not exceed 715 shp and 2000 rpm

Engines: for the 1591RPM engine: Honeywell, USA
TPE331-10-501M or TPE331-10-511M or
TPE331-5-252M or any TPE331-( ) installed per
approved STCS which do not exceed 715 shp and 1591 rpm.

Similar language does not appear in the Merlin STC, however, but I bet a field approval would solve that, and perhaps MT can have it added with mostly a paperwork exercise.

Mike C.

Sure does:

https://www.mt-propeller.com/en/entw/st ... comm_1.htm

Engines: Honeywell, USA TPE-331-5-( ) or TPE-331-10-( )
or TPE-331-10T-( ) or any TPE-331-( ) installed
per approved STC which do not exceed 820SHP and 1591 rpm.

Mike C.

However, I does not cover the -1's on Commanders and 2000rpm models, so no 680V's and no 681's. Which makes sense from a financial standpoint - not enough of those around, probably.

For my recent landings, still on relatively long runways lately, due to that being where my travel schedule dictated, but I've been working on practicing short field technique.
Last week, though, for the first time I had to reposition to what I've been labeling as a "short" runway, for maintenance - my annual/150 hours, I needed to land at on a 2800 foot runway. Configured appropriately, on speed, and familiar with the field - it was a non-event. I was down and slowed, to point where I needed to add power to taxi, in the first 1/3 of the runway... I'm very impressed with this machine. Even though I've been landing short and making the first turnoff on some longer runways, I've been wary of the headline figure of a 3000 foot runway, probably appropriately so, but I realize I've been mentally overestimating the drama which would be required to safely land on shorter runway. For sure, a bit too high and/or fast... it might have been a handful.

What I did not fully appreciate though about flying around low level in class G, below controlled airspace in the UK, is how fast things happen in terms of airspace... I know the area quite well from popping around Southern England in little piston aircraft but I've been flying around Southern England IFR only in the Turbo Commander before last week (I've mostly been doing IFR back and forth to France). Things happen quickly and airspace infringements become possible really quickly at Turbo Commander speeds bopping around VFR in that messy airspace. This should be obvious... but ~doubling the speeds (suddenly) can put you behind the aircraft in terms of situational awareness - certainly for controlled airspace avoidance, which is pretty much what VFR flying in the Southern UK involves.



There isn't a great option, only shorter drives, all around 1 hour with regular traffic, each with tradeoffs.
Biggin Hill - shorter drive, instrument approach, long runway, I may be able to get a spot in a new hangar by next fall...but it's about 40% more expensive to base there in a hangar than Oxford and the roads to the airport from central London seem be specifically designed to induce carsickness (lots of turns, stops and starts, some windy roads) even for those who are not prone to experience it. I'm probably going to end up there by the summer.
Elstree - super short, poor condition runway, expect regular prop overhauls and plenty of wear and tear from rocks and stuff. No hangarage for something big, as I understand it. In poor weather you need to shoot a do it yourself instrument approach.
Fairoaks - short runway, not great taxyway and runway conditions, no instrument approaches, in the process of attempting to convert to a residential development. Might be able to get hangarage, nothing available now. Might be a good option, not a bad drive, although decent chance it ceases to be an airport within the next couple years.
Blackbushe - decent length runway, no instrument approaches, no hangars, outdoor parking for about what I pay for hangarage and handling at Oxford, as I recall.
Wycombe - I don't know much about it, short runway, mostly small planes, narrow taxyways, doubt they have hangarage, no instrument approaches.
Stapleford - half asphalt, half mud runway, probably a 2 hour drive with traffic, maybe more. Too far (for me living in SW London).
Farnborough - crazy, crazy expensive...
The U.S. and France (outside of Paris) are just so much better for GA airport infrastructure than the UK.
edit: added Stapleford comments