Author Topic: MT Propeller  (Read 2389 times)

Doug Johnson 1

MT Propeller
« on: January 24, 2019, 05:31:14 PM »
Larry Schlasinger the MT prop representative contacted me today and said they are looking for someone that needs a prop for their 295hp GO-480.

They need to do a field approval on at least one if not two or three to work toward a full blown STC. They are looking for someone or more, here in the lower 48 states because they are located here in the Midwest and it is just easier for them, but  they are not ruling out the guys in Alaska either.

I think this is probably a real good deal for someone that needs a prop they will walk them through the field approval and they will get to keep the prop. It's not free but there is no extra cost and much cheaper than a Hartzel and you will save a lot of weight.

Larry says they have a two blade prop approved for the 245hp GO-435 and the 270hp GO-480

Now they are looking at the GO-480 at 300 Hp and they also believe because of the thicker chord of composite blade which causes it to go supersonic at a lower rpm, that they will need to go to the 3 blade at 95" instead of a 101" or 103" 2 bladed prop, but they will look at that as well also a reversible prop for float plane use is contemplated and will be looked at.

They are looking at the 340hp GSO-480 as well. Anyone with one of those?

I mentioned the difference in oil pressure that was brought up in an earlier post and Larry said he had asked their engineer about it and it was new to him because you would use the Helio prop governor. I believe it is being looked into.

Larry says they would like to do this as soon as possible and by summer time at least.

So contact Larry Schlasinger directly at 612-619-5782 but then, when you do this you have to keep the rest of us in the loop.

check out this link to richs post  click on

next click on

« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 12:37:19 PM by Doug Johnson 1 »


Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2019, 08:01:41 PM »

I put a request on the site asking 295 owners to give us the information on their prop situations. The thought was to have some accurate informaton going forward to have MT know that this is worth their while to consider, and of course keep the cost down if they have potentially 4-5 dozen over time.

Obviously I'm due (#1295) on blades but a new and improved prop is preferred. Paul (#1434) tells me his prop was overhauled ~4 hours ago, however, blades may be done from the accident.

Would you be able to entice more owners to fess up?

By the way, Dave Maytag has also indicated that he is willing to help out with any information required from him. He also has worked on a MTV9 reverse set up for his 250 with the russian radial. Anyway, Heilo is on board.


Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2019, 06:12:07 AM »
I have been in contact with Gerd at MT and they are now in the development of 3-blade options for Helio 295, he has all the specs and current Hartzell info. I have spoken to Larry as well and he says that in Canada no field approval is available thanks to Transport of Canada, they are more strict.

The gear box for the GO, IGO, GSO-480 is 270 PSI, they have seals, bearings and fasteners already tested to 320 PSI. The blades they propose for 295 application in the 98" length are not supersonic at 2175 RPM with the 3-blade option, when certification was under going with the DO-27 GO-480-B1A6 is when some flight testing resulted in supersonic blade tip speeds, but since has been resolved.

One more thing to take home with you is that operators that fly into the bush in Alaska with 180/185 and 206 airplanes have noticed the MT blades do not hold up well off of gravel and sandbar uses is what I'm told. Continued use in these areas have been a bit of a sore spot with owners.

They already have a 2-blade option for the Dornier DO-27.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 09:43:26 AM by tailhook »


Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2019, 10:38:55 PM »
Any update on this?  Is MT actually working on a prop for us?  Every time I walk around the airport and see these nice new MT props on peoples planes with that new nickel leading edge that is nearly impervious to sand erosion and small pebble nicks I start to get jealous and hope.  With every passing day and new nicks on my freshly overhauled blades along with a weight and balance that says I really need to lose 20lbs off the nose I get closer and closer to be willing to fork over the money.

Is this actually moving forward? 


Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2019, 08:11:49 AM »
that in Canada no field approval is available thanks to Transport of Canada, they are more strict.

They are called LSTC.  Limited STC for one airplane.  A different name for a field approval for one aircraft.  TC being the type certificate.  STC a supplemental to the type certificate.  LSTC a limited to one aircraft supplemental modification to the type certificate.

They can be delevered by your local Transport Canada office, or trough a delegated engineer ( an engineer that have the authority to sign as if he was Transport Canada )

I don't know about field approval in the States, but it looks quite similar to an LSTC.  For import from the USA to Canada on a modified to original TC, a US field approval could be asked to be change to a canadian LSTC.  The field approval data could be used, but the paperwork must be the same format as a canadian LSTC


LSTC, STC and RDC approval certificates specified in AWM Chapter 513 should be used by Delegates for all modifications and repairs not covered by a TC. The certificates used should be those provided by the regional offices in paper or electronic format, or if developed by the Delegate the certificate must be indistinguishable from a certificate issued by TCCA. Electronic templates provided by TCCA, or certificate photocopies may be used to generate certificates.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2019, 08:39:56 AM by Louis »


Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2020, 11:04:39 AM »
Any of you fellas know how much a 96" 3 blade Harzel weighs? (Hc-b3z20-1/10151cn-5)  I'm working with MT Larry on getting a field approval done for their 98" 2 Blade.
He also stated that the feds are tightening down on field approvals and this route may not be an option in the very near future.

Doug Johnson

Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2021, 01:37:00 PM »
Here are some photos of the the two blade 98" MT prop as it arrives. and 2 photos of the 96" prop on the a/c. I understand that the 'Helio Alaska" guys have done some pull testing I was hoping to get some numbers to post.

I will share Abe's email that he sent.

We just got the MT prop on the Courier and have been trying it out. It feels similar in performance so far, but we don't have enough time on it for a complete evaluation yet, so the jury is still out. It was a 34lb weight reduction being wood/composite instead of aluminum and 2 blades instead of 3. It is also significantly cheaper than the Hartzell when comparing full replacement costs between the two. Time will tell on how it holds up to gravel wear, etc. We were able to get a field approval on it at 96" but were not able to go longer due to that being a limitation on the TCDS for a H-295. Benny was able to get a 98" version field approved since he has an H-395, and it technically allows up to 101" max per the numbers in the TCDS. Mostly it was just matched to the original size to maintain ground clearance and noise factors for the field approval. I had inquired originally about the 3-blade MT as well, but their recommendation was this setup as the hub was already previously evaluated on the Dornier GO-480's in the past, so it was ready to go for the spline shaft setup on the GO-480, and the blade profile they picked is the widest cord blade they make (and different from the ones they used on the Dornier configuration, which were narrower), so it should still have a lot of bite even though it has one less blade. This blade is a shorter version of what they typically use on large aerobatic radials like Yak-52's and Sukhois, from what I understand. They were anticipating that performance should be equivalent to the original 3-blade. I am still curious if a 3-bladed MT would yield some additional performance, but the cost would also be higher, and weight reduction would not be as significant. So it's hard to say at this point. We're just gonna put time on this one for now and see how it does.

I've attached a couple pictures of MT prop on the airplane for you.

Abraham Harman
Helio Alaska, Inc.

Thanks for the info, Doug

« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 02:13:14 PM by Doug Johnson »

Jason Stephens

Re: MT Propeller
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2021, 10:25:20 AM »
Has anyone talked to David Maytag about what prop he used when he had the M-14 on his Helio?  I assume by how it looked it was an MT.  Maybe he would have some comments as far as ground clearance. 

Exciting to finally see an MT on a Helio and know there is a legit alternative.