Well after 800 hours of TW time I finally bolloxed it up

[Geosync]

Don't sweat it, being in claims, I've seen 10,000+ hour pilots make mistakes like not lowering the landing gear. I've seen guys give too much power on run up in a tailwheel and nose right on over, destroying the prop. Jet jokeys that don't do a walk around and power up, sucking whatever was sitting on the wing right through the engine. $hit happens to the best of them, and yes, insurance will cover the teardown inspection and prop. There will be "betterment" though, since you'll get a 0 time propeller after the mandiatory overhaul. But your claims adjuster will explain all of this to you.

[piperboy84]

Originally Posted by Jetblu

Sorry to hear this Piperboy. It happens to us all sooner or later.

Good luck with the repair.

Thanks JetBlu, it's not so much that it happened, but how it happened. The girlfriend asked me how serious the accident was, I don't want to get into the technicalities of a tail dragger CG, prop strike and engine tear downs so using a driving analogy I had to admit the incident was less spinning out at turn 3 at the Daytona 500 and more backing into a shopping cart in Tesco's car park but with the same level of repair needed. Her response of "Oh, I see" after a few seconds silence telegraphed to me she was actually thinking something along the lines of "So basically the same thing you did to my new Golf while out Xmas shopping you prat". Maybe not, but I just got that feeling.

[The Ancient Geek]

So basically you are saying it was a branefart.
Happens to us all, especially as we get older.

[300hrWannaB]

Love the analogy Piperboy. All you forgot to say was that aircraft repairs are 5 times that for cars. Suggest that you keep mum on that one.

Pedalling across a broad spectrum of available movement isn't the same as Pilot Induced Oscillation. A tough and gusting wing from one side may mean that you end up giving full range movement one side, then to centre, then to the same side. It's not the same as LRLRL.

[27/09]

Shaggy Sheep Driver: I've been with some pilots who I'd say 'are a good pair of hands' and land just fine, despite doing this! I prefer to see few, definite, accurate, and smooth control inputs from a pilot to all flight controls than 'porridge stirring', even if the 'porridge stirrer' still controls the aeroplane OK!

I fly with CPL's regularly who do as you describe, "stir the porridge". Even in dead calm conditions. I can't figure out why they do it, they certainly make life hard for themselves.

[Silvaire1]

I happened to be at KAJO today and saw your plane sitting on the ramp. A friend and I cast a glance over to the bright yellow Maule with a certain measure of sadness, but with hope for a better day. I did the same thing once and know the feeling. In the end it gets fixed and I guess you learn from the experience.

[DeltaV]

Originally Posted by 27/09

I fly with CPL's regularly who do as you describe, "stir the porridge". Even in dead calm conditions. I can't figure out why they do it, they certainly make life hard for themselves.

IIRC Wolfgang Langeweische in Stick and Rudder talks about it and calls it 'hefting'. Explains why too.

[Romeo Tango]

There but for the grace of god ......

[n5296s]

All you forgot to say was that aircraft repairs are 5 times that for cars

Can you put me in touch with your shop? I'd love to get a deal as good as that...

[piperboy84]

Looking at my prop replacement options, I could switch the knackered Hartzell CSP with 76" blades with the same model, or I talked to MT props who have an 80" they say will be smoother, less vibration, removes the RPM restriction between 2150 and 2250RPM, better static rpm and better climb, but slower top speed. There is no Faa approval for the prop on my plane but MT say they have a guy who for $1500 can get a field approval.

Any thoughts

[Flyingmac]

Go for it. You'll only chew over it forever if you don't. If top speed were that important, you'd be flying something else.

[Maoraigh1]

Are you happy with the reduce ground clearance, with the sort of places you go?

[27/09]

You need to answer these questions.

1. Will 2 inches less ground clearance be a problem?
2. How much does the rate of climb increase and do you need it?
3. How much slower in the cruise and can you accept that?

Then if you're still interested you need to talk to as many pilots as possible who have made the swap to MT. Preferably those that have plenty of experience with the MT prop.

You need to find out from them things like;

1. What it's like to get the prop serviced, who can do it, what does it cost etc.
2. What is the prop like in the rain, does the rain cause erosion?
3. How does the prop handle stone damage?
4. Would they do it again or would they have stayed with the original?

[piperboy84]

The plot thickens !

Had a chin wag with the adjuster today and as Geosynch suggested in his post above its all gonna work out fine, engine tear down for inspection, new prop with a 10% copay by me for betterment etc. Then he asked for my license, aircraft logs , medical and BFR. I thought to myself it's been a while since I'd done a BFR but could not remember just how long till I looked at my logbook and realised it had been 2 years and 2 months. Panic set in till I talked with my CFI friend who explained the Commercial check ride I passed with him in 2014 was a legal substitute for a BFR.

Feeling a tad relieved I gave all he docs to the adjuster, who then said the strangest thing

" don't get greedy and ask for a King Air"

I asked him what he meant and he said the last prop strike he handled was a guy in a Cessna 185 who demanded that he be allowed on the insurance companies dime to rent his mates Texan T6 as an equivalent replacement as it was somewhat a like for like aircraft while his 185 was getting fixed. The insurance company were furious but allowed the T6 rental as they did not want the hassle of fighting the guy who was adamant that is what he wanted.

I asked the adjuster why this was relevant to my situation and he informed me that (completely unknown to me ) my policy allowed for a replacement rental aircraft not to exceed $1000 a day up to $10,000 not including fuel, engine reserve and oil costs !

With the above in mind I would like to start a competition with 1st prize going to the person who can think of a model of aircraft available for rental that meets the following criteria:

* Flies, looks or could argueably be deemed similar to a Maule (no matter how remotely)
* Turbo'd and injected up the ying yang and with a whole bunch of ponies up front.
* Fast as f&@k and climbs like a lovesick mountain goat.
* Flash appearance and enough ramp appeal to afford an old, fat and balding pilot a realistic chance of pulling a tidy young bird.

Usual competition terms and conditions apply with the winning entrant receiving a selfie of me with the young bird, sitting left seat in the fancy plane giving a thumbs up sign.

[The Ancient Geek]

Obviously some people are going to take the piddle whn dealing with the insurance company but IMHO a replacement hire only needs to be able to handle the task at hand on a specific day so if you were expecting to visit a hard strip of decent lenth there is nothing wrong with a 182 which you should be able to hire easily just about anywhere.
Finding a hire for a trip where you really need the abilities of the Maule is, of course, a more difficult question and there are no easy answers.

[Sam Rutherford]

I got very close a couple of times with my MX7, they can be tricky!

Cessna Ttx? :-)

[Jetblu]

How about the Aviat Husky from Aerodynamic Aviation, San Jose.

The Turbo Arrow could fill yur boots too if you can handle a hot bird ;-)

[India Four Two]

I suggest a Cirrus. I know it is nothing like a Maule, but then a T-6 is nothing like a 185!

This one comes with its own "hot bird", but I think you might need to talk to Brad Pitt

[27/09]

Looking at my prop replacement options, I could switch the knackered Hartzell CSP with 76" blades with the same model, or I talked to MT props who have an 80" they say will be smoother, less vibration, removes the RPM restriction between 2150 and 2250RPM, better static rpm and better climb, but slower top speed. There is no Faa approval for the prop on my plane but MT say they have a guy who for $1500 can get a field approval.

Any thoughts

What prop did you decide to go with?

[piperboy84]

Originally Posted by 27/09

What prop did you decide to go with?

Working on getting some help picking the right one with one of the guys on here (PD). In the meantime I've been round the block a few times taking with the folks at Hartzell and MT. The. Issues are as follows:

The only FAA approved prop for the plane is the one that's on it now the bog standard Hartzell CSP 76"

I have look at the new Hartzell Trailblazer 80" composite 2 blade.
Pros: Its getting rave reviews from Husky and Scout pilots
It's a lot lighter than the current 76" metal prop
Cons : it's certified for every friggin bush plane except the Maule and the guy at Hatzell said he's not sure if and when they plan on doing the Maule thrust, noise and other tests to get it certified.

MT 2 Blade Composite 80"
Pros: 20 Lbs lighter
Replaceable nickel plated leading edge
Field repairable for small nicks and chips
Straight swap out with no need to change existing governor or hub, just spinner
Supposedly better static thrust, shorter take off , better climb and slight increase in cruise.
Factory offer money back guarantee
Rave reviews from both certified and non certified aircraft owners.
Removes the RPM restriction between 2100 and 2250
Never been an AD on an MT prop
Open ended service life and no TBO
Comparable to Hatzell composite 2 blade above.
Cons: Only approved for Maules in Europe not US, but MT claim they can get FAA field approval in 6 weeks and for a cost of $1500.00!

MT 3 Blade composite 203cm

Pros : All of the above as per MT 2 blade except slower cruise
Ramp appeal, looks cool, one sexy looking MF.
Supposedly gives turbine like smoothness

Cons : As per 2 blade plus more money.

I talked to Maule and asked why they have one of there airplanes on there website, brochure and sales material with an 3 blade MT prop if it's not certified for that plane and they said they just stuck it on to test with and it looked cool, made a video of the flight and took it back off again.

Jury still out !