Prop question

Go Juice · Post by **Go Juice** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:13 pm

Howdy fellas!!

Most questions seem to be about engines ect.

Mine is about our lovely noise maker we call propellers. What are the tollerence limit on them regarding to gravel damage?

What makes a dent too big??

Cheers

SeptRepair · Post by **SeptRepair** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:25 pm

What ever the manufacturer's overhaul/maintenance manual states.

System Message · Post by **System Message** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:53 pm

Here are some propeller manuals.
http://www.hartzellprop.com/service_support.php?id=69

Also AC43-13
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... JsBgdWIjVQ

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:48 pm

Also, most engine manufactures consider damage severe enough that cannot be field dressed a prop strike; requiring a complete engine tear down and inspection.

(I know, I'm just full of sunshine today!)

straightpilot · Post by **straightpilot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:35 am

a prop strike; requiring a complete engine tear down and inspection

For gravel damage?!

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:03 am

If you can't repair the prop without pulling it..... yes.

http://www.genuinecontinental.aero/docu ... 96-11B.pdf

straightpilot · Post by **straightpilot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:53 am

How times have changed. Financially better for the engine shops, I suspect!

Years ago, when someone bent a prop, we just swapped the prop and off you'd go again.

Heck, I saw Transport Canada do that, after a real prop strike on a 182. Flew in a new prop in a helicopter and that 182 was gone.

EDIT: I just checked your PDF and it's a SERVICE BULLETIN, not an AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. Do you know the difference? Either you don't know the difference, or you're intentionally trying to mislead the people here, presumably for your own financial gain. Which is it?

knucklesdragon · Post by **knucklesdragon** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:04 pm

I would read the serrvice bulletin first before mouthing off about the difference between an AWD and an SB. Particularly the part of propeller inspection. This is typical of todays society being shot down for giving some one some advice or information and being told they dont know what they are talking about.

straightpilot · Post by **straightpilot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:20 pm

Compliance with Service Bulletins is NOT MANDATORY for private aircraft owner/operators!

Where is the Airworthiness Directive which mandates compliance with this SB? I have searched the AD's for several TCM-equipped aircraft, and I do not see an AD referencing and empowering this SB.

If there is no AD, neither the FAA nor Transport consider compliance with this SB a legal requirement for continued airworthiness for PRIVATE aircraft owner/operators.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to take another training aircraft for it's $2,000 transponder recertification.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:40 pm

straightpilot wrote: EDIT: I just checked your PDF and it's a SERVICE BULLETIN, not an AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. Do you know the difference?

Yes, I know the difference. It is mandatory not because it is a Service Bulletin, but because SB contains the standards referenced in CAR 625 APP G (13) concerning prop strikes. Service Bulletins also set things like TBOs and give you detailed procedures on how to set up fuel systems, but I know, all crap that doesn't concern a private operator at all.

Either you don't know the difference, or you're intentionally trying to mislead the people here, presumably for your own financial gain. Which is it?

Go @#$! yourself.

azimuthaviation · Post by **azimuthaviation** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:47 pm

straightpilot wrote:Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to take another training aircraft for it's $2,000 transponder recertification.

Typical cost should be 5 or 600 but I wouldnt do yours for less than 3000. I guess the shop and I agree that you pay a premium for being an asshole.

straightpilot · Post by **straightpilot** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:53 am

Service Bulletins also set things like TBOs ...that doesn't concern a private operator at all

Finally, an ounce of truth accidentally slipped out, however sarcastically:

CAR 625 App C(7):

No hard time, including calendar time, between overhauls need be observed in the case of small aircraft reciprocating engines in non-commercial private operation.

and then:

Go @#$! yourself

So what's the answer? You don't know the difference between an SB and an AD, or you're trying to mislead people here to get a little work for the slow winter? I pity the misfortune of private aircraft owners who listen to your advice.

SeptRepair · Post by **SeptRepair** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:14 am

Straight Pilot. @#$! off all ready. Ifly is just stating some information and judging by his past posts on various topics its an insult to suggest he is anything but helpful and knowledgeable.

photofly · Post by **photofly** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:21 am

Yes, I know the difference. It is mandatory not because it is a Service Bulletin, but because SB contains the standards referenced in CAR 625 APP G (13) concerning prop strikes.

Without wanting to get into the pissing match, can someone explain how CAR 625 Appendix G (13) can be interpreted to say that if the prop has to come off then the engine needs to be torn down? It does say "If the propeller shaft or flange is out of limits, an internal inspection shall be required" - but that's not the same.

It does however say "The need for further investigation will depend upon the results of the preliminary examination, and on the assessment by a person specified in section 571.11 of the CARs of the probability of further damage, based on the nature of the incident."

Doesn't sound mandatory to me.

LousyFisherman · Post by **LousyFisherman** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:41 am

straightpilot wrote: EDIT: I just checked your PDF and it's a SERVICE BULLETIN, not an AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. Do you know the difference? Either you don't know the difference, or you're intentionally trying to mislead the people here, presumably for your own financial gain. Which is it?

Well I don't and I'm glad ifp raised the issue because I would never have known about it.
So, I don't have to do it as a private owner because the government says I don't.....

So, if I go owner maintenance, I don't have to do lots of good maintenance because the government says I don't.

Anyone who depends on the government to keep them alive will likely have a short and/or unpleasant life.

Just my .02
LF

Big Pistons Forever · Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:07 am

The one part of this discussion that has not been mentioned is "sudden stoppage" incidents. All engine manufacturers are unequivocal about the requirement to do a tear down inspection (also called a bulk inspection) if the prop hit something causing the engine to loose RPM or stop. Whether strictly speaking this is a legal requirement for private aircraft is IMO irrelevant. The likelihood that the engine will have suffered internal damage,especially to the counter weights, accessory gear drive, and bearing webs is very high. The only way to know is to tear down the engine, or I guess you could wait for the sudden inflight catastrophic engine failure

. Anybody who, after a prop strike just throws on another prop and flies away is IMO, an idiot.

But, if a prop accumulates enough dings that it needs to be removed for repair or even blade replacement than I can't see any need to tear down the engine.

Oh and straight pilot; like my Mother said, better to have people think you are fool than open your mouth (or keyboard) and prove then right........

plhought · Post by **plhought** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:55 pm

Regarding the original poster's question:

There's some CAR's stuff on propeller repair as well:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... d-1895.htm

For aluminum props:

torquey401 · Post by **torquey401** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:32 pm

Not wanting to get into the pissing match either. Just wondering.
Where is the owner in all this? Has he been duly informed of the CARs requirements of a prop strike, plus whatever the engine and prop manufacturers recommend? Has any inspection taken place to provide a basis for the owner to make a decision on?
It is his decision in the end. If the owner doesn't want to follow the CARs, then the logbook entry should simply state that ("as per owners request ...") and he can be merrily on his way.

culver10 · Post by **culver10** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:40 am

Here is an AD http://wwwapps3.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... -10-14.htm

AOW · Post by **AOW** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:34 pm

Wow... I can't believe that I just read through this whole thread... somebody asked about limits of gravel damage and suddenly the issue of whether teardown is required after a prop strike is being debated !?!?!

As for the original question, as the image a couple of posts back implies, the location of the damage has a lot to do with the limits. I have been told, in addition, that which face of the prop is damaged is your primary concern. Nicks out of the leading edge, as long as they're fairly small, can be dressed out, and the impact may actually strengthen the blade. Nicks or dents on the front or (especially) back face, however, can be more serious, because you are decreasing the thickness of the prop in a structurally significant area.

Gravel operations are a daily fact of life for most northern operators, so this is a pretty common problem! I'm sure that engine shops would love it if they had to do tear downs every time a prop hit a chunk or gravel, but I don't think that you will ever see that happen!

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:32 pm

Nice to see Andrew Boyd ruined another thread.

Prop question

Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question

Re: Prop question