Discarding old CSP prop

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

Pattern Altitude
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
2,024
Location
Chicago suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
I've had this prop in my hangar for 3 years (got green tagged during first annual pending an inspection, but ended up just buying a new one instead). At first I thought I'd turn it into wall art but... It's a little heavy for that.

What's the best way to discard an enormous piece of metal like this?

PXL_20241231_190058551.jpg
 
Son of a *****... That propeller DOESN'T fits my Tampico. It fits the rest of the TB series.

HARTZELL constant speed
HC-C2YL-1BF/F-7663 A-4
Diameter: not over 72 in., not under 70 in.
Pitch setting at 27 in., sta.:
Low 11o
High 26o06'
Spinner SOCATA TB 10.58.018.104 or TB 10.58.026.001
HARTZELL hydraulic governor F4-26 or F4-4A or F4-4AZ or F4-18
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.... It fits a TB10, which is just my plane with an o-360 & cs prop instead of an o-320.

Propeller & Propeller Limits.
HARTZELL constant speed
HC-C2YK-1BF/F-7666 A-2
Diameter: not over 74 in., not under 72 in.
Pitch setting at 30 in., sta.:
Low 13o30
High 31o
Spinner SOCATA TB 10.58.018.100, TB 10.58.018.104 or TB 10.58.026.001
HARTZELL Hydraulic governor F4-26 or F4-4A or F4-4AZ or F4-18
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Do you know which blades are on it? (The F-7666 A-2 part of the type certificate snip are the blades.)
The HC-C2YK-1BF is the hub.
Click to expand...
I'll have to check the logs once I'm back from the hangar to get the blades SN and model. I don't know off the top of my head. Would be great if it worked for your model, because the price is right at "FREE" :)
 
Found two digital log entries from when the prop was removed. There are other prop log entries in my hardcopy logs for the engine.

Agree w/Bell - to just be educated on the AD if you're interested in it. I'm not familiar with what's involved to satisfy requirements for throwing it back on a plane.
Screenshot_20241231-152204.png
Screenshot_20241231-152337.png
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Found two digital log entries from when the prop was removed. There are other prop log entries in my hardcopy logs for the engine.

Agree w/Bell - to just be educated on the AD if you're interested in it. I'm not familiar with what's involved to satisfy requirements for throwing it back on a plane.
View attachment 136670
View attachment 136671
Click to expand...
I should add: there was nothing to indicate anything was wrong with the prop, except that it was past due for its AD. And because I was in the early phases of ownership flush with AMUs, I got upsold on the convenience of just buying a new prop.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading up on it on the Socata.org site. Lots of folks replace the whole thing with a 3 blade set up at overhaul time. A couple of guys are paying the yearly Eddy current check. No one on the site has reported that theirs were cracked. The three blade is giving better acceleration on take off and better climb. Some are reporting better cruise speeds too. All agree the three blade prop looks better. :)
There seems to be a good market for them in the experimental world where the AD is not mandatory. It appears that VERY few of the hubs have actually been found to be cracked and those that were the crack was visible to the naked eye.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
There seems to be a good market for them in the experimental world where the AD is not mandatory.
Click to expand...
FYI: being experimental doesn't give you an automatic pass on an AD. Its how the AD applicability statement is worded. Plenty of guidance on this. If this is the AD I think it is, it does apply to all listed prop/engine combos. Plus I believe it is a 100hr repetitive inspection and not yearly.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: being experimental doesn't give you an automatic pass on an AD. Its how the AD applicability statement is worded. Plenty of guidance on this. If this is the AD I think it is, it does apply to all listed prop/engine combos. Plus I believe it is a 100hr repetitive inspection and not yearly.
Click to expand...
Edited my post to include your points.

To me then PITA of doing that every 100 hours would be a big barrier unless my local shop could handle it.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
To me then PITA of doing that every 100 hours would be a big barrier unless my local shop could handle it.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, I'm only guessing the AD shown above is the one I think it is. I can't download it to read it at the moment. I also recall there was terminating action by replacing the hub halves. Perhaps read the AD, get the more detailed prop info from the OP, then contact your local prop shop to see if it is a good deal or not. I merely was pointing out the AD should be considered even if you got it for free.
 
I want to turn one into a ceiling fan in my shop. Yes, I know they aren’t efficient turning slowly, but it would sure look great
 
GoFly said:
I want to turn one into a ceiling fan in my shop. Yes, I know they aren’t efficient turning slowly, but it would sure look great
Click to expand...
I would be seriously worried about it's ridiculous weight if it were a ceiling fan. Cuz if that thing fell... It ain't no lightweight box fan!

Kiddo's Driver said:
I'm checking Monday to see if my local shop can handle the 100 hour inspection.
Click to expand...
My apologies @Kiddo's Driver - I thought with your previous post you discarded the idea of the prop due to the PITA of recurrent 100h inspections. Another local person hit me on DM and I told them they could have the prop for their experimental.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
My apologies @Kiddo's Driver - I thought with your previous post you discarded the idea of the prop due to the PITA of recurrent 100h inspections. Another local person hit me on DM and I told them they could have the prop for their experimental.
Click to expand...
It will probably get put into service quicker that way. I have to go the STC route to be able to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top