Prop repair

R

Ravioli

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
8,021
Location
Somewhere else
Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
What do you think? About an hour to file and dress this sucka to get back to the sky?

Prop%20Strike.jpg
 
Just knock the rough parts off and keep flying it.
 
what kind of airplane did that happen in?
 
Yeah, I was gonna heat mine up and hammer it flat again ... both ends.
upload_2019-4-17_10-44-16.png
 
I tried re-planting this one and watering it well, but it never grew back. Looks nice on the mantel. And the replacement flies much better.

DSC00799.JPG
 
kgruber said:
A prop shop "might" be able to repair that.
Click to expand...
They can dress both ends of the prop, but that will change the prop numbers, It will no longer be what the aircraft TCDS requires.
Removing 1/2" from the tip will normally raise the static RPM about 200-300 RPM.
This is a major repair of the prop requiring a change of numbers, IF it was a 7652 it would become a 7552, just like re-pitchig, when they change the pitch, it was a 7652, re-pitched it becomes 7653 or?

This is not allowed to be done by a A&P.
E/AB, go ahead grind it.. who cares.
This would constitute a prop strike, in the certified aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that a Cherokee 150 can have...... Diameter: Not over 74", not under 72.5".

But my Cherokee 180 must have......Diameter: Not over or under 76".
 
Further:
The Cherokee 180 requires... Fuel 91/96 minimum grade aviation gasoline.

But the identical same Cherokee 180 seaplane requires....Fuel 100/130 minimum grade aviation gasoline
 
It’s going to need more than a new prop.
 
kgruber said:
Interesting that a Cherokee 150 can have...... Diameter: Not over 74", not under 72.5".

But my Cherokee 180 must have......Diameter: Not over or under 76".
Click to expand...
see it all depends upon the TCDS.
 
looks like duct tape would match the main color of the prop...…..if ya know where I'm going with this...…..
 
AC43.13, Paragraph 8-73, has this to say about shortening propeller blades:

b.
Shortening Blades. Shortening propeller blades is a major repair. When the removal or treatment of defects on the tip necessitates shortening a blade, shorten each blade used with it and keep such sets of blades together. (See figure 8-26 for acceptable methods.) Mark the shortened blades to correspond with the manufacturer’s system of model designation to indicate propeller diameter. In making the repair, it is not permissible to reduce the propeller diameter below the minimum diameter limit shown on the pertinent specification or type certificate data sheet.

But you still have the prop strike issue to deal with.

In Canada, our regulation CAR Standard 571 Appendix D limits us to shortening the blades 2%.

g571s01.gif
 
Dan Thomas said:
AC43.13, Paragraph 8-73, has this to say about shortening propeller blades:
Click to expand...
The AC doesn't apply. each propeller has a maintenance publication that dictates the repairs authorized

From the AC
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator for the inspection and repair of nonpressurized areas of civil aircraft, only when there are no manufacturer repair or maintenance instructions.

There's more read it.
 
It's all a moot point..
the aircraft is a E/AB

grind away.:)
 
Tom-D said:
The AC doesn't apply. each propeller has a maintenance publication that dictates the repairs authorized

From the AC
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator for the inspection and repair of nonpressurized areas of civil aircraft, only when there are no manufacturer repair or maintenance instructions.

There's more read it.
Click to expand...

The McCauley and Sensenich manuals have the same info as AC43.13.
 
hindsight2020 said:
not if the engine is in an EAB installation...
Click to expand...

Depends on who you ask. At a minimum, it is my local FSDO's position that ADs can and do apply to TCd components, even when installed on experimentals. So, if this RV has a TCd Lycoming engine on it, as many do, AD 2004-10-14 may apply.
 
mondtster said:
Depends on who you ask. At a minimum, it is my local FSDO's position that ADs can and do apply to TCd components, even when installed on experimentals. So, if this RV has a TCd Lycoming engine on it, as many do, AD 2004-10-14 may apply.
Click to expand...


Yeah but I the owner decide if the engine is comporting with the TC anymore or not. All I have to do is "modify it" and poof, no longer TC. The only part where the retainment of TC status is relevant is if I attempt to resale the component to a buyer who intends to use it on a certified application.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah but I the owner decide if the engine is comporting with the TC anymore or not. All I have to do is "modify it" and poof, no longer TC. The only part where the retainment of TC status is relevant is if I attempt to resale the component to a buyer who intends to use it on a certified application.
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want with an airplane that you're doing a condition inspection on for yourself, but if you came to me with one that I'm going to sign off on that is a different story.

It might be worth having a look at AD2004-07-19. Lycomings on Vans are specifically called out. Even if it was an "experimental" engine with the data tag removed, I don't think you're getting around that one if it applied to the specific components it is targeted at. The local FSDO's opinion on this is the data tag removal simply makes it harder to determine what is inside the engine and if it is truly conforming or not.
 
Don’t do anything to it. No different than a Q-tip prop. Greater performance and less noise. You’re good to go.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah but I the owner decide if the engine is comporting with the TC anymore or not. All I have to do is "modify it" and poof, no longer TC. The only part where the retainment of TC status is relevant is if I attempt to resale the component to a buyer who intends to use it on a certified application.
Click to expand...
mondtster said:
You can do whatever you want with an airplane that you're doing a condition inspection on for yourself, but if you came to me with one that I'm going to sign off on that is a different story.

It might be worth having a look at AD2004-07-19. Lycomings on Vans are specifically called out. Even if it was an "experimental" engine with the data tag removed, I don't think you're getting around that one if it applied to the specific components it is targeted at. The local FSDO's opinion on this is the data tag removal simply makes it harder to determine what is inside the engine and if it is truly conforming or not.
Click to expand...
When you go thru all that, you will realize why many A&Ps won't do E/ABs
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah but I the owner decide if the engine is comporting with the TC anymore or not. All I have to do is "modify it" and poof, no longer TC.
Click to expand...
Then you can get the aircraft a new AWC.
 
Tom-D said:
Then you can get the aircraft a new AWC.
Click to expand...
Then some day when you want to convert it back, you can prove to the FAA that it does comply with its TCDS.
The only way I know of to do that is a complete overhaul by a CRS.
 
mondtster said:
You can do whatever you want with an airplane that you're doing a condition inspection on for yourself, but if you came to me
Click to expand...

I can get plenty of the bolded by staying in certified land... one goes EXAB to precisely get reprieve from that gatekeeping. Besides, "FSDO opinions" are like the wind. Don't like one, wait five minutes. Thankfully you're not the only AP out there nor the only one willing to IA sign on EXABs. I understand where you're coming from, I fully support your decision to stay out of the EXAB inspection market. Like Journey said..


Tom-D said:
When you go thru all that, you will realize why many A&Ps won't do E/ABs
Click to expand...

No shortage of IAs willing to sign off condition inspections in C TX. The sky isn't falling.

Tom-D said:
Then you can get the aircraft a new AWC.
Click to expand...

As if that's an insurmountable task? A mere paperwork shuffle for EABs. Revised Phase I and in some FSDO's eyes, not even an action at all, considering how behind their own @ss they are these days. Down here they're not even allowing airman certificate renewal actions in person, and shuffling everybody to DPEs, which is why I'm letting my CFI expire this month as a matter of principle (and practicality, but that's for another thread).

So from where I sit they aren't exactly chumping at the bit for "Muller Report focus" AWC endeavors over mickey mouse changing a data plate on a used Lyco slapped to an RV. Again, the sky isn't falling.

By all means, don't work on EABs. It is your opinion to assert the willingness of another IA to do condition-inspecs on EABs as folly, and I'm not gonna try to convince you otherwise. I'm just saying, some of us don't mind the reprieve, and judging by the market outside the walls of this small echo chamber message board, things are fine on that front. There is no shortage of IAs willing to lend their signature on EABs with engines and accessories taken off their original TCDS. Life goes on.
 
Tom-D said:
Then some day when you want to convert it back, you can prove to the FAA that it does comply with its TCDS.
Click to expand...

Do you have to prove it, or do you have to find an IA who will sign something saying it is? Heck, you can't *prove* the O-360 on the next C-172 that rolls off of the line meets the TCDS. All you have is a signed piece of paper saying it is.
 
kyleb said:
Do you have to prove it, or do you have to find an IA who will sign something saying it is?
Click to expand...
Good question, really depends upon your FSDO and what they want.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I can get plenty of the bolded by staying in certified land... one goes EXAB to precisely get reprieve from that gatekeeping. Besides, "FSDO opinions" are like the wind. Don't like one, wait five minutes. Thankfully you're not the only AP out there nor the only one willing to IA sign on EXABs. I understand where you're coming from, I fully support your decision to stay out of the EXAB inspection market.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of uneducated mechanics that will sign off anything, certified or not and conforming or not. I have no problem with experimentals, provided the rules set forth for them are followed and they're safe. There are plenty of people who don't want to follow the rules and guess what, I'm not interested in helping them.

If you knew me, you might discover that I take a pretty liberal approach to this subject. But safety and liability is one area I'm not willing to compromise on.
 
mondtster said:
There are plenty of uneducated mechanics that will sign off anything, certified or not and conforming or not. I have no problem with experimentals, provided the rules set forth for them are followed and they're safe. There are plenty of people who don't want to follow the rules and guess what, I'm not interested in helping them.

If you knew me, you might discover that I take a pretty liberal approach to this subject. But safety and liability is one area I'm not willing to compromise on.
Click to expand...

No worries. Since I don't know you, I extend you the courtesy of accepting your position on safety at face value. Sincerely, I do. But I hear a lot of projection coming from some mx circles on here that pretty much circle down to a de facto certified treatment of experimental in order to address the latter portion of your concern, the liability. That's where we part company. I respect and understand your trepidation, but please let's not project that aversion as somehow tantamount to dereliction on the part of those mx folks who have less risk aversion to IA in the EXAB side of the house. That's all I'm trying to convey.
 
Tom-D said:
The AC doesn't apply. each propeller has a maintenance publication that dictates the repairs authorized

From the AC
1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator for the inspection and repair of nonpressurized areas of civil aircraft, only when there are no manufacturer repair or maintenance instructions.

There's more read it.
Click to expand...


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ac 43-13-1b - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
 
JAWS said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2010/inter ac 43-13-1b - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
IOWs you don't understand that this is a major repair?
and the info you showed us does not apply. simply because there is specific instructions to alter the blade. by the manufacturer.
And the AC does not give you authorization to change the designation of the prop.

In the US only a prop shop has authority to make these repairs. A&Ps can only do minor repairs to props.
 
Tom-D wrote:
Tom-D said:
The AC doesn't apply. each propeller has a maintenance publication that dictates the repairs authorized
Click to expand...

I replied:
JAWS said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ac 43-13-1b - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

The point is that AC43.13-1B can be used as acceptable data, even with OEM manuals and recommendations available. I discovered that a year or so ago.

I offered no opinion on the repair of the specific prop. One picture is not enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top