Prop strike on Continental

K

kevmor99

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
95
Display Name
Display name:
kevmor99
I've heard that a Continental doesn't require a tear down and inspection as a Lycoming does, but looking at Continental's Service Bulletin SB96-11B it looks like it requires it. Anyone know if this has changed since the past?
 
kevmor99 said:
I've heard that a Continental doesn't require a tear down and inspection as a Lycoming does, but looking at Continental's Service Bulletin SB96-11B it looks like it requires it. Anyone know if this has changed since the past?
Click to expand...
It is a service bulliten so it is not required for part 91 operations. However, if your engine had a prop strike but wasn't inspected, I wouldn't want to fly in your airplane.
 
required by common sense and paid by insurance.and it is as close to a overhaul as u can get
 
"I've heard that a Continental doesn't require a tear down and inspection"

That can't possibly have ever been a true nor a good idea.
 
172andyou said:
"I've heard that a Continental doesn't require a tear down and inspection"

That can't possibly have ever been a true nor a good idea.
Click to expand...
It is not true.

I don't recall the specific reference, but for most Continentals, the general rule of thumb is that if the prop has to be removed in order to repair the damage, then the engine needs to come apart.
 
Thanks all for the input and clarification, on this particular plane the prop did need to removed (and replaced), but it wasn't torn down, only a dial indicator/run-out test on the flange. It hit a tow bar upon startup.
 
Continental crankshafts have a surface hardened propeller flange. They easily crack without bending so the dial indicator does not tell all. We did a prop strike teardown on an IO-520 that whacked the towbar and necessitated replacement of the prop. The crankshaft was cracked in the aft flange radius. Charlie Melot Zephyr Engines
 
Federal law does not require a tear down inspection on either Lycoming nor Continental engines. There are service bulletins from both manufacturers however that recommend inspection. Why is it that people continue to perceive that there is a federal requirement mandating an inspection?

Lycoming does however have an AD against most of their engines that must be complied with which requires the removal of the accessory case cover to inspect the crankshaft accessory drive gear and the dowel for it that is in the crankshaft.

Do not confuse this with what is prudent to do. As mentioned by pervious posters even a prop strike that is viewed as minor can cause bigger problems than you think. I have a friend who has a little Continental engine on his Cub that suffered a prop strike with a wood prop. The prop shattered, and it was perceived that the engine would be ok. Upon closer inspection, it was not ok, and it was a good idea it came apart because it needed a new crank.
 
mondtster said:
Federal law does not require a tear down inspection on either Lycoming nor Continental engines. There are service bulletins from both manufacturers however that recommend inspection. Why is it that people continue to perceive that there is a federal requirement mandating an inspection?
Click to expand...

I think it is because when the service bulliten is stamped with "FAA APPROVED" or "MANDATORY" they think you have to comply with it.

I'll just share facts and not argue. People will think what they want.
 
Joshuajayg said:
I think it is because when the service bulliten is stamped with "FAA APPROVED" or "MANDATORY" they think you have to comply with it.

I'll just share facts and not argue. People will think what they want.
Click to expand...

I suspect many mechanics would also insist on doing an inspection, required or not, to limit their liability. The insistence on an inspection may be perceived as being a federal requirement.
 
mondtster said:
I suspect many mechanics would also insist on doing an inspection, required or not, to limit their liability. The insistence on an inspection may be perceived as being a federal requirement.
Click to expand...
Quite likely as well. As an A&P I would also highly recommend an inspection but it is more for the purpose of the person's safety than for my liability.
 
Im with Jimmy, why would you not want to do a tear down? Your odds would be just about as good as winning big at the poker tables in Vegas and even then I like those odds better.

Prop stike=tear down, no questions asked.
 
Last edited:
My 180 hit a lake bank on takeoff and went hard on it's back when it was young. The repair 337s are very detailed and the rebuild work is better than factory. There's not a word about a prop strike inspection in the logs. I changed that motor 1100 hours after the accident because the valve guides were shot, compressions were sagging, and I didn't see any reason to top an engine in the twilight of it's life expectancy. Not all prop strikes turn out bad. I'd be inclined to to an inspection as well, but I know a few other guys with post-prop strike stories like mine and none with any prop strike horror stories. Even with that I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.
 
Lycoming doesn't require it either. The AD commonly mentioned only covers a specific inspection that needs to be done to the accessory section and only in certain engines.

That being said, I've found that the insurance company will not hesitate to pay for a teardown in any event that involves a prop strike.
 
mondtster said:
Why is it that people continue to perceive that there is a federal requirement mandating an inspection?
Click to expand...
Of the same reason they perceive that NDB approaches are hard to fly...a few people "in authority" say something that can be taken that way, and it's easier to believe that than to expend the effort to figure it out for themselves.
 
Another way to look at this issue...prop strike...no tear down....engine fails and determined to be because of a cracked crank et al.

Their lawyer....We understand that a tear down inspection is not mandatory but ladies and gentlemen of the jury (all of them are your peers and thus very knowledgeable of aircraft) but if an engine company "recommended" a complete inspection ( ps. The engine company lawyers will be testifying to support their side) then this rich aircraft owner is criminally negligent in not doing what the manufacturer deemed necessary!

But you saved money in not making sure!
 
As little as 20 years ago it was pretty common to check the runout on the crank, perhaps inspect the accessory section and go fly it. I personally know of 3 lycomings and a continental that were not torn down after a prop strike and had no issues I am aware of afterward.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top