Propeller Damage

[Mike McCarron[_2_]]

Saw a Pawnee bend its prop on a taxiway light while taxiing. Other than
repairing the prop or replacing it with another what is required by either
Lycoming or the FAA for inspection of the engine?

Thanks

Mike

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 2, 12:00*pm, Mike McCarron > wrote:
> Saw a Pawnee bend its prop on a taxiway light while taxiing. *Other than
> repairing the prop or replacing it with another what is required by either
> Lycoming or the FAA for inspection of the engine?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike

The owner gets out their checkbook. The engine is required to have a
teardown. Lycoming AD 2004-10-14.

Any A&P ought to know this. The Lycoming "prop strike" AD is very
widely know about.

Darryl

[Paul Moslin]

the engine will need shock load inspection, sorry its all bad news. There
is a SB from Lycoming that details that.
Regards

Paul



At 19:00 02 September 2009, Mike McCarron wrote:
>Saw a Pawnee bend its prop on a taxiway light while taxiing. Other than
>repairing the prop or replacing it with another what is required by
either
>Lycoming or the FAA for inspection of the engine?
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike
>

[bildan]

On Sep 2, 1:45*pm, Paul Moslin > wrote:
> the engine will need shock load inspection, sorry its all bad news. There
> is a SB from Lycoming that details that.
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> At 19:00 02 September 2009, Mike McCarron wrote:
>
> >Saw a Pawnee bend its prop on a taxiway light while taxiing. *Other than
> >repairing the prop or replacing it with another what is required by
> either
> >Lycoming or the FAA for inspection of the engine?
>
> >Thanks
>
> >Mike

Assuming insurance coverage and ignoring the loss of the tug's
service, it may not be all bad news. The AD itself is not necessarily
a bad idea - a teardown and inspection after a prop strike is just
good practice.

I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike. This was before
the Lycoming SB and subsequent AD. The insurance company initially
refused to pay, insisting all that was needed was to straighten and
repaint the prop. It took some hard negotiations but they eventually
agreed to pay for a teardown and inspection which did find damage to
the dynamic balance weights. With the AD, insurance companies have to
pay.

A teardown and inspection offers the possibility of doing other small
service items that could extend the life of the engine which would not
be economic without an engine dissassembly for other reasons.

Of course these would be done at the owners expense and not the
insurance company's as they go beyond the scope of the AD - for
example, checking valve guide clearance and exhaust valve stems for
erosion. You should discuss this with your insurance agent before
hand.

That's the insurance and maintenance side. The real solution is to
stop running into things - it's just getting way too expensive.

[Gary Boggs]

> I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike......

More details please. I have an ex that I would like to get involved
in a prop strike and would love to get my insurance company to cover
an engine rebuild as a side benifit...... I'm sure there are many
other men with this same idea?

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Sep 3, 6:33*am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
> > I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike......
>
> More details please. *I have an ex that I would like to get involved
> in a prop strike and would love to get my insurance company to cover
> an engine rebuild as a side benifit...... *I'm sure there are many
> other men with this same idea?

I have a sudden urge to get a power ticket and buy a plane.........

[bildan]

On Sep 3, 7:33*am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
> > I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike......
>
> More details please. *I have an ex that I would like to get involved
> in a prop strike and would love to get my insurance company to cover
> an engine rebuild as a side benifit...... *I'm sure there are many
> other men with this same idea?

I'll ignore the obvious opportunity for ex-marital humor introduced by
Gary, IMHO, it really wasn't her fault.

I would assign fault equally to a lame brained flight instructor who
couldn't teach anybody to land and a design fault in the PA-28.

Piper's PA-28 "Cherokee" series started out with the 120HP PA-140 but
over the years was up-engined in a series of steps to 235 HP with each
larger engine requiring a larger diameter prop. Unfortunately, Piper
didn't see fit to lengthen the basic Cherokee landing gear so
propeller ground clearance got smaller as the engines got bigger.

In the case of the PA-28-181 "Archer II" my ex was flying, if the nose
strut was fully compressed, the prop tips were only 2" from the
asphalt. A nose tire can easily compress 2" leading to a prop
strike. All it takes is a gentle "crow hop" on landing which is what
bit my ex.

It's also worth mentioning that the direct drive opposed engines used
in light aircraft have their roots in an era of wooden props. Wood
props shatter without damaging the engine. Metal props transfer
substantial force to the engine crank so prop strikes are much more
damaging.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sep 2, 7:45*pm, bildan > wrote:

> I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike...

I seem to recall that Max Conrad was involved in a prop strike.

[bildan]

On Sep 3, 8:55*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 7:45*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> > I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike...
>
> I seem to recall that Max Conrad was involved in a prop strike.

Max Conrad, one of my heroes. Non-stop flight between Capetown, South
Africa and St. Petersburg Florida, 7878 miles in 55 hours. I think he
did it in a Piper PA-22.

[Ed Winchester[_2_]]

Bildan,

Nice story, and I understand it completely. As a power instructor in a
Warrior, I'd never let a student hit nosewheel first. Until they can be
trusted to really flare the airplane, that's what I'm there for. Alse,
I'm pretty sure that the PA-28-140 had the same O-320 that it has now,
with 150 hp. The Cherokee 150 came first, if I remember right, but had
the same horsepower. I don't think there was ever a cherokee with less
than that.

Ed

bildan wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:33 am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
>>> I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike......
>> More details please. I have an ex that I would like to get involved
>> in a prop strike and would love to get my insurance company to cover
>> an engine rebuild as a side benifit...... I'm sure there are many
>> other men with this same idea?
>
> I'll ignore the obvious opportunity for ex-marital humor introduced by
> Gary, IMHO, it really wasn't her fault.
>
> I would assign fault equally to a lame brained flight instructor who
> couldn't teach anybody to land and a design fault in the PA-28.
>
> Piper's PA-28 "Cherokee" series started out with the 120HP PA-140 but
> over the years was up-engined in a series of steps to 235 HP with each
> larger engine requiring a larger diameter prop. Unfortunately, Piper
> didn't see fit to lengthen the basic Cherokee landing gear so
> propeller ground clearance got smaller as the engines got bigger.
>
> In the case of the PA-28-181 "Archer II" my ex was flying, if the nose
> strut was fully compressed, the prop tips were only 2" from the
> asphalt. A nose tire can easily compress 2" leading to a prop
> strike. All it takes is a gentle "crow hop" on landing which is what
> bit my ex.
>
> It's also worth mentioning that the direct drive opposed engines used
> in light aircraft have their roots in an era of wooden props. Wood
> props shatter without damaging the engine. Metal props transfer
> substantial force to the engine crank so prop strikes are much more
> damaging.

[Ed Winchester[_2_]]

I seem to recall reading about this flight in one of the magazines at
the airport, and I'm pretty sure it was a Comanche, PA-24, I think.
Pa-22's are Colts and Tri-Pacers. I soloed in a PA-22-108 Colt.

Ed

bildan wrote:
> On Sep 3, 8:55 am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 7:45 pm, bildan > wrote:
>>
>>> I had an ex-wife who was involved in a prop strike...
>> I seem to recall that Max Conrad was involved in a prop strike.
>
> Max Conrad, one of my heroes. Non-stop flight between Capetown, South
> Africa and St. Petersburg Florida, 7878 miles in 55 hours. I think he
> did it in a Piper PA-22.
>

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:53:23 -0700 (PDT), bildan >
wrote:
[snip]

>
>Piper's PA-28 "Cherokee" series started out with the 120HP PA-140

PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 in 1961, actually, both with two more seats
than they had any real business having.

>over the years was up-engined in a series of steps to 235 HP

One step, actually...the 235 came only two years later. The 140 came
along in 1964, the 180 in '67.

The 140 was originally delivered with two seats, but I had a '69 model
with four for a few years. It was really a "two people and a big dog"
airplane...some years after I sold it, it met its end in a
high-density-altitude takeoff with three aboard.

>
>It's also worth mentioning that the direct drive opposed engines used
>in light aircraft have their roots in an era of wooden props. Wood
>props shatter without damaging the engine. Metal props transfer
>substantial force to the engine crank so prop strikes are much more
>damaging.

I believe the first Spitfires were delivered with wood props for just
that reason -- to make the accidents cheaper until the RAF changed
from depression rules to war rules.

rj

[bildan]

On Sep 3, 12:34*pm, Ralph Jones > wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:53:23 -0700 (PDT), bildan >
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >Piper's PA-28 "Cherokee" series started out with the 120HP *PA-140
>
> PA-28-150 and PA-28-160 in 1961, actually, both with two more seats
> than they had any real business having.
>
> >over the years was up-engined in a series of steps to 235 HP
>
> One step, actually...the 235 came only two years later. The 140 came
> along in 1964, the 180 in '67.
>
> The 140 was originally delivered with two seats, but I had a '69 model
> with four for a few years. It was really a "two people and a big dog"
> airplane...some years after I sold it, it met its end in a
> high-density-altitude takeoff with three aboard.
>
>
>
> >It's also worth mentioning that the direct drive opposed engines used
> >in light aircraft have their roots in an era of wooden props. *Wood
> >props shatter without damaging the engine. *Metal props transfer
> >substantial force to the engine crank so prop strikes are much more
> >damaging.
>
> I believe the first Spitfires were delivered with wood props for just
> that reason -- to make the accidents cheaper until the RAF changed
> from depression rules to war rules.
>
> rj

You're right. I was thinking of a 120HP experimental "safety
aircraft" designed by Fred Weick that preceded the Cherokee. It
looked exactly like the later Pipers but had an interesting
modification to the horizontal tail - a spoiler on the under surface
that only effective when the airplane was out of ground effect. It
prevented stalls by sharply limiting up elevator authority when out of
ground effect but allowed it to become effective enough for a deep
flare when in ground effect.