Hand propping - licensed pilot at the controls?

[TRA]

Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

[Bob Gardner]

No regulation. If anyone is in the cockpit, they must be knowledgeable about
what to do (don't touch ANYTHING!!). Tying the tail down is perfectly
acceptable. I take it that you have never seen anyone on the right side
float of a seaplane, swinging the prop from behind.

Never rely on the brakes or chocks...if the throttle is set too high, the
plane (if not tied to something) will easily jump the chocks. Another ploy
is to prime the engine, then shut off the fuel. There will be enough fuel in
the lines for the engine to start and run for enough time for you to
scramble into the cockpit and turn the fuel back on.

Bob Gardner

"TRA" > wrote in message
...
> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

[Newps]

TRA wrote:

> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped?

No, that would be a ridiculous reg, essentially making a J3 or PA-11 a
two pilot operation.


I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

Figure out what works for you and get on with it.

[john smith]

In article >,
TRA > wrote:

> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

I will have the uninitiated hold the tail before I will put them in the
cockpit. This is if there is not a sufficient tail tie down available.

[[email protected]]

I used to hand prop a cub on floats.

Stand behind the engine and hook the lefet arm in the door frame use the right arm to
prop the plane. I'd never hand prop a plane from the front.


Paul


On 7 Jul 2006 13:23:02 -0500, TRA > wrote:

>Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
>that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
>controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
>propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
>reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
>down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
>airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
>pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

[john smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> Stand behind the engine and hook the lefet arm in the door frame use the
> right arm to
> prop the plane. I'd never hand prop a plane from the front.

Hurts like hell when the engine starts and propwash slams the Champ's
door on your fingers, though.

[Stache]

TRA wrote:
> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

In FAA-H-8083-3A Airplane Flying Handbook, it say Unsupervised "hand
propping" of an airplane should not be attempted by inexperienced
persons. Regardless of the experience level, it should never be
attempted by anyone without adhering to adequate safety measures.
Uninformed or inexperienced persons or nonpilot passengers should never
handle the throttle, brakes, or switches during starting procedures.
The airplane should be securely chocked or tied down, and great care
should be exercised in setting the throttle. It may be well to turn
the fuel selector valve to the "off" position after properly priming
the engine and prior to actually attempting the hand start. After it
starts, the engine will usually run long enough with the fuel "off" to
permit walking around the propeller and turning the fuel selector to
the "on" position.

Also AC 61-98 CURRENCY AND ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTIFIED PILOTS, talks about hand propping in paragraph 16(b) In
addition to the requirements specified in FAR § 61.31(g), the FAA
recommends that pilots obtain a thorough checkout and transition
training for each make and model of tail wheel airplane to be flown due
to significant differences in operating characteristics of individual
tail wheel airplanes. For example, many older types of tail wheel
airplanes have pronounced or unusual stall and spin characteristics
which differ greatly from those of more recently certificated tail
wheel airplanes. In addition to the requirements specified in FAR §
61.31(g), the FAA recommends that pilots obtain a thorough checkout and
transition training for each make and model of tail wheel airplane to
be flown due to significant differences in operating characteristics of
individual tail wheel airplanes.

The FAA would cite FAR 91.13(a) careless and reckless if something
should go wrong while hand propping. The FAA would also cite FAR
91.103 Preflight Action.

Based on the above two rules the FAA would look at why you were hand
propping when something went bad such as:
1. Was the battery dead or low?
2. Did you follow the flight manual procedures?
3. Were the brakes set and chocked.
4. Was the tail ties down.
5. Was a passenger onboard.

Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.

Be careful and be safe.

Stache

[Bob Moore]

Stache wrote
> Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
> competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.

Bull****!!! You don't even need a pilot certificate in order to
handprop an airplane or to taxi one either.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI-I

[Emily[_1_]]

Stache wrote:
<snip>
> Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
> competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.

If that's true, why isn't hand propping listed in any PTS?

[Judah]

john smith > wrote in news:jsmith-A1235F.18500207072006
@network-065-024-007-028.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Stand behind the engine and hook the lefet arm in the door frame use the
>> right arm to
>> prop the plane. I'd never hand prop a plane from the front.
>
> Hurts like hell when the engine starts and propwash slams the Champ's
> door on your fingers, though.

But it probably hurts a lot less then getting that REALLY CLOSE SHAVE when
standing in front of the prop as it jumps chocks...

[Stache]

Emily wrote:
> Stache wrote:
> <snip>
> > Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
> > competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.
>
> If that's true, why isn't hand propping listed in any PTS?

I was trying to explain a situation where a person hand propping could
possible get into a situation where someone may take a second look at
you because you did something stupid. So you use a non-certificated
person to help and something goes wrong who is the pilot in command?

So let's move on to the test standards and see what they really say
about hand propping.

FAA-S-8081-14A PRIVATE PILOT Test Standard
C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
conditions.

FAA-S-8081-12B COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE Test Standards
C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
conditions.

FAA-S-8081-6B CHANGE 1 FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AIRPLANE
C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55, FAA-H-8083-3;
FAA-S-8081-12, FAA-S-8081-14; POH/AFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits instructional knowledge of the elements of engine starting,
as appropriate to the airplane used for the practical test, by
describing-
g. safety procedures for hand propping an aircraft.

Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.

Just one man's opinion.

Stache

[Bob Moore]

Stache wrote
> I was trying to explain a situation where a person hand propping could
> possible get into a situation where someone may take a second look at
> you because you did something stupid. So you use a non-certificated
> person to help and something goes wrong who is the pilot in command?

No pilot-in-command is required in order to start (handprop) an airplane
engine. Mechanics do it all the time and have never seen a Pilot PTS.

Bob Moore

[Emily[_1_]]

Stache wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Stache wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
>>> competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.
>> If that's true, why isn't hand propping listed in any PTS?
>
> I was trying to explain a situation where a person hand propping could
> possible get into a situation where someone may take a second look at
> you because you did something stupid. So you use a non-certificated
> person to help and something goes wrong who is the pilot in command?
>
> So let's move on to the test standards and see what they really say
> about hand propping.
>
> FAA-S-8081-14A PRIVATE PILOT Test Standard
> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
> POH/AFM.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
> starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
> source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
> conditions.
>
> FAA-S-8081-12B COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE Test Standards
> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
> POH/AFM.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
> starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
> source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
> conditions.
>
> FAA-S-8081-6B CHANGE 1 FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AIRPLANE
> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
> REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55, FAA-H-8083-3;
> FAA-S-8081-12, FAA-S-8081-14; POH/AFM.
> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
> 1. Exhibits instructional knowledge of the elements of engine starting,
> as appropriate to the airplane used for the practical test, by
> describing-
> g. safety procedures for hand propping an aircraft.
>
> Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.

I've had a few pilot type checkrides (including all three you listed
above) and was never ask to handprop anything. Hell, I wasn't asked to
do it on my A&P O&P.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stache wrote:
>> Emily wrote:
>>> Stache wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Not knowing how to hand prop will get the FAA to look at your
>>>> competency and may require you to go through a 44709 re-examination.
>>> If that's true, why isn't hand propping listed in any PTS?
>>
>> I was trying to explain a situation where a person hand propping could
>> possible get into a situation where someone may take a second look at
>> you because you did something stupid. So you use a non-certificated
>> person to help and something goes wrong who is the pilot in command?
>>
>> So let's move on to the test standards and see what they really say
>> about hand propping.
>>
>> FAA-S-8081-14A PRIVATE PILOT Test Standard
>> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
>> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
>> POH/AFM.
>> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
>> starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
>> source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
>> conditions.
>>
>> FAA-S-8081-12B COMMERCIAL PILOT AIRPLANE Test Standards
>> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
>> REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55;
>> POH/AFM.
>> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>> 1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to recommended engine
>> starting procedures. This shall include the use of an external power
>> source, hand propping safety, and starting under various atmospheric
>> conditions.
>>
>> FAA-S-8081-6B CHANGE 1 FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AIRPLANE
>> C. TASK: ENGINE STARTING (ASEL and ASES)
>> REFERENCES: AC 61-23/FAA-H-8083-25, AC 91-13, AC 91-55, FAA-H-8083-3;
>> FAA-S-8081-12, FAA-S-8081-14; POH/AFM.
>> Objective. To determine that the applicant:
>> 1. Exhibits instructional knowledge of the elements of engine starting,
>> as appropriate to the airplane used for the practical test, by
>> describing-
>> g. safety procedures for hand propping an aircraft.
>>
>> Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.
>
> I've had a few pilot type checkrides (including all three you listed
> above) and was never ask to handprop anything. Hell, I wasn't asked to do
> it on my A&P O&P.

Therein lies most of the problem. Not 1 in 10,000 CFIs has a clue how to
hand prop and must think it is a formula for death.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
<snip>
>>>
>>> Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.
>> I've had a few pilot type checkrides (including all three you listed
>> above) and was never ask to handprop anything. Hell, I wasn't asked to do
>> it on my A&P O&P.
>
> Therein lies most of the problem. Not 1 in 10,000 CFIs has a clue how to
> hand prop and must think it is a formula for death.
>
>
I never said I hadn't done it before, nor do I think it's a formula for
death.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.
>>> I've had a few pilot type checkrides (including all three you listed
>>> above) and was never ask to handprop anything. Hell, I wasn't asked to
>>> do it on my A&P O&P.
>>
>> Therein lies most of the problem. Not 1 in 10,000 CFIs has a clue how to
>> hand prop and must think it is a formula for death.
> I never said I hadn't done it before, nor do I think it's a formula for
> death.

Don't believe I said any of that about you. If you are a CFI and have hand
propping experience and know how to teach it you are certainly part of a
small minority.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:18:04 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
> wrote:

>
>"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should all review the test standards before we say B.S.
>>>> I've had a few pilot type checkrides (including all three you listed
>>>> above) and was never ask to handprop anything. Hell, I wasn't asked to
>>>> do it on my A&P O&P.
>>>
>>> Therein lies most of the problem. Not 1 in 10,000 CFIs has a clue how to
>>> hand prop and must think it is a formula for death.
>> I never said I hadn't done it before, nor do I think it's a formula for
>> death.
>
>Don't believe I said any of that about you. If you are a CFI and have hand
>propping experience and know how to teach it you are certainly part of a
>small minority.
>

Unfortunately this is a true statement.

z

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> No pilot-in-command is required in order to start (handprop) an airplane
> engine. Mechanics do it all the time and have never seen a Pilot PTS.

Mechanics even start and taxi airliners. <G>

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I used to hand prop a cub on floats.
>
> Stand behind the engine and hook the lefet arm in the door frame use the right arm to
> prop the plane. I'd never hand prop a plane from the front.
>
>
> Paul

Hand-propping from behind is necessary on a floatplane or
if it's a particularly tall airplane, but I'll take the front anytime
else. From the back you have to have most of your fingers right over
the trailing edge of the prop, and if the thing kicks back you'll
either lose fingers or it'll drag you into the prop, or both. From the
front you can usually get by with just the tips of the fingers barely
over the TE, with palm friction against the prop's camber doing the
rest. And there's more room to be throwing yourself back during the
pull.

Canadian law says this about engine starting:

Starting and Ground Running of Aircraft Engines

602.10 (1) No person shall start an engine of an aircraft unless

(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control
the aircraft;

(b) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving; or

(c) in the case of a seaplane, the aircraft is in a location from which
any movement of the aircraft will not endanger persons or property.


Note that there's no mention of any licensing of the person
competent to control the aircraft.



Dan

[Robert M. Gary]

I believe that is a Canadian reg. Many people have mistaken that for a
FAR.

-Robert

TRA wrote:
> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

[Cub Driver]

On 8 Jul 2006 19:39:38 -0700, "Stache" >
wrote:

>I was trying to explain a situation where a person hand propping could
>possible get into a situation where someone may take a second look at
>you because you did something stupid. So you use a non-certificated
>person to help and something goes wrong who is the pilot in command?

Since I fly a J-3, almost always fly alone, and soon found that it was
very difficult to find someone at another field to prop the plane,
propping very early became an issue with me. I had a talk with my
former instructor on the subject, and his advice was: "There are all
sorts of reasons why you don't want this to become an issue."

Solo propping is forbidden at the airfield where I rent the Cub,
especially (as I discovered) when in full view of the cafe deck in
high summer. I haven't had such a tongue-lashing since I left home in
1950. Other airfield managers don't seem to care.

I don't like to have a stranger sitting in the cockpit, so if there's
no one around who claims to know how to prop, I use two chocks on a
line that I can reel into the cockpit once I'm aboard. I also tie down
the tail if that's possible; it usually is. In a pinch I'll ask a
strong man to hold the tail.

The Cub will start at closed throttle when the engine is warm. I put
my left foot on the starboard chock, hold the window frame with my
left hand, and swing the prop with the right, getting a little bounce
out of it first on those impulse thingies, whatever they might be. It
starts the first time, almost every time.

I wait a few seconds to ensure that all is copacetic, then gingerly
duck under the struts, walk to the rear to untie the rope if any, then
very gingerly climb into the rear seat. Once strapped in, I give the
chocks a tug to free them, then reel them in and stow them in my pack
in the front seat.

It is all second nature now; I've been doing it for six years.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Don Tuite]

On the Taylorcraft, I used chocks but never trusted them and kept a
long rope in the plane for tying down the tail in case there were no
convenient tie-down chains.

Swinging the prop properly from the front means you wind up starboard
of the propeller arc and in a position to catch a strut if necessary.
As a practical matter, the T-cart did not develop much thrust at idle.
Even on tarmac, it wouldn't roll.

In 35+ years of flying, I've known four pilots I trusted/would have
trusted to do the cockpit chores while I did the outside stuff. If
somebody wanted to help, I'd have them lean against the tail.

Never tried it on an engine bigger than 65 HP, though I've done the
inside chores a couple of times on a 172 (O-300) while an 80-year old
ATP swung the prop.

Don

[john smith]

In article >,
Don Tuite > wrote:

> Never tried it on an engine bigger than 65 HP, though I've done the
> inside chores a couple of times on a 172 (O-300) while an 80-year old
> ATP swung the prop.

I will not prop a tricycle gear airplane unless it is an emergency or
very urgent situation. Maybe tie the tail down to raise the nose.
I watched an 80-something prop a Stearman. Multi-attempts before it
caught. He was drenched in sweat and tuckered out.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:30:11 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Don Tuite > wrote:
>
>> Never tried it on an engine bigger than 65 HP, though I've done the
>> inside chores a couple of times on a 172 (O-300) while an 80-year old
>> ATP swung the prop.
>
>I will not prop a tricycle gear airplane unless it is an emergency or
>very urgent situation. Maybe tie the tail down to raise the nose.
>I watched an 80-something prop a Stearman. Multi-attempts before it
>caught. He was drenched in sweat and tuckered out.

Maybe we could make this an event in the Geezer Olympics.

Start with lawnmowers and let 'em work their way up to P47s.

Don

[Jim Macklin]

Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO 520 on
the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition to get
a retarded timing and it uses battery power through a coil
and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks. But that
means the battery has to be charged and the key held in they
start position while YOU walk up to a live prop and pull it
through compression. The engine needs to have functioning
impulse couplings or some other "safe" method to alter the
timing for starting.

Airplanes used for banner/glider tow can use the QR hook to
secure the plane to a chain or rope and then the pilot can
release the tie down from the cockpit.

Even better, keep the battery charged and the starter
working.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Don Tuite > wrote:
|
| > Never tried it on an engine bigger than 65 HP, though
I've done the
| > inside chores a couple of times on a 172 (O-300) while
an 80-year old
| > ATP swung the prop.
|
| I will not prop a tricycle gear airplane unless it is an
emergency or
| very urgent situation. Maybe tie the tail down to raise
the nose.
| I watched an 80-something prop a Stearman. Multi-attempts
before it
| caught. He was drenched in sweat and tuckered out.

[RST Engineering]

As I vaguely remember, the older E-series engines on the bo used impulse
mags, but I could be wrong. I don't do retracts, so this is from ancient
memory.

Jim



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:qaStg.67773$ZW3.2136@dukeread04...
> Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO 520 on
> the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition to get
> a retarded timing and it uses battery power through a coil
> and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks.

[Jim Macklin]

They used different magnetos at different times, I just
remember SN E-22 [an early BE 36, before the A] had Shower
of Sparks and a pilot tried to prop it. He didn't get hurt,
but it didn't start either.

I general, airplanes with starters are not setup to be hand
propped, the prop is indexed differently on the crank and
the magnetos have the impulse coupling.

Jim
"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
| As I vaguely remember, the older E-series engines on the
bo used impulse
| mags, but I could be wrong. I don't do retracts, so this
is from ancient
| memory.
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:qaStg.67773$ZW3.2136@dukeread04...
| > Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO 520
on
| > the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition to
get
| > a retarded timing and it uses battery power through a
coil
| > and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks.
|
|

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zSVtg.68471$ZW3.23809@dukeread04...
> They used different magnetos at different times, I just
> remember SN E-22 [an early BE 36, before the A] had Shower
> of Sparks and a pilot tried to prop it. He didn't get hurt,
> but it didn't start either.
>
> I general, airplanes with starters are not setup to be hand
> propped, the prop is indexed differently on the crank and
> the magnetos have the impulse coupling.
>
> Jim

Engines with mags with impulse couplings hand prop just fine. In fact those
without impulse couplings can be a pain to hand prop.


> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> | As I vaguely remember, the older E-series engines on the
> bo used impulse
> | mags, but I could be wrong. I don't do retracts, so this
> is from ancient
> | memory.
> |
> | Jim
> |
> |
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:qaStg.67773$ZW3.2136@dukeread04...
> | > Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO 520
> on
> | > the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition to
> get
> | > a retarded timing and it uses battery power through a
> coil
> | > and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks.
> |
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I phrased my answer poorly. The impulse coupling makes hand
propping easier and safer. Impulse couplers cause a
retarded spark and the spring snaps the magneto to a
momentary higher speed increasing spark strength. Impulse
couplings are used as the method to get a retarded spark for
starting, whether used with or without a starter.

But an engine without a starter has the prop indexed so that
hand propping is safer.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:zSVtg.68471$ZW3.23809@dukeread04...
| > They used different magnetos at different times, I just
| > remember SN E-22 [an early BE 36, before the A] had
Shower
| > of Sparks and a pilot tried to prop it. He didn't get
hurt,
| > but it didn't start either.
| >
| > I general, airplanes with starters are not setup to be
hand
| > propped, the prop is indexed differently on the crank
and
| > the magnetos have the impulse coupling.
| >
| > Jim
|
| Engines with mags with impulse couplings hand prop just
fine. In fact those
| without impulse couplings can be a pain to hand prop.
|
|
| > "RST Engineering" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > | As I vaguely remember, the older E-series engines on
the
| > bo used impulse
| > | mags, but I could be wrong. I don't do retracts, so
this
| > is from ancient
| > | memory.
| > |
| > | Jim
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:qaStg.67773$ZW3.2136@dukeread04...
| > | > Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO
520
| > on
| > | > the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition
to
| > get
| > | > a retarded timing and it uses battery power through
a
| > coil
| > | > and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[cjcampbell]

TRA wrote:
> Is there an FAR or other document (Advisory Circular etc.)
> that addresses whether a licensed pilot must be at the
> controls ofthe aircraft being started when it is hand
> propped? I know the FAA may hit the pilot with careless and
> reckless if it gets away, but is it legal to tie the tail
> down and start solo, particularly when getting gas at a new
> airport? There just aren't that many lineboys or other
> pilots who are familiar with hand propping,

There is no FAA regulation requiring it, but a surprising number of
local laws require that a licensed pilot be at the controls. There was
a pilot at Boeing Field in Seattle who got ticketed for it a couple
years ago. Also, any airport can have its own rules regarding the
matter, just as they can have rules prohibiting the starting of engines
in hangars, minimum insurance requirements, etc.

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:05:58 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>Start with lawnmowers and let 'em work their way up to P47s.

My lawner is a LOT harder to start than the Cub.

(Of course, they are maintained by different mechanics :)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:22:45 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>The engine needs to have functioning
>impulse couplings or some other "safe" method to alter the
>timing for starting.

Right; that's the term I was searching for.

What's an impulse coupling, and how does it work?

I hear it clicking when I turn the prop. What's it doing?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 15 Jul 2006 01:06:24 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:

>There is no FAA regulation requiring it, but a surprising number of
>local laws require that a licensed pilot be at the controls. There was
>a pilot at Boeing Field in Seattle who got ticketed for it a couple
>years ago. Also, any airport can have its own rules regarding the
>matter, just as they can have rules prohibiting the starting of engines
>in hangars, minimum insurance requirements, etc.

The one I was taught (and which presumably is a requirement at the
field where I learned, and where I still fly) is that a licensed pilot
OR mechanic should be at the controls.

Obviously, that includes a student pilot, since only in the first few
flights does an instructor go find another instructor (whomever) to
prop the plane. Once he gets to know the student, the instructor props
while the student goes brakes/cracked/hot.

We had a girl instructor for a time, and she was more cautious: she
left the tail tied down until the engine was going.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Jim Macklin]

When the engine is not turning, mechanical pawls extend on
the shaft and engage a spring-loaded housing, this causes
the spring to compress and the shaft to become retarded. At
the proper time during rotation, the pawls are released and
the spring snaps the magneto up to a higher rpm, generating
a strong and retarded spark, above about 400 rpm the
centrifugal forces lock the pawls and the shaft turns at a
fixed part of the engine. The clicking you hear is the
releasing and snap of the impulse coupling. It is much
easier to see, ask an A&P to show you a mag and explain how
it works. Often there will be mag around the shop that
they can use to show you.

It is early in the morning, so my explanation is not
perfect, editorial improvements welcome.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:22:45 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >The engine needs to have functioning
| >impulse couplings or some other "safe" method to alter
the
| >timing for starting.
|
| Right; that's the term I was searching for.
|
| What's an impulse coupling, and how does it work?
|
| I hear it clicking when I turn the prop. What's it doing?
|
|
| -- all the best, Dan Ford
|
| email: usenet AT danford DOT net
|
| Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
| Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
| In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[john smith]

In article >,
Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:

> What's an impulse coupling, and how does it work?
> I hear it clicking when I turn the prop. What's it doing?

Clicking sound? Isn't that the igniter?

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:my0ug.71145$ZW3.28168@dukeread04...
>I phrased my answer poorly. The impulse coupling makes hand
> propping easier and safer. Impulse couplers cause a
> retarded spark and the spring snaps the magneto to a
> momentary higher speed increasing spark strength. Impulse
> couplings are used as the method to get a retarded spark for
> starting, whether used with or without a starter.
>
> But an engine without a starter has the prop indexed so that
> hand propping is safer.

Yep, yep, yep.


> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .net...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:zSVtg.68471$ZW3.23809@dukeread04...
> | > They used different magnetos at different times, I just
> | > remember SN E-22 [an early BE 36, before the A] had
> Shower
> | > of Sparks and a pilot tried to prop it. He didn't get
> hurt,
> | > but it didn't start either.
> | >
> | > I general, airplanes with starters are not setup to be
> hand
> | > propped, the prop is indexed differently on the crank
> and
> | > the magnetos have the impulse coupling.
> | >
> | > Jim
> |
> | Engines with mags with impulse couplings hand prop just
> fine. In fact those
> | without impulse couplings can be a pain to hand prop.
> |
> |
> | > "RST Engineering" > wrote in
> message
> | > ...
> | > | As I vaguely remember, the older E-series engines on
> the
> | > bo used impulse
> | > | mags, but I could be wrong. I don't do retracts, so
> this
> | > is from ancient
> | > | memory.
> | > |
> | > | Jim
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote
> | > in message
> | > | news:qaStg.67773$ZW3.2136@dukeread04...
> | > | > Some engines just are not safe to hand prop. The IO
> 520
> | > on
> | > | > the Beech Bonanza uses the Shower of Sparks ignition
> to
> | > get
> | > | > a retarded timing and it uses battery power through
> a
> | > coil
> | > | > and vibrating points to get the shower of sparks.
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:IU5ug.76203$ZW3.72851@dukeread04...
> When the engine is not turning, mechanical pawls extend on
> the shaft and engage a spring-loaded housing, this causes
> the spring to compress and the shaft to become retarded. At
> the proper time during rotation, the pawls are released and
> the spring snaps the magneto up to a higher rpm, generating
> a strong and retarded spark, above about 400 rpm the
> centrifugal forces lock the pawls and the shaft turns at a
> fixed part of the engine. The clicking you hear is the
> releasing and snap of the impulse coupling. It is much
> easier to see, ask an A&P to show you a mag and explain how
> it works. Often there will be mag around the shop that
> they can use to show you.
>
> It is early in the morning, so my explanation is not
> perfect, editorial improvements welcome.
>
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P

Good explanation James. An impulse coupling retards the spark from 25 to 30
degrees before top dead center (whatever your engine is timed to) to within
a couple of degrees either side of top dead center below 300 to 400 rpm.
That's why you hear the couplings click the last second or so on start up
and shut down. Makes them easier to start and reduces the possibility of
kick back to nearly zip. Regarding hand propping..........you can imagine
the fun of an engine kicking back just as you start to pull it through
before even reaching the top of the compression stroke. Gives a whole new
meaning to YEE HAA and is the reason you don't ever wrap fingers around the
prop. It's a good thing to check at annual as at least Slicks will get out
of adjustment.

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
>
>> What's an impulse coupling, and how does it work?
>> I hear it clicking when I turn the prop. What's it doing?
>
> Clicking sound? Isn't that the igniter?

I thought jet engines, stoves and furnaces had igniters. Never heard of one
in a recip.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"john smith" > wrote

> Clicking sound? Isn't that the igniter?

I have an old Wisconsin engine that has a Fairbanks Morse magneto that
functions much the same as an aircraft magneto. It is a separate bolt on
construction, turned off of the camshaft.

It has to be taken apart and cleaned, once in a while. When turning it by
hand, very slowly even, it winds up the spring at the correct place on the
rotation, then releases the spring-making the loud click that they are
talking about. When it releases at that slow hand turned RPM, it spins the
innards very rapidly and you had better not have your hand across the spark
plug lead. If you do, you are about to have a very shocking experience.

Such it is with such a beast, that makes turning a prop with the switch not
turned to off, or if it has a bad grounding wire. It makes such a hot spark
timed after top dead center, even with barely moving the prop, that if there
is a fuel mixture in the cylinder, that the engine may start.
--
Jim in NC