When to replace a prop?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. It was
re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.

It has approximately 2400 hours on it. It's still in spec, doesn't leak,
works fine. Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule of
thumb for replacement of a prop. He's very much a "condition" guy (and it's
apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about the age of this
thing.

When the heck do you replace a prop?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Scott Skylane]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. It was
> re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.
>
> It has approximately 2400 hours on it. It's still in spec, doesn't
> leak, works fine. Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
> knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule
> of thumb for replacement of a prop. He's very much a "condition" guy
> (and it's apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about
> the age of this thing.
>
> When the heck do you replace a prop?

When it's age makes you nervous.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Dave[_5_]]

I would only replace a prop if it suffered damage or failed to meet
the specifications. The prop on my plane (C-182) was overhauled in
1980 and again in 1996 - my mechanic recommended it due to "Time in
Service" - meaning calendar years since last O/H. The prop shop said
it was in better shape than most of the ones they see. This prop, also
a McCauley, has been basically trouble free.

An overhaul is a lot less expensive than replacement. If that would
buy you peace of mind, go for it!

David Johnson

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 13, 7:38*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. *It was
> re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.
>
> It has approximately 2400 hours on it. *It's still in spec, doesn't leak,
> works fine. * Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
> knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule of
> thumb for replacement of a prop. *He's very much a "condition" guy (and it's
> apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about the age of this
> thing.

When the manufactor gets the FAA to approve an AD requiring you
replace it. Otherwise you can just replace parts (blades, hubs, etc).
Most prop shops believe that the Hartzell thing is just the begining
and that within the next 4 years the FAA will ensure that all props
made before 2000 are out of service. The prop manufactors have been
doing a lot of lobbying and want the pre-2000 props out of service for
liability.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Feb 13, 10:45*pm, Clark > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:4303e288-e62a-4708-aee3-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 7:38*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. *It was
> >> re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.
>
> >> It has approximately 2400 hours on it. *It's still in spec, doesn't leak
> > ,
> >> works fine. * Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
> >> knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule
> of
>
> >> thumb for replacement of a prop. *He's very much a "condition" guy (and
> > it's
> >> apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about the age of
> th
> > is
> >> thing.
>
> > When the manufactor gets the FAA to approve an AD requiring you
> > replace it. Otherwise you can just replace parts (blades, hubs, etc).
> > Most prop shops believe that the Hartzell thing is just the begining
> > and that within the next 4 years the FAA will ensure that all props
> > made before 2000 are out of service. The prop manufactors have been
> > doing a lot of lobbying and want the pre-2000 props out of service for
> > cash flow.
>
> > -Robert
>
> I corrected the mis-spelling of cash flow as "liability." I'm sure you
> meant to spell it correctly and just wanted to be sure it was right.
>
> Or mabye we're 'posed to believe that a prop fatigues out just setting on
> the ramp or in a hangar.
>
> --
> ---
> there should be a "sig" here- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The scary part is the vast majority don't see this tactic as wrong...
Downright fraud......

[The Visitor]

The only thing I can see as a concern is if there is corrosion happening
inside the hub or on the roots of the blade. I got rid of mine, very low
time like yours but they were 1983 vintage. Here they are pulled apart
every five years for inspection.

If the prop concerns you, what about the age of the aircraft? ; )

John



Jay Honeck wrote:
> Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. It was
> re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.
>
> It has approximately 2400 hours on it. It's still in spec, doesn't
> leak, works fine. Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
> knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule
> of thumb for replacement of a prop. He's very much a "condition" guy
> (and it's apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about
> the age of this thing.
>
> When the heck do you replace a prop?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 7:19 am, The Visitor >
wrote:
> The only thing I can see as a concern is if there is corrosion happening
> inside the hub or on the roots of the blade. I got rid of mine, very low
> time like yours but they were 1983 vintage. Here they are pulled apart
> every five years for inspection.
>
> If the prop concerns you, what about the age of the aircraft? ; )
>
> John
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Our Macauley prop was last overhauled (new blades) in 1991. It was
> > re-sealed and checked by a prop shop in 1997.
>
> > It has approximately 2400 hours on it. It's still in spec, doesn't
> > leak, works fine. Our A&P owned a prop shop in the 1990s, and is very
> > knowledgeable about these things -- but even he has no hard & fast rule
> > of thumb for replacement of a prop. He's very much a "condition" guy
> > (and it's apparently in good condition), but I'm getting nervous about
> > the age of this thing.
>
> > When the heck do you replace a prop?

For you Americans, FAR 43.13 says this:

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus
necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted
industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is
recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment
or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

For us Canucks, CAR 571.02 says something very similar:

571.02 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who performs
maintenance or elementary work on an aeronautical product

(b) equivalent to those specified by the manufacturer of that
aeronautical product in the most recent maintenance manual or
instructions for continued airworthiness; or

(c) in accordance with recognized industry practices at the time the
maintenance or elementary work is performed.

The kicker comes in the phrases such as "shall use the
methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer" (US) or "shall use the
most recent methods, techniques, practices, parts, materials, tools,
equipment and test apparatuses that are (a) specified for the
aeronautical product in the most recent maintenance manual or
instructions for continued airworthiness developed by the manufacturer
of that aeronautical product" (Canada). These refer to the entire
maintenance manual for that product, and that manual usually has TBOs
listed. For private aircraft, the government here doesn't get too
worried about the six-year/2000 hour life specified for our McCauley
props, but they sure hold us Commercial operators to it. If a
manufacturer has published no spec, it's ten years, in Canada, between
"corrosion inspections," which still means opening the prop.
The prop is easily the most highly stressed part on the
airplane, operating much closer to its limits of strength than the
rest of the airframe might be. Corrosion in the hub, cracking, wear,
or past overspeeding all contribute toward potential and lethal
failure. Throwing a blade is not unheard of, and a lost blade usually
means a lost engine and some serious CG issues immediately afterward.
That said, prop failures make up a tiny minority of aircraft
accidents, I think.

Dan

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:38:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>When the heck do you replace a prop?

I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the prop
shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.
--ron

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 14, 6:09*pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:38:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
> >When the heck do you replace a prop?
>
> I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the prop
> shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.

Likely you will do it next year when the next AD comes out grounding
all Hartzell props made before 2000. Hartzell is actively lobbying the
FAA for this.

-Robert

[Ray Andraka]

Dave wrote:

> I would only replace a prop if it suffered damage or failed to meet
> the specifications. The prop on my plane (C-182) was overhauled in
> 1980 and again in 1996 - my mechanic recommended it due to "Time in
> Service" - meaning calendar years since last O/H. The prop shop said
> it was in better shape than most of the ones they see. This prop, also
> a McCauley, has been basically trouble free.
>
> An overhaul is a lot less expensive than replacement. If that would
> buy you peace of mind, go for it!
>
> David Johnson
>


Jay's prop is a constant speed prop, which means it is the internal
stuff (wear and corrosion) he's got to worry about. If allowed to go
too far, it could mean a small problem becomes an unrepairable prop.
Also, internal corrosion can lead to a blade separation. Jay, the prop
manufacturers state a 5 or 6 year TBO. You are 3x that. I think it is
time.

[Ray Andraka]

The Visitor wrote:

> The only thing I can see as a concern is if there is corrosion happening
> inside the hub or on the roots of the blade. I got rid of mine, very low
> time like yours but they were 1983 vintage. Here they are pulled apart
> every five years for inspection.
>
> If the prop concerns you, what about the age of the aircraft? ; )
>
> John
>
>

The aircraft isn't getting subjected to the forces the prop hub gets
subjected to. IIRC, the number I heard was something like 20 tons of
force pulling out on the prop hub, and if you've ever seen a slow motion
video of a spinning prop, you'd be amazed at how flexible those blades
really are.

[dave]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I would only replace a prop if it suffered damage or failed to meet
>> the specifications. The prop on my plane (C-182) was overhauled in
>> 1980 and again in 1996 - my mechanic recommended it due to "Time in
>> Service" - meaning calendar years since last O/H. The prop shop said
>> it was in better shape than most of the ones they see. This prop, also
>> a McCauley, has been basically trouble free.
>>
>> An overhaul is a lot less expensive than replacement. If that would
>> buy you peace of mind, go for it!
>>
>> David Johnson
>>
>
>
> Jay's prop is a constant speed prop, which means it is the internal
> stuff (wear and corrosion) he's got to worry about. If allowed to go
> too far, it could mean a small problem becomes an unrepairable prop.
> Also, internal corrosion can lead to a blade separation. Jay, the prop
> manufacturers state a 5 or 6 year TBO. You are 3x that. I think it is
> time.

Props should last a good long time. Time doesn't hurt metal.
I've got a 50 year old prop on my bonanza and it is still well within
specifications and most of all safe.
I'd hate to say it, but overhauling a propeller is one of the worst
things to do for the longevity of a prop.
It's best to have it serviced at timely intervals.
Every time a prop is overhauled the blades are re-profiled and become
smaller until they won't meet specifications. Prop shops love this since
they will soon sell you new blades.
If you get the prop serviced, only the components that need attention
will get attended to. Generally this is just a clean and an inspection
and maybe just a dressing of the blades.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the prop
> shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.

>Likely you will do it next year when the next AD comes out grounding
>all Hartzell props made before 2000. Hartzell is actively lobbying the
>FAA for this.

Actually, I mis-spoke. My prop is a Hartzell. What's wrong with pre-2000
props?

Today was "Day 3" of my annual. So far no big surprises (need 2 tires, one
brake rotor, the inevitable wheel pant and plastic parts repairs, etc.), but
WRT the prop, my A&P and I have decided to take a "wait and see" attitude.

The blades are within spec, the hub is not leaking, and we have had no
trouble with it. I got a quote today on a 3-blade Hartzell "Top Prop" for
"only" 9+ AMUs (they refund 1 AMU if your prop is in good condition) -- so
I'm not eager to make this purchase if it's not necessary.

Thanks for the advice, everyone!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marty Shapiro]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 14, 6:09*pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:38:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >When the heck do you replace a prop?
>>
>> I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the
>> prop shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.
>
> Likely you will do it next year when the next AD comes out grounding
> all Hartzell props made before 2000. Hartzell is actively lobbying the
> FAA for this.
>
> -Robert
>

Are the Hartzell props of such poor quality that they won't last more than
8 years regardless of use and/or maintenance? If so, then its time to find
an alternative prop when this AD forces replacement of a Hartzell prop.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> OT, but we're expecting yet another 10-13 inches of snow this weekend, in
> addition to the 18" and then 5" from just last week. Keeping the ramp
> clean is nearly a full time job, and once the snow is gone, it's still
> like a skating rink. I should have bought those chains for the tug last
> year like in the previous posts. Can't wait till summer.

We're right behind you -- we got 20 inches in 72 hours. It's been nuts.

Here are pictures of the snow pile across the street from the hotel. It's
almost 4 stories tall, and will soon be a hazard to navigation!

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/2008_mount_baldy.htm

Haven't seen a winter like this since I was teenager in Racine, back in the
70s....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:19:50 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Feb 14, 6:09*pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:38:18 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >When the heck do you replace a prop?
>>
>> I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the prop
>> shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.
>
>Likely you will do it next year when the next AD comes out grounding
>all Hartzell props made before 2000. Hartzell is actively lobbying the
>FAA for this.
>
>-Robert

This seems to be a hot ticket item for you. Do you have a reference that
is accessible over the internet?

My blades are old and likely will not meet spec as they get shaved down
from nicks and such. But there's still plenty of metal there.

My hub was replaced last year.

It wouldn't surprise me that the mfg's want to get older props declared
unairworthy. Our legal system seems to hold the mfg liable, in some
instances, even when the user does not follow the mfg recommended
maintenance procedures.

Perhaps it'll be a mandatory overhaul requirement if/when it comes out.
--ron

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: Actually, I mis-spoke. My prop is a Hartzell. What's wrong with pre-2000
: props?

They don't generate any more revenue for Hartzell unless they're required to be overhauled.

: The blades are within spec, the hub is not leaking, and we have had no
: trouble with it. I got a quote today on a 3-blade Hartzell "Top Prop" for
: "only" 9+ AMUs (they refund 1 AMU if your prop is in good condition) -- so
: I'm not eager to make this purchase if it's not necessary.

You may want to get a ballpark figure for an IRAN (inspect, repair as necessary) from a prop
shop. I agree with the previous post about not doing the magic word "overhaul." As soon as you say
that, lots of things are forced upon the maintenance shop. Whatever the overhaul manual says for it must
be done (including replacing potentially perfectly good parts, and re-profiling the blades). If it's in
overall good shape, but you're just worried about the calendar time since overhaul and the potential for
internal corrosion, then an IRAN will set your mind at ease. Quite likely with less monetary damage than
an overhaul.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 15, 6:27*am, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:

> This seems to be a hot ticket item for you. *Do you have a reference that
> is accessible over the internet?

These things happen in stages (like the Lycoming crank). We alrady
have an AD that requires you either replace the hub with a newer hub
or do a 100 hr ECI inspection. We also have an AD requiring mandatory
overhaul of blades that are 30 years old (just came out this month).
The two prop shops I spoke to about this said Hartzell is telling them
that they feel the need to remove all older props out of the system.
They are offering discounts for customers to trade in their entire
assemblies for new (that deal is now expired but may come back).

> My blades are old and likely will not meet spec as they get shaved down
> from nicks and such. *But there's still plenty of metal there.


> My hub was replaced last year.

Then you probably already have the magic Y hub.

> It wouldn't surprise me that the mfg's want to get older props declared
> unairworthy. *Our legal system seems to hold the mfg liable, in some
> instances, even when the user does not follow the mfg recommended
> maintenance procedures. *
>
> Perhaps it'll be a mandatory overhaul requirement if/when it comes out.

Its not overhaul, its a new model number. You already have the new Y
model number hub, the blades are expected to require a new model
number in the future.

-Robert

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article <7_8tj.34233$9j6.7329@attbi_s22>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I will replace either my hub or my blades (Hartzell prop) when the prop
> > shop tells me the item can no longer be overhauled to spec.
>
> >Likely you will do it next year when the next AD comes out grounding
> >all Hartzell props made before 2000. Hartzell is actively lobbying the
> >FAA for this.
>
> Actually, I mis-spoke. My prop is a Hartzell. What's wrong with pre-2000
> props?
>
> Today was "Day 3" of my annual. So far no big surprises (need 2 tires, one
> brake rotor, the inevitable wheel pant and plastic parts repairs, etc.), but
> WRT the prop, my A&P and I have decided to take a "wait and see" attitude.
>
> The blades are within spec, the hub is not leaking, and we have had no
> trouble with it. I got a quote today on a 3-blade Hartzell "Top Prop" for
> "only" 9+ AMUs (they refund 1 AMU if your prop is in good condition) -- so
> I'm not eager to make this purchase if it's not necessary.
>
> Thanks for the advice, everyone!

The answer is that there is NOTHING wrong with pre-2000 Hartzell props!

Hartzell has been using pet (either corrupt, incompetemt or both)
regulators in the FAA to do their bidding in creating ADs that trash the
old propellers and create a market for their new products.

A classic case in the "comformity check" associated with the blade AD on
the 12 series props. People have had unused props on the shelf in which
the blades "failed" this test. Tell me that there is a compelling reason
for the test when virgin blades fail the test.

Dick Ward of the Twin bonanza Assn. has been round and round on this one.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:02:19 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> We also have an AD requiring mandatory overhaul
> of blades that are 30 years old (just came out this month).

News to me and I've been following this fairly closely since our prop was
affected by the hub AD issued last year.

Care to provide the AD number or a link to it? I looked on Hartzell's
site and didn't find any such AD.

-Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 15, 3:53 pm, Doug Vetter > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:02:19 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > We also have an AD requiring mandatory overhaul
> > of blades that are 30 years old (just came out this month).
>
> News to me and I've been following this fairly closely since our prop was
> affected by the hub AD issued last year.
>
> Care to provide the AD number or a link to it? I looked on Hartzell's
> site and didn't find any such AD.
>
> -Doughttp://www.dvatp.com/

If you are in the FAA's DB of having a plane in which a Hartzell prop
is applicable you should have gotten this in the mail...
Blades before D47534 are affected. Expect this to grow in the future.

AD 2007-26-09

Unsafe Condition
(e) This AD results from operators
requesting clarification of certain portions of
AD 2002-09-08. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the propeller blade from
fatigue cracks in the aluminum blade shank
radius, which can result in damage to the
airplane and loss of airplane control.

-Robert

[Doug Vetter]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:52:19 -0800, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> If you are in the FAA's DB of having a plane in which a Hartzell prop is
> applicable you should have gotten this in the mail... Blades before
> D47534 are affected. Expect this to grow in the future.

The little problem with the FAA's db is that it doesn't apparently take
into account airplanes upgraded with STCs like our 172 with the Avcon
180HP conversion. We haven't received any such notice.

I reviewed the AD you mention and it turns out that it is more or less a
revision and reissuance of AD 77-12-06(R2). Neither AD applies to blades
D47534 and above (production from 1977 on) because that's when they
figured out there was a problem and issued the original AD. Both ADs
require cold-rolling the blade shanks to prevent fractures and I believe
most if not all blades in service today have already been "hit" by this
AD. Our blades are older than the specified serial number but the shanks
were cold-rolled at overhaul in 1980. If I've read the AD correctly,
that means we're in compliance.

My prop shop told me Hartzell has indeed been "AD happy" the past few
years, but before people start freaking out at this it's important to
note that this AD does not require older blades to be retired by
default. It only requires them to undergo the cold rolling procedure and
thus be overhauled.

In the unlikely case your blade serial numbers are below D47534 AND they
have been overhauled so many times that they will not survive another
overhaul AND the shanks were not cold rolled at one of the prior
overhauls, then you'll need to buy new blades. Otherwise, you just need
to have them overhauled one more time to accomplish the cold rolling
procedure.

-Doug
http://www.dvatp.com/

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 16 Feb 2008 13:30:16 GMT, Doug Vetter > wrote:

>AND the shanks were not cold rolled at one of the prior
>overhauls

Which would be pretty unlikely if they were overhauled at a reputable shop
sometime since the original AD was issued. I've never had an
engine/prop/accessory overhaul that did not include compliance with all
AD's existing at the time.
--ron

[Denny]

Well, ya just never know what little surprise you will find...

My Hartzell props are non-AD replacements to get the annual prop AD
off my back... Blades never nicked, never filed, etc.. Have under a
thousand hours on them... We weren't even looking at them as needing
service... But, I wanted to change out the front seal on the right
crank as it has a slight drip that keeps me busy cleaning things
off...

So, the little surprises began to happen...
When we pulled the right prop to do change the seal we found the studs
had been over tightened. Two nuts were slightly rounded off in
breaking them loose... Oh well, stuff happens and The Kid added new
nuts to the parts list... So, the seal is replaced, we hung the new
cylinders <finally>, and The Kid went to put the prop back on the next
day... I get this call at the office...

"you ain't gonna believe this."?", my wallet started to itch
immediately...

"Believe what?"

"The flywheel is cracked."

"Steve, in 50 years of owning airplanes and longer than that messing
with engines I have never seen a cracked flywheel on an airplane
engine."

"Neither have I, but it is cracked. I had just hung it on the crank
and lifted the prop up and as I was lining up the bolt holes the light
hit it just right and I saw the crack"

"Ah jeez... OK, leave it till I get there this afternoon."

So, I get there and sure enough, with the light "just right" you can
see the crack <$$> So, I stare at the other prop and say, do you know
what I'm thinking... He says, yup, and we push the tool box around to
the left engine... Well, now I'm here to tell you the gorilla that
mounted the left prop must have used a 4 foot wrench to tighten the
studs... It took the better part of an hour of finesse and finally
resorting to a big drift and an even bigger hammer to get two of those
nuts broke loose... But the good part of that is after dye penetrant
the flywheel is not cracked... So now we have a new set of studs and
nuts for both engines on the parts list, and a flywheel - hoping to
find a used one for half the new price... Keeping old airplanes
flying is a full time job...

denny

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:35:40 -0800 (PST), Denny >
wrote:

>Keeping old airplanes
>flying is a full time job...

Oh yeah, especially when we try to do it with old parts.

Went years trying to get my airplane to have its annuals in the winter --
bringing it in the end of the month due, so it could be signed off the
following month.

Finally worked my way around to January.

Annual -- "you've got a cracked case".

After investigating options, I decided for a Lycoming factory overhaul.

Engine availability there (and elsewhere) was nil for a while. I wasn't
flying again until May <sigh>.

This year I finally got back to a January annual.
--ron

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> "The flywheel is cracked."

Ah, crap. This kind of stuff scares me. Sorry to hear it, Denny.

I'm hoping (IF my tires actually come in -- Desser must use the Pony Express
to ship) to wrap up our annual today.

Other than fishing the fuel gauge float out of the right main fuel tank
(which required removing and reinstalling the tank, twice. Don't ask.) and
reattaching it to the sending unit, replacing a brake rotor and tires, and
the usual myriad of brittle plastic repairs, this one looks like it'll be a
good one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ross]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> "The flywheel is cracked."
>
>
> Ah, crap. This kind of stuff scares me. Sorry to hear it, Denny.
>
> I'm hoping (IF my tires actually come in -- Desser must use the Pony
> Express to ship) to wrap up our annual today.
>
> Other than fishing the fuel gauge float out of the right main fuel tank
> (which required removing and reinstalling the tank, twice. Don't ask.)
> and reattaching it to the sending unit, replacing a brake rotor and
> tires, and the usual myriad of brittle plastic repairs, this one looks
> like it'll be a good one.

I am assisting a friend of mine with the annual on his -235. It is
becoming more of a restoration project than an annual. We removed the
right wing tank thinking that it would give us easier access to the
landing gear bolts on the wing. It didn't. But I do believe Piper could
have used a few more inspection covers thoughout the plane to make life
easier for maintainence. We had to replace the two little brackets that
hold the landing gear fairing on. They were broke on both wings. Now,
Piper uses two of the landing gear bolts to also hold on these little
brackets. What were they thinking?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[David Lesher]

Denny > writes:

>So, the little surprises began to happen...
>When we pulled the right prop to do change the seal we found the studs
>had been over tightened. Two nuts were slightly rounded off in
>breaking them loose... Oh well, stuff happens and The Kid added new
>nuts to the parts list... So, the seal is replaced, we hung the new
>cylinders <finally>, and The Kid went to put the prop back on the next
>day... I get this call at the office...


One wonders what the Last Guy used for a torque wrench...
Chicago Pneumatic, maybe?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> But I do believe Piper could have used a few more inspection covers
> thoughout the plane to make life easier for maintainence.

I feel your pain -- but having just removed and reinstalled all 8 gazillion
screws that hold on the 3 gazillion inspection covers (and wheel pants, and
fairings, and gas tanks) -- I do NOT want any damned more inspection covers!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:y7suj.39938$9j6.24450@attbi_s22...
>> But I do believe Piper could have used a few more inspection covers
>> thoughout the plane to make life easier for maintainence.
>
> I feel your pain -- but having just removed and reinstalled all 8
> gazillion screws that hold on the 3 gazillion inspection covers (and wheel
> pants, and fairings, and gas tanks) -- I do NOT want any damned more
> inspection covers!

No, they need to start putting the inspection covers on with Velcro! <g>
--
Jim in NC