Propeller Damage

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.