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......