Propeller Damage

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.........

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.

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.

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.

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.