Prop strike
- Thread starter GeneC
- Start date
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
Was it a gear up landing or flip over? Find out what they did for the inspection. Should have been a tear down. That said 350 hrs. since should tell the story of a sound engine.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
But he didn't say 350 hours since the inspection. He said 350 SMOH. The prop strike could have been 5 hours ago. Or maybe he meant 350 since prop strike but that's not how I read it.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's why I ask what they did for the inspection.
If it was "returned to service" after a prop strike it was torn down (if it is a certified plane) since both Lycoming and Continental require it.
Not awake this am?
Last edited:
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Not awake this am?
I guess not because this was the part I didn't (and still don't) understand:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Looks to me like the OP meant the airplane was returned to service (after prop strike & "inspection) with 350 hours on the engine at the time of the inspection.That's why I ask what they did for the inspection.
If it was "returned to service" after a prop strike it was torn down (if it is a certified plane) since both Lycoming and Continental require it.
Not awake this am?
The big question is what was done for the inspection. Lycoming does require a complete teardown and I assume some kind of testing of the critical moving/rotating components (crank, rods, accessory case gears, oil pump, magnetos, etc) but that's not a guarantee that the testing was done correctly or even done at all. If there's an official record (work order etc) detailing the "inspection" and results there's probably less risk for failure of a critical component than you'd have with another 350 hour engine that's never been apart. But if the inspection was substandard a problem could be lurking.
No mention was made of the prop and I'd also want to know if it was replaced or simply repaired and if the latter was it trimmed and by how much.
bnt83
Final Approach
No regulatory requirement. OEM does not = FAA.
That being said, if you were the owner of an airplane that was returned to service via "dialing the prop flange and used serviceable prop" and did not disclose the history, you'd be in a tough spot in court if the engine came apart on a buyer, or yourself for that matter.
Pretty sure you can comply with the crank gear retaining bolt AD without complete disassembly of the whole engine. That AD is the only regulatory requirement that must be accomplished at any "sudden stoppage".
Last edited:
bnt83
Final Approach
Is that a valid AD #
If that is what is written in the log it's telling of the level of detail given.
2014-10-14
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a change to the definition of a propeller strike or sudden stoppage. The
actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent loosening or failure of the crankshaft gear
retaining bolt, which may cause sudden engine failure.http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...e5f8683a0a4686256e9b004bc295/$FILE/041014.pdf
Last edited:
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
bnt83
Final Approach
I would buy it if the price is right.
Sucker born every minute. With the info given and no logs to review I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
Geico266
Touchdown! Greaser!
A sucker?
If the price is right? I've bought and sold a dozen planes AND MADE A PROFIT selling them. I doubt I would be considered a "sucker". "Bottom feeder" maybe.
bnt83
Final Approach
"Bottom feeder" maybe.
That's what I drive to work everyday. I just don't get excited about cars I guess. Some of these car's tax bill would buy a used car with lots of life left.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Five hours since gear-up? And no teardown? That inspection in the AD (which does not include teardown) may be enough to satisfy the FAA, but not me. Note that when a gear-up occurs, the insurer is generally willing to pay for a tear-down, a service of which it appears this owner chose not to take advantage in the name of expediency. I'd walk away...unless the seller is willing to pay for a teardown and any needed repairs thus discovered.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
It depends on what your concept of "teardown" is and what your expectations of what that ultimately accomplishes. I can tell you that compliance with SB 451C as mandated IAW AD 04-10-14 C1 paragraphs f & g is not something done with a flashlight and mirror. It may not look or sound like much on paper but it's not a trivial thing.
A prop strike of this nature is also not a trivial thing but when people who have no inherit engineering knowledge of the consequences of such an occurrence try to dictate what needs to be done to satisfactorily resolve it we all end up suffering.
A prop strike of this nature is also not a trivial thing but when people who have no inherit engineering knowledge of the consequences of such an occurrence try to dictate what needs to be done to satisfactorily resolve it we all end up suffering.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
bnt83
Final Approach
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Will that inspection tell if there's damage to the crankshaft or its bearings/journals? Or the connecting rods?
bnt83
Final Approach
I suspect in your long career you have probably unknowingly flown in aircraft that were returned to service following a prop strike via "dial prop flange runout inspection and slap on new/used prop" method. Likely the only evidence might be a mysterious prop R&R and no reason given. Logbooks were so descriptive and accurate in the 60s, 70s and 80s......
Last edited:
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,612
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
I know you won't accept it but yes, it will. The best way to explain it is the canary in the coal mine analogy. If there is no damage there then the possibility of main bearing or connecting rod damage is virtually non-existent. There's a chain of events that occurs in a sudden stoppage incident and it's a structural engineering realm that you probably are not qualified in.
If it's your engine then you have that decision to make and you can demand that it be torn down to the last bolt but you can't suggest that it be mandated for all cases. Especially now when a "prop strike" has been de-tuned to maybe hitting a few blades of grass - probably due to the insistence of people such as yourself.
Give it a break, stop trying to be something you're not.
N747JB
Final Approach
I bought a 421B that had a nose gear collapse, double prop strike!
Both engines were remans, both were sent to Continental for inspection and they are operating flawlessly, 400 hours later. I'd certainly want more information about the inspection of the engine, but if it was done properly, by a quality shop AND the price is right, I wouldn't be afraid of it. Remember the airplane now has Herpes...........I mean damage history.