Propeller Paint

[Tom-D]

And in all fairness pilot owners also have FAA privileges to perform work on their aircraft. But I respect your opinion too. Anybody that signs off on a job under their certificate is entitled to that right. But to throw out a blanket label that all prop work is a repair is not correct either. It’s what caused my old client to call me and point me here.

As for talking to the FSDO, I did it regularly. And tech support. That is how I learned about item 10 under preventative maintenance and props. And when I talked to a retired tech guy about this, he sent me this from Hartzell:

Aircraft Propeller Preventative Maintenance Tips Part I
Date: September 27, 2016 Category: Blog Tags: aircraft tips, propeller maintenance

Your aircraft propeller represents a significant investment in your aircraft’s efficient operation, speed and overall aesthetics. Are you maintaining it properly?

We spoke with Hartzell Technical Representative Kevin Ryan for tips on how aircraft owners and operators can maintain their investment.

Inspection
According to Ryan, the most critical propeller maintenance task is the visual inspection. Pilots should always inspect their propellers before and after a flight. “Look for obvious damage,” Ryan says, “nicks, gouges, cracks in the spinner dome, missing hardware, erosion. These are the sorts of basic things you should always do during a general pre-flight check. Make sure the blades aren’t loose, that there’s no blade wobble, and that the spinner’s not moving around if you touch it with your hand.”

If you do identify an issue during your visual inspection, it’s important to get it addressed quickly by an expert. “Always talk to your aircraft mechanic,” Ryan says. “There may also be somebody there at the airport that’s a certified aircraft mechanic. Have them address the problem. That’s usually the safest method, and then you don’t get yourself in trouble.”

There are, however, a few things that pilots without technical experience can fix themselves. Lubricating the propeller, repainting the propeller to address any paint cracking or flaking, and cleaning the propeller blades are all relatively straightforward tasks that any pilot should be able to handle. “But as far as anything that would require disassembling the propeller or altering the propeller,” Ryan says “you should call an expert.”​

I know the FAA considers inspections as part of the Maintenance, FAR 1.1 Glossary, but when in the field there is a huge difference.
Mr Ryan did not refer to any methods of repair, all he mentions are the inspections and what pilots should do. the when you do find a discrepancy,
“you should call an expert.”

then you add there are things that a pilot can do, which all are considered servicing, adding grease.

consider this? you found a discrepancy, when you alleviate that discrepancy, did you do maintenance? how are you going to sign it off?

When McCauley makes a statement in a ICA that information in this manual is not "Preventive" as they have in these ICA's should the owner ignore that statement?

 

[Tom-D]

So...Tommy, you paint'n much?

MUCH? how much is much?

 

[Tom-D]

How much of a hissy fit would the FAA throw if we powder coated a prop sure would be a better protection than just old rattle can.

 

[JAWS]

That's all true, now show us a single repair procedure listed.

I already have previously, but here you go again.

Page 801 thru 808.

Page 801 below:

McCAULEY PROPELLER SYSTEMS
OWNER/OPERATOR
INFORMATION MANUAL
PROPELLER APPROVED REPAIRS
1. Blade Repair
A. Removal of Blade Damage
(1) General
(a) The propeller blade is a highly stressed part. The fact that propeller blades are subject to
impact damage, (such as nicks, gouges, and scratches), and corrosion, (primarily uniform
etch and pitting corrosion, but intergranular or exfoliation type corrosion can also occur)
demands frequent inspection and maintenance.
(b) Repair of small nicks, gouges and scratches that do not exceed the damage specifications
identified in this section, Blade Repair are considered "Minor Repairs" and may be
performed by an appropriated rated mechanic or repair station. After filing and polishing,
the damaged area should be inspected, and when possible, by fluorescent dye penetrant
method to verify that all damage has been removed and the blade is not cracked. The
area should then be re-protected by localized application of chemical film per MIL-C-5541
(for example, Alodine) and repainted as necessary.
NOTE: Refer to the Non-Destructive Inspection Procedures for fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection procedures.
NOTE: If it is not possible to inspect the repaired area using the fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection method, the repaired region should be inspected with a
minimum 10x power lens to ensure any sharp notches or cracks have been
removed.
(c) All other damage that exceeds the damage specifications identified in this section, Blade
Repair, or other damage such as bent blades, are considered "Major Repairs" and must
be corrected by a McCauley authorized service facility and are not field repairable.
(2) Damage Specifications
(a) The depth of damage must be measured using a depth gage.
(b) Damage that is located on the leading or trailing edges must not exceed 0.094 inch (2.39
mm) in depth.
(c) Damage that is located on a repairable area of the face or camber side of the blade must
not exceed 0.061 inch (1.55 mm) in depth.
1 For controllable pitch propellers:
a Impact and corrosion damage that is located at least 6.0 inches (152 mm) from
the hub socket is in an area that is field repairable.
2 For fixed pitch propellers:
a Impact and corrosion damage that is located at least 12.0 inches (305 mm) from
the center of the propeller mounting flange is in an area that is field repairable.
(d) Damage that is located outside the field repairable area or damage depth greater than
these limits is not field repairable. An FAA approved Part 145 Propeller Repair Station or
international equivalent may be able to do a repair. Contact McCauley Product Support for
disposition of any damage that is deeper than the specified limits.
(3) Repairable Damage
(a) The primary type of blade damage that a mechanic need be concerned with is sharp stress
riser type damage. This type of damage is caused by stones or other small objects striking
the propeller blade as it rotates. Erosion caused by sand, water, etc. that does not create
sharp stress riser type damage does not need to be repaired in the field.

Lots more just like this.

I am not saying that an owner is allowed to perform all of these procedures. I am not advocating that an owner should perform any of these procedures unsupervised. I am saying that this is acceptable data for qualified persons to use to repair a prop. I think preventative maintenance would be allowed as indicated earlier, so an owner could legally use the painting portion as his guide. He could also use AC43.13 or AC 2-37. Beyond that, a licenced maintainer would be needed.

 

[weirdjim]

Jeezuz Murphy, hows about we slop some Glidden house paint on the sucker and end this conversation. How in the hell do we get this anal on what we've been doing since Lindbergh wore short pants?

Jim

 

[JAWS]

Jeezuz Murphy, hows about we slop some Glidden house paint on the sucker and end this conversation. How in the hell do we get this anal on what we've been doing since Lindbergh wore short pants?

Jim

Lawyers and insurance companies!

 

[Hank S]

Jeezuz Murphy, hows about we slop some Glidden house paint on the sucker and end this conversation. How in the hell do we get this anal on what we've been doing since Lindbergh wore short pants?

Jim

Pull out of the hangar, taxi to a fairly unused piece of pavement and shut down. Cover the front of your plane with plastic sheeting, and tape it down (especially the left wing and fuse). Paint away to your heart's content.

Quickly jump back into the cockpit, stand on the brakes and start the engine. See how long you can hold in place at full throttle, 30 seconds should suffice.

Shut down again, crawl out and carefully remove the plastic sheeting, folding it inside out as you go. Tape it all closed when removed. Now get back in, crank a third time and taxi back to your hangar. If you have good hot start technique, your freshly painted prop is now shiny and dry, the paint layer is uniformly thin and light weight.

Put the plane away and have a well-earned cold beverage! You just saved yourself a couple of tanks of avgas!

 

[Tom-D]

I already have previously, but here you go again.

Page 801 thru 808.

Page 801 below:

McCAULEY PROPELLER SYSTEMS
OWNER/OPERATOR
INFORMATION MANUAL
PROPELLER APPROVED REPAIRS
1. Blade Repair
A. Removal of Blade Damage
(1) General
(a) The propeller blade is a highly stressed part. The fact that propeller blades are subject to
impact damage, (such as nicks, gouges, and scratches), and corrosion, (primarily uniform
etch and pitting corrosion, but intergranular or exfoliation type corrosion can also occur)
demands frequent inspection and maintenance.
(b) Repair of small nicks, gouges and scratches that do not exceed the damage specifications
identified in this section, Blade Repair are considered "Minor Repairs" and may be
performed by an appropriated rated mechanic or repair station. After filing and polishing,
the damaged area should be inspected, and when possible, by fluorescent dye penetrant
method to verify that all damage has been removed and the blade is not cracked. The
area should then be re-protected by localized application of chemical film per MIL-C-5541
(for example, Alodine) and repainted as necessary.
NOTE: Refer to the Non-Destructive Inspection Procedures for fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection procedures.
NOTE: If it is not possible to inspect the repaired area using the fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection method, the repaired region should be inspected with a
minimum 10x power lens to ensure any sharp notches or cracks have been
removed.
(c) All other damage that exceeds the damage specifications identified in this section, Blade
Repair, or other damage such as bent blades, are considered "Major Repairs" and must
be corrected by a McCauley authorized service facility and are not field repairable.
(2) Damage Specifications
(a) The depth of damage must be measured using a depth gage.
(b) Damage that is located on the leading or trailing edges must not exceed 0.094 inch (2.39
mm) in depth.
(c) Damage that is located on a repairable area of the face or camber side of the blade must
not exceed 0.061 inch (1.55 mm) in depth.
1 For controllable pitch propellers:
a Impact and corrosion damage that is located at least 6.0 inches (152 mm) from
the hub socket is in an area that is field repairable.
2 For fixed pitch propellers:
a Impact and corrosion damage that is located at least 12.0 inches (305 mm) from
the center of the propeller mounting flange is in an area that is field repairable.
(d) Damage that is located outside the field repairable area or damage depth greater than
these limits is not field repairable. An FAA approved Part 145 Propeller Repair Station or
international equivalent may be able to do a repair. Contact McCauley Product Support for
disposition of any damage that is deeper than the specified limits.
(3) Repairable Damage
(a) The primary type of blade damage that a mechanic need be concerned with is sharp stress
riser type damage. This type of damage is caused by stones or other small objects striking
the propeller blade as it rotates. Erosion caused by sand, water, etc. that does not create
sharp stress riser type damage does not need to be repaired in the field.

Lots more just like this.

I am not saying that an owner is allowed to perform all of these procedures. I am not advocating that an owner should perform any of these procedures unsupervised. I am saying that this is acceptable data for qualified persons to use to repair a prop. I think preventative maintenance would be allowed as indicated earlier, so an owner could legally use the painting portion as his guide. He could also use AC43.13 or AC 2-37. Beyond that, a licenced maintainer would be needed.

Tonight I got to read a brand new McCauley propeller owners manual the came with the new prop.

none of that is in there.

I will get the copy and scan it in here.

 

[Tom-D]

and you re saying that an owner can do this ?

(b) Repair of small nicks, gouges and scratches that do not exceed the damage specifications
identified in this section, Blade Repair are considered "Minor Repairs" and may be
performed by an appropriated rated mechanic or repair station.

(a) The depth of damage must be measured using a depth gage.

how many owners have one?

 

[Tom-D]

Lawyers and insurance companies!

two days after you make any log entry saying you did anything to a prop the owner drives it into a mountain, say bye bye house.

 

[GlennAB1]

****, you overhauled an engine and.... What happened to you?

 

[Tom-D]

****, you overhauled an engine and.... What happened to you?

I made it right with the owner, and what that curtailed is none of your business.

and bringing it up time and time again shows every one who you really are.

 

[GlennAB1]

You initiated it. Did you give them your house? Sounded like the voice of experience....

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

this is starting to sound like a paint in the arse....

 

[Anymouse]

Apparently it didn't curtail enough.

 

[JAWS]

"Blade Repair are considered "Minor Repairs" and may be

performed by an appropriated rated mechanic or repair station."

No, I am not saying an owner can do what I quoted. The above affirms this. I have specifically stated that an owner can only perform preventive maintenance, in this case restore the protective finish as long as there is no disassembly.

 

[Tom-D]

I already have previously, but here you go again.

Page 801 thru 808.

Page 801 below:

Check it,, that whole 800 section pertains to constant speed blade repairs.

We were dressing the fixed pitch repairs.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

yup....

 

[JAWS]

Here is a snapshot of the first page of the 800 section. I hope that helps, Tom.

Please notice that it does not make any distinction between fixed pitch or constant speed, therefore it should be applicable to all metal McCauley props.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

yup....

 

[JAWS]

LOL, pretty much!

 

[bnt83]

That doesn't allow anyone to ignore 65.81 (b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.

It says right there in that order "no precedence" of which threes option are used. The Cessna manual I'm looking at was issued in 1968 and the last revision was 2003 and the prop section is still there describing what damage is allowed and how to repair it. I don't need separate manuals for every component when performing maintenance on part 91 aircraft (and not under a repair station), I only need them when needing info beyond the scope of this manual, hopefully it is available. The same thing applies for magnetos, wheels, brakes, engines, carburetors and the list goes on.

I can torque wheel through bolts using the Cessna manual it says right in it what the torque is, I don't need the Cleveland Wheel and Brakes manual. Oh look, the Cessna manual spec even matches the manufacturer's (Cleveland) placard on the wheel! If there was an AD specifying that said wheels must be assembled per Cleveland Wheel & Brake Manual _______ Revision _______, then of course I need that document.

The rules are written to not box everyone into a corner because there just isn't enough written to satisfy every question ever asked. A lot of data is even conflicting! Instead the rules were written in hopes that certificated individuals would have good enough judgment to find the answers they may need. How else can these old warbirds and aircraft where the manufacturer has long been dissolved and still be flying? In a perfect world any aircraft or component that doesn't have manufacturer support would be scrapped and replaced by one that does.

I have always wondered how a third party engineering firm can design and approve repairs for an aircraft when they had absolutely nothing to do with its design and manufacture without making assumptions of what the base materials are. The material specs are not in the available aircraft manuals yet it happens every day.

 

[Bell206]

I know the FAA considers inspections as part of the Maintenance, FAR 1.1 Glossary, but when in the field there is a huge difference.
Mr Ryan did not refer to any methods of repair, all he mentions are the inspections and what pilots should do. the when you do find a discrepancy,
“you should call an expert.”

then you add there are things that a pilot can do, which all are considered servicing, adding grease.

consider this? you found a discrepancy, when you alleviate that discrepancy, did you do maintenance? how are you going to sign it off?

When McCauley makes a statement in a ICA that information in this manual is not "Preventive" as they have in these ICA's should the owner ignore that statement?

It’s not called servicing, it’s called preventative maintenance (43 App A, Sec. C, 6 Lubrication). And you forgot to mention the other preventative task Ryan stated along with greasing—repainting blades.

The Servicing section in a McCauley manual let alone any OEM ICA does not provide the authority to perform any work on a prop or aircraft. It starts at Part 43.3 providing the legal authorization and by extension Part 43 Appendix A, Section C, Preventative maintenance. These Parts are followed by Part 43.13(a) which provides 3 separate options to perform the authorized maintenance or preventative maintenance. Only at this point do the OEM ICAs enter the food chain. It’s that simple.

And in my book, whether in the field, at the FSDO, or in the shop the regulations apply equally. As I’ve mentioned before, as a certified mechanic you can interpret the FARs as you see fit, use only OEM documentation, and declare all discrepancies as repairs. That is your privilege and I respect that. I choose/chose to use all options available under Part 43 to assist clients in reaching cost-effective and legal conclusions.

That said, I’ve accomplished what I came here to do. My old client is back in his comfort zone, touching up his prop and complying with other preventative maintenance as he sees fit.

A parting question to answer your question: consider this… since a propeller and an aircraft are both considered FAA defined products, if a pilot owner was washing his beloved 172 and noted the paint flaking off the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer with no damage underneath, would that be considered a discrepancy requiring a Cessna repair method and an A&P signoff? Or not…

Enjoyed the discussion.

 

[bnt83]

It’s not called servicing, it’s called preventative maintenance (43 App A, Sec. C, 6 Lubrication). And you forgot to mention the other preventative task Ryan stated along with greasing—repainting blades.

The Servicing section in a McCauley manual let alone any OEM ICA does not provide the authority to perform any work on a prop or aircraft. It starts at Part 43.3 providing the legal authorization and by extension Part 43 Appendix A, Section C, Preventative maintenance. These Parts are followed by Part 43.13(a) which provides 3 separate options to perform the authorized maintenance or preventative maintenance. Only at this point do the OEM ICAs enter the food chain. It’s that simple.

And in my book, whether in the field, at the FSDO, or in the shop the regulations apply equally. As I’ve mentioned before, as a certified mechanic you can interpret the FARs as you see fit, use only OEM documentation, and declare all discrepancies as repairs. That is your privilege and I respect that. I choose/chose to use all options available under Part 43 to assist clients in reaching cost-effective and legal conclusions.

That said, I’ve accomplished what I came here to do. My old client is back in his comfort zone, touching up his prop and complying with other preventative maintenance as he sees fit.

A parting question to answer your question: consider this… since a propeller and an aircraft are both considered FAA defined products, if a pilot owner was washing his beloved 172 and noted the paint flaking off the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer with no damage underneath, would that be considered a discrepancy requiring a Cessna repair method and an A&P signoff? Or not…

Enjoyed the discussion.

I saw a Bell rep presentation at an IA renewal seminar with a slide where the rotor blade tips had been ignored so longed that the paint was gone, and the filler between the leading edge extrusion and the skin adjacent to it was eroded out, then the hysol adhesive bonding the skin to the end rib had finally failed and the upper skin pealed back in flight, all because they weren't keeping it covered with paint. (It was photos of a Robinson blade but he made his point)

 

[GlennAB1]

It says right there in that order "no precedence" of which threes option are used.

That's not the point.

65.81 (b) requires the mechanic to "understand" the current manufacturers instructions for a given operation.

Armed with that information, he may choose which information he uses, but a blatant disregard of the manufacturers instructions could bite him.

 

[bnt83]

That's not the point.

65.81 (b) requires the mechanic to "understand" the current manufacturers instructions for a given operation.

Armed with that information, he may choose which information he uses, but a blatant disregard of the manufacturers instructions could bite him.

Define "current".

 

[GlennAB1]

Define "current".

The FAA has defined "current".
You think that's relevant?

 

[Bell206]

I saw a Bell rep presentation at an IA renewal seminar with a slide where the rotor blade tips had been ignored so longed that the paint was gone, and the filler between the leading edge extrusion and the skin adjacent to it was eroded out, then the hysol adhesive bonding the skin to the end rib had finally failed and the upper skin pealed back in flight, all because they weren't keeping it covered with paint. (It was photos of a Robinson blade but he made his point)

Robbie blades always had debonding issues among other things, but the paint loss/skin peel pics you saw came into their own after they went to stainless steel blade skins. Paint didnt stick too well and if flying in a lot of precip or dust those who tried were repainting every night it flew. Relying on a coat of paint to keep a M/R blade togather wasnt my idea of sound engineering. Someone finally came out with a blade tape kit to protect the paint, etc.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Define "current".

It ain't what you think. Current as in for the year produced. Not the latest manual produced.

Current for a 1971 model (C-172)....is a manual printed in 1971 or newer. It's not necessarily the latest manual printed. FAA AGC has guidance letters written that address this topic.

 

[GlennAB1]

It's a little more complicated than that.

"person could use the most current version of the manual or ICA or, in many cases, a prior version (including one that was current at the date of manufacturer)..."
It goes on to explain how the FAA must show how the use of prior version violated the regulation. So, if there is a significant change you better be using the most current revision.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/maintenance manuals and other documents - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[JAWS]

It's a little more complicated than that.

"person could use the most current version of the manual or ICA or, in many cases, a prior version (including one that was current at the date of manufacturer)..."
It goes on to explain how the FAA must show how the use of prior version violated the regulation. So, if there is a significant change you better be using the most current revision.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/maintenance manuals and other documents - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Yep. Welcome to the world of aircraft maintenance. Where you need a lawyer to interpret what another lawyer wrote, so that you HOPEFULLY will not need a lawyer!

 

[Tom-D]

Here is a snapshot of the first page of the 800 section. I hope that helps, Tom.

Please notice that it does not make any distinction between fixed pitch or constant speed, therefore it should be applicable to all metal McCauley props.


View attachment 57032

look at the page just prior to that one, it starts the subject.

and remember chapter 4 is the ICAs and there is nothing there about any repairs.

 

[Tom-D]

Yep. Welcome to the world of aircraft maintenance. Where you need a lawyer to interpret what another lawyer wrote, so that you HOPEFULLY will not need a lawyer!

pretty much,
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is the worst blow to GA that ever happened. this one move by the FAA gave the manufacturers the ability to demand how their products be maintained.
And yet they are still not held responsible for how they manufacture any thing, they produce crap, get an AD and make us pay twice.

 

[JAWS]

It’s not called servicing, it’s called preventative maintenance (43 App A, Sec. C, 6 Lubrication). And you forgot to mention the other preventative task Ryan stated along with greasing—repainting blades.

The Servicing section in a McCauley manual let alone any OEM ICA does not provide the authority to perform any work on a prop or aircraft. It starts at Part 43.3 providing the legal authorization and by extension Part 43 Appendix A, Section C, Preventative maintenance. These Parts are followed by Part 43.13(a) which provides 3 separate options to perform the authorized maintenance or preventative maintenance. Only at this point do the OEM ICAs enter the food chain. It’s that simple.

And in my book, whether in the field, at the FSDO, or in the shop the regulations apply equally. As I’ve mentioned before, as a certified mechanic you can interpret the FARs as you see fit, use only OEM documentation, and declare all discrepancies as repairs. That is your privilege and I respect that. I choose/chose to use all options available under Part 43 to assist clients in reaching cost-effective and legal conclusions.

That said, I’ve accomplished what I came here to do. My old client is back in his comfort zone, touching up his prop and complying with other preventative maintenance as he sees fit.

A parting question to answer your question: consider this… since a propeller and an aircraft are both considered FAA defined products, if a pilot owner was washing his beloved 172 and noted the paint flaking off the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer with no damage underneath, would that be considered a discrepancy requiring a Cessna repair method and an A&P signoff? Or not…

Enjoyed the discussion.

I enjoyed your contribution to our little discussion. Hope to see you back again.

As for your last question: NO! Not all defects that is wear and tear need to legally written up, though some could argue that every paint scratch or flake could be. There is an FAA interpretation on that subject I believe.

 

[JAWS]

look at the page just prior to that one, it starts the subject.

and remember chapter 4 is the ICAs and there is nothing there about any repairs.

This is the page right before the one I showed just above!



Tom, I have no idea what you are talking about. You can be all hung up on the title of the manual or refer to the wrong manual all you want. As I always mention, readers should do their own homework and make their own informed decisions as to what is proper. An internet opinion is worth the money you spend on it.

PS Chapter 4 is airworthiness limitations. This entire discussion has been about relatively simple field repairs (or so I thought). Two very different things.

 

[bnt83]

There is even an interpretation about enforcement of revised ICAs, including the addition of an airworthiness limitation to a manual that had never had one.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2015/new-tennessee aircraft services - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf

Mechanics have a lot of leeway here. What you can use vs what you should use are two very different things.

 

[bnt83]

Tom, do you think a service manual, maintenance manual or service bulletin is NOT an ICA? If a documents give instructions on inspection & repair how is that not an ICA no matter what the title of it says? Do you know that most of these documents are composed by non-aviation personnel? A whole lot of aviation personnel can't type for **** so that task is done by someone who can.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, do you think a service manual, maintenance manual or service bulletin is NOT an ICA? If a documents give instructions on inspection & repair how is that not an ICA no matter what the title of it says? Do you know that most of these documents are composed by non-aviation personnel? A whole lot of aviation personnel can't type for **** so that task is done by someone who can.

I see your point. but that is not the normal interpretation of what an ICA is. normally they are referred to as maintenance manuals or ACs,ADs, etc .

 

[Tom-D]

This is the page right before the one I showed just above!

View attachment 57038

Tom, I have no idea what you are talking about.
PS Chapter 4 is airworthiness limitations.

Apparently

And that is the only mandatory part of that manual. and there are no repair procedures in that part.

 

[Tom-D]

A couple notes on subjects read here.
Read 43. A propeller major repairs, and note any repair to a composite propeller is a major repair. (just threw that in because of a mention about it here.)

The manual JAWS has referred to is not the manual the owner of a new prop gets with their new McCauley prop. What they get is MPC-10, MPC-11, MPC-12, MPC-13, MPC-14, MPC-15 and CMM500-1, as pictured below, which contain absolutely no repair procedures.