Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 07:44:54 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-145454@logan.com>
From: bob mackey <nospam@pure-flight.com>
Subject: [LML] Prop Strike
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs

> Obviously, cost is a factor, but also the loss of reliability
> that seems to come with any major repair. Things are finally
> working perfectly, no more leaks, manifold cracks, temps are
> great, oil burn is low. I hate to mess with this. What would you do.


Let's assume for a moment that cost is *not* a factor. You have an
engine that is working perfectly and 100 hrs SMOH. The only way that
there would be room for improvement would be if you have a faulty part
that is detected and corrected during the teardown. In my opinion, it
is more likely is that a new fault will be introduced during the teardown
and rebuild.

Full text of the AD 2004-10-14 is at
http://www.avantext.com/media/files/ADs/20041014.pdf

This AD supersedes AD 91=9614=9622.
The change is to consider a "prop strike" to include any event
that require more than minor dressing of the prop blade. The suggested
action is to replace the crankshaft gear bolt and lockplate. It goes
into effect June 25. I'm no expert, but it appears to me that it would
be perfectly legal to do nothing in response to this new AD.

You could also carefully trim 2" off the old prop and put it back
in service. That way you could safely taxi across that storm drain
next time :-) BTW - which airport had this storm drain?

- bob mackey
  flying a 235
  building a 320
  103MD -at- pure-flight.com
  [use this email address - the one at the top is spam bait]