Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:50:47 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3308213@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.90.130.74; envelope-from=mmcmanus@grandecom.net
From: mmcmanus@grandecom.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Prop Length for 360
References: <list-3307089@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3307089@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3

Thanks Mark, and Scott, Bill, Lorn, and the others who responded to the question
on my prop.

It's good to note that someone else is "experimenting" with the same prop setup
as me - without any issues.

The guy at the prop shop said that unless I was noting some type of vibration
issue (I'm not), or there was some kind of performance issue (none that I'm
aware of), then the 70" blades should not be an issue.  Of course, he CYA'd the
deal with the "experimental" reference in the prop log.

Thanks to all again.
Matt McManus
LNC2 360
406 TT
-0- TSPO (70" blades)

Quoting Mark Ravinski <mjrav@comcast.net>:

> Hi Matt,
> I've been flying the same hub and blades you have on my 360.
> HC-F2YR-1BF / F7666A-4  (72" )  up until 1236 hours TT.
> Then I had a propstrike with tip damage.  Sensenich did the overhaul and
> said that it would be acceptable to use the blades trimmed down to 70".  (I
> understood at the time they had checked with Hartzel).   I've been flying
> like that for another 220 hours with no problems.  I can't notice any
> difference in performance either.
>
> Mark Ravinski
>