Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:18:44 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-4027593@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.126.18.170; envelope-from=lorn@dynacomm.us
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=dynacomm.us;
	h=Received:Subject:From:Content-Type:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:X-Mailer;
	b=KZ2IzrftrU1EwWk0jr6BPzF/WKvEzNlcGYQYE0K3wi/h/AgXd9GG1mOKm+1NxAWyMkuVSRkd1/lKczwUNxCJQ3Xh+YoKHVjl0DoMbgw0iszOSJMeFGRsgR99w0ScFaXj;
Subject: Feathering Prop
From: Lorn H Olsen <lorn@dynacomm.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1074)

On my O-320 I found out that a common failure is that the plug comes =20
loose on the front of the crankshaft. When this plug comes loose, =20
there is no oil pressure to the prop.

On my plane, when this happened 2 years ago, I am sure glad that the =20
prop went to high RPM(low pitch). Had the prop feathered, I would not =20=

have been able to get back to the airport.

On the 4 cylinder Lycomings, because of this common failure mode, a =20
full feathering prop is not the way to go.

Lorn

> From: Bill Hannahan <wfhannahan@yahoo.com>
> Date: December 16, 2009 10:02:31 AM EST
> Subject: Legacy Crash Watsonville?
>
> Some thoughts on props. While building my 360 I considered going =20
> with a feathering prop. At the time I could not come up with a =20
> strong advantage for it, and went with the flow.
>
> 1=85 My question was and is, what are the most common failure modes =20=

> with a featherable prop and governor combination, and what are the =20
> probabilities of each of those failure modes?
> .
> .
> .
> Regards,
> Bill Hannahan
>
> wfhannahan@yahoo.com
--
Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, ASMEL, ASES, Comm, Inst
DynaComm, Corp., 248-345-0500, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.us
LNC2, FB90/92, O-320-D1F, 1,650 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan