Arghhh, WW 200 RV backing plate cracks

[RV7Guy]

Originally Posted by walter

hmmm. They didn't mention anything about the spinner back plate.
Do you mean the fiberflass spinner back two halves?

Walter,

I'm fighting cold and the Nyquil was probably in affect. AFTER you remove the prop you have to knock the roll pins out to remove the studs to install the new brackets.

They sent me new brackets, roll pins, and a new "O" ring for the prop.

When you reinstall the nuts on the studs use a drop of Locktite on each. The only hassle I had was that when torqued one of the roll pins was in an awkward position for safety wiring.

The two fiberglass spinner backplates have to sent in for "the fix."

Sorry for the confusion.

[walter]

Apparently Greg is out hunting hence the missing info, not on purpose
I'm sure. They called back and indicated that in fact I do need to send
them my entire spinner assembly and the pins will need to come out.

I'm glad to hear the fix has worked for most if not all of you.

Heading to fedex... Arghhh, airplanes.

[jonweisw]

I love this thread.

Try this puzzle:

1) A part on a propeller that continually fails is considered
a) A minor problem
b) an annoying problem
c) a nuisance
d) a significant safety issue

2) When a responsible manufacturer of a critical airplane component suspects that a part may regularly fail prematurely (prior to TBO) he/she should
a) do nothing
b) set up a tent at OSH to discuss with users who happen by
c) speculate as to the reason for failure and empirically propose a fix without intensive analytical testing.
d) try to identify and isolate the root cause (like electronic ignition) and develop a well engineered solution.

3) When the solution is developed (empiric, or as a result of analysis), the above company should
a) do nothing
b) hope that word gets around
c) put the fix only on new products
d) Wait until failure occurs in each end-user, then replace with re-developed product.
e) send out a mandatory service bulletin to each user.

4) At a cost of ~$7000, each user of a WW propeller is currently
a) a lab rat
b) a lab guinea pig
c) a lab rabbit
d) a lab chimpanzee

5) I have replaced the backing plates on my WW200RV 5 times. I number of hours that I have spent at this endeavor is at least
a) 4 hours
b) 8 hours
c) 12 hours
d) 16 hours
e) 20 hours


I hope I did not ruffle any feather with this. Great propeller performance, great blade design, good hub, significant issue with spinner security. This company needs to grow up and take responsibility for its product and start doing some testing that involves the use of a brain. Have you ever wondered why some WW propellers are approved for use in some configurations rather than others? Unlike Hartzell or MT, I do not believe that WW has ever performed any kind of vibration analysis or failure analysis to make these claims.

Last question:

6) When it rains, a turkey puts its head in the _______.


Peace,

Jon Weiswasser
N898JW RV-8, 260h
WW200RV 190h

[cytoxin]

wow jon, thats pretty good, you read my mind. well that pretty much helps me decide. i guess none of these folks wanted to mention this in that past thread about prop choice.

[walter]

Originally Posted by jonweisw

I love this thread.

Try this puzzle:

1) A part on a propeller that continually fails is considered
a) A minor problem
b) an annoying problem
c) a nuisance
d) a significant safety issue

D

2) When a responsible manufacturer of a critical airplane part suspects that a part may regularaly fail prematurely (prior to TBO) he/she should
a) do nothing
b) set up a tent at OSH to discuss with users who happen by
c) speculate as to the reason for failure and empirically propose a fix without intensive analytical testing.
d) try to identify and isolate the root cause (like electronic ignition) and develop a well engineered solution.

D

3) When the solution is developed (empiric, or as a result of analysis), the above company should
a) do nothing
b) hope that word gets around
c) put the fix only on new products
d) Wait until failure occurs in each end-user, then replace with re-developed product.
e) send out a mandatory service bulletin to each user.

E

4) At a cost of ~$7000, each user of a WW propeller is currently
a) a lab rat
b) a lab guinea pig
c) a lab rabbit
d) a lab chimpanzee

A,B,C,D

5) I have replaced the backing plates on my WW200RV 5 times. I number of hours that I have spent at this endeavor is at least
a) 4 hours
b) 8 hours
c) 12 hours
d) 16 hours
e) 20 hours

E

I hope I did not ruffle any feather with this. Great propeller performance, great blade design, good hub, significant issue with spinner security. This company needs to grow up and take responsibility for its product and start doing some testing that involves the use of a brain. Have you ever wondered why some propellers are approved for use in some configurations rather than others? Unlike Hartzell or MT, I do not believe that WW has ever performed any kind of vibration analysis or failure analysis to make these claims.

Last question:

6) When it rains, a turkey puts its head in the _______.

SAND?

Peace,

Jon Weiswasser
N898JW RV-8, 260h
WW200RV 190h

What's my score?

[jonweisw]

right on.

You'd be suprised how WW answered these very questions (no joke).