miyu1975

miyu1975

Well Known Member
Hello again All...wanted to pick your brain again. I know this discussion as been discussed a few time in the forums, but I didn't find in the searches this question and thought some of the prop experts here may know.

I am considering buying a local prop, HC-C2YK-1b/7666 A-2. It was overhauled 10 years and has not flown since. The prop is covered in a hangar. The person that oh'd it bought a new prop instead. The prop as I understand is subject to the 100 ECI AD. I have been reading the ADs and SBs on the prop, and I am trying to find out how or if these ADs and SBs apply to the experimental cat.?? I am also researching this extensively so I can determine how to offer $$ (prop shops have said they would looking at 1500 to 2500).

As I understand it ADs, even the exp cat, are to be adhered to. But what about the SBs? In this case part of the SB, HC-SB-61-227, says that at the next OH or 72 months the hub is to be replaced. If that is the case then I would have to replace this hub with a B hub....probably a deal killer for me.

If I end up buying this prop, I would have it resealed and ECI'd prior to flying = 800$., since its been sitting for 10years
 
Service bulletins are NOT mandatory for experimental OR certificated aircraft.
 
Prop AD

I don't have the AD in front of me so I'm reaching a little. I seem to recall that the AD prohibits the install of the affected props on planes that are not covered by the AD. Additionally, I'm thinking the AD also prohibits installation on aerobatic aircraft. I might be mistaken on the above points. I guess my question is are we sure these props are legal to install on the RV's? I have one also, but I haven't had time to research.

Is this AD even applicable to experimentals? I've been getting mixed signals on AD compliance in the experimental world. Mel, what say you?
 
Last edited:
ADs need to be addressed!

You will find conflicting opinions everywhere on whether ADs apply to experimental category aircraft. And both sides can point to evidence confirming their side. FAA says that ADs do apply regardless of what aircraft the product is installed. EAA says that they don't apply.

Bottom line is, when an inspector signs off on a condition inspection, he is stating that the aircraft is "in a condition for safe operation." In case of an accident, how would that inspector explain to a judge & jury that the aircraft was in a condition for safe operation knowing that an outstanding AD was not complied with?
 
I have been reading the AD and SB and recall the same language, but the part talking about not putting the affect hubs and different planes is on the SB, which Mel said does not apply to exp.

Although the most current AD I have found and been reading is AD 2009-22-03 dated Nov 2009. It does not have the same language but does list Vans Aircraft under applicability.

link to AD http://tinyurl.com/3n2msr5
link to sb http://tinyurl.com/3g6eofx

ON SB..A propeller hub from an aircraft that is affected by this Service Bulletin
is not to be removed and reused on another aircraft application
that does not have such inspection requirements. Such hub
interchangeability is no longer authorized for the applications listed
in Effectivity paragraph 1.A.(1).

I question to whether ADs apply to exp or not?
 
Consider the price you will pay for the used prop and what it will cost to make it right and safe to operate. A new prop from Van's may be just as cost effective and you will have a new prop with no issues and a warranty. Ask why the owner opted to abandon repairing this prop, bought a new one, and what would it's condition be after sitting for 10 years. Ignoring ADs and SBs is not conducive to safe flying.

JMHO

Roberta
 
Small but important clarification.....

miyu1975 said:
...the part talking about not putting the affect hubs and different planes is on the SB, which Mel said does not apply to exp.
Click to expand...

I did not say that service bulletins "do not apply" to experimentals. I said that they are not mandatory, even for certificated aircraft.
 
Original ad. 1990. Issued due to crack found in piper. 2 more found. 50 hr eci was extended in 2001 to 100 hr eci. How many more hubs were found cracked? None! Unfortunatelly, it affected all other aircraft using same prop hub. Aerobatics? Ask me. my a hub on my pitts flew for over 1300 hrs! Before and after the ad! Lots and lots of gyroscopics every flight since thats what the pitts is designed for......
 
miyu1975 said:
Although the most current AD I have found and been reading is AD 2009-22-03 dated Nov 2009. It does not have the same language but does list Vans Aircraft under applicability.

link to AD http://tinyurl.com/3n2msr5
Click to expand...

This is the first time I've seen Van's aircraft listed on an AD; apparently the FAA does believe that AD compliance is mandatory for experimental aircraft if they are specifically listed. However, it only lists three aircraft models (RV6, 7, 8) and one specific engine (IO-360-M1B). Does this mean that other combinations not specifically listed are not required to comply? I'm not sure.

Whether non-compliance is a good idea is of course a different question (for me the answer is "no").
 
I know you understood. Just wanted to clarify for those who might not.
 
I'd love to get some help from the group. Sorry to revive this old thread...
Alan Carroll said:
This is the first time I've seen Van's aircraft listed on an AD; apparently the FAA does believe that AD compliance is mandatory for experimental aircraft if they are specifically listed. However, it only lists three aircraft models (RV6, 7, 8) and one specific engine (IO-360-M1B). Does this mean that other combinations not specifically listed are not required to comply? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
When the ADs came out for the Hartzell hubs, I checked them against my plane and concluded that they didn't apply. I'm in the process of selling my plane, so I'm re-scrubbing the books. I think my initial AD applicability conclusions might be wrong.

My engine & prop were originally installed in Nov 1991. My engine is an O-360-A1A. My prop is a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BK S/N CH24337 with a hub series P-82360.

The Hartzell AD 2009-22-03 lists ()HC-()2Y(K,R)-() props with out a suffix on the hub serial number as the applicable items. Like Alan said above, the AD specifically lists RV-6/7/8, but only for the IO-360-M1B. That section, however, states "these propellers and engines could be installed on, but not limited to:" just before the big list of planes.

Looking at it now, it smells like the AD is aimed at my HC-C2YK-1BK. Can somebody back me up on that?

Perhaps more importantly, does anyone know a prop shop near Vegas that does eddy current inspections?

Thanks!
 
mv031161 said:
Original ad. 1990. Issued due to crack found in piper. 2 more found. 50 hr eci was extended in 2001 to 100 hr eci. How many more hubs were found cracked? None! Unfortunatelly, it affected all other aircraft using same prop hub. Aerobatics? Ask me. my a hub on my pitts flew for over 1300 hrs! Before and after the ad! Lots and lots of gyroscopics every flight since thats what the pitts is designed for......
Click to expand...

The main cause of the AD was a twin piper that had a prop strike and did some sort of illegal repair. Hub cracked, blade separated--no surprise.
There were 7 others though that were found with cracks. Folks had leaks and prop shops found the cracks. Other than the piper there were no catastrophic issues (even the piper landed OK).
Something like 15,000 props were affected. IMO, Hartzell has always been glad to see ADs as it make them loads of money and reduces liability on older products. I had a Mooney with a pristine prop on it at that time. Many prop shops made their own rules with compliance and refused to do the 100 eddy current, they would only replace hubs/props. It ticked me off so much that I sold that plane which I had owned for 16 years (the new owner replaced the prop)
I would not hesitate, from a safety perspective, to fly behind one of the hubs. In fact, my next door neighbor with an RV6 is flying with that very prop from my Mooney.
 
Flybuddy2 said:
I would not hesitate, from a safety perspective, to fly behind one of the hubs. In fact, my next door neighbor with an RV6 is flying with that very prop from my Mooney.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. I haven't hesitated to fly behind it either. However, my wishes don't mean that the AD doesn't apply. So are people with that prop just documenting it that they're not complying with the AD and flying with the prop as-is?

Can somebody who's dug into it give me a second opinion...does my prop with the above listed serial numbers (and airframe/engine) fall within the AD?

Thanks
 
Yes, your prop is affected.. the serial number does not have any trailing letters... if it did, it wouldn't have been affected. (for example if the serial number was CH24337B, that "B" would mean it's a B-hub... but since your prop does not have any letters, it's affected)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.