M

Marvin

Active Member
I have a friend who had a propeller strike . Yes it was an RV with a nose gear and as good luck would have, it did not flip over but the prop did strike the ground. There is no question if it was a certified airplane the engine and propeller must be inspected. Engine pulled and taken apart and inspected The question, does an armature built airplane have to follow the same directive? I read some where the only FAR?s that a armature builder must follow are AD?s pertaining to the engine. Can some body clear this up

Thanks
 
Regardless of the rules...

Your friend would be foolish NOT to tear down the engine and inspect it. The crankshaft does not know it's in an experimental aircraft. The crankshaft could be bent and/or cracked. It needs to be checked and magnafluxed. Another point to be inspected is the crankshaft gear and bolt on the aft end. This can easily be damaged with a sudden stoppage.
 
I agree that an engine inspection is warrented. Lycomings have an AD on the rear accessory gear dowel pin inspection. Many times prop strikes do not make their damage known for quite a while. It is prudent to check now for damage.

Gary
 
I've been known to cast a sideways eye at an awful lot of "officialese", and just go with what makes good sense, but there's no way I'm going to hit the prop with anything more substantial than a sparrow without an engine teardown. As was mentioned, the crankshaft does not know or care what aircraft it's installed in or rules it's operating under. We have enough safety issues of our own with artificially manufacturing more.
 
Does it matter if...

The prop is wood or metal?
or
If the engine doesn't stop, only strkes something such that the prop tips are bent on a metal prop or shaved down on a wood prop?
 
Wood or Metal doesn't matter!

A prop strike of any kind can easily damage the crankshaft, especially the dowel pin at the rear flange; even with a wood prop.
 
While I am not advocating not doing a teardown, I personally know of two prop strikes in the past two years of which there was no crank damage. One was a IO-360/Hartzell with considerable power into a grass runway, nosegear collapsed while turning around (RV-7A). The other was a HR2 that I watched the prop hit the taxiway at least four times at fast idle speed. Ugh, makes me still cringe. The pilot (a close friend of mine) hit the brakes and nosed over trying to avoid a bonanza driver that wasn't paying attention pulling out of the tiedowns. Both cranks were inspected and magnafluxed by Aircraft Specialties, no damage found... FWIW
 
Last edited:
Yes it is required per AD 2004-10-14. Without getting into a religious discussion about whether or not AD's apply to experimentals, in my experience in discussions with FAA inspectors and a friend who happens to be DAR #1 yes AD's do apply. There are no exemptions for experimentals in FAR 39.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.