Could a starting motor really give enough power to cause that damage?
Yes, due to the inertia of the engine rotating parts and the prop itself. Not if the prop blade is already resting against the towbar when you try to start, however 
I wouldn’t be surprised if the starter could do this damage – if the engine has made half a turn there’s already quite a bit of inertia, especially with a strong battery and good starter motor. It’s also possible that the prop launched whatever it hit out the way on the first strike with the engine running under its own power, so it didn’t get the second blade.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not a good way to start ownership
Not sure there is any good way to start aircraft ownership. All I hear about that is that the first year of ownership is a nightmare. You know the saying… The day you buy, and the day you sell are the two luckiest days in an aircraft or boat owner’s life.
In my case I have a slipping starter adapter, a leaky O2 system and a door seal pump that won’t stop running. On top of that there is a big fat AD looming over Continental engines.
I feel your pain, Nimgusgb.
Aviathor wrote:
Not sure there is any good way to start aircraft ownership. All I hear about that is that the first year of ownership is a nightmare.
It wasn’t for me, not in either case. And the day I sold my first plane was not happy at all…
This little traveller seems to come from a quite reputable agent and, if it is the one I think it is, came at a fair price too. Of course a new owner might want to put his own mark on his plane and will end up spending some cash to do so, but generally, with a decent pre-buy inspection, the first year of ownership if you don’t change anything should be as normal as any year.
I bought mine with an engine over TBO and knew it, so it was no surprise it had to come off at the end of the first year, but since I’ve had preciously little tech woes other than the normal wear and tear you get with any plane.
This case is different imho because here someone damaged a perfectly safe airplane. This can happen with any kind of ownership, a friend of mine had his house arsoned by a disgruntled worksman….
The important bit is that Nimgusgb gets flying soon again. Sourcing a new prop or getting this one fixed should not be such a big issue, the question is if he needs an engine overhaul or tear down.
Yes, it was not right for me to call it a “lemon” because in this case it could be a perfectly good plane which somebody has damaged, in an expensive but well defined way. However unless the culprit is found and he pays up, the new owner’s only option will be to treat it as vandalism and make an appropriate insurance claim. In the UK, the police is rarely interested in anything remotely complicated…
The insurer will reduce the payout according to some formula, with a reduction for betterment based on how old the engine was etc.
As regards the old phrase “The day you buy, and the day you sell are the two luckiest days in an aircraft or boat owner’s life.” that is usually a reflection of the non-availability of competent maintenance facilities, at a price the owner is willing to pay. Just about anything on a plane can be fixed, if there is the will and the money to fix it.
Peter wrote:
that is usually a reflection of the non-availability of competent maintenance facilities, at a price the owner is willing to pay. Just about anything on a plane can be fixed, if there is the will and the money to fix it.
And market liquidity / lack of clear fair values.
I don’t see how that affects the willingness or ability to fix something, unless the cost of fixing it reaches the cost of buying something else. But even then it is not a clear decision because the “something else” is likely to have other issues. It’s nearly always better to fix the plane you have and know.
An update
Thanks for all the input ( and commiserations )
Urs in Switzerland, thanks for your email, tried replying from two different accounts but your email provider has got their spam filters wound up so tight I simply gouldn’t get a reply to you! Please PM me if you can.
No names, no pack drill as I don’t want to fling mud at ANYONE …… ( YET )
The broker is highly regarded and I trust him totally. No question in my mind that he was not aware of this damage.
The delivery pilot is a well respected display pilot. Her partner is the owner of a propeller business, no way, no how would she have got into an aircraft in the condition it is in currently. Similarly there was nothing to gain from hiding the fact that damage had been done on the delivery flight. The broker has adequate insurance in place and would have been able to claim against it.
The maintenance organisation maintains a couple of fast jets used for displays, several GA aircraft and some commercial stuff including bizjets, they know what they are about and I trust them as well.
So the damage happened after delivery. It was noticed by ‘someone’ and reported to the maintenance organisation about 10 or 12 days after delivery. ( pity no one gave me a ring then I suppose but that’s water under the bridge ).
At delivery the aircraft was left outside the hangar. It was moved inside by the ground handlers that evening and has been in the same spot since then.
No one should have had occasion to try to try to start the aircraft, certainly not something that would be done inside a hangar with 6 or 7 other aircraft.
General opinion is that a towbar caused it. There is a slight rough patch and a burr a few thou’ high on the opposite blade, but just on the aft side of the blade, could be from the same incident …. but perhaps not. There have been instances where aircraft with castoring nosewheels have been swung around either pushed or weathercocking with the towbar in place. you’d get a hell of a velocity on at about 700mm radius BUT the towbar would have to be about 300 mm off the ground AND someone would have had to have left the prop vertical for it all to come together. That having been said there appears to be a slight red witness mark in one of the dings. I will download my 35mm and see if they show up on that. There is a red towbar across the hangar from where she is parked and there COULD be a witness mark that matches on it!
However that is not to say that someone had not pulled the aircraft out and tried to start it. Would anyone be dumb enough to crank an aircraft in the hangar?
The bad news …..
A Lycoming document Lycoming pdf states that anything that damages the prop, whether the engine is running or not demands a teardown and shock test on the engine!
Given the life of the engine 1450 hrs since rebuild but over 20 years so ‘on condition’. a shock test teardown is just going to be totally uneconomic.
Under the hood there are new bits like all the hoses and a brand new vac pump. The aircraft has been pampered by the same maintenance organisation for over 20 years.
I have contacted my insurers and got the ball rolling. I expect a long and expensive, flightless spring / summer however I MAY decide to bite the bullet and throw good money after bad, upgrade the avionics and put in an updated, uprated ( 160hp ) lump and keep her flying.
I agree with the sentiments about people who damage aircraft and keep schtum. Shit happens in aviation but no one gains from trying to cover up what is really a major incident!
Forensically you can check if the paint matches, etc. I know a guy whose plane was sabotaged, with a mole wrench that was used to nearly break off the elevator linkage, and it came off upon rotation. He got it investigated and the report identified the exact model of the mole wrench used. The suspect was “circumstantially obvious” but never identified especially as he pre-emptively threatened to sue for libel 
The crash did no injuries but did a lot of 3rd party damage whose repercussions ran for another 10 years… it didn’t help that the guy didn’t have any insurance on his homebuilt plane…
Regarding the shock load teardown, one of the best things you can do in terms of an aircraft purchase is to buy a plane with a run-out engine, reflected in the price, and you get it overhauled by a reputable firm. Then you have a known quantity up front. So, provided you paid the “right price” for it, which you probably did, you could regard this as an opportunity. For all you know, the 20 year engine might be full of rust…
Hello Ian,
got your mail, no problem, filter won’t bother you anymore, taken care of.
Nimbusgb wrote:
It was noticed by ‘someone’ and reported to the maintenance organisation about 10 or 12 days after delivery. ( pity no one gave me a ring then I suppose but that’s water under the bridge ).
No it’s not. Both should have notified you immediately.
Nimbusgb wrote:
Given the life of the engine 1450 hrs since rebuild but over 20 years so ‘on condition’. a shock test teardown is just going to be totally uneconomic.
Ok, 1450 hours was what I was looking for. As calendar limits are generally disregarded in private planes AND 1450 hrs means you have at least 550 hrs to nominal TBO disregarding the fact that TBO has no meaning in an ELA1 airplane, a shock load inspection may well do the trick especcially since you say .
Nimbusgb wrote:
The aircraft has been pampered by the same maintenance organisation for over 20 years.
Nimbusgb wrote:
I expect a long and expensive, flightless spring / summer however I MAY decide to bite the bullet and throw good money after bad, upgrade the avionics and put in an updated, uprated ( 160hp ) lump and keep her flying.
Not necessarily if all concerned won’t drag their feet. First order of business is to get the prop demounted (after the insurance has seen and recorded the damage) and send it off to a prop shop for assessment. Even better, have the prop shop examine it on the spot and give a verdict on the shock load and then have them take it with them or drive it to them, whatever. Also have the maintenance get in touch with the engine shop (or get in touch with them yourself) and advise them that an engine could be coming their way and get a quote for both the tear down and an overhaul. That is something you can do right now and which will save time.
Once the process is started out, you may well be back in the air after 2 weeks if it’s prop only and 1 month if it’s both, but that means to get going asap. Not impossible.
If you want to upgrade your avionics at this time, you might use the downtime you have anyway but you can also do that later, no pressure there at all. Regarding that you will also have mail shortly.
Best regards
Urs
