So I’m heading for a repair (reseal and check) and not for an overhaul.
As always a judgment call based on age of propeller, but if you and your engineer think the propeller and hub are/look in good condition, this would be the practical approach.
There seems to have been a fashion to use carbon fibre backing plates on some types, these tend to cause corrosion, so would revert to the standard metal ones when you remove the prop.
Ultranomad wrote:
Blades can usually be removed in the field, so this area can be inspected and blade seals can be replaced without visiting a specialist shop. I assisted in such an inspection, and on a 2-blade prop it took the two of us about an hour.
I guess it depends on the type (bolted hub halves vs integral hub), but I would in general discourage such task as a field job. Both FAA and EASA require a shop environment or at least an FAA RS/Prop 145, for such tasks in most cases for good reason.
Also for inspection methods I would stick to the tried and proven and approved. NDT on blades is simple in most external areas and I would not hesitate to validate HFEC on them, even if not approved in a lot of cases, but it is complex to apply in some interface areas, which are indeed the most critical ones, as you rightly point out, hence sticking to the approved CMM procedures is best.
Fly310 wrote:
Is there anything other than calendar time telling you that it requires maintenance?
Well, no. My A&P told me he was willing to go up to 10 years, so extending TBO of 6 years to 10 years, but no more. Prop looks very good, working exactly as it should, very well balanced, always hangared, not flown in rain and so on. But then again, I would also like to have someone (with experience) have a look inside, to be able to tell me about the condition of the parts inside. I should be able to convince my A&P that repair can be done as good as an overhaul.
So maybe I should keep looking for a shop with more reasonable pricing. It’s a 2-blade prop and looks just as simple as it can get, no de-icing or whatsover. Will contact the british shop mentioned before.
Any grease leakage, any cracks or damage (other than nicks at or near the tips – there is a specification on permitted damage), any strikes on objects even if no visible damage (bird strikes are debatable, for small birds).
Peter wrote:
Any grease leakage, any cracks or damage (other than nicks at or near the tips – there is a specification on permitted damage), any strikes on objects even if no visible damage (bird strikes are debatable, for small birds).
Nope.
