 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:34 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
 |
|
Here is the OKB directive for prop ground strikes if there were ever any questions.
Doc
http://www.termikas.com/engines/M-14P/direktyva_angl.jpg
Sent from my iPad
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:46 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
This is exactly the kind of posting that can have really bad side effects. Doc, these people did not make the engine. Their recommendations are actually contrary to some that come directly from the original manufactuer. People from the FAA that do not know any better, can read something like this and then assume that with any prop strike at all, the engine requires a total tear down. This company stands to gain financially from publishing this kind of information.
Please think twice before posting information such as this, and if you really just have to, send it directly to the person requesting it.
Mark Bitterlich
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Fri 7/12/2013 11:30 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Here is the OKB directive for prop ground strikes if there were ever any questions.
Doc
http://www.termikas.com/engines/M-14P/direktyva_angl.jpg
Sent from my iPad
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:57 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
okay.
doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:43 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil (mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil)> wrote:
[quote] This is exactly the kind of posting that can have really bad side effects. Doc, these people did not make the engine. Their recommendations are actually contrary to some that come directly from the original manufactuer. People from the FAA that do not know any better, can read something like this and then assume that with any prop strike at all, the engine requires a total tear down. This company stands to gain financially from publishing this kind of information.
Please think twice before posting information such as this, and if you really just have to, send it directly to the person requesting it.
Mark Bitterlich
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Fri 7/12/2013 11:30 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc(at)mindspring.com (viperdoc(at)mindspring.com)>
Here is the OKB directive for prop ground strikes if there were ever any questions.
Doc
http://www.termikas.com/engines/M-14P/direktyva_angl.jpg
Sent from my iPad
===================================
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
===================================
cs.com
===================================
matronics.com/contribution
===================================
|
¦·›~‰í²,ÞÜ=œ¢Z+ÓM4ÓGÚqíÃr‹«‰êç{(º¸ž¯p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷pӅ測´IšŠQh®é· K ¶ŒjÚèž',.+-溷¬5«â«h®Ú®Œ,{pí…隟"â²ÛŠX‰ë,¹ÈZ°¸¬µIÿJæìr¸©¶*'Ü0+r¯y'šÈC£ 塧{ ¬®Œ,x(Z´PÜ3á¢Ú,…ªÞjwf¹Èf¹Èf¢··pÚ†·ŸÜ8m¶Ÿÿà &jÚèž',r‰¿5«â«h†¤.+-†Ûiÿü0Âf®‰ârÇ(›óZ¾(¶ŠØjBâ²ßÚÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=Ã0Ñ8ÒIaäT1-ÃI©ž‚·šµÊ'µéíj[(jö¢•¦åzøš¶–y±h®é¬Ü=ÃjÞpá¶Úýú+ºk&jÚèž',r‰¡¶Úýú+ºk&jÚèž',r‰¿kp÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷ ¸¬´*'¶¸›ºØ¨g›J+^Ü4ájy2¢çè¯*.®§zº.²Ë©¦ŠíÜ3¶ÐëjY^.+-Ù¢ŸpÚ†·ŸÜ8m¶Ÿÿà &jÚèž',r‰¿r‰í®&î¶*'†Ûiÿü0Âf®‰ârÇ(›÷(žÚânëb¢ÚÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=Ãý¿ß¢{¦·¿n‡rþf
[b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard.goode(at)russiana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:16 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Mark – you are partially wrong on this. On one hand I would agree that it is sensible to restrict anything of this sort in case it can get into the "wrong" hands.
On the other you are incorrect to suggest that this is information from Termikas for their own commercial advantage. If you read the document, you will see that it was signed by my late friend Victor Sherstiukov who was then the commercial director of Vedenyeev, who of course designed the M 14 P engine. As designers, they had nothing to gain from an over-strict regulation about ground strikes. Termikas was simply passing on the message, and had not prepared it in the first place.
At the time that document was written, Vedenyeev was still a state – owned company, divorced from commercial realities, and it was of no relevance to them how many engines needed to be stripped down after a shock – load.
I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes. I have personally seen a Sukhoi 26 that had a prop-strike; the owner simply changed the prop, and a couple of hours later, while taxiing in after an aerobatic flight, one of the satellite gears in the gearbox broke up and locked the engine solid. Even at idle that cracked a couple of engine mount tubes, and had it happened two minutes earlier it would have undoubtedly taken the engine out of the airframe with obvious and disastrous consequences.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: 12 July 2013 21:44
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
This is exactly the kind of posting that can have really bad side effects. Doc, these people did not make the engine. Their recommendations are actually contrary to some that come directly from the original manufactuer. People from the FAA that do not know any better, can read something like this and then assume that with any prop strike at all, the engine requires a total tear down. This company stands to gain financially from publishing this kind of information.
Please think twice before posting information such as this, and if you really just have to, send it directly to the person requesting it.
Mark Bitterlich
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Fri 7/12/2013 11:30 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
01
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
¦·›~‰í²,ÞÜ=œ¢Z+ÓM4ÓGÚqíÃr‹«‰êç{(º¸ž¯p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷pӅ測´IšŠQh®é· K‑¶ŒjÚèž',.+-溷¬5«â«h®Ú®Œ,{pí…隟"â²ÛŠX‰ë,¹ÈZ°¸¬µIÿJæìr¸©¶*'Ü0+r¯y'šÈC£ 塧{ ¬®Œ,x(Z´PÜ3á¢Ú,…ªÞjwf¹Èf¹Èf¢··pÚ†·ŸÜ8m¶ŸÿÃ&jÚèž',r‰¿5«â«h†¤.+-†Ûiÿü0Âf®‰ârÇ(›óZ¾(¶ŠØjBâ²ßÚÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=Ã0Ñ8Ò[1]IaäT1-ÃI©ž‚·šµÊ'µéíj[(jö¢•¦åzøš¶–y±h®é¬Ü=ÃjÞpá¶Úýú+ºk&jÚèž',r‰¡¶Úýú+ºk&jÚèž',r‰¿kp÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷p÷¸¬´*'¶¸›ºØ¨g›J+^Ü4ájy2¢çè¯*.®§zº.²Ë©¦ŠíÜ3¶ÐëjY^.+-Ù¢ŸpÚ†·ŸÜ8m¶ŸÿÃ&jÚèž',r‰¿r‰í®&î¶*'†Ûiÿü0Âf®‰ârÇ(›÷(žÚânëb¢ÚÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=ÃÜ=Ãý¿ß¢{¦·¿n‡rþf
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:38 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Richard-
Your reply is a case in point for why I wrote what I did. The fact is that there are many types of prop strikes and the severity of the loads imposed to the engine vary greatly.
You have stated many times how “lucky” we in the West are regarding our Experimental Category and the ease by which we can license and operate our aircraft compared to most operators in Europe. This is exactly the “thing” that I am trying to protect here and American owners need to take note.
The FAA in the United States often likes to make things simple by categorizing everything with some kind of “written instruction”. If they can find a piece of paper that they can hold close to their chest and demand compliance with, they often will.
You said: “I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes”.
Richard, you are welcome to any opinion you wish to have, but please let’s leave it at that. When you start to emphasize the validity of a posted document that happens to agree with your point of view, and that document can possibly change the way things are handled in another country, that crosses the line from being an opinion to something else. I would ask that as a friend, you at least keep that in mind. I know I do.
As regards prop strikes on M-14 engines, I too believe in caution and safety, but I also believe in applying common sense. I know of three M-14 engines with “prop strikes” that have flown over 600 hours since the “incident” without an issue. One of those three “Prop Strikes” was when an SU-31 prop hit a human leg and tossed the person it was attached to 10 feet in the air, and took a huge chunk out of both his leg, and one prop blade of an MTV9-260! In that case, the person’s leg needed more of a teardown than the engine did. But hey .... that was indeed a legitimate prop strike with blade damage.
Lots of things can damage an M-14, and I believe the most significant is some form of Hydraulic Lock. I have seen far more M-14 engines come apart from this malady than prop strikes.
So bottom line…. Let’s continue to have spirited and intense discussions, that include opinions and experience, but please let’s also try to avoid meddling in issues that can impact how a whole class of engines or airplanes are treated in a country, especially ones that we don’t live in.
Mark
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeorgeCoy
Joined: 02 Dec 2010
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:34 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Mark, I disagree with you. I think people should have the facts and that includes factory recommendations. As stated we are experimental, and not required to follow the factory recommendations on an experimental aircraft. The FAA is already well aware of the recommended overhaul times for eastern aircraft airframes and engines and has never even questioned it in an experimental aircraft. Often, insurance companies are driving the issue of teardown. Yes, I have flown many a Yak that has had a prop strike and yes, yes I know of many aircraft hat have hundreds of hours after a prop strike with no sign of damage. I have seen hidden damage at a normal teardown that was waiting to become more serious. So I think it is the owner/pilots decision and then should have all the information to make that decision.
George Coy
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:33 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Richard-
Your reply is a case in point for why I wrote what I did. The fact is that there are many types of prop strikes and the severity of the loads imposed to the engine vary greatly.
You have stated many times how “lucky” we in the West are regarding our Experimental Category and the ease by which we can license and operate our aircraft compared to most operators in Europe. This is exactly the “thing” that I am trying to protect here and American owners need to take note.
The FAA in the United States often likes to make things simple by categorizing everything with some kind of “written instruction”. If they can find a piece of paper that they can hold close to their chest and demand compliance with, they often will.
You said: “I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes”.
Richard, you are welcome to any opinion you wish to have, but please let’s leave it at that. When you start to emphasize the validity of a posted document that happens to agree with your point of view, and that document can possibly change the way things are handled in another country, that crosses the line from being an opinion to something else. I would ask that as a friend, you at least keep that in mind. I know I do.
As regards prop strikes on M-14 engines, I too believe in caution and safety, but I also believe in applying common sense. I know of three M-14 engines with “prop strikes” that have flown over 600 hours since the “incident” without an issue. One of those three “Prop Strikes” was when an SU-31 prop hit a human leg and tossed the person it was attached to 10 feet in the air, and took a huge chunk out of both his leg, and one prop blade of an MTV9-260! In that case, the person’s leg needed more of a teardown than the engine did. But hey .... that was indeed a legitimate prop strike with blade damage.
Lots of things can damage an M-14, and I believe the most significant is some form of Hydraulic Lock. I have seen far more M-14 engines come apart from this malady than prop strikes.
So bottom line…. Let’s continue to have spirited and intense discussions, that include opinions and experience, but please let’s also try to avoid meddling in issues that can impact how a whole class of engines or airplanes are treated in a country, especially ones that we don’t live in.
Mark
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
0123456789
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:31 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Had pitched out of the fight but will re-enter. Since it is my rosy red pink being pulled behind that thing I am tearing mine down. Yes the last gear up CJ's engine that I know of (M-14P with wood props) had no damage on tear down by Monty Barrett. Now saying that the Builder in Lithuania rebuilt the engine with an out of spec master crank roller bearings that were basically worn out. That was gotcha waiting to happen. It was not Termikus's shop. That is all I will say. If the owner of that engine wishes to comment he can.
As for to tear or not teardown, in the US we sort of have the option. Do I take 6 bullets out of the revolver or do I take 5 to play Russian Roulette. It is our choice but as George said, "insurance is driving the tear down requirement." If you are self insured and like playing Roulette go for it. If you drop that bird in some one's house with others having knowledge of your flying with an engine that had a prop strike that crapped out in flight causing injury on the ground we are all going to pay. Your only hope is you got morted in the process so your estate can cover the loses.
Was there one of those in Maine a couple of years ago or was a hydraulic lock that caused that one fall on to the downtown streets morting both occupants.
My two cents since my insurance company is requiring the tear down, I'm tearing it down. Would be a hell of a lot easier to repair the sheet metal, replace the leaking air line, hang to new blades and go fly. But, right now I do not trust that engine.
Break, any one looking for a YAK -50 project? Will sell the airframe firewall back minus engine cheap. Contact me off list if interested. Will sell as is for salvage value or may consider parting it out.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "George Coy" <george.coy(at)gmail.com (george.coy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote] <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Mark, I disagree with you. I think people should have the facts and that includes factory recommendations. As stated we are experimental, and not required to follow the factory recommendations on an experimental aircraft. The FAA is already well aware of the recommended overhaul times for eastern aircraft airframes and engines and has never even questioned it in an experimental aircraft. Often, insurance companies are driving the issue of teardown. Yes, I have flown many a Yak that has had a prop strike and yes, yes I know of many aircraft hat have hundreds of hours after a prop strike with no sign of damage. I have seen hidden damage at a normal teardown that was waiting to become more serious. So I think it is the owner/pilots decision and then should have all the information to make that decision.
George Coy
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:33 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Richard-
Your reply is a case in point for why I wrote what I did. The fact is that there are many types of prop strikes and the severity of the loads imposed to the engine vary greatly.
You have stated many times how “lucky” we in the West are regarding our Experimental Category and the ease by which we can license and operate our aircraft compared to most operators in Europe. This is exactly the “thing” that I am trying to protect here and American owners need to take note.
The FAA in the United States often likes to make things simple by categorizing everything with some kind of “written instruction”. If they can find a piece of paper that they can hold close to their chest and demand compliance with, they often will.
You said: “I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes”.
Richard, you are welcome to any opinion you wish to have, but please let’s leave it at that. When you start to emphasize the validity of a posted document that happens to agree with your point of view, and that document can possibly change the way things are handled in another country, that crosses the line from being an opinion to something else. I would ask that as a friend, you at least keep that in mind. I know I do.
As regards prop strikes on M-14 engines, I too believe in caution and safety, but I also believe in applying common sense. I know of three M-14 engines with “prop strikes” that have flown over 600 hours since the “incident” without an issue. One of those three “Prop Strikes” was when an SU-31 prop hit a human leg and tossed the person it was attached to 10 feet in the air, and took a huge chunk out of both his leg, and one prop blade of an MTV9-260! In that case, the person’s leg needed more of a teardown than the engine did. But hey .... that was indeed a legitimate prop strike with blade damage.
Lots of things can damage an M-14, and I believe the most significant is some form of Hydraulic Lock. I have seen far more M-14 engines come apart from this malady than prop strikes.
So bottom line…. Let’s continue to have spirited and intense discussions, that include opinions and experience, but please let’s also try to avoid meddling in issues that can impact how a whole class of engines or airplanes are treated in a country, especially ones that we don’t live in.
Mark
0123456789
0
[b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jill(at)m-14p.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:13 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
A clarification on my post. I was agreeing with Mark's reply to Roger's
post, not Richard's.
Jill
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakplt(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:08 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
George you are welcome to disagree. However your comments regarding the FAA are incorrect. I was investigated for 6 months regarding a prop strike that happened 6 years earlier. The FAA looked very hard for documents just like the one mentioned so that they could say that I did improper maintanence, violate me, and ground my airplane. I don't make this stuff up. After hiring a lawyer and spending thousands of dollars, they decided my airplane was probably safe since it had flown 300 hours with no problem since. My advice to this group is based on actual first hand experience with the FAA, so readers can decide for themselves what the best course of action should be. My advice is not to hand the FAA anything that can turn around and bite you in the ass later on.
Do what you will. I still have a very bad taste in my mouth.
Mark
From: George Coy <george.coy(at)gmail.com>
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Mark, I disagree with you. I think people should have the facts and that includes factory recommendations. As stated we are experimental, and not required to follow the factory recommendations on an experimental aircraft. The FAA is already well aware of the recommended overhaul times for eastern aircraft airframes and engines and has never even questioned it in an experimental aircraft. Often, insurance companies are driving the issue of teardown. Yes, I have flown many a Yak that has had a prop strike and yes, yes I know of many aircraft hat have hundreds of hours after a prop strike with no sign of damage. I have seen hidden damage at a normal teardown that was waiting to become more serious. So I think it is the owner/pilots decision and then should have all the information to make that decision.
George Coy
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:33 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Richard-
Your reply is a case in point for why I wrote what I did. The fact is that there are many types of prop strikes and the severity of the loads imposed to the engine vary greatly.
You have stated many times how “lucky” we in the West are regarding our Experimental Category and the ease by which we can license and operate our aircraft compared to most operators in Europe. This is exactly the “thing” that I am trying to protect here and American owners need to take note.
The FAA in the United States often likes to make things simple by categorizing everything with some kind of “written instruction”. If they can find a piece of paper that they can hold close to their chest and demand compliance with, they often will.
You said: “I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes”.
Richard, you are welcome to any opinion you wish to have, but please let’s leave it at that. When you start to emphasize the validity of a posted document that happens to agree with your point of view, and that document can possibly change the way things are handled in another country, that crosses the line from being an opinion to something else. I would ask that as a friend, you at least keep that in mind. I know I do.
As regards prop strikes on M-14 engines, I too believe in caution and safety, but I also believe in applying common sense. I know of three M-14 engines with “prop strikes” that have flown over 600 hours since the “incident” without an issue. One of those three “Prop Strikes” was when an SU-31 prop hit a human leg and tossed the person it was attached to 10 feet in the air, and took a huge chunk out of both his leg, and one prop blade of an MTV9-260! In that case, the person’s leg needed more of a teardown than the engine did. But hey .... that was indeed a legitimate prop strike with blade damage.
Lots of things can damage an M-14, and I believe the most significant is some form of Hydraulic Lock. I have seen far more M-14 engines come apart from this malady than prop strikes.
So bottom line…. Let’s continue to have spirited and intense discussions, that include opinions and experience, but please let’s also try to avoid meddling in issues that can impact how a whole class of engines or airplanes are treated in a country, especially ones that we don’t live in.
Mark
| Quote: | | http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
0123456789
0
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakplt(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Sorry to hear this Doc. My very best ....
Mark
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <viperdoc(at)mindspring.com>
To: "yak-list(at)matronics.com" <yak-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Had pitched out of the fight but will re-enter. Since it is my rosy red pink being pulled behind that thing I am tearing mine down. Yes the last gear up CJ's engine that I know of (M-14P with wood props) had no damage on tear down by Monty Barrett. Now saying that the Builder in Lithuania rebuilt the engine with an out of spec master crank roller bearings that were basically worn out. That was gotcha waiting to happen. It was not Termikus's shop. That is all I will say. If the owner of that engine wishes to comment he can.
As for to tear or not teardown, in the US we sort of have the option. Do I take 6 bullets out of the revolver or do I take 5 to play Russian Roulette. It is our choice but as George said, "insurance is driving the tear down requirement." If you are self insured and like playing Roulette go for it. If you drop that bird in some one's house with others having knowledge of your flying with an engine that had a prop strike that crapped out in flight causing injury on the ground we are all going to pay. Your only hope is you got morted in the process so your estate can cover the loses.
Was there one of those in Maine a couple of years ago or was a hydraulic lock that caused that one fall on to the downtown streets morting both occupants.
My two cents since my insurance company is requiring the tear down, I'm tearing it down. Would be a hell of a lot easier to repair the sheet metal, replace the leaking air line, hang to new blades and go fly. But, right now I do not trust that engine.
Break, any one looking for a YAK -50 project? Will sell the airframe firewall back minus engine cheap. Contact me off list if interested. Will sell as is for salvage value or may consider parting it out.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "George Coy" <george.coy(at)gmail.com (george.coy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
| Quote: | Mark, I disagree with you. I think people should have the facts and that includes factory recommendations. As stated we are experimental, and not required to follow the factory recommendations on an experimental aircraft. The FAA is already well aware of the recommended overhaul times for eastern aircraft airframes and engines and has never even questioned it in an experimental aircraft. Often, insurance companies are driving the issue of teardown. Yes, I have flown many a Yak that has had a prop strike and yes, yes I know of many aircraft hat have hundreds of hours after a prop strike with no sign of damage. I have seen hidden damage at a normal teardown that was waiting to become more serious. So I think it is the owner/pilots decision and then should have all the information to make that decision.
George Coy
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:33 PM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions
Richard-
Your reply is a case in point for why I wrote what I did. The fact is that there are many types of prop strikes and the severity of the loads imposed to the engine vary greatly.
You have stated many times how “lucky” we in the West are regarding our Experimental Category and the ease by which we can license and operate our aircraft compared to most operators in Europe. This is exactly the “thing” that I am trying to protect here and American owners need to take note.
The FAA in the United States often likes to make things simple by categorizing everything with some kind of “written instruction”. If they can find a piece of paper that they can hold close to their chest and demand compliance with, they often will.
You said: “I personally think that far too many pilots in the West are very casual about these engines after prop – strikes”.
Richard, you are welcome to any opinion you wish to have, but please let’s leave it at that. When you start to emphasize the validity of a posted document that happens to agree with your point of view, and that document can possibly change the way things are handled in another country, that crosses the line from being an opinion to something else. I would ask that as a friend, you at least keep that in mind. I know I do.
As regards prop strikes on M-14 engines, I too believe in caution and safety, but I also believe in applying common sense. I know of three M-14 engines with “prop strikes” that have flown over 600 hours since the “incident” without an issue. One of those three “Prop Strikes” was when an SU-31 prop hit a human leg and tossed the person it was attached to 10 feet in the air, and took a huge chunk out of both his leg, and one prop blade of an MTV9-260! In that case, the person’s leg needed more of a teardown than the engine did. But hey .... that was indeed a legitimate prop strike with blade damage.
Lots of things can damage an M-14, and I believe the most significant is some form of Hydraulic Lock. I have seen far more M-14 engines come apart from this malady than prop strikes.
So bottom line…. Let’s continue to have spirited and intense discussions, that include opinions and experience, but please let’s also try to avoid meddling in issues that can impact how a whole class of engines or airplanes are treated in a country, especially ones that we don’t live in.
Mark
0123456789
0
|
1
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:22 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Since you checked back in, I will reply to your comment Doc.
You take a very interesting point of view regarding your "rosy red pink". You are suggesting that safety dictates a total tear down for the purpose of safety.
Ok, for the moment let's say that is true. Just who is it that you are going to have perform that engine tear down? Monty Barrett? If so, he is one of the good choices I most surely would vote for! He is also not cheap. That being the case, how many people might just try an engine teardown/rebuild in their own hangar?
Ummm... just like you did for example?
I have seen this happen myself on two occasions and the results were similar. Meaning: What happened with yours when it finally started back up? It started making metal. The point here is not what happened in your hangar, but instead what can happen when you tear down an engine and put it back together again. People can make mistakes (or even worse things can happen), and those "things" can put you right into someone's house just as quick as anything else.
Russian Roulette? Darn straight. Just about every which way you go.
What I am trying to say here is that a lot of pilots are not experts at everything they lay their hands on, and as such they try to make good choices on important things, often in the name of "SAFETY". But when you make the decision to pull an engine to pieces that was not made in this country, you better be darn careful about who you have do it and money should be NO OBJECT. Can you look me in the eye and say you have taken that approach every time with your airplane(s)? I can't.
Personally? I'd feel safer flying behind a mid time engine that shaved four inches off each end of a wooden prop, which then was checked for timing changes, run-out (Richard Goode), and possibly having the reduction gear case checked) than I would flying behind a brand new rebuilt engine done by ANYBODY!
In your specific case .... where both gear collapsed after landing... and the airplane slammed down with a running engine.... a tear down is probably a good idea, especially since "insurance" is involved.
But in some other cases ..... If it ain't broke don't fix it
Mark Bitterlich
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:39 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Ok, I'm lost. No big deal, but just for peace of mind .....
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:03 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
No Mark I am not implying total tear down but to access the accessry drive shaft, inspect and magnaflux or dye penetrate the gear box and do a master crank run out your have to take the nose case off the engine. The baffles will have to be removed so you can take the air start lines off to seperate the supercharger case from the crank case. The intake tubes and the exhaust manifold has to be removed. The Oil Sump has to be removed. You can try to leave the carb on but you will find out that to pull the supercharger and to seperate the accessory case all of the attached accessories need to be out of your way. Since you want to look at the journals on the crank too the cylinders need to come off. No the rockers do not need to be pulled but to get to the base of the connecting rod the cylinders need to come off. Now to inspect the accessory drive shaft and the super charger idler gear the super charger section and the accessory drive section are going to have to be seperated. To do that the air lines from the spider (air start distributor) have to come off. It is a bit ill managable if you do not. You can try to leave the mags and the compressor on but you will be cursing yourself for trying that after about an hour. Yes you can do it though.
I've been there and I have the damned T shirt.
| Quote: | From my stand point if I am going that far why not pull the whole damned thing down so I can see the teeth and dye penetrate all of the gears in the gear box and the accessory drive along with the crown gear on the crank shaft, the idler gear that drive the timing cam plate, the accessory gear for the prop governor.
Therer is no real simple easy way to do this with out tearing the engine down. Since mine plopped down on the ground I want to look at the cylinder base studs, the crank case through studs for the mounting ring and the cylinder head baffle mounting studs. Not everybody will require that since 90% of the M-14's flying have a protruding nose wheel to protect them when the gear collapses.
|
There is more to mine than most so that is for sure.
I am not implying that everyone should have to completely tear one down. Mine is at the extreme.
I am not going into how the metal got in the original engine that is at the began this saga. Yes, the plan is to let Monty take this one apart because I am tired of tearing M-14's down and putting them back togather.
Like farts, man, there are loud oderless and on the other end there are silent but deadly ones. There is a spectrum across the bell shaped curve. In this case, since this engine will be pulling my rosey pink eventually, I want it right.
By the way there was nothing wrong with this engine after it was reassembles before it took the grass field slide. Don't really expect anything to be wrong with it this time either but I need to go through the exercise.
Doc
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:11 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
If the timing on the engine is OK, 90% of the stuff you just listed is unnecessary Doc. However, it is of course your call! That said, my whole point all along is that every situation differs and that needs to be taken into consideration. There is no "ONE ANSWER" and we should stay away from any document that promotes that way of thinking.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:19 pm Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Mark,
I agree with your comments but how do you verify that the Idler gears on the super charger and the accessory spider gears do not have cracked or chipped teeth. Have to crack the supercharger and accessory case for that. The nose case is simple. The rest is a pain in the ass. Those damned air start lines are a real pill to deal with.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:07 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil> wrote:
[quote]
If the timing on the engine is OK, 90% of the stuff you just listed is unnecessary Doc. However, it is of course your call! That said, my whole point all along is that every situation differs and that needs to be taken into consideration. There is no "ONE ANSWER" and we should stay away from any document that promotes that way of thinking.
Mark
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:58 am Post subject: Engine teardown after prop strike Questions |
|
|
Doc,
Do whatever you want to do. Subject closed.
Mark Bitterlich
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
