Aeromatic Prop - Vibration after Inspection
- Thread starter blimpy
- Start date
Dan Cullman
New member
What inspection was done on the prop? Why? By qualified personnel? With Manuals at hand?
An annual inspection is not much more than servicing the hub lubricant and checking the overall condition of the hub and blades.
Dan
An annual inspection is not much more than servicing the hub lubricant and checking the overall condition of the hub and blades.
Dan
Dan Cullman
New member
Larry,
Does your data plate on the prop show the assembly number as "-1?"
This was a revision of some earlier hubs...DATING BACK TO 1952. I have never seen a hub that wasn't marked "-1." There is no AD on "-1" hubs...PERIOD!
Please have your mech go to his library...if he has one....and check Aeromatic F200 series airworthiness directives. There should be one active AD on props with the "-1." That is for "wood deterioration."
I sure hope your mech can rebalance the propeller. Other than that he'll have to send it to Tarver.
Both operations at his expense.
BTW, go somewhere else for maintenance.
Dan
Does your data plate on the prop show the assembly number as "-1?"
This was a revision of some earlier hubs...DATING BACK TO 1952. I have never seen a hub that wasn't marked "-1." There is no AD on "-1" hubs...PERIOD!
Please have your mech go to his library...if he has one....and check Aeromatic F200 series airworthiness directives. There should be one active AD on props with the "-1." That is for "wood deterioration."
I sure hope your mech can rebalance the propeller. Other than that he'll have to send it to Tarver.
Both operations at his expense.
BTW, go somewhere else for maintenance.
Dan
Larry Lowenkron
Member
Now you guys got me interested in this one, so I looked up the AD's on the FAA site, and found 3 AD's that apply to the Tarver F200 Aeromatic prop. Looks like only one is a repetitive AD, as Blimpy said. It is:
47-50-13 DOWNER (BELLANCA and UNIVERSAL (Stinson): Applies Only to Aircraft Equipped With Koppers Model Aeromatic F200 Propellers.
Compliance required no later than the next 25-hour propeller lubrication and at 25 hours of operation thereafter.
Inspect propeller hub as follows:
Remove balancing band from both ends of hub barrel after index marking each to facilitate proper reassembly. Examine the other surfaces of the hub completely for indications of line cracks or fractures. The areas of primary concern are (1) those beneath the balancing bands, (2) the weld joint where hub barrel and mounting tube meet, and (3) the weld joint where mounting tube and mounting flange meet.
Defective hubs should be removed from service.
(Koppers Service Bulletin No. 12, dated October 9, 1947, covers this same subject.)
Did Kent change the prop so that it is no longer a "Koppers Model F200..."? The dash 1 that Dan refers to is (I think) found in:
50-34-01 KOPPERS: Applies to All Aircraft Equipped With Model F200 "Aeromatic" Propellers (Does Not Apply to "Aeromatic Model 220 Propellers").
Compliance required in all cases no later than April 1, 1952.
1. Universal (Stinson) Models 108-2 and 108-3 aircraft: Compliance required no later than first 200 hours of propeller operation.
2. Universal (Stinson) Models 108 and 108-1 aircraft: Compliance required no later than first 400 hours of propeller operation.
3. If the total propeller operation time is unknown, or if a reasonably accurate estimate of total time cannot be made, compliance is required not later than the next 50 hours of operation. (Except for Universal (Stinson) Series aircraft, compliance is required by not later than the next 50 hours of operation if the total operation time as of August 29, 1949, exceeds 500 hours.)
Blade retaining flanges, P/N 3277 must be replaced with P/N 3277-1. When this change is accomplished a "-1" (dash one) is to be suffixed to the propeller assembly number on the nameplate to indicate compliance. Koppers Service Bulletin No. 24 covers this same subject.
Universal (Stinson) Models 108-2 and 108-3 only: (Compliance required by May 16, 1949). To avoid the possibility of crankshaft or propeller failures resulting from excessive torsional vibration in the 2,700 to 2,800 r.p.m. range, all engine operation must be restricted to 2,650 r.p.m. maximum and propeller readjusted in accordance with Koppers Service Bulletin No. 22. As a further safety measure it is required that propellers which have accumulated any operating time in the 2,650 to 2,800 r.p.m. range be equipped with new blade retainer flanges P/N 3277-1.
(Koppers Service Bulletin No. 23-E covers this same subject.)
This supersedes AD 49-42-01, for the purpose of clarifying the date of compliance.
The most recent AD 73-20-08 refers to metal blade tipping. That is one that kind of soured me on this prop, because I had one that I could barely start to jiggle the outer 3" of blade tip on one side, and noticed that the gap on that side was a smidgin bigger than the opposite blade.
47-50-13 DOWNER (BELLANCA and UNIVERSAL (Stinson): Applies Only to Aircraft Equipped With Koppers Model Aeromatic F200 Propellers.
Compliance required no later than the next 25-hour propeller lubrication and at 25 hours of operation thereafter.
Inspect propeller hub as follows:
Remove balancing band from both ends of hub barrel after index marking each to facilitate proper reassembly. Examine the other surfaces of the hub completely for indications of line cracks or fractures. The areas of primary concern are (1) those beneath the balancing bands, (2) the weld joint where hub barrel and mounting tube meet, and (3) the weld joint where mounting tube and mounting flange meet.
Defective hubs should be removed from service.
(Koppers Service Bulletin No. 12, dated October 9, 1947, covers this same subject.)
Did Kent change the prop so that it is no longer a "Koppers Model F200..."? The dash 1 that Dan refers to is (I think) found in:
50-34-01 KOPPERS: Applies to All Aircraft Equipped With Model F200 "Aeromatic" Propellers (Does Not Apply to "Aeromatic Model 220 Propellers").
Compliance required in all cases no later than April 1, 1952.
1. Universal (Stinson) Models 108-2 and 108-3 aircraft: Compliance required no later than first 200 hours of propeller operation.
2. Universal (Stinson) Models 108 and 108-1 aircraft: Compliance required no later than first 400 hours of propeller operation.
3. If the total propeller operation time is unknown, or if a reasonably accurate estimate of total time cannot be made, compliance is required not later than the next 50 hours of operation. (Except for Universal (Stinson) Series aircraft, compliance is required by not later than the next 50 hours of operation if the total operation time as of August 29, 1949, exceeds 500 hours.)
Blade retaining flanges, P/N 3277 must be replaced with P/N 3277-1. When this change is accomplished a "-1" (dash one) is to be suffixed to the propeller assembly number on the nameplate to indicate compliance. Koppers Service Bulletin No. 24 covers this same subject.
Universal (Stinson) Models 108-2 and 108-3 only: (Compliance required by May 16, 1949). To avoid the possibility of crankshaft or propeller failures resulting from excessive torsional vibration in the 2,700 to 2,800 r.p.m. range, all engine operation must be restricted to 2,650 r.p.m. maximum and propeller readjusted in accordance with Koppers Service Bulletin No. 22. As a further safety measure it is required that propellers which have accumulated any operating time in the 2,650 to 2,800 r.p.m. range be equipped with new blade retainer flanges P/N 3277-1.
(Koppers Service Bulletin No. 23-E covers this same subject.)
This supersedes AD 49-42-01, for the purpose of clarifying the date of compliance.
The most recent AD 73-20-08 refers to metal blade tipping. That is one that kind of soured me on this prop, because I had one that I could barely start to jiggle the outer 3" of blade tip on one side, and noticed that the gap on that side was a smidgin bigger than the opposite blade.
Dan Cullman
New member
Dammit, Larry.......
If it is not in the current file, it has been superceded or amended.
You can find 47-50-13. It is not active. This situation was amended by 49-42-01,which I cannot find anymore. In any case, AD 50-34-01 amends all these with the "-1" hub. If you have a "-1"hub, the AD doesn't apply. Got a problem with this??? Go to Tarver and he'll tell the same story.
End of topic.
Dan
If it is not in the current file, it has been superceded or amended.
You can find 47-50-13. It is not active. This situation was amended by 49-42-01,which I cannot find anymore. In any case, AD 50-34-01 amends all these with the "-1" hub. If you have a "-1"hub, the AD doesn't apply. Got a problem with this??? Go to Tarver and he'll tell the same story.
End of topic.
Dan
Larry Lowenkron
Member
No Dan, I don't have a problem with this 'cause I don't have an Aeromatic on my plane anymore. But, as I said on the phone, arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig, after 30 minutes you realize they are both enjoying it.
!!!
You are right, AD 50-34-01 requires that the blade retaining flanges be replaced with the -1 flanges. And yes it does replace AD 49-42-01, as I indicated in my last post on this. It does not say anywhere that AD 47-50-13 is terminated. I believe that is what Blimpy was referring to. If I was an IA, I'd be awfully careful about not addressing AD 47-50-13 during an annual. Either by log book entry or work order...or some way to protect myself in this litigious world. As we discussed, it sounds like what ever the mechanics at Petaluma did, they did it wrong. A properly running Aeromatic is a very smooth running prop.
!!!You are right, AD 50-34-01 requires that the blade retaining flanges be replaced with the -1 flanges. And yes it does replace AD 49-42-01, as I indicated in my last post on this. It does not say anywhere that AD 47-50-13 is terminated. I believe that is what Blimpy was referring to. If I was an IA, I'd be awfully careful about not addressing AD 47-50-13 during an annual. Either by log book entry or work order...or some way to protect myself in this litigious world. As we discussed, it sounds like what ever the mechanics at Petaluma did, they did it wrong. A properly running Aeromatic is a very smooth running prop.
blimpy
New member
Ok.
1. My prop is a Univair Overhauled prop circa 1970's I think.. and has approx. 1000 hours on it.
2. I have flown about 45 hours behind this prop and it and the engine have always been
VERY SMOOTH.
3. No clue about the -1 without looking in log books and possibly at the prop with the spinner off.
I know go read the manuals - going there now-
1. My prop is a Univair Overhauled prop circa 1970's I think.. and has approx. 1000 hours on it.
2. I have flown about 45 hours behind this prop and it and the engine have always been
VERY SMOOTH.
3. No clue about the -1 without looking in log books and possibly at the prop with the spinner off.
I know go read the manuals - going there now-
blimpy
New member
Prop is in the VW and I am off to visit Kent on Wednesday, up in Nevada.
He will check it, re-set if necessary, and while I'm there, I will get a few of those
rivets re-soldered on the leading edge.
---
At least this will eliminate one variable.
----
Discovered today that the newly braced nose cowl is not square to the prop back plate.
Hate to think that that is part of this new vibration problem.
---
Fix one thing and 3 other things go wrong.
----
Anybody want a postcard from Reno ? :wink:
:roll:
He will check it, re-set if necessary, and while I'm there, I will get a few of those
rivets re-soldered on the leading edge.
---
At least this will eliminate one variable.
----
Discovered today that the newly braced nose cowl is not square to the prop back plate.
Hate to think that that is part of this new vibration problem.
---
Fix one thing and 3 other things go wrong.
----
Anybody want a postcard from Reno ?
:wink: :roll: