What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Should I overhaul my prop?

Dean Pichon

Well Known Member
While my -4 is in the paint shop, I planned to have the hub resealed. I got a call today from the A&P saying the prop shop won't reseal the hub as the prop is overdue for an overhaul. The recommended overhaul interval is 6 years.

The Hartzell CS prop is almost 14 years old and has about 800 hours on it. I installed it factory new in 2009. The plane is always hangered and the prop seems to work fine and look fine.

I'm struggling with decision of overhauling a (perfectly good?) prop just because it reached an arbitrary date (think Mike Busch Condition Based Maintenance philosophy) or flying with it until it starts to leak grease or exhibits some other undesirable behavior. What have others done when faced with this decision?
 
Good question...I'm kind of in the same boat. MT CS prop coming up on MT's "recommended" overhaul date. It works fine...I've talked to my RV-buddy and two A&P's and all kind of shrugged and recommended overhaul if and when it starts leaking, but not now. I'm interested to see what your responses are here, sorry I can't be of help to you.
 
Don't know where you live, but quite a while ago I had the prop on my C180 opened up and the shop found some rather startling corrosion. They called me, expecting to have a hard sell to get me to pay for repairs. I took one look at the damage and told them to sell me a new prop.

I was horrified. The prop looked fine and acted great. Didn't realize it was coming apart internally. And the plane had always been in dry climates.

I think that you can ask the shop to do an IRAN and that may be less expensive than an overhaul. But please take the shop's advice on this. Of course you may choose to send it to a different shop if you want.

Dave
 
While my -4 is in the paint shop, I planned to have the hub resealed. I got a call today from the A&P saying the prop shop won't reseal the hub as the prop is overdue for an overhaul. The recommended overhaul interval is 6 years.

The Hartzell CS prop is almost 14 years old and has about 800 hours on it. I installed it factory new in 2009. The plane is always hangered and the prop seems to work fine and look fine.

I'm struggling with decision of overhauling a (perfectly good?) prop just because it reached an arbitrary date (think Mike Busch Condition Based Maintenance philosophy) or flying with it until it starts to leak grease or exhibits some other undesirable behavior. What have others done when faced with this decision?

I took my Hartzell CS prop in for a reseal 12-years / 1,335 hobbs hours after an overhaul. The overhaul was 10-years earlier and had over 2,000 hours. The prop shop had no issue doing the reseal. I paid extra to have the prop completely repainted.

Does not sound right that yours REQUIRES an overhaul. Like someone else said, an IRAN and reseal does sound in order.
 
Last edited:
A friend had a BD-4 that had to be taken apart for whatever reason. When they did, they found massive corrosion and the hub was scrap.
 
I just had my 12 year old 800 hour Hartzell resealed. The job included repainting and pickup and delivery for $1895. Find a new shop….
 
You might try to understand the foundation from where the shop is coming form. The shop may be concerned about being liable for not following manufacturers recommendations. They may feel better if your write something up that says they recommended X and you declined to follow their recommendation.
 
Most prop shops these days are getting pretty conservative and observing factory recommendations for safety and reliability reasons. To be honest, I have run props well beyond the calendar limits, and have recently seen several cases where the overhaul showed parts corrosion or wear beyond usable limits (only one was mine - have seen several other cases). I’m now more conservative as well…if only because prop parts are REALLY expensive, and if you let them go, you’ll be buying more new parts at overhaul. Kind of a “pay me now or pay me later” situation….

14 years is a long time past the recommended interval, and I am sure you can find a prop shop that will do a minimal re-seal and stamp it experimental only on the paperwork - but those shops are becoming a minority.

Two final thoughts…..If the seals are aging, what is the rest of the prop doing? And - I’d rather throw a rod than have a prop blade lock up asymmetric or (worst case) throw a blade….
 
I've had my Hartzell C/S prop IRAN'd twice, once at around 3 yrs / 400 hrs (because I overfilled it with grease and it started leaking - d'oh!), and at around 17 yrs / 1400 hrs (because I had it off for other reasons, and it was well past the time interval). Two different shops, neither one blinked at doing an IRAN rather than O/H. In both cases, nothing of note was found and they just resealed it, smoothed out the blades and good to go. Plane is hangared on the OR coast.

Also you mentioned Mike Busch - this one is right on topic: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/november/pilot/savvy-maintenance-propwash
 
If You Have an MT & Live in the "Desert"

You might look at my post (#5) on the thread:

MT Propeller SB No.30 R7

HFS
 
I ain’t touching mine.

My Hartzell C/S is 16 years old and coming up on 1700 hours. I live in the dry cold climate of Alberta. I fly the plane regularly. At least a couple of times a month and then the usual Summer US tour including Osh.

I too wrestle with the same issue. Especially after hearing several stories from others after getting their perfectly running props overhauled.

Problems like … it wasn’t leaking grease before, now it is, or it wasn’t vibrating before … now it is.

I was out on the weekend and the prop worked as good as always. It gets greased once a year, the blades are “nick” free, there isn’t excessive play in the hub, it’s smooth, doesn’t leak grease, the plane is hangered …. Hmmmmm …. why mess with it !?

It’s a piece of metal. Will the blades develop a mysterious crack that will cause separation ? Not likely.

If a seal goes bad it’ll start to leak I imagine so then it’s time to pull it. Is there corrosion in the hub ? I don’t know but I doubt it because of the environment I live in and the regular use it gets.

It comes down to your comfort level. For me, I’ll waste my money on AVGAS and flying trips :)

And for what it’s worth. When I hit 2000 hours, I’m not overhauling the engine either. With regular oil analysis, boroscopes, cold compression checks, my trusty Superior IO-360 is still working great and I’ll keep flying it until it shows me something different.

My 2 cents.
 
Prop overhaul

I have a question on this issue. If an Experimental plane is purchased and not built buy the owner, and the prop is beyond service limits due to years in service,
Would it pass (or should it pass) an annual condition inspection?

I assume this would apply to any part on the airplane. Lets say a mag is beyond its 500 hour service limit or a transponder is beyond its bi-annual limit.
 
When you begin to discuss years of service consider your engine. I would bet at least half the RV’s flying have a engine beyond TBO if the years of service are used. I believe 12 years is the recommendation.
 
I've tried to answer this question many times on different threads, so here goes again....

Yes, the TBO's are recommended, and yes, as experiemntal aircraft drivers we can overlook that and wait until the prop shows signs of problems. Hmmm. Yes, with the ani-authority gene so prevalant in the aviation community, we can blame the recommended TBO's on the lawyers. Or can we?

Hartzell, along with their certified shops, see more overhauls that we will ever see. I may go out on a a limb here and say that I probably see more RV's on an annual basis for CI's than anyone else (150-250 per year). We send out about 3 or more props every quarter for overhaul, some being over 14-20 years without an overhaul or IRAN. Most come back OK, but every once in a while we get condemned parts back, bearing races especially.

Two summers ago we had 2 RV's come in the same month with identical calendar times and hours on them, both past overhaul calendar times, but about 400-500 hours on each aircraft. One passed inspection, and one didn't. That was an eye opener for me.

I'm OK with 1-2 years past recommended TBO on calendar time, but that's it. There's enough evidence out there from experts better than me. I don't think it's morally right for me to sign my name to a logbook entry stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation when I treat my own aircraft differently (meaning I follow the recommended TBO). It would probably even be hard to defend in a jury trial. I know my customers and their families, and they place trust in the maintenance. Just like I did while flying throught the Ice and IMC over the Gulf of Alaska.

Perhaps for single seat aircraft maintained by the owner/operator, there might be some wiggle room. But for those of us who take passengers, I wonder what they might say if you changed the required briefing to something like "we really are experimenting today flying with a propeller beyond recommended TBO."

Yes, I know it's donen in part 91 all the time with engines, but an engine failure usually has much less serious immediate consequences than losing a propeller blade.

We are flying single-engine aircraft with one propeller. I'd rather play the odds and proactively take care of something that might lessen the fun factor. :)

Just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree. That's what makes the world go around. :)

Vic
 
In evaluating your adherence to overhaul recommendations, do remember some fundamental fatigue factors.

If your prop has a restricted RPM range or or other operating restriction, the number of available stress cycles before crack formation can be thought of as a bank account...you are making a withdrawal with each occurrence. Along the same lines, engines with pendulum absorbers tend to be easier on props, which is why those applications often have no operating restrictions.

Increased compression ratio and/or more HP also increase stress.

Hartzell declines a blanket endorsement of non-magneto ignition systems, as some of their measurements show increased stress.

We've seen some examples of high compression engines with non-counterweighted cranks and advancing EI's which have absolutely eaten prop hubs, bearings, and blade roots. Those are the worst case, and if you're flying an example, you should consider shortening your overhaul periods.
 
Dan, is there a difference on expected fatigue life between 4 and 6 cylinder engines? Do more pulses per rotation smooth things out or simply compound based on the two additional cylinders?
 
I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, if prop shops collectively start declining anything less than a full overhaul of a prop that is beyond calendar TBO, it will not be long before engine overhaulers, and then A&Ps, take the same attitude toward engines. You can count on it. Will this make things safer? Maybe. What it definitely will do is make them more expensive, which will force more people out of the ranks of pilots and aircraft owners, which will make everything more expensive for those that remain, which will force more of us out, and so on.

On the other hand, I'd rather suffer a thousand engine failures than a single propeller failure. Losing even a piece of a blade can result in such high amplitude vibration that it can easily remove the engine from the mount, and once that is gone the CG shifts aft far enough that you have no control over the aircraft whatsoever. You're done.

With those two things in mind, I think it ought to be left to the aircraft owner to decide, especially a Part 91 operator flying something with an experimental airworthiness certificate. Not all props endure the same stresses and operate in the same harsh environment. Is this the safest possible course? Who knows. I've seen more prop issues after overhaul than before -- the "maintenance induced failure" that Mike Busch talks about.

Besides, who knows what the prop shop is really doing to your prop? When I had a Skylane, I had my propeller overhauled by T&W because it had the best reputation in the area. And the highest price. Turns out they weren't really overhauling anything, and it ended up killing someone flying with two freshly "overhauled" props on his twin. The FAA issued an AD condemning T&Ws work and I got to pay for a second overhaul within 6 months of the first.

It's a conundrum. We all want to operate safely, but it's undeniable that the safest possible course is to simply not fly at all. As they say on the big screen, that's not the droid we're looking for.

--Ron
 
Dan, is there a difference on expected fatigue life between 4 and 6 cylinder engines? Do more pulses per rotation smooth things out or simply compound based on the two additional cylinders?

I've love to see real vibratory data, but the prop manufacturers don't readily share it.

The torque oscillation is certainly greater with a 4 cyl, but I wouldn't put a lot of weight on simply "4 vs 6". I suspect the difference between high compression and low compression 4's is greater than between 4 and 6 cylinders. We also have 4's with bare cranks and 4's with pendulum cranks, while (best I know) all the 6 cyl Lycs have pendulums.

Accurate prediction of blade and hub stress isn't easy, even for the pros, which is why they still instrument props with strain gauges and fly them before assuming anything is safe.

Good older paper about blade vibration, well worth a few reads: https://www.danhorton.net/Articles/Vibration of Crankshaft-Propeller Systems.pdf
.
 

Attachments

  • Hartzell Instrumented Prop.jpg
    Hartzell Instrumented Prop.jpg
    77.8 KB · Views: 107
A very well respected prop shop QA guy who flys GA advises to IRAN on calendar times, and O/H on hours if flying part 91. The difference although it is the same inspection, with an overhaul there are mandatory parts that must be replaced regardless of condition. The IRAN does not replace if not necessary. All parts are checked, corrosion would be discovered, etc. The cost of the mandatory replacement parts are getting quite expensive. In essence, the little used prop is still inspected for corrosion, etc, but the unworn parts are still usable pending wear criteria. Perhaps the perfect compromise of cost/philosophy without compromising safety. (or life without liability lawyers :) )
 
A very well respected prop shop QA guy who flys GA advises to IRAN on calendar times, and O/H on hours if flying part 91. The difference although it is the same inspection, with an overhaul there are mandatory parts that must be replaced regardless of condition. The IRAN does not replace if not necessary. All parts are checked, corrosion would be discovered, etc. The cost of the mandatory replacement parts are getting quite expensive. In essence, the little used prop is still inspected for corrosion, etc, but the unworn parts are still usable pending wear criteria. Perhaps the perfect compromise of cost/philosophy without compromising safety. (or life without liability lawyers :) )

Funny you should say that. After reading a previous poster's suggestion to go the IRAN route, I called the prop shop who declined my re-seal request and asked about the IRAN option. That shop said they would not do IRAN for my prop as it was "too far past the overhaul date". The shop indicated that the only service performed on props past their overhaul date is a complete overhaul.

I've only been investigating this issue for a couple of days, but I was not able to find anything on-line to indicate the 6 year TBO cycle is based on data. Lot's of "hanger stories", but no data upon which to base a decision. Very frustrating.
 
While my -4 is in the paint shop, I planned to have the hub resealed. I got a call today from the A&P saying the prop shop won't reseal the hub as the prop is overdue for an overhaul. The recommended overhaul interval is 6 years.

The Hartzell CS prop is almost 14 years old and has about 800 hours on it. I installed it factory new in 2009. The plane is always hangared and the prop seems to work fine and look fine.

I'm struggling with decision of overhauling a (perfectly good?) prop just because it reached an arbitrary date (think Mike Busch Condition Based Maintenance philosophy) or flying with it until it starts to leak grease or exhibits some other undesirable behavior. What have others done when faced with this decision?

I just had my CS prop IRANed for the first time after 15 years/1500 hours. Like you, always hangared, factory new... Sent it to Sensenich in PA and they did the job for $1900. No parts were replaced because none needed to be, they just regreased, resealed, and dressed/painted the blades. By the way, in doing so the dome was rotated a little, which meant having to redrill the forward spinner bulkhead to match the holes on the spinner. Rushed it first time, so had to order a new S-603 from Vans.
I'm not sure this process was worth the time (out of action for 1 month), cost, and effort related to removing/reinstalling the prop and redoing the forward spinner bulkhead. There were no leaks or abnormal behavior from the prop in the first place. ...and now I have to rebalance the prop too!
What turned out to be worthwhile was IRANing the PCU5000X governor. It only needed a small adjustment after 15 years, but now holds the rpm perfectly in climb-to-cruise transition. That was done by Byam in Texas for $350 and one week. Well worth the investment.
 
I dont own a propeller shop but I would have a hard time believing any competent repair station would do a reseal without inspecting the parts before reassembly. A "reseal" by definition will require some level of inspection and will very quickly turn into an IRAN if for no other reason than a CYA.

If your shop will blindly install new O rings on the blades and ignore the drive lugs, bearing surfaces and retention lands, its time to find a new shop.
 
I just spent a few hours searching NTSB reports for propeller failures.

My #1 conclusion? Hands down, the most important propeller care item is a preflight inspection for nicks and gouges. A few reports blame material defects, but most are tip separations resulting from damage. Fixed pitch props fail the same way, no surprise.

In discussions of overhaul, we tend to worry about constant speed hubs and blade roots. I found relatively few hub failures resulting in the loss of an entire blade. None blamed corrosion. None were late model.

I'm not saying they are not happening, just that I didn't find anything. I am definitely not Ron Wanttaja, and I'd love to see him tackle the subject.

Anyone know of a constant speed blade loss due to failed retention? I think we're particularly interested in relatively late model props on RV's, not old Travel Airs or airline turboprops.
 
Anyone know of a constant speed blade loss due to failed retention? I think we're particularly interested in relatively late model props on RV's, not old Travel Airs or airline turboprops.
I do! It wasn’t a Hartzell on an RV, but I believe a McCauley on a Cessna 310R… it happened to me on a freight run back in Nov ‘91. The hub had an internal fault/crack that propagated, split open and shucked two of the three blades.

It was a pretty violent failure, but hey, I lived through it. Lucky! As I recall, after this incident the FAA published an AD on that prop.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/15349/pdf
 
Last edited:
MT lag screw issues, maybe??

Read what Dave Howe had to say:

https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=207884

Lack of overhaul wasn't an issue for Dave. And anyway, MT had service shops installing the bad screws during overhauls, November 2013 through October 2014:

https://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/sbs/sb30r7.pdf

I do! It wasn’t a Hartzell on an RV, but I believe a McCauley on a Cessna 310R… it happened to me on a freight run back in Nov ‘91.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/15349/pdf

My compliments sir. Your skills were obviously there.

I do note the failed prop was 295 since overhaul.
 
Last edited:
I’d respectfully suggest that any search for data on a particular piece of equipment might start with the manufacturer’s own information.

https://hartzellprop.com/what-to-know-about-tbo-propeller-limits/

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks. I have used the Hartzell website, and I did look at the page you suggested. Still, that page does not include any data. With as many props as Hartzell must have in the air, I think they (or someone) would have mined that data to determine things like: What is the (actual) average overhaul period for props in the field. Is there any correlation between calendar time and accidents? And so on...

Regards,
 
Overhaul Vs reseal

From what I have read here I think there may be some confusion between a prop overhaul and a reseal. I have had my prop resealed twice in about 700hrs, mainly due to time and it starting to weep grease.

The shop I use is in the Chicago area. The first time I took the prop in for an overhaul it was about 8 years old, the guys at the shop looked at it and stated it didn’t need an overhaul it needed a reseal. During that process they; completely disassembled the prop, stripped the blades and dye checked/inspected them for cracks, repainted the blades reassembled it and did a static balance.

My understanding is an overhaul actually involves cutting down the blades a slight amount.

If you would like more information I can put you in contact with the guy I deal with there, he has posted on this forum in the past.
 
Another avenue to look at this is, if you have the money. Why not do it?
If you have an incident and the insurance company is involved and it had anything to do with the prop. You can bet there is going to be a ^)_*& contest as to why it wasn't done per standard considerations.
I bought an airplane that had 500 hours and the CS prop was 12 plus years since rework. Removed it and had it overhauled. Prop shop found nothing amiss.
I now don't have a legal or moral or ethical problem.
Ya it cost $3,200.00 in Gresham Oregon. It's just money.
One less thing to worry about. Now, to keep from getting it all nicked up.
My three cents worth Art
 
Another one

So, just this week I had an RV-7A come back for the CI. We had done this one last year and the prop was at 9 years then, and I mentioned we needed to do it this coming year. Absolutely no pushback from the owner, and now with 10 calendar years and right about 400 hours, there's a cracked hub!!! Hartzell constant speed on 180 HP.

That's why we pay attention to recommended times. :)

Vic
 
So, just this week I had an RV-7A come back for the CI. We had done this one last year and the prop was at 9 years then, and I mentioned we needed to do it this coming year. Absolutely no pushback from the owner, and now with 10 calendar years and right about 400 hours, there's a cracked hub!!! Hartzell constant speed on 180 HP.

That's why we pay attention to recommended times. :)

Vic

What model hub was it? A 'B' model hub or the non 'B' that has the eddy current insp. reqmnt?
 
So, just this week I had an RV-7A come back for the CI. We had done this one last year and the prop was at 9 years then, and I mentioned we needed to do it this coming year. Absolutely no pushback from the owner, and now with 10 calendar years and right about 400 hours, there's a cracked hub!!! Hartzell constant speed on 180 HP.

That's why we pay attention to recommended times. :)

Vic

Van's original thoughts were to keep it simple. But he had to give the market what they wanted.
 
Prop Blades hitting the spinner back plate / blade root fairings

Just had the Hartzell CS prop on the 9A IRAN'ed by Memphis Propeller. One blade seal had failed and it was spitting grease. Overall the prop was in good shape having been last IRAN'ed in 2004 / 750 hrs. The seals and races were upgraded to the latest configuration, along with servicing it with the new grease.

Cost was $1575.00

The biggest issue that was found was that during re-assembly, they found that at full pitch, the blades with hitting the spinner back plate / blade root fairings. We had to remove material to get the needed clearance, as well as adding washers between the hub and back plate.

It is unlikely that during normal flight ops that prop will cycle to full pitch and hit back plate / blade root fairings, but during ground checks it apparently was since there were witness marks on the blades.

We were lucky that the witness marks on the blades were well within damage limits and the blades were not scrapped.

Afterwards, we found another RV that had witness marks were the blades are hitting the blade root fairings.

Point of the story, if we hadn't pulled the prop for IRAN, we might not have found this issue and it cause, since it is pretty difficult to manually twist both blades to full pitch.

This is definitely a good pre-flight inspection item.
 
at full pitch, the blades with hitting the spinner back plate / blade root fairings. We had to remove material to get the needed clearance, as well as adding washers between the hub and back plate.

That seems unusual...wondering if anyone else has had a prop that will pitch far enough to contact the spinner back plate?
 
By the way, in doing so the dome was rotated a little, which meant having to redrill the forward spinner bulkhead to match the holes on the spinner. Rushed it first time, so had to order a new S-603 from Vans.
I'm not sure this process was worth the time (out of action for 1 month), cost, and effort related to removing/reinstalling the prop and redoing the forward spinner bulkhead. There were no leaks or abnormal behavior from the prop in the first place. ...and now I have to rebalance the prop too!
What turned out to be worthwhile was IRANing the PCU5000X governor. It only needed a small adjustment after 15 years, but now holds the rpm perfectly in climb-to-cruise transition. That was done by Byam in Texas for $350 and one week. Well worth the investment.

I have had spinner alignment problems in the past with overhauled props. Suggest dropping of the spinner with the prop to ensure proper alignment during re-assembly.
 
That seems unusual...wondering if anyone else has had a prop that will pitch far enough to contact the spinner back plate?

The OP said ‘spinner back plate/blade root fairings’. Not sure what he meant by ‘blade root fairings’ other than the blade opening in the spinner. If the prop is actually hitting the back plate, that suggests a design error. But if it’s hitting the spinner cutout, that’s a builder error, as every builder is supposed to enlarge the opening, as necessary, to ensure clearance at all blade angles. On my stock -10, I had to sand the blade cutout in the spinner, very slightly, to avoid blade contact at max pitch.
 
Last edited:
The OP said ‘spinner back plate/blade root fairings’. Not sure what he meant by ‘blade root fairings’ other than the blade opening in the spinner. If the prop is actually hitting the back plate, that suggests a design error. But if it’s hitting the spinner cutout, that’s a builder error, as every builder is supposed to enlarge the opening, as necessary, to ensure clearance at all blade angles. On my stock -10, I had to sand the blade cutout in the spinner, very slightly, to avoid blade contact at max pitch.

I know what he's talking about re: the "fairings"...little pieces that get attached to the backplate, behind the prop, to make the hole more "roundish".

I was questioning the prop actually hitting the backplate itself. That seems, as you say, to be a design error or an adjustment problem (if there is such an adjustment, I dunno) on the max pitch angel allowable, within the hub.
 
…..or an adjustment problem (if there is such an adjustment, I dunno) on the max pitch angel allowable, within the hub.

Per the Hartzell manual, there is no external adjustment for max pitch.
Thanks for the clarification on the ‘blade root fairings’.
 
Per the Hartzell manual, there is no external adjustment for max pitch.

I know that...I *don't* know if there is any internal adjustment, or if it's just set by design. In any case, it shouldn't, IMO, if properly designed, *ever* go so coarse as to contact the back plate.

ETA, from the Hartzell manual

9. Propeller High Pitch Settings
A. High Pitch (Min. RPM) Stop or Feathering Pitch Stop
(1) The high pitch and feathering pitch stop are set at the
factory per the aircraft manufacturer's recommendations.
These stops are adjustable only by an appropriately
licensed propeller repair facility or the Hartzell Propeller
Inc. factory

So it sounds like there IS some sort of adjustment that can be made.
 
Last edited:
I have had spinner alignment problems in the past with overhauled props. Suggest dropping of the spinner with the prop to ensure proper alignment during re-assembly.

Very good idea. I'll do that next time.

Can you explain the alignment problems experienced and what you mean by "dropping the spinner" to prevent the alignment problems?
 
I have had spinner alignment problems in the past with overhauled props. Suggest dropping of the spinner with the prop to ensure proper alignment during re-assembly.

Can you explain the alignment problems experienced and what you mean by "dropping the spinner" to prevent the alignment problems?

I think he missed an "f" in his original post, and meant to say "suggest dropping off the spinner..."
 
at full pitch, the blades with hitting the spinner back plate ...We had to remove material to get the needed clearance, as well as adding washers between the hub and back plate.

Did you already have the S-604 Spacers and 1/bolt AN960-416 washers in place per DWG C4?
 
Prop shop recs please….

Hi All,

Timely thread for me. I am starting a condition inspection, and plan to send my prop in for inspection/overhaul this year. So…….

Does anyone have a prop shop that they would recommend?

Prop is a Hartzell HC-C2YR-1NX/NG8301

I’m in Knoxville TN….. southeast preferred but not essential.

PIREPS appreciated.
 
If you are in Knoxville, I would recommend Memphis Propeller. They have completed 4 prop IRAN on our local RV. Talk to Russell, he will take care of you.
 
Back
Top