Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:09:54 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3307069@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.17; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net
From: "Mark Ravinski" <mjrav@comcast.net>
References: <list-3303225@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Prop Length for 360
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Matt,
I've been flying the same hub and blades you have on my 360.
HC-F2YR-1BF / F7666A-4  (72" )  up until 1236 hours TT.
Then I had a propstrike with tip damage.  Sensenich did the overhaul and
said that it would be acceptable to use the blades trimmed down to 70".  (I
understood at the time they had checked with Hartzel).   I've been flying
like that for another 220 hours with no problems.  I can't notice any
difference in performance either.

Mark Ravinski

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <mmcmanus@grandecom.net>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:04 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Prop Length for 360


> The hub is close to what you identify...HC-F2YR-1
> The blade design is....F7666A-6  (is that [76" less 6" = 70"])
>
> Someone mentioned that the 320 could use a 70" prop, but it sounds like a
> different blade than what you identify.
>
> I'm really confused now???
> Thanks,
> Matt McManus
>
> Quoting Sky2high@aol.com:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> > Interesting.  Can you give us the hub and blade designation - perhaps
it is
> > the setup that 320's use. That is: hub HC-F2YL-1F with blades F8468D-14
(84"
> > less 14" = 70").  I have gone thru, uh, several blades and it was some
years
> > ago that the 320 set-up went from "normal" to "experimental".  Oh  well.
> >
> >
> > Scott Krueger  AKA Grayhawk
> > Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
> > Aurora, IL (KARR)
> >
> > Pilot  not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 11/15/2008 6:36:51 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> > mmcmanus@grandecom.net writes:
> >
> > I'm in  the middle of getting my Hartzell 2 blade prop overhauled for my
> > Lancair
> > 360.  I got a new hub at 50% discount from Hartzell to  eliminate the
> > recurring
> > eddy current inspection. The prop shop doing the  overhaul has issues
with
> > the
> > blades and they will not issue the formal 8131  (I think) paperwork for
the
> > overhaul.  The problem is the blade  length.
> >
> > I bought the airplane 3 years ago and it had an overhauled "0"  time
prop
> > when
> > the airplane was built in 2002. The blades are 70" long  according to
the
> > prop
> > shop.  They also say that the Hartzell  recommends a 72" blade. But
Hartzell
> > also allows a 68" blade for the Lyc  360.  They do not however,
recommend a
> > 70"
> > blade.
> >
> > The question  is, since I've had no problems or vibration issues with my
70"
> > blades -  should I be concerned? I guess Hartzell's recommendation is
based
> > on
> > some  harmonic resonance or some other vibration related things (which
are
> > outside my knowledge).  Does my 70" blade length provide cruise or
climb
> > capabilities that are greater or lesser than a 68" prop.
> >
> > I'm  planning to have the 70" blades reinstalled on the new hub, and the
log
> > entry will just say the standard overhaul stuff (except the IAW stuff),
and
> > it
> > will specify "experimental A/C usage only."
> >
> > Any  thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt McManus
> > lnc2 360
> > 408 hours total time  airplane.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
> >
> >
> >
> > **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news
&
> >
>
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redi
r=htt
> > p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>