Jump to content

has a Warp drive had CTsw US approval? or European approval.


johnr

Recommended Posts

Hi Roger,

Providing the propellor type(s) is mentioned in the Data Sheet approved by the CAA then we can swap them around without any further paperwork other than to record it in the engine logbook. It is posible to fit another manufactures propeller but that involves more paperwork, noise testing, cost, inspections and flight tests but it can be done. As Mike said earlier, I'm not aware of any prop other than WarpDrive fitted to any CT type either in the Uk or Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Mac,

 

I wonder why FD chose to put Neuform's on here in the US and Warps in the UK and other places? Warp cost more than half as much as a Neuform. I know FD was trying to shave every ounce off to get aircraft to meet the 450 kg limit over there, yet the Warp is a heavier prop. Warp is a US MFG prop and the Neuform a European prop. I would love to hear their reasoning.

 

So your data sheet is somewhat like our AOI / POH. I wonder if FD took the Warps off the data sheet along the way or if it is still listed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Roger Lee,

 

On post # 28, you indicated Sensenich would be a better choice over the Neuform. We have an ELSA. What size Sensenich would you recommend? I remember there has been some discussion of having the Sensenich diameter trimmed.

 

Roger Kuhn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roger,

 

FD had the 68" and I also have a 68" and have been very happy with it. I just ordered another one last week. The Neuform's are 65" so that makes the Sensenich 68" 1.5" longer at the tip. No matter what the prop set it up for about 5600 rpm WOT at the average altitude that you fly. You'll be happy with the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Finally I heard back from the FAA. Some wheels turn slower than others.

Here is the finial verdict.

 

If your plane's POH or AOI list optional equipment like a Warp Drive prop then you are allowed to install that optional equipment without an LOA. You only would need an LOA if your manual did not list a certain piece of equipment you wanted to install. It would need to be logged in the logbook and any W&B calculated.

So the question in the first post comes down to this. Any CTSW prior to April 2006 when a new manual revision came out would be able to install a Warp Drive prop without an LOA or any approval from FD. You should however send in the major alteration and repair form from FD so they can file it, but it needs no approval.

Here is another tidbit I found out today. We all know that the FAA has been conducting audits of LSA factories and that means many are overseas. The manuals for a specific plane is supposed have have the serial number of that plane on the front. That hasn't been the case, but that's changing. If an LSA MFG refuses to co-operate with the FAA or conform to the ASTM standards then that plane will no longer be allowed to be sold in the US. This actually means that many LSA aircraft are going to be better and conform to the ASTM standards in a more uniform way across the board. I see too often some LSA's that are a long way from ASTM compliant, but that seems to be changing. That also means better and safer aircraft for the end user. The FAA is actively working on these audits and not just one here and there. They are moving on them.

 

Another tidbit:

When doing inspections you are only required by law to inspect to that aircrafts's specific manual specs. If a revision comes out then you can and should rise to the occasion and inspect to that level, but aren't legally required to.

 

Many of these items are not legally binding because the LSA MFG's were too lax in what they included in the POH. If the POH and AOI were more specific and inclusive we would be more legally tied to some types of maint., bulletins and documents.

 

Some LSA MFG's have some big changes to do, but some like FD are hardly affected.

FD is far and above some of these MFG's in ASTM compliance and they seem to be more proactive than reactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for clarification:

 

If your plane's POH or AOI list optional equipment like a Warp Drive prop then you are allowed to install that optional equipment without an LOA. You only would need an LOA if your manual did not list a certain piece of equipment you wanted to install. It would need to be logged in the logbook and any W&B calculated.

 

When I first read this, I saw POH (Pilot Operating Handbook) and AOI (Aircraft Operating Instructions) and then saw the use of the word "manual". The immediate thought that came to mind was maintenance manual. I want to confirm to myself that when you used "manual" you were repeating POH and AOI. Is that right? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just want to be clear I understand exactly what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do use the term manual loosely. POH is actually a handbook. To me they are all manuals, just each addresses something a little different. I was referring to the POH and AOI when I said manuals. You may see reference to aircraft options in the Maint. manual that you do not have in your plane which also adds to the strength of the argument that it is allowed according to the FAA..You just need to make sure you have those particular manuals or handbook's that were in circulation for the year aircraft you own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all,

I don't have any specific experience with the prop change in question, but regarding the general subject matter, I have a couple of points and will give regulatory references.

1. The definition for major alteration is found in FAR 1.1, and does apply to SLSA. There is nothing in this definition that refers to ASTM.

Since this is the case, the responsibility for determining what constitutes a major alteration, rests largely with the person approving the aircraft for return to service, and somewhat with the owner/operator (opinion). Further more, there is nothing in the FAR that gives ASTM authority to supercede part 1.1 so ASTM definitions of major/minor repair, alteration, or any other definitions contained with in them are not regulatory either.

2. Appendix A of part 43 (while a good reference) is NOT applicable to products not produced under FAA approval. Ref FAR 43.1(d)(3). This means that if the alteration in question (propeller change) is being performed on an SLSA aircraft, the list of stuff in appendix A of part 43 does not apply.

3. Any alteration to SLSA has to have the approval of the aircraft manufacturer (or person acceptable to the FAA). Ref. FAR 91.327(B)(5). So for the purposes of complying with this operation rule, it doesn't matter if the alteration is major or minor. Major alterations to SLSA require procedures to perform and inspect the alteration. Ref. FAR 91.327(B)(6). To me the important purpose of this rule is to insure that any required additional inspection procedures are addressed. Of course manufacturer maintenance procedures must be used to perform any alterations as well, but in the case of major alterations, continued airworthiness is a big concern, and the condition inspection procedures may need revised or modified to account for the major alteration (opinion).

 

To summarize, major vs minor is found in the definition in FAR1.1. You have to have the aircraft mfg approval for any alteration regardless of major or minor. The rules do not specify a form or manner for this approval, so in my opinion, something in any official mfg document (POH, AOI, LOA or bar napkin) that specifically grants approval for your aircraft, complies with the rule. One could probably argue that verbal approval complies as well (not recommended I'm sure).

I agree that if the Warp propeller is listed as optional or approved, or whatever, in the operating manual POH placard or other doc., and tied to the specific aircraft, it would not constitute an alteration at all, and no further approval need be obtained. The requirement to use aircraft maintenance and inspection procedures would be unchanged.

 

Doug Hereford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...