New E-Prop install

[Jacques]

might be because of the 'new' E-prop.You and I have the 1st version,  the V20 version has a new hub and titanium leading edges.

might be   ...  just saying

[FlyingMonkey]

Looks like I will be going the e-Props route over the winter when I do my condition inspection and pull the gearbox for overhaul.  

I was initially pretty skeptical of the claims of performance gains over the other prop options, and didn't like the lack of metal edge protection.  As a result I was planning to go to a Sensenich.  But I have done enough research and there are enough CT users with good experience now that I think it will at least slightly beat the Sensenich on performance.  Even if performance is only equal, the e-Props is half the weight, and with the spinner it's around $800 less -- so it's still a win twice over.

Has anybody flying an ELSA done the paperwork on this?  You have to notify the FSDO because a prop swap is a major change, and you are supposed to do some flight testing to ensure LSA compliance.  The testing is equivalent to putting the airplane back in phase I for an EAB, but not sure if for an ELSA they call it phase I.  I think it's supposed to be 3-5 hours.  I'm hoping that FD-USA will approve this prop before I buy mine so I can list it as factory approved and tested and skip the test period for the FSDO.       

[Madhatter]

I inquired about the major change issue with my DAR and was told it was not required as this prop has proven itself on other aircraft with Rotax 912's including CT's.

My E-Prop has leading edge protection which is replaceable and according to the company can be flown in heavey rain with no issues.

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Madhatter said:

My E-Prop has leading edge protection which is replaceable and according to the company can be flown in heavey rain with no issues.

I'm glad on the V20 they went to the titanium edge protector.  Landing on grass a lot, that will be good for me. 

Thanks for the info on the major change.  I think you still have to notify the FSDO of the change even if no testing is required.

[Roger Lee]

Funny how different DAR’s have different interpretations and put different restrictions on new operating limitations when bumped to ELSA. Makes you wonder who’s in charge of the chicken coup.

[FlyingMonkey]

38 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Funny how different DAR’s have different interpretations and put different restrictions on new operating limitations when bumped to ELSA. Makes you wonder who’s in charge of the chicken coup.

The foxes, of course! 

Yeah, every DAR and FSDO is different, it's kind of the Wild West.

[airhound]

Interesting-in general when going from SLSA to ELSA can one suggest/negotiate language maybe even provide an example like the Tried and True VANS RV12 ELSA? 

[Madhatter]

 

 

I land on grass all the time, no issues. Also most leading edge protection doesn't extend to the tips unless it's a wood prop. Besides grass won't do damage unless you are in a corn field

If I had taken the DAR offer from the FAA it would be easy. Besides I don't like lots of paperwork and beurocracy (that's why I am  ELSA )

[Skunkworks85]

Anyone wiling to wait to see if the new MOSAIC rules will allow for constant speed props(or single lever control)?  I know I am, and a 914  

[Madhatter]

I just had a conversation with the CEO of E-Props.

They are now working with Flight Design (Gemany) to certify the new propeller but it will take some time.

The new hub is the same except for how it is manufactured, instead of a mold they are using a press to increase production rates. Otherwise it is the same.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, BugBuster (BB) said:

Interesting-in general when going from SLSA to ELSA can one suggest/negotiate language maybe even provide an example like the Tried and True VANS RV12 ELSA? 

If you are talking about operating limitations, then the DAR has some latitude and you of course can suggest items be included.  I got lucky, and my DAR's policy is to write into the limitations anything that could legally be allowed.  So my ELSA has limitations allowing IFR flight if properly equipped and stuff like that.

 

[Madhatter]

It's a standard document generated from data from Oklahoma city.  A DAR can not randomly insert his own ideas of what should be in the limitations. My limitations also approved IFR if properly equipped. However it may be that the DAR is more motivated to search for approved data from OK city. 

[FlyingMonkey]

30 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

It's a standard document generated from data from Oklahoma city.  A DAR can not randomly insert his own ideas of what should be in the limitations. My limitations also approved IFR if properly equipped. However it may be that the DAR is more motivated to search for approved data from OK city. 

I was not suggesting they could come up with their own ideas.  But I have seen ELSA limitations that specify VFR only flight.  Not all limitations are created equal, and it's clearly not *only* a boilerplate document from the FAA.  There are clear variations on what gets included, though I don't know why that is.

[Jacques]

3 hours ago, Madhatter said:

The new hub is the same except for how it is manufactured, instead of a mold they are using a press to increase production rates. Otherwise it is the same.

let me disagree with you...for once .. the ''old'' hub ( version V12) is in 2 parts , the blades in sandwich between the 2 hub parts.

 

the new hub(version V20)  is in 3 parts , the hub itself, one plate, the blades, another plate.  This permit to remove the propeller form engine witout getting the blades loose and having to re ajust.  Also,  the V12 had only 6 longs M8 bolts ( & washers ) as hardware while the V20 as much more hardware 16 M6 & 6 M8+ nuts

More 'torque wrench'' with the V20    have both styles here

also, the V12 needs the 'lugs' or 'studs' in the gearbox holes, the V20 don't

[Jacques]

interestingly , the V20 hub that I have here is installed on Rotax 582 pushing a trike.. so, right hand turning propeller like our 912 tractor. But,,, contrary to many manufacturer, are of a complete different design of blades. The 582 slower turning blades (  still named Durandal ) are much wider and a have a profile more '' usual''

 

[airhound]

8 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Looks like I will be going the e-Props route over the winter when I do my condition inspection and pull the gearbox for overhaul.  

I was initially pretty skeptical of the claims of performance gains over the other prop options, and didn't like the lack of metal edge protection.  As a result I was planning to go to a Sensenich.  But I have done enough research and there are enough CT users with good experience now that I think it will at least slightly beat the Sensenich on performance.  Even if performance is only equal, the e-Props is half the weight, and with the spinner it's around $800 less -- so it's still a win twice over.

Has anybody flying an ELSA done the paperwork on this?  You have to notify the FSDO because a prop swap is a major change, and you are supposed to do some flight testing to ensure LSA compliance.  The testing is equivalent to putting the airplane back in phase I for an EAB, but not sure if for an ELSA they call it phase I.  I think it's supposed to be 3-5 hours.  I'm hoping that FD-USA will approve this prop before I buy mine so I can list it as factory approved and tested and skip the test period for the FSDO.       

? WRT major ELSA alteration, like the prop, since it came into this world as an SLSA and hasn’t been in a Phase 1, per say, would one have to apply for a test area to be able put it in phase 1, if required. Probably for not more than 5 hours, the usual overall ELSA time. Or, once FISDO folks see an application for a test area they may expect to see the equivalent aircraft manufacturers test program…to be followed.?  Or, not really!

[Madhatter]

You are correct,, I forgot to mention the prop hub allows removal without blades loosening. I don't know why I would need that once the blades are set. Either way there is no change in the integrity of the hub.

 

 

 

[Jacques]

well.....here is a picture of the new system hardware 

much more bolts and nuts...than can get loose.. compare to the 'old' hub 6 M8

have a customer having problem with a M6 nut breaking..twice  

[Madhatter]

Mine doesn't use nuts

[Jacques]

mine neither,,   we have the V12version    6 long M8 bolts with Nord-lock washers, screwded in the gearbox lugs/studs

[Madhatter]

I have to give Jacques credit for the one who informed me of the E-Prop years ago. It was one of the best modifications on my CT other than the my vg's. I'm always looking for new ideas and technology's.  There are always ways to do things better and you don't have to be the manufacturer that comes up with stuff , they are always bogged down with beurocracy and endless mettings. I don't hold it against them, it's just the way things are done. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[FlyingMonkey]

So...the new hardware uses lock nuts instead of Nordlock washers?  I think I'd prefer the Nordlocks...I have never seen properly-installed Nordlocks come loose.

What is the consensus on the 150 Euro upgrade to Titanium hardware?  The website says you only have to re-torque every 200hrs instead of 100hrs for the steel hardware -- but 100hr check  is not a real burden so it seems like that might not be a big deal.  Any other pros (or cons) to the Titanium hardware?

BugBuster:  Having not been through the process yet, my understanding is that you just have to notify the FSDO of a "major change" (altering engine, prop, wing, etc).  This document describes the process: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/LSA_Cert_8July2013.pdf

According to that document:

  After certification, for a major change to the aircraft (such as an alteration,
modification, addition, or deletion), the FAA may modify the ELSA operating
limitations with special restrictions for flight testing due to the aircraft
modification.

That sounds to me like you notify the FSDO of the major change (maybe on FAA Form 337 - "Major Repair or Alteration" form), and then they decide if you need to go into flight testing for the change, and for how long.  The testing is to ensure safety and that the change does not bring the airplane out of LSA compliance.  For a well-established change (like a factory-approved prop), there would be no need for the testing as the safety and LSA compliance are established by the factory.
 

[Madhatter]

My DAR was manager of all maintenance inspectors at the SC FSDO. I can only assume he has a good understanding of what he is doing. Also there are no 337's used in LSA.

[FlyingMonkey]

55 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

My DAR was manager of all maintenance inspectors at the SC FSDO. I can only assume he has a good understanding of what he is doing. Also there are no 337's used in LSA.

I was certainly not saying any particular DAR doesn't know what they are doing.  I was just saying there *are* variations in limitations for ELSA.  As I said, I'm not sure why that is.

I don't know what form is used to submit a major change or alteration for an ELSA, I was just speculating it might be form 337, since that is the only form I could find for this kind of change.  What form is the correct one?

[airhound]

The way I understand it the placarded manufacturer of an ELSA has a hand in prescribing flight testing to the builder with FAA approval. The builder applies thru a local FSDO for a test area and flies off the prescribed hours and annotates the aircraft logbook the results before Phase 2 which is basically - continuance of airworthiness. I don’t get the rationale that others did it and therefore it must be OK writ large for ELSA….IMHO if whatever changes on any airplane by whomever contributes to an accident then what’s the placarded manufactures position?