Exact Model of Neuform Prop?

[FlyingMonkey]

Does anybody know the Exact model of the 3-blade Neuform propeller installed on the CTSW?  I have not been able to find that in the documentation I have.  It looks like it's probably a TX or C series, but that's about all I can figure out.

I'm preparing an email for the FDSO about changing my prop over to a e-Props propeller, and I want to give them as much information as possible.

[Tom Baker]

The exact model should be listed inside the front of your original aircraft logbook.

[Anticept]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Does anybody know the Exact model of the 3-blade Neuform propeller installed on the CTSW?  I have not been able to find that in the documentation I have.  It looks like it's probably a TX or C series, but that's about all I can figure out.

I'm preparing an email for the FDSO about changing my prop over to a e-Props propeller, and I want to give them as much information as possible.

There might be something that I am missing here, but since you are E-LSA, why do you need to notify the FSDO? I know there are certain things that they need to be notified about with standard airworthiness via form 337, but I am unaware of this requirement for experimental, or even E-LSA

[FlyingMonkey]

Just now, Anticept said:

There might be something that I am missing here, but since you are E-LSA, why do you need to notify the FSDO? I know there are certain things that they need to be notified about with standard airworthiness via form 337, but I am unaware of this requirement for experimental, or even E-LSA

Yes, it's in the operating limitations that a major change requires notifying the FSDO and receiving a response in writing.  It's standard language for E-LSA.

[Anticept]

I wonder if they define what counts as a "major change".

In standard airworthiness, changing prop models to one that was never tested with that aircraft type is certainly a major alteration, so this definitely doesn't surprise me. I just didn't expect that airworthiness limitation.

[Madhatter]

The e prop for the ctsw is not experimental,  it is certified under ASTM and is used on many CTSW aircraft around the world. If you ask FSDO it will confuse them and will be a drawn out process as a lot of them are unknowable with light sport. I have had the most senior manager at my FSDO tell me he is not interested in light sport. My DAR who was the maintenance manager at my FSDO said no issue with the prop since it is well proven. 

Another note on e-prop: there is a titanium hardware option on the V20. The prop and spinner only weighs 3.5 lbs with it.

[Anticept]

It's important to go to the correct people when dealing with the FSDO. They have a surprisingly large amount of responsibilities, and as you have seen, one person will have next to no interest in providing assistance, while another will jump at the bit.

 

Also, it should be known: the FAA had a complete shakeup forced on them during the Trump administration. A bunch of regional offices got shut down and the entire structure of the FAA got reorganized, with many of those people being attached to Washington offices under completely new fields. There used to be directories to easily find people that needed to be found regarding specific subjects of oversight, and that has been closed down. People who used to know how all this worked are frustrated and leaving, and Edsel Ford finally pulled the trigger and retired on the 27th of August, after years of putting it off. A guy that I work with completed his LSR-M course last year, and because of the shakeup, he can't even get his airman certification issued because the people running that branch right now know NOTHING about light sport. They kept trying to miscategorize him and rejecting his application because they were using the wrong guidance (they were using experimental homebuild guidance!). Our local FSDO has a guy who finally grabbed everything they needed to know, documentation, specific guidance, ACs, Orders, etc and just dropped it on them and hopefully, finally, over a year later, they'll get that processed CORRECTLY.

Look, this is going to be my general recommendation to everyone. Once you find someone knowledgeable in the FAA to help you, make sure you buy them a pizza and a beer. They are worth their weight in platinum right now because everything is complete chaos and having someone go to bat for you is what you are going to need.

[FlyingMonkey]

It doesn't matter if the prop is certified, tested on the same aircraft, or installed on a thousands CTs. A major change is any change that can substantially alter the performance characteristics of the airplane (engine, prop, airframe, wing, etc.).

A propeller change is a major change and my limitations specify such a change requires notification of the FSDO and a response in writing.  I wish it weren't so, but I'm not going to give the insurance company a reason to deny a loss claim in the event of a mishap, so I will comply with the operating limitations of my airplane.

[FlyingMonkey]

6 minutes ago, Anticept said:

It's important to go to the correct people when dealing with the FSDO. They have a surprisingly large amount of responsibilities, and as you have seen, one person will have next to no interest in providing assistance, while another will jump at the bit.

True, at the Atlanta FSDO I have dealt with and personally know Steve Newcomer.  He handled my SLSA to ELSA conversion and I know him socially.  I referenced him in my email as a potential person this request should route through. 

BTW, the Neuform propeller model is:  CR3-65-4Y-101.6

[airhound]

14 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

The e prop for the ctsw is not experimental,  it is certified under ASTM and is used on many CTSW aircraft around the world. If you ask FSDO it will confuse them and will be a drawn out process as a lot of them are unknowable with light sport. I have had the most senior manager at my FSDO tell me he is not interested in light sport. My DAR who was the maintenance manager at my FSDO said no issue with the prop since it is well proven. 

Another note on e-prop: there is a titanium hardware option on the V20. The prop and spinner only weighs 3.5 lbs with it.

Concur with FAA generally not focused on Light Sport. At various seminars where FAA supports in some way, nary is Light Sport an agenda item or discussed. Maybe it’s a numbers thing. Or size doesn’t matter…???

[Anticept]

That's just in general how it's approached. Keep in mind that the FAA has very little responsibility with LSA, much of that was punted to the manufacturers and the consensus standard steering committees. Meanwhile, the standard airworthiness world has so much stuff going on, they're focused on that because that IS their responsibility.

We're just barely a blip on the radar.

[FlyingMonkey]

In my mind this is not an FAA issue, it's an insurance compliance issue. 

I don't really care if the FAA gets mad at me for not telling them I changed my prop without notifying them.  I very much care if the insurance policy I pay $1300 a year for becomes null and void because I didn't cross all my T's.  My policy (and policies I have read) states as a requirement that I maintain an ELSA airworthiness certificate in full force and effect for in-flight coverage to be honored.  If you are running an unapproved prop is your AW certificate in full force and effect?  I'm guessing if they can avoid a big payout by claiming no, AIG's lawyers will argue exactly that.

[Madhatter]

On some certified aircraft a prop model or manufacturer is not an issue even if not specifically approved for the aircraft. I have a J3 cub that can use ANY wood prop made under a type certification even though not specifically approved for the aircraft. Like wood carbon fiber does not generate harmful vibration to engine or prop blades.

[FlyingMonkey]

10 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

On some certified aircraft a prop model or manufacturer is not an issue even if not specifically approved for the aircraft. I have a J3 cub that can use ANY wood prop made under a type certification even though not specifically approved for the aircraft. Like wood carbon fiber does not generate harmful vibration to engine or prop blades.

I can believe that.  Does a prop change in the Cub require a flight test period, say 3 or 5 hours?

There are not specific performance targets that certified airplanes have to hit , unlike LSA.  So in some ways I could see the FAA caring less about what you put on there as long as it meets certification criteria (TSO).

[Anticept]

29 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

On some certified aircraft a prop model or manufacturer is not an issue even if not specifically approved for the aircraft. I have a J3 cub that can use ANY wood prop made under a type certification even though not specifically approved for the aircraft. Like wood carbon fiber does not generate harmful vibration to engine or prop blades.

The j3 Cub is also certified under CAR 3, not part 23. Regulations back in the civil aeronautical authority days were a lot more lenient, so you can get away with a lot.

14 CFR Appendix A has listed what is considered major repairs or alterations in respect to standard airworthiness aircraft.

[Madhatter]

No flight test needed. Static RPM limits only must be met for the engine. Propellers are a huge issue when they are metal, you can break a crankshaft or blade a few hundred hours later, I have seen it happen. When a new airworthiness certificate is issued for whatever reason the first thing asked is "is this the correct prop for the engine and airframe".     Any IA is very aware of this and must be checked at every annual inspection.  I have seen owners change props and not say anything 

[Madhatter]

I understand CAR 3 but my CTSW is Experimental so it will be held to a far lesser standard than type certified.

Anyway my e prop log entry references my DAR saying no test time is needed as it has been a well documented prop on a CT.

[Anticept]

6 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

No flight test needed. Static RPM limits only must be met for the engine. Propellers are a huge issue when they are metal, you can break a crankshaft or blade a few hundred hours later, I have seen it happen. When a new airworthiness certificate is issued for whatever reason the first thing asked is "is this the correct prop for the engine and airframe".     Any IA is very aware of this and must be checked at every annual inspection.  I have seen owners change props and not say anything 

Regarding that last line, anyone who pulls that shit, I walk away from because who knows what other bullshit they're doing.

My instructor at the A&P school was impressed when I caught the wrong magneto being used on a an engine during a mock inspection, no one else ever did that.

[Madhatter]

That's the tip of the iceberg. Have had off the record conversations with some FAA types on how much worse things have gotten over the years. I see major maintenance violations every week that would blow you away. Most of the new FAA inspectors do not have field experience anymore and rarely get out of the office. 50 years ago I knew I would have to be able to do everything on any plane I owned including avionics and heavy maintenance. Even some big shops are incompetent, people don't care anymore, I wouldn't want some of them to work on my lawn mower ( I have to do that too).

[FlyingMonkey]

As Corey mentioned, it's important to get it routed to the right person.  Mentioning Steve Newcomer in the mail got it right to him, and he called me back an hour after I sent the email.  I will fly off five hours of flight testing, remaining clear of controlled airspace, and make an appropriate logbook entry which I will send him a copy of after the flight tests are complete.  That's it.

No biggie, the FAA is totally chill and cool.  Until they aren't!  

[Anticept]

Welcome to the modern, underfunded FAA, in a CYA world where they're afraid to do anything or they'll get hung by some white knight congressman looking to pad his or her polling numbers.

Meanwhile, in the field, it's every man for themselves, why should anyone learn about their machines or give a rats ass about safety, got places to go and no time for any of that "maintenance" stuff. Airplane's working fine! (until it isn't, then it's blame everyone else)

I've even heard "Maintenance is a necessary evil" from a camera airplane operator, who literally will shop for mechanics until he finds someone willing to pencil whip his inspections. Nevermind that a few years back, he lost an aircraft in west virgina, and the pilots were killed, didn't change his attitude a bit.

[Tom Baker]

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

As Corey mentioned, it's important to get it routed to the right person.  Mentioning Steve Newcomer in the mail got it right to him, and he called me back an hour after I sent the email.  I will fly off five hours of flight testing, remaining clear of controlled airspace, and make an appropriate logbook entry which I will send him a copy of after the flight tests are complete.  That's it.

No biggie, the FAA is totally chill and cool.  Until they aren't!  

And that is how it should be. I recently installed one on a CTSW. It is an interesting prop to say the least. I wound up pitched around 26.5°, but that was after I switched to my modified prop pitch fixture. I didn't care for their pitch gauge. That gave me a little over 5500 static, and a little over 5500 full throttle level flight. On my first take off I put the power in and the RPM came up, then started to fall off as I picked up speed. That is backwards from any other prop I've flown behind. The airplane did seem to jump off the ground and climb well. 

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

And that is how it should be. I recently installed one on a CTSW. It is an interesting prop to say the least. I wound up pitched around 26.5°, but that was after I switched to my modified prop pitch fixture. I didn't care for their pitch gauge. That gave me a little over 5500 static, and a little over 5500 full throttle level flight. On my first take off I put the power in and the RPM came up, then started to fall off as I picked up speed. That is backwards from any other prop I've flown behind. The airplane did seem to jump off the ground and climb well. 

The factory says to pitch for 5500rpm WOT in level flight.  Not sure about that advice...I like to bias toward climb instead of cruise, and it seems to me pitching for a little higher rpm at the 2000-3000ft altitudes I usually fly at might give me a little more climb and some rpm headroom for when I climb higher on longer flights.  But the way this prop works, I'm not sure if my "normal" prop thinking will work out.

[Madhatter]

Pitching more than 5500 reduces performance. Climb is 1100-1200 min + at 90 degrees F, half fuel, no passenger at 5500. Pitching less than 5500 also reduces performance. I spent a lot of time to verify this. There is a lot of engineering test data from E Prop if you want to read it. It's very detailed and impressive. 

V20 with titanium hardware is next. They claim better performance with V20, we'll see.

[Roger Lee]

Andy,

You won’t know until you try it. Nothing ventured nothing gained. It’s an easy adjustment. I’ve proved several companies wrong. Go for it and report back.