Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
A customer of mine is getting his Hamilton Standard 2D30 overhauled by a Canadian propeller shop. He requested that they polish the blades as opposed to paint them.
He wanted the blade-faces flat black and the blade-backs polished.
He has been advised that they won't do that, nor will they release it without painting it.
I've done an AD search and there doesn't appear to be any reason for this that I can see. This propeller has only 2 ADs against it, both dating back to the '50s. Though corosion related, they are not in reference to the protective coating on face or back of the blades themselves.
Is anybody aware of an SB about this?
Does anybody see a problem with advising my customer to strip and polish the prop himself?
Any operational problems with polished props that I'm overlooking here?
Is anybody aware of any ICAWs from Hamilton Standard specifically citing polishing of blades?
I have not contacted the O/H shop myself yet.
On my lawyer's advise, I know its always better to put the quirey to the floor of Avcanada before making another move.
'48
He wanted the blade-faces flat black and the blade-backs polished.
He has been advised that they won't do that, nor will they release it without painting it.
I've done an AD search and there doesn't appear to be any reason for this that I can see. This propeller has only 2 ADs against it, both dating back to the '50s. Though corosion related, they are not in reference to the protective coating on face or back of the blades themselves.
Is anybody aware of an SB about this?
Does anybody see a problem with advising my customer to strip and polish the prop himself?
Any operational problems with polished props that I'm overlooking here?
Is anybody aware of any ICAWs from Hamilton Standard specifically citing polishing of blades?
I have not contacted the O/H shop myself yet.
On my lawyer's advise, I know its always better to put the quirey to the floor of Avcanada before making another move.
'48
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:05 pm
- Location: All the @#$! over
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
You are not supposed to use any chemicals on a prop other than mild soap and water. Strip it?
The paint protects it from corrosion and erosion. I couldn't imagine why you wouldn't want to paint it.
The paint protects it from corrosion and erosion. I couldn't imagine why you wouldn't want to paint it.
TT: don't care PIC: still don't care MPIC: really really don't care TURBINE: get a life.
Life's never fair, get a helmet.
Life's never fair, get a helmet.
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Ok Widow, thanks. I had not seen that before. Some interesting opinions there and even indication that a Hamilton Standard could indeed with propper precedure and documentation, be polished.Widow wrote:Hmm, this link might explain why ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=HAGS0x ... &ct=result
"Danny Pollard" however, is not a source of Approved or Specified Data. In many regards, from what I read there, he's a joker with poor literacy skills, trying to make a quick buck flogging a book.
Really quite goofy that he says somthing to the effect that a "2B20 can in fact be polished." It really is only a slightly scaled down version of my 2D30.
Ballss; I really have a hard time seeing what the corrosion fuss is all about. For one, I would request that if the shop polishes these blades, that they paint the blade roots as per usual. Only outboard of the hub and spinner should the blades be polished and not the blade faces which will remain flat black.
A clean, polished blade back wouldn't be able to hide much in the way of defects now would it?
The aircraft in question is on straight wheels, hangared every night - no where near the coast and only puts on about 100 hours per year in the summer.
I have seen on the net, mentioned several times now and Widow's link quotes it as well, some referenece to an I.C.A.W. from Hamilton Standard that requires the 'polishing compound be removed and clean engine oil applied.' If that Instruction does indeed exist, and has not been superceded, it would certainly provide the data I requuire to make a case.
I will be in contact with the propeller shop on behalf of the owner very soon and will update this thread with that.
In the mean time, if anybody does have a link to that ICAW, or other applicable, Approved or Specified Data, let me know. Thanks.
'48
Last edited by HS-748 2A on Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
This is why:Ballsssssss wrote: I couldn't imagine why you wouldn't want to paint it.
- Attachments
-
- Sharp Ship.jpg (144.63 KiB) Viewed 4930 times
-
- Polished Prop.jpg (53.16 KiB) Viewed 4937 times
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
HS-748 2A wrote: He wanted the blade-faces flat black and the blade-backs polished.
'48
Is that backwards, he wants the shiny side facing the pilot?
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:54 am
- Location: somewhere on a river looking for dropped tools
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
The face is black which is the part facing the pilot.
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
I wondered how long it would be before somebody asked that...
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
lmao, now that took me some thinking, but yeah the backs are the parts faceing forward, and if Canadian Props are being anal about it talk to westerns in Edmonton, (worked at both)
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
There is an issue (sb or sl) with corrosion occurring beneath the Hamilton Standard decals usually placed in the center of the blade backs. All one has to do is clear coat the polished blade where the sticker would go prior to the sticker application, or go without the sticker altogether. Personally speaking, if the polished propeller is going onto someones housepet where every fingerprint will be lovingly buffed off, then give the guy his polished prop. If it's going on a workhorse then paint it.
If they won't do it, go elsewhere or polish it yourself.
Love those Staggerwings BTW.
If they won't do it, go elsewhere or polish it yourself.
Love those Staggerwings BTW.
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Thanks Connaught and Nite_owl. Too many people just say "you can't do that" without backing it up. My interperetation of the I.C.A.W. is that I could indeed polish it myself or delegate somebody to do it, oversee it and make a release to that effect.
I was aware of that S.L. about the decals but that will be not applicable in this case as we don't intend to put decals on it.
Unfortunately, the prop is on it's way, painted grey. Oh well, I'll deal with that when it get's here.
Sure does set a '17 off nicely doesn't it...
'49
I was aware of that S.L. about the decals but that will be not applicable in this case as we don't intend to put decals on it.
Unfortunately, the prop is on it's way, painted grey. Oh well, I'll deal with that when it get's here.
Sure does set a '17 off nicely doesn't it...
'49
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Why bother, would removing the paint actually be maintenance? I doubt it, and why hang yourself out to dry in front of someone who thinks it is (erroneously so IMO). Like Nike says, just do it!HS-748 2A wrote:...and make a release to that effect.
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
It certainly would constitute maintenance. There's no doubt about that; and to not record it would put me squarely in violation of 571.03 is somebody decided to make an issue out of it.
Being as it looks as though there is a suitable reference for what we want to do, it's a non-story anyhow.
I changed a passenger O2 mask in a Transport Category aircraft today and belive it or not, that got a log entry and a maintenance release too.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
'48
Being as it looks as though there is a suitable reference for what we want to do, it's a non-story anyhow.
I changed a passenger O2 mask in a Transport Category aircraft today and belive it or not, that got a log entry and a maintenance release too.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
'48
The fastest way to turn money into smoke and noise..
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Well whatever, ... suit yourself, but don't be too certain, as I think the question about whether it's maintenance is not a perfectly clear one in my opinion.
"maintenance" means the overhaul, repair, required inspection or modification of an aeronautical product, or the removal of a component from or its installation on an aeronautical product
So, ... fill your boots.
"maintenance" means the overhaul, repair, required inspection or modification of an aeronautical product, or the removal of a component from or its installation on an aeronautical product
So, ... fill your boots.
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Horn... "removal of a component"
you said it right there. Paint is considered a component. I know sounds like a stretch, but it is. Even listed in most maintenance manuals.
Can Hamilton Standard be contacted on it? Do you have the OH manual?
you said it right there. Paint is considered a component. I know sounds like a stretch, but it is. Even listed in most maintenance manuals.
Can Hamilton Standard be contacted on it? Do you have the OH manual?
Don't be disgruntled....move on!
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Hamilton Standard 2D30 question..
Brown;
Well, I’ve been thinking about that cause it just don’t seem right. I wouldn’t have thought of it myself, … paint being a component you install or remove. I can’t rationalize that.
First of all, the rule talks about “removal” and “installation”; such a lexicon is not conducive to your interpretation. One does not think of paint as being installed, rather it is applied. Why would the regulation not say “application or installation” or better, why not mention “application of coatings or finishes”, if that’s what it meant. Paint is maybe removed from time to time, but never installed. Even with the concept of removal, one would generally “strip” it, not remove it. Why would the regulation just not say it if that’s what it meant?
In the definition of “overhaul”, “refinishing” is a process that is specifically mentioned. The term refinishing would seem to apply to, amongst other things, painting. If the rulemaker had intended to have painting included in the definition of “maintenance” he would have included it … obviously terminology defining painting is not beyond the lexicon used within the regulations, therefore, it would appear to have been intentionally omitted from the definition of “maintenance”.
Would we want painting to be maintenance? I don’t think so. Although we all do some minor painting, I have never met a painter who is an AME, nor have I met an AME who is a professional painter. Painting is a trade on its own, and almost an art. Could you really sign a maintenance release on painting? I know we all do (sign maintenance releases that is) to a certain extent, however it is not something we train for, receive training for, are tested on, or are required to have experience with for the issuance of an AME licence. In the automotive industry, body and paint is an entirely separate licence.
Albeit that you may be a passable painter, and have a good understanding of the techniques and materials, it is not something you seem to be licensed to perform. Should we be signing maintenance releases for tasks we are not qualified to perform?
There is no question that certain tasks require painting, also the act of painting something often requires that certain maintenance be performed, i.e. balancing of flight controls, but the act of the painting itself does not appear to actually be maintenance.
No Brown, I’ll have to stick with my interpretation, not to be critical of yours, but rather apply the logic of the wording, apparent intent, and experience with the industry, to justify mine.
Well, I’ve been thinking about that cause it just don’t seem right. I wouldn’t have thought of it myself, … paint being a component you install or remove. I can’t rationalize that.
First of all, the rule talks about “removal” and “installation”; such a lexicon is not conducive to your interpretation. One does not think of paint as being installed, rather it is applied. Why would the regulation not say “application or installation” or better, why not mention “application of coatings or finishes”, if that’s what it meant. Paint is maybe removed from time to time, but never installed. Even with the concept of removal, one would generally “strip” it, not remove it. Why would the regulation just not say it if that’s what it meant?
In the definition of “overhaul”, “refinishing” is a process that is specifically mentioned. The term refinishing would seem to apply to, amongst other things, painting. If the rulemaker had intended to have painting included in the definition of “maintenance” he would have included it … obviously terminology defining painting is not beyond the lexicon used within the regulations, therefore, it would appear to have been intentionally omitted from the definition of “maintenance”.
Would we want painting to be maintenance? I don’t think so. Although we all do some minor painting, I have never met a painter who is an AME, nor have I met an AME who is a professional painter. Painting is a trade on its own, and almost an art. Could you really sign a maintenance release on painting? I know we all do (sign maintenance releases that is) to a certain extent, however it is not something we train for, receive training for, are tested on, or are required to have experience with for the issuance of an AME licence. In the automotive industry, body and paint is an entirely separate licence.
Albeit that you may be a passable painter, and have a good understanding of the techniques and materials, it is not something you seem to be licensed to perform. Should we be signing maintenance releases for tasks we are not qualified to perform?
There is no question that certain tasks require painting, also the act of painting something often requires that certain maintenance be performed, i.e. balancing of flight controls, but the act of the painting itself does not appear to actually be maintenance.
No Brown, I’ll have to stick with my interpretation, not to be critical of yours, but rather apply the logic of the wording, apparent intent, and experience with the industry, to justify mine.