Re: Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's

[Steve]

'Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!

Steve Quick
N81362'

[Jamie Treat]

'Steve,

What you heard is correct. The US Army Aircorp restricted the use of the Curtis Reed on the Ranger. The crank will break in time. Harmonics is the issue. Get a wood one quickley.

Do you have the F-24 that came out of Alaska? If it was, the previous owner was told years ago.

Mike Denest can provide more details from the PT side of the house.

Jamie

Jamie S. Treat
Aircraft Restoration & Repair, LLC
IAC 5, Chapter President
http://iac5.org
Kelly Airpark (CO15) http://www.kellyairpark.com
24201 David C. Johnson Loop
Elbert, CO 80106

New Email: JamieTreat@q.com
Hm/Hgr 303-648-0130
Cell 303-304-7937

Quote of the Month: When asked by someone how much money flying takes: Why, all of it! - Gordon Baxter

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 6:19 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's



Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!

Steve Quick
N81362





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[BOB DUNN]

'The crank doesn't damage the prop, the prop causes crankshaft breakage. Yank it off pronto & replace with a wood prop.

--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Steve wrote:

From: Steve
Subject: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 7:19 PM







 









Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!



Steve Quick

N81362

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Michael Denest]

'The Aircraft Specification A-724 for the M-62 (PT-19) series airplanes lists this model Curtiss prop as approved for installation. 

            "101(c). 4. Propeller - fixed pitch metal, Curtiss 55518-10 (Models M-62A-3 and M-62A-4 only)"
 
Over the years, the discussion rumors involved the use of this prop on airplanes operated by the US Army Airforces.  The causes of crankshaft breakage were the harmonics involved when the airplane was used in aerobatic training, causing the prop to flex and vibrate.  There were enough instances that the Army issued a Service Bulletin to remove these props and replace them with the appropriate sized wood prop which was better suited to absorb the vibrations and flexing of aerobatic flight in ths airplane.  For the type of flying we do today with these airplanes, it is not an issue and this particular model prop can be installed.. 
 
Now let's look at the Aircraft Specification A-706 for the F24R46 series airplanes.  A-706 Rev. 4 dated October 21,1949 (the latest issued by FAA) does not list any model Curtiss Reed prop as being approved for installation.  So referencing A-706 to Steve's airplane, this prop is illegal and must be removed unless there is FAA Form 337 documentation approving the installation on his aircraft.  I do not know what model Curtiss Reed prop Steve has on his airplane but he should follow up ASAP and get it corrected.  If  Spec A-706 not posted to the Yahoo Group files, the file can be downloaded from the FAA website.
 
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/EC7E9B0B45E936A1852567350063C823?OpenDocument&Highlight=fairchild
 
 Mike


"He's crazy Lew, he builds toy airplanes".
- Capt. Frank Towns
Flight of the Phoenix




________________________________
From: BOB DUNN
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 8, 2010 11:13:15 PM
Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's

 
The crank doesn't damage the prop, the prop causes crankshaft breakage. Yank it off pronto & replace with a wood prop.

--- On Fri, 1/8/10, Steve wrote:

From: Steve
Subject: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
To: fairchildclub@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 7:19 PM

 

Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!

Steve Quick

N81362

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

'

[Steve]

'There is an approved 337 for this installation in the aircraft historical documents (thinkit's from the 60's if I remember right). It sounds like there is enough controversy that I will take it off and replace witht he wooden prop. I will lose a little performance, but certainly not worth losing a prop and/or engine over. The previous owner from Alaska (there is an owner between us that I bought the plane from) was kind enough to tell about the concern when he saw the pictures and I just recently was introduced to him through mail and email. Thanks John for bringing this to my attention. Just sounds too risky to me.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback. That's what makes these groups so good.

Steve
N81362

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, Michael Denest wrote:
>
> The Aircraft Specification A-724 for the M-62 (PT-19) series airplanes lists this model Curtiss prop as approved for installation. 
>
>             "101(c). 4. Propeller - fixed pitch metal, Curtiss 55518-10 (Models M-62A-3 and M-62A-4 only)"
>  
> Over the years, the discussion rumors involved the use of this prop on airplanes operated by the US Army Airforces.  The causes of crankshaft breakage were the harmonics involved when the airplane was used in aerobatic training, causing the prop to flex and vibrate.  There were enough instances that the Army issued a Service Bulletin to remove these props and replace them with the appropriate sized wood prop which was better suited to absorb the vibrations and flexing of aerobatic flight in ths airplane.  For the type of flying we do today with these airplanes, it is not an issue and this particular model prop can be installed.. 
>  
> Now let's look at the Aircraft Specification A-706 for the F24R46 series airplanes.  A-706 Rev. 4 dated October 21,1949 (the latest issued by FAA) does not list any model Curtiss Reed prop as being approved for installation.  So referencing A-706 to Steve's airplane, this prop is illegal and must be removed unless there is FAA Form 337 documentation approving the installation on his aircraft.  I do not know what model Curtiss Reed prop Steve has on his airplane but he should follow up ASAP and get it corrected.  If  Spec A-706 not posted to the Yahoo Group files, the file can be downloaded from the FAA website.
>  
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/EC7E9B0B45E936A1852567350063C823?OpenDocument&Highlight=fairchild
>  
>  Mike
>
>
> "He's crazy Lew, he builds toy airplanes".
> - Capt. Frank Towns
> Flight of the Phoenix
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: BOB DUNN
> To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, January 8, 2010 11:13:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
>
>  
> The crank doesn't damage the prop, the prop causes crankshaft breakage. Yank it off pronto & replace with a wood prop.
>
> --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Steve wrote:
>
> From: Steve
> Subject: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
> To: fairchildclub@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 7:19 PM
>
>  
>
> Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Steve Quick
>
> N81362
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

'

[Steve]

'The 337 was submitted in 1991 and approved in 1992 and authorizes the use of the 55518-10 Curtis Reed Prop. It references the installations on the Ranger powered Widgeon, Gulfstream American, and the PT-26 with the Ranger 6-440-C5 engine.

Hate to react to rumors and legend and remove/sell the Curtis Reed if I don't need to. Sure is a beautiful prop and the airplane flies so nice with it.

But also hate to have a catestrophic failure in flight, too. Not worth the risk right now until I do more research. I think we'll error to the side of caution and remove for now.

Thanks again for all you inputs.

Steve
N81362

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote:
>
> There is an approved 337 for this installation in the aircraft historical documents (thinkit's from the 60's if I remember right). It sounds like there is enough controversy that I will take it off and replace witht he wooden prop. I will lose a little performance, but certainly not worth losing a prop and/or engine over. The previous owner from Alaska (there is an owner between us that I bought the plane from) was kind enough to tell about the concern when he saw the pictures and I just recently was introduced to him through mail and email. Thanks John for bringing this to my attention. Just sounds too risky to me.
>
> Thanks to everyone for their feedback. That's what makes these groups so good.
>
> Steve
> N81362
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, Michael Denest wrote:
> >
> > The Aircraft Specification A-724 for the M-62 (PT-19) series airplanes lists this model Curtiss prop as approved for installation. 
> >
> >             "101(c). 4. Propeller - fixed pitch metal, Curtiss 55518-10 (Models M-62A-3 and M-62A-4 only)"
> >  
> > Over the years, the discussion rumors involved the use of this prop on airplanes operated by the US Army Airforces.  The causes of crankshaft breakage were the harmonics involved when the airplane was used in aerobatic training, causing the prop to flex and vibrate.  There were enough instances that the Army issued a Service Bulletin to remove these props and replace them with the appropriate sized wood prop which was better suited to absorb the vibrations and flexing of aerobatic flight in ths airplane.  For the type of flying we do today with these airplanes, it is not an issue and this particular model prop can be installed.. 
> >  
> > Now let's look at the Aircraft Specification A-706 for the F24R46 series airplanes.  A-706 Rev. 4 dated October 21,1949 (the latest issued by FAA) does not list any model Curtiss Reed prop as being approved for installation.  So referencing A-706 to Steve's airplane, this prop is illegal and must be removed unless there is FAA Form 337 documentation approving the installation on his aircraft.  I do not know what model Curtiss Reed prop Steve has on his airplane but he should follow up ASAP and get it corrected.  If  Spec A-706 not posted to the Yahoo Group files, the file can be downloaded from the FAA website.
> >  
> > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/EC7E9B0B45E936A1852567350063C823?OpenDocument&Highlight=fairchild
> >  
> >  Mike
> >
> >
> > "He's crazy Lew, he builds toy airplanes".
> > - Capt. Frank Towns
> > Flight of the Phoenix
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: BOB DUNN
> > To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Fri, January 8, 2010 11:13:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
> >
> >  
> > The crank doesn't damage the prop, the prop causes crankshaft breakage. Yank it off pronto & replace with a wood prop.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 1/8/10, Steve wrote:
> >
> > From: Steve
> > Subject: [fairchildclub] Curtis Reed Props on the Ranger's
> > To: fairchildclub@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 7:19 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > Question for the pro's...I have a Curtis Reed prop installed on my 1946 Fairchild 24, 200hp Ranger. I have had a couple people mention that they had heard of crankshaft issues running these props. Any information or advice is appreciated. Thanks!
> >
> > Steve Quick
> >
> > N81362
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

'

[mcclurebill@rocketmail.com]

'Interesting discussion. I had investigated Culver Cadets recently, many have Franklin 90's on them. I seems that the same problem exists there. The Franklin had earned a reputation for breaking crankshafts over the years, but it seems the ones that broke were all metal prop-equipped.

Not exactly on point, but a little more info. Some engine/airframe combos just don't work with metal props.'