A Forum for all interested in vintage Fairchild Aircraft
https://board.fairchild-club.org/
'----- 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]
'--- 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]
'--- 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]
'--- 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.Â
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "101(c). 4. Propeller - fixed pitch metal, Curtiss 55518-10 (Models M-62A-3 and M-62A-4 only)"
> Â
> 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..Â
> Â
> 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.
> Â
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/EC7E9B0B45E936A1852567350063C823?OpenDocument&Highlight=fairchild
> Â
> Â 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
>
> Â
> 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
>
> Â
>
> 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]
>
'--- 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.Â
> >
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "101(c). 4. Propeller - fixed pitch metal, Curtiss 55518-10 (Models M-62A-3 and M-62A-4 only)"
> > Â
> > 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..Â
> > Â
> > 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.
> > Â
> > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/EC7E9B0B45E936A1852567350063C823?OpenDocument&Highlight=fairchild
> > Â
> > Â 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
> >
> > Â
> > 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
> >
> > Â
> >
> > 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]
> >
>