Post Prop-Strike Reliability?

[RPJ]

I am going to be renting a Seneca II turbo to build some multi-time. About six months ago the aircraft landed hard and the nose gear collapsed. The left engine's prop struck the ground and dug in about six inches. The left engine was inspected using a specialized device (x-ray I believe?) to look for fatigue cracks or damage. The inspection identified no abnormalities so a complete engine overhaul was not required by law. An I.A. signed off on it and the plane was returned to service about a month ago.

Is this plane generally still safe to fly even though a rebuild was not technically required or performed? Is the left engine much more susceptible to failure after that prop strike even though there was no fatigue found? I just want some info from JC'ers on what I am getting myself into.


Thanks,
Ryan

[Cessnaflyer]

Thats what the second engine is there for.

Of course the stupidity had to be said.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by RPJ

About six months ago the aircraft landed hard and the nose gear collapsed.

I can't answer your question, but I did want to point out that there is an AD for nose gear mechanism inspection on the Seneca. There have been a *lot* of nose gear collapses in the Seneca and they're not due to hard landings, although the mechanics would like to say otherwise. It's due to a misrigging of the airplane.

[esa17]

My experience with tear-downs is I wouldn't think twice about flying the plane. Remember that the A&P who did the work puts his (metaphorical) butt on the line every time that plane leaves the ground. Its your butt in the plane so it is your call, but I wouldn't worry about it.

[USMCmech]

Originally Posted by RPJ

I am going to be renting a Seneca II turbo to build some multi-time. About six months ago the aircraft landed hard and the nose gear collapsed. The left engine's prop struck the ground and dug in about six inches. The left engine was inspected using a specialized device (x-ray I believe?) to look for fatigue cracks or damage. The inspection identified no abnormalities so a complete engine overhaul was not required by law. An I.A. signed off on it and the plane was returned to service about a month ago.

Is this plane generally still safe to fly even though a rebuild was not technically required or performed? Is the left engine much more susceptible to failure after that prop strike even though there was no fatigue found? I just want some info from JC'ers on what I am getting myself into.

I will have to double check, but IIRC any time a prop strike stops the engine (as this one did) a engine tear down inspection is REQUIRED before it can be flown again.

As an expert in Non Destructive Testing, I know that you can't take a simple X-ray of the engine and determine if there are cracks or weak points. Usually after the engine is in peices, all critical parts are either diped in luquied penatrant, The crank and the camshaft are inspected by magnaflux.



This is basicly the exact same process that rebuilt engines go through. If they all passed, I would have no problem flying it.

[RPJ]

Originally Posted by Cessnaflyer

Thats what the second engine is there for.

Of course the stupidity had to be said.

Lol, yea I know thats why theres the other engine . I just want to know generally if any engine's prop, on any aircraft, strikes the ground and it's inspected and found to be kosher is there a higher chance of failure?

[DE727UPS]

"is there a higher chance of failure?"

I don't believe so. Personally, I'd have no problem flying it.

[trafficinsight]

Originally Posted by USMCmech

I will have to double check, but IIRC any time a prop strike stops the engine (as this one did) a engine tear down inspection is REQUIRED before it can be flown again.

As an expert in Non Destructive Testing, I know that you can't take a simple X-ray of the engine and determine if there are cracks or weak points. Usually after the engine is in peices, all critical parts are either diped in luquied penatrant, The crank and the camshaft are inspected by magnaflux.



This is basicly the exact same process that rebuilt engines go through. If they all passed, I would have no problem flying it.

TCM engines, as on the Seneca II, are not required to be torn down after a prop strike, however there is a service bulletin which says if any damage requires the propeller to be removed, the engine should be torn down as well... for part 91, obviously, this is completely optional... but I'd like to meet the mechanic that would accept that liability.

Lycoming engines except for the O-145, O-360E, LO-360E, LTO-360E, O-435, and TIO-541 type engines are required by AD to be torn down and have a service bulletin complied with to be airworthy.

[OldTownPilot]

I saw the results of a hard landing in a Seneca. The nose gear collapsed along with a main that was punched through the wing. That one was in the shop for 6 months or so getting rebuilt. Brand new one too.

[trafficinsight]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

I saw the results of a hard landing in a Seneca. The nose gear collapsed along with a main that was punched through the wing. That one was in the shop for 6 months or so getting rebuilt. Brand new one too.

Saw an Arrow like that once... came down hard and punched the gear up through the wings... the nose held, amazingly.

[CDVdriver]

I'd be curious to know why a teardown inspection was not done.
A little nick on the tip is a different story, but 6 inches of bent prop?
I think I would need to know more about the operator's history and the AI's who signed this off before I would fly it.
Turbo charging puts more stress on the connecting rods, crankshaft and crankshaft bearings.