Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 107

Thread: Catto Propellers On Certified Super Cubs

  1. #41
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    But per CAR 4.61 for all but LIGHT aircraft (less than 1000 lb gross weight) the prop needs to be APPROVED per CAR 14 (predecessor of 14 CFR Part 35), so you still need a TC'd prop, or a prop approved on an STC for that aircraft.
    The J-3, J-4 and the American Champion 7 series are all certificated under Part 4a, not Part 4. The following is Part 4a.597. It is very clear that wood propellers need not be certified. There is no mention of Light aircraft being less than 1000 lb.

    § 4a.597 Propellers. Propellers shall be of a type and design which has been certificated as airworthy in accordance with the requirements of Part 14 of this subchapter or shall have been approved as airworthy in accordance with previous regulations, except that wood propellers of a conventional type for use in light airplanes need not be certificated. In certain cases maximum engine bore limitations are also assigned to propellers. Propellers may be used on any engine provided that the certified power ratings,speed ratings, and bore of the engine are not in excess of the limitations of the propeller as certificated, and further provided that the vibration characteristics of the combination are satisfactory to the Administrator.
    N1PA
    Likes irishfield, Ken Kennedy, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    The J-3, J-4 and the American Champion 7 series are all certificated under Part 4a, not Part 4. The following is Part 4a.597. It is very clear that wood propellers need not be certified. There is no mention of Light aircraft being less than 1000 lb.

    § 4a.597 Propellers. Propellers shall be of a type and design which has been certificated as airworthy in accordance with the requirements of Part 14 of this subchapter or shall have been approved as airworthy in accordance with previous regulations, except that wood propellers of a conventional type for use in light airplanes need not be certificated. In certain cases maximum engine bore limitations are also assigned to propellers. Propellers may be used on any engine provided that the certified power ratings,speed ratings, and bore of the engine are not in excess of the limitations of the propeller as certificated, and further provided that the vibration characteristics of the combination are satisfactory to the Administrator.
    4a is a rewrite of 4. If you follow back, 4a.597 was 4a.61, and before that it was 4.61. Unfortunately in 4a they dropped the definition of "light aircraft" from 4a.01 that was in the earlier versions of 4. That definition appears in the May 1938 version of 4.01, and it is an airplane with a gross weight less than 1000 lbs, and a wing loading less than 6 lbs per sq ft. That is the only place I've been able to find that definition.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #43
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is on page 8 of TC 691. Certification Basis Type Certificate No. 691 (CAR 4a).
    This is on page 2 of TC703 Certification BasisType Certificate No. 703 (CAR 4a)
    This is on page 17 of TC A-759 Certification Basis 1) Part 4(a) of the Civil Air Regulations effective as amended to April 7, 1950,except paragraph 4a.532(m) (for all models except 7GCBA).

    It matters not if 4a was a rewrite of 4. What is written in 4a is applicable. I have not been able to locate a copy of Part 4. I do have a copy of 4a.
    N1PA
    Likes Alaska_Rallyer, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like
    You can find CAR 4 and most other old regulations on the FAA regulatory guidance library.

    http://rgl.faa.gov


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like
    If nobody has been busted running one on a certified cub, pretty much everybody has one or knows of someone using them, they are a modified wooden propeller technically legal in most mechanics eyes, why is there such a big hipe to get them legal anymore? Pay more for what most people are already using.
    Likes dgapilot liked this post

  6. #46
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    They aren't technically legal except on a handful of airplanes that say a wood prop of certain length and static rpm per the TCDS. Why? I don't want to be the guy the feds or the insurance company make an example of. I have seen what lengths the feds will go when theyou want to for whatever reason. Doesn't cost them a dime but they can sure f up your word for years.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks dgapilot, Jim Hann thanked for this post
    Likes SteveE, dgapilot liked this post

  7. #47
    SteveE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jenks, OK
    Posts
    3,846
    Post Thanks / Like
    And then your lawyer can f up your world for years paying for him.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Likes Steve Pierce, Jim Hann liked this post

  8. #48
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    You can find CAR 4 and most other old regulations on the FAA regulatory guidance library.

    http://rgl.faa.gov
    Couldn't find it last night, here it is. I agree with what you said except that the planes which I listed specifically state that they have been approved under 4a. So 4a applies not 04. When they did the rewrite they must have realized that the 1000 pound limit wasn't important or was an arbitrarily low number. It would be interesting to actually know what their thinking was at the time.

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgccab.nsf/0/5ff8a7dbdaf904ef86257b2c0060a953/$FILE/CAR_4_1937.pdf
    N1PA

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Couldn't find it last night, here it is. I agree with what you said except that the planes which I listed specifically state that they have been approved under 4a. So 4a applies not 04. When they did the rewrite they must have realized that the 1000 pound limit wasn't important or was an arbitrarily low number. It would be interesting to actually know what their thinking was at the time.

    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgccab.nsf/0/5ff8a7dbdaf904ef86257b2c0060a953/$FILE/CAR_4_1937.pdf
    Actually if you go back to the 38 version of CAR 4, they came up with the "light airplane" so you could certify one without having a certified engine or propeller. Later versions revised 4.60 to remove the option of not having a certified engine, but for whatever reason the left the term "light airplane" in 4.61 and subsequent rule changes as it relates to propellers. Everyone needs to do what they think best, but without some certification basis for a Cato, I wouldn't sign an annual on an airplane with one installed, and I wouldn't do a field approval or engineering approval to install one until it has a TC.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone running a Catto 84x36 on a 150 hp 0-320 that can give me a general idea what to expect as far as cruise speed, static rpm? Anyone trimming/using their stock spinner?

  11. #51
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    7,786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by a.crane View Post
    Anyone running a Catto 84x36 on a 150 hp 0-320 that can give me a general idea what to expect as far as cruise speed, static rpm? Anyone trimming/using their stock spinner?
    Whats the matter, the " old man " been spankin your short game lately

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Likes a.crane liked this post

  12. #52
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by a.crane View Post
    Anyone running a Catto 84x36 on a 150 hp 0-320 that can give me a general idea what to expect as far as cruise speed, static rpm? Anyone trimming/using their stock spinner?
    The stock spinner fits fine, actually a lot of clearance around the blades.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !

  13. #53
    skukum12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Last Frontier
    Posts
    935
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowlplay View Post
    If nobody has been busted running one on a certified cub, pretty much everybody has one or knows of someone using them, they are a modified wooden propeller technically legal in most mechanics eyes, why is there such a big hipe to get them legal anymore? Pay more for what most people are already using.
    This is fifth hand info, take it with a grain of salt: A T-cart got tagged in Valdez for his. It was said it was a "fix it ticket." Admittedly I am not versed in the ticketing/fine/grounding terminology.
    "Always looking up"
    Likes Alaska_Rallyer liked this post

  14. #54
    8856Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like
    I got to see the ticket first hand, it really happened!! stated that a Catto in a composite prop and not a wood prop. totally winnable but at what cost????

  15. #55
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the data plate said what it really is "Wood covered with Carbon composite" there should have been no issue on a 4a airplane. Except that the T-cart is certified under part 04. "Certification Basis Part 04 of the Civil Air Regulations effective as amended to May 1, 1938. TypeCertificate No. 696 issued." Part 04 is the one where there is a 1000 lb gross weight limit for non certified wood props. Unfortunately on the T-cart the ticket was valid.

    N1PA

  16. #56
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    If the data plate said what it really is "Wood covered with Carbon composite" there should have been no issue on a 4a airplane. Except that the T-cart is certified under part 04. "Certification Basis Part 04 of the Civil Air Regulations effective as amended to May 1, 1938. TypeCertificate No. 696 issued." Part 04 is the one where there is a 1000 lb gross weight limit for non certified wood props. Unfortunately on the T-cart the ticket was valid.

    That is a good picture taken in my hanger. I know where that came from.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  17. #57
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 8856Charlie View Post
    I got to see the ticket first hand, it really happened!! stated that a Catto in a composite prop and not a wood prop. totally winnable but at what cost????
    That is funny. The Anchorage Aircraft Certification Office doesn't see it that way nor does the Seattle FSDO.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  18. #58
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    8,301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    That is funny. The Anchorage Aircraft Certification Office doesn't see it that way nor does the Seattle FSDO.
    Politics. My old PMI I asked once about getting help with someone on here getting a approval for something they were having trouble with and he just said don't get me involved in a debate with the other guys at the office.... I sure miss craig

  19. #59
    Scouter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Exeter Maine
    Posts
    1,494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    Whats the matter, the " old man " been spankin your short game lately

    Glenn
    Glenn
    he has fallen for Nichol at Catto. I think he spends more time talking and thinking of her
    Lately than the rest of us
    i know what the cash was for his airplane and mine as well. Sure has made me stop
    and look at the fun he is having for a lot less dinero than dad has invested
    It's about the best performing Citabria I have been around it's light with a really strong 0320
    will he interesting when Nichol takes about 3 airplane units from his checkbook. Of coarse the prop is for my plane since mine is experimental

    iim

  20. #60
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    7,786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Scouter View Post
    Glenn
    he has fallen for Nichol at Catto.
    iim
    Haven't we all, tough not to slow down when you walk past their booth

    Glenn
    "Optimism is going after Moby Dick in a rowboat and taking the tartar sauce with you!"
    Likes RaisedByWolves liked this post

  21. #61
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ....§ 4a.597 Propellers. Propellers shall be of a type and design which has been certificated as airworthy in accordance with the requirements of Part 14 of this subchapter or shall have been approved as airworthy in accordance with previous regulations, except that wood propellers of a conventional type for use in light airplanes need not be certificated. ....
    In this case, it seems to me that "of a conventional type" are the key words.
    I wouldn't classify a Catto prop as a conventional wood prop-- would you?
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  22. #62

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Meanwhile,...
    Posts
    4,232
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    In this case, it seems to me that "of a conventional type" are the key words.
    I wouldn't classify a Catto prop as a conventional wood prop-- would you?
    Not unless you can strip the encasement, apply varnish, go flying and expect to return to where you once departed for many years to come.
    "Don't feed the hipsters"

  23. #63
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Conventional? How is it defined? Is it by the blades not changing angle?

    Is a constant speed prop with wood blades conventional?

  24. #64
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    In this case, it seems to me that "of a conventional type" are the key words.
    I wouldn't classify a Catto prop as a conventional wood prop-- would you?
    All of the wood propellers of which I've been involved, have had a fabric covering extending inboard from the tip. Nowhere have I seen anything which defines how far inboard this fabric is allowed to go. Also I seem to recall that Catto used to offer the same prop without the "fabric" covering. Not on their web site anymore. Any definition of "conventional" which we can come up with would need to be confirmed by FAA legal. Do you remember the Flottorp Armor coated props? They were wood with a "plastic" covering over the entire prop.
    N1PA
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  25. #65
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Scouter View Post
    Glenn
    he has fallen for Nichol at Catto. I think he spends more time talking and thinking of her
    Lately than the rest of us
    i know what the cash was for his airplane and mine as well. Sure has made me stop
    and look at the fun he is having for a lot less dinero than dad has invested
    It's about the best performing Citabria I have been around it's light with a really strong 0320
    will he interesting when Nichol takes about 3 airplane units from his checkbook. Of coarse the prop is for my plane since mine is experimental

    iim
    Hearts are breaking as she just announced her engagement to her long time boyfriend.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Likes WanaBNACub liked this post

  26. #66
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    All of the wood propellers of which I've been involved, have had a fabric covering extending inboard from the tip. Nowhere have I seen anything which defines how far inboard this fabric is allowed to go. Also I seem to recall that Catto used to offer the same prop without the "fabric" covering. Not on their web site anymore. Any definition of "conventional" which we can come up with would need to be confirmed by FAA legal. Do you remember the Flottorp Armor coated props? They were wood with a "plastic" covering over the entire prop.
    I wonder what the Aeromatic props have on them?

  27. #67

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like
    Conventional Design is spelled out in Advisory Circular AC 35-1, pg. 6


    Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
    Likes BC12D-4-85 liked this post

  28. #68
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cpa99 View Post
    Conventional Design is spelled out in Advisory Circular AC 35-1, pg. 6
    AC 35-1 12/29/08
    j. Fixed pitch wood propellers of conventional design. A propeller that has the following physical properties:
    • One piece laminated wood construction
    • Two or four blades
    • The surface coating does not contribute to the propeller strength
    • The surface coating only provides environmental protection
    A fixed pitch propeller with a composite shell over a wood core is not a conventional design when the composite shell contributes to the strength and frequency response of the propeller. A fixed pitch wooden propeller with a fabric or composite covering that does not alter the structure for environmental protection is of conventional design.
    N1PA
    Thanks mike mcs repair thanked for this post

  29. #69
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    "One piece laminated wood construction"....... ?? I kinda thought laminated was more than one piece by definition, but that's just me.
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Likes mike mcs repair, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  30. #70
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    8,301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PerryB View Post
    "One piece laminated wood construction"....... ?? I kinda thought laminated was more than one piece by definition, but that's just me.
    ya, i had to digest that line a few times too....

  31. #71
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PerryB View Post
    "One piece laminated wood construction"....... ?? I kinda thought laminated was more than one piece by definition, but that's just me.
    Quote Originally Posted by mike mcs repair View Post
    ya, i had to digest that line a few times too....
    I think that they mean once all of the layers are glued together they become one piece. A multi piece prop would be one which the blades attach to a hub or have two or more pieces which can be separated by simple mechanical means.

    I don't believe that you will ever find a single piece wood prop which was carved from a single piece of wood without laminating. It would lend itself to warping.
    N1PA
    Thanks dgapilot thanked for this post

  32. #72
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,200
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh I know, and I agree completely. I just couldn't help but point out the oxymoronic qualities in that document. Its so out of character for the FAA....
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !
    Likes mike mcs repair liked this post

  33. #73
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    1,352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    ........A multi piece prop would be one which the blades attach to a hub or have two or more pieces which can be separated by simple mechanical means.....
    Such as an Aeromatic.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  34. #74
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    7,009
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrod180 View Post
    Such as an Aeromatic.
    Yes or a ground adjustable.
    N1PA

  35. #75
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    16,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Got this message from Nicole yesterday.
    Hey! Saw the thread on SuperCub.org. The rewrite will only cover "simple aircraft" so many two seat aircraft under 250mph. So unfortunately the PA-20/22 and PA-12 won't be covered.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks dgapilot thanked for this post

  36. #76
    aviationinfo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southwest WA
    Posts
    703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Got this message from Nicole yesterday.
    Not sure I understand? Are they still hoping to certify their prop for the '12?
    Aviationinfo

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    The new Part 23 rewrite only applies to "simple aircraft". So any two seat aircraft less than 250mph. Since the PA-12 has three seats it won't fall into the new process of certification. I'd assume once some of the props are certified it would easy to get a field approval for a PA-12.
    Thanks jrussl, JeffP, OLDCROWE thanked for this post

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    There has been a lot of talk about the construction and composition of our props. The FAA is very confused as well. It's not a "wood" or "composite" prop by definition. Although the prop is over 50% wood by volume it's not considered a "wood" prop reason being the composite is the structure. The wood cannot exist without the carbon and the carbon cannot exist without the wood.
    Likes JeffP liked this post

  39. #79
    www.SkupTech.com mike mcs repair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chugiak AK
    Posts
    8,301
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CattoProps View Post
    The new Part 23 rewrite only applies to "simple aircraft". So any two seat aircraft less than 250mph. Since the PA-12 has three seats it won't fall into the new process of certification. I'd assume once some of the props are certified it would easy to get a field approval for a PA-12.
    actually... the PA-12 has ONLY TWO seats... the back seat, just happens to be able to accommodate 2 passengers with using ONLY the ONE lap belt....

    I bet that will fly...

  40. #80
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fly by night maybe like Mr. Whitekeys when the FSDO is asleep...Days TCDS A-780 lists 3 PCLM and 3 PCSM for Normal category at 1750 and 1838 respectively. But in Utility on standard gear it's a 2 PCLM at 1500.

    Don't get pissed. It's in the Book. But sometimes my tri-focals grab the wrong image.

    Gary
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. MT Composite Prop certified but Catto not certified
    By slowjunk in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-11-2017, 06:15 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-03-2015, 11:32 AM
  3. IFR certified Super Cub
    By Paul Siegel in forum Modifications
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-14-2002, 11:00 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •