Looking for a spinner

[epeter786]

Folks,

I'm looking for any leads on a spinner for a O300A 170B. The 8 bolt, bullet looking one.

Wag Aero makes them (I-949-000), but are backordered 6 weeks.

Thanks,
Eric

[epeter786]

A follow-up to my own question - can you run without the spinner and backplate? I'm not smart enough to know how to read the TCDS to figure this out.

[daedaluscan]

I found a crack in mine on a preflight away from home, so I took it off and flew home. Seemed way more preferable than having it come through the windshield.

Flew it that way for a month or so before the new one came from Wag Aero.

As to the legality, people who have more interest in this will probably chime in.

[epeter786]

I suppose I could just start coughing intensely if someone were to approach and ask about it.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

From the TCDS for a 170B:

In addition to the pertinent required basic equipment specified in CAR 3, the following items of equipment must be installed:
Landplane: Items 1(a), 103, 201(a), 202(a), 204(a), 402(a).
Skiplane: Items 1(a), 103, 204(a), 208(a), 402(a) and (e) or (d).
SEAplane: Items 1(a), 103, 209(a), 402(a).
Note: For night flying cabin dome light and instrument lights or equivalent, to provide illumination of all placards and instruments are required in addition to equipment required by CAR 43. (Note; 43 is a typo in the TCDS. There is no CAR 43. The 170 is certified under CAR 3)

CAR 3 3.665

None of the items in the TCDS required of flight or any of the basic equipment required of CAR 3 is a spinner. So no, a spinner is not a required item so long as a log entry from a person who is authorized to remove the spinner (an A&P) is in the log stating it has been removed.

[epeter786]

Thanks Bruce.

[GAHorn]

I believe it’s technically more-correct to state that anyone may remove a spinner. However, the reinstallation of the propeller should be made by a certificated repairman.

Don’t forget to update your Equipment List.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

You are correct George, I've always stated there is no FAR describing who is authorized to render an aircraft unairworthy. It is easy, any one can do it. Returning an unairworthy aircraft to airworthy status is another story.

[n2582d]

From the TCDS for a 170B:

In addition to the pertinent required basic equipment specified in CAR 3, the following items of equipment must be installed:
Landplane: Items 1(a), ... none of the items in the TCDS required of flight or any of the basic equipment required of CAR 3 is a spinner. So no, a spinner is not a required item ... .

Bruce, If I'm not mistaken the spinner, either the skull-cap style or the bullet style, is required as part of item 1(a):

Click to Enlarge

... Note: For night flying cabin dome light and instrument lights or equivalent, to provide illumination of all placards and instruments are required in addition to equipment required by CAR 43. (Note; 43 is a typo in the TCDS. There is no CAR 43. The 170 is certified under CAR 3)

If you go to Historical Civil Air Regulations and drill down you'll end up on the DOT website which contains CAR 43. Without more than a cursory look at it, it appears to be what is now FAR Part 91. Here's the applicable part to this discussion:

Click to Enlarge

The spinner is there not just to look cool but to cool. Consider it an extension of the baffling. In my opinion the airplane is technically unairworthy without a spinner as it is required by the TCDS in item 1(a). Removing the prop -- which is necessary to removing the spinner backing plate -- is not "preventative maintenance" and so requires an A&P.

[FredL]

Removing a part is considered maintenance and requires the appropriate certificate.

[GAHorn]

An entertaining discussion:

Anyone may disassemble the airplane. This renders it unairworthy.

Returning it to airworthy status requires the appropriate certificate.

The problem of this silly/psuedo-argument is that an unknowledgeable person using heavy-handed methods can damage items intended for reinstallation.

A good example of this is the disassembly of wrecked aircraft by salvage yards using un-certificated persons. Those parts would not be eligible for reinstallation on an aircraft unless the parts were inspected/approved for return to service (for which every authorized person is held accountable.)

[gfeher]

The TCDS identifies the two particular spinners Gary mentioned for the McCauley 1A170 prop. No spinners are identified (and thus not required by the TCDS) for the Sensinich M74DR and McCauley 1C172/MDM props identified in 1(e) and (f). Take it for what it's worth.

[c170b53]

If there’s a score, I’m in Gary’s court. .
Design has a major part in driving regulations; A missing skull cap likely wouldn’t cause much of difference in performance or cooling whereas a missing bullet spinner may have more of an effect on performance and cooling.

[FredL]

The replacement of parts is considered "maintenance" and requires a properly certified person. That includes removal, inspection and installation. Removal only as in disassembly is not "replacement" and is not considered "maintenance" and does not require a certificated person. Read 14CFR 1.1

[GAHorn]

This msg/post is made purely in the spirit of entertainment/fun of discussion and is not intended to “win” or disparage anyone’s professional opinion.

Quoting 14CFR1.1. “ Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance.”

It does not define “disassembly”.
IMO:
If one comes upon an airplane with it’s prop removed by an unauthorized person, it is unairworthy. There is no law or regulation that prohibits an aircraft owner from disassembling his own aircraft property. However, it is incumbent upon the person returning the aircraft to airworthy status to comply with FARs.

(A very picky A&P might turn down the job however if the prop does not have an approving Form 8130-3)