34V pretty much done

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Ok sorry your right I did reference an old IPC. Here is a new fresh just downloaded version from Continental.

Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 3.23.47 PM.png (25.86 KiB) Viewed 15431 times

Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 3.24.00 PM.png (7.67 KiB) Viewed 15431 times

Tom the part is called a propellor nut bushing.

This is the nut that goes in the crank flange that the bolts, which Tom listed, go through, that holds on the prop on a C-145 through 0-300-E. What other nut is approved for this purpose on these specific cranks George? Yes my taper shaft A-65 was different but that is not the installation we are talking about.

[T. C. Downey]

Tom the part is called a propellor nut bushing.

First of all, I do not have a C-145-A,thru E, I have 0-300-D with a 6 bolt flange that has no "Propeller nut bushings". To reference the proper bolt you must use the C-172 manual, and that will show a dash AN8-42 because the propeller uses two spinner bulkheads. which the prop bolts must pass thru plus the prop prior to protruding thru the crank flange and elastic stop nut.
When you use the little domed spinner with out any bulkheads, you must compensate by using a AN8-40 or the grip length will be 1/8th" too long. I elected to use a spacer under the head of the bolt, which serves two purposes, 1 to take up the space for the two bulkheads that are not used, and 2 it serves to center the little domed spinner.
As far as which nut to use, it is called out in the C-1964-67 172 IPC, they are readily available why would you use anything else?

[GAHorn]

[...As far as which nut to use, it is called out in the C-1964-67 172 IPC, they are readily available why would you use anything else?

Tom, I'm not trying to play "stump the chump" or trying to be overly critical or anything like that.... but I don't recall in your previous posts as to which exact prop you installed. The 172 IPC you mentioned is only one such that may apply. The 56-62 IPC may also apply since some of those serials also used the 6-bolt O-300-C and -D engines. Those IPCs offer various methods of attaching the prop, including about 5 more bolt possibilities...and several nuts which match up... depending upon which exact prop and/or spinner is mounted.... And THAT is why I asked which nut you used with your -42 bolt.

The 56-62 C-172 IPC indicates that with a McCauley prop one could use AN8-43A, -46A, or -46AS bolts. Those bolts are shown matched up to MS20365-820C nuts.... or a special McCauley nut, PN A-1639-2.

Meanwhile, my own B-model, using a McCauley EM series prop and original style bullet spinner (as shown in the TCDS) is mounted using AN8-45 bolts, and using the MS20365 nuts, and only 1 complete thread is showing past the nut. Any bolt shorter than this will not be properly engaged in that lock-nut and any longer bolt will come very close to striking the crankcase nose. This leads me to believe there are other possibilities, and indicates that each installation will have to be examined closely before ordering parts, no matter who orders them, and the person specifying the exact parts might wish to look at his specific installation before relying upon a single discussion thread here in the forums.

I don't think it's entirely "safe" to simply order a -40 or a -42 bolt expecting that will work in every case.

Hope that helps.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

My last post had a picture showing the crank in the IPC which covers the C-125, C-145 and ALL models of 0-300 A through E. All of these cranks in these engines use "Propeller nut bushings"according to the IPC.

So looking at the 172 IPC I do see in the listing, though they are not on the illustration, that MS20365-820C fiberlock hex nuts are called for the prop bolts.

So I'm trying to figure out how you would use a crank flange with a hole sized to fit a bushing nut, without the bushing nut, but just a washer and a MS20365-820C fiberlock hex nut. The answer is the engine and our 170 IPCs call for AN6 bolts (3/8" diameter) and the 172 IPC (and presumably the called for props) call for AN8 bolts (1/2" diameter). Obviously the larger diameter bolts fit the crank flange holes correctly. Learned something new today.

[GAHorn]

Bruce, you will notice that despite the part number listing in the TCM IPC... the figure depicts an 8-bolt prop flange. While the figure is not a specification, only an illustration of how the bushing/nut fits into the early crank... Clearly that figure cannot apply to the 6-bolt flange.

I think you already knew all this, but simply forgot. (I am recalling how, as aircraft judge, you inspected aircraft for the "original" propellers by looking behind the prop flange and inspecting/counting the nuts.) Yep. YOU KNEW.

[T. C. Downey]

My last post had a picture showing the crank in the IPC which covers the C-125, C-145 and ALL models of 0-300 A through E. All of these cranks in these engines use "Propeller nut bushings"according to the IPC.

So looking at the 172 IPC I do see in the listing, though they are not on the illustration, that MS20365-820C fiberlock hex nuts are called for the prop bolts.

So I'm trying to figure out how you would use a crank flange with a hole sized to fit a bushing nut, without the bushing nut, but just a washer and a MS20365-820C fiberlock hex nut. The answer is the engine and our 170 IPCs call for AN6 bolts (3/8" diameter) and the 172 IPC (and presumably the called for props) call for AN8 bolts (1/2" diameter). Obviously the larger diameter bolts fit the crank flange holes correctly. Learned something new today.

The -Ds have a different crank. it requires 6 bolts (AN8-42) the 0-300 A- has a large crank flange and requires 8 AN6-42 bolts that use the bushing attachment method. You are not allowed to remove the bushings and use a nut in their place because the hole which they are pressed is not a size that will allow a standard AN bolt to be used.

I would post pictures but as always the pictures my camera takes is too large of a file to fit here. (I wish that could be cured)

[T. C. Downey]

For those who are not lost, read the differences between a -A and a -C in the overhaul manual. you will see the prop flange change to the ARP 502 type 1 flange, then see the description of the -D it is the same as a -C except the angle starter and addition of a vac pump pad.

[hilltop170]

I would post pictures but as always the pictures my camera takes is too large of a file to fit here. (I wish that could be cured)

Tom-
I have that same problem with the iPad. It's a PITA but you can email the pictures to yourself and they will be reduced in size enough for the website to accept them. Sometimes the email will ask what size do you want to use and I always pick medium. I then save them to my photo file and then upload to my posts the usual way. It works great but you just have to take a couple extra steps. If there was no size limit, the website would not be able to store all the data and we don't need that high resolution 99% of the time anyway.

[T. C. Downey]

I would post pictures but as always the pictures my camera takes is too large of a file to fit here. (I wish that could be cured)

Tom-
I have that same problem with the iPad.

I do not use my iPad or my phone to take pictures I use a simple 10 year old point and shoot camera.

The simple fix is to enlarge the file size that is acceptable to the web page software.

[T. C. Downey]

Tom, I suspect the image size constraint is due to the cost of hosting the storage. I'll be the first one to offer up doubling my annual dues if it could lead to increasing the attachment file size limit!

Why not clean up the data we store? down size the data base ?

[T. C. Downey]

Moderators & Tom : sorry about the thread drift. Feel free to delete my posts to save on storage bandwidth, LOL!

If it will get me bigger files you are in serious trouble

[N2255D]

Tom, I suspect the image size constraint is due to the cost of hosting the storage. I'll be the first one to offer up doubling my annual dues if it could lead to increasing the attachment file size limit!

I think we would lose a lot of members doing that. I think there are still a lot of members out there that either don't use the forums or use it very seldom. Bruce could probably give an idea the percentage of members who don't use the forums.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Hard to say how many members use the forum. Probably half of the current 1200 members have an account. These are many newer younger members. Half of those visit occasionally, specially when then need to find something about their plane. And half of those, visit on a regular bases and a quarter of those or about 40 do most of the posting.

But the library of info is here and the ability to ask and receive some sort of answer quickly is here and I think most of the members appreciate that.

For the most part big image files don't make the image we see on our computer, IPad or IPhone any better. These devices are limited by the amount of pixels per inch they display. the average computer screen for example is limited to 72 pi. Anything more is a waste in storage and a waste in bandwidth to send and receive it the first time and every time it is viewed after that.

Large photo images where not a problem until just a few years ago. It would have cost a person several thousand dollars to buy a camera capable of taking a picture the size an Iphone can take today. And size does cost money for all of us. Tom, you probably paid for a phone with more memory so you could hold those pictures that are 10 times larger than they need to be for 99 percent of them taken. You pay for the time it takes to transmit them to the forum and every time after that you pay for them to be sent back to your computer to be viewed when you look at a post with them in. An individual may not realize this and see the cost because they buy a plan that has enough data and more for what they do and they don't realize if they cut the file sizes in half perhaps they could reduce their data plan.

We have now paid to store some photos for 12 years. If we had allowed photos twice the size when we started, we might have paid twice the amount for all that time. BTW we did increase the allowed size one time.

Perhaps at some point the forum software will automatically strip the excess from photos. It currently does not do that, only allowing us to block them. Yes we probably could have some custom work done to accomplish the task but that adds immeasurably to the pain each time the the software is upgraded. And it is upgraded several times a year. All a process than our members don't see because we haven't overly customized the software and the upgrade works each time.

[DaveF]

I also use Simple Resize. And like you, I use it to shrink my stuff so it fits better in the hangar!

[Ryan Smith]

Arash wins the awesome hangar award, Q1 2014.