Timothy wrote:
Peter wrote:
I can’t speak Latin
You were just educated in the wrong country, what can I say?
Latin is a dead language
As dead as dead can be
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it’s killing me!
Silvaire wrote:
it’s not clear to me whether engine disassembly decreases or increases the risk of problems in subsequent operation.
It’s indeed a difficult question. Quoting my CAMO engineer again, if an external inspection shows the engine power was low at the time of the strike (so an engine damage is very unlikely), a prudent way to handle it would be to fly 10-20 hours day VFR over a hospitable terrain, exercise the engine and watch its behaviour. If nothing happens, keep flying normally.
FWIW, that is very much contrary to manufacturer instructions, and except for homebuilts such an engine would not AFAIK be airworthy.
I know people will say Lyco etc have an interest in selling engine parts / avoiding liability etc and that is true, but I would have the engine stripped upon any prop strike against something hard and solid.
Obviously it depends on how much one flies, especially over water and mountains. Where I am based, almost every departure to Europe goes straight out over water.
Both Lycoming and Continental prop strike recommendations (the manufacturers are not authorized by FAA to issue “instructions” to aircraft owners) have changed over the years. However, neither the FAA regulations on the subject nor the engines themselves have changed: an A&P is authorized to determine airworthiness of an engine. There is an substantial base of experience outside of Lycoming recommendations, some of which indicates to some people that it is better not to disassemble some engine models after some prop strikes with some propellers.
Caveat emptor, as the saying goes in obsolete language. 
