For the same reason the partially state-owned http://www.abudhabiaviation.com/flight-operations/aerial-application.aspx still does now?

Well, that was fast.

There may be a personal or business conflict behind this. I remember some years ago I helped save a 1951 airplane (fully flyable!) from a similar fate after a dispute amongst its owners. When tempers flare, nothing is safe…

AGO C.I or C.II

Less drag, more legroom. Especially the latter is a very good thing in a K8…

Next one up.

The post, “It was just a Prop change” was made on a public forum!!! And it is that statement that was reacted to.

My apologies Blue Max if I may unwillingly have offended you, and I am not doubting your considerable expertise and experience.

It is exactly the above that prompted my reaction: it was not a case of ‘oh-just change-the-prop-and-fly-home-and-see-if-she-holds’. That is an attitude you will not see from this pilot/owner, I assure you. The aircraft has been looked over by very competent engineers, the prop was changed, and it was given the OK to fly. It then flew home.

+1

Does the new prop go round and no funny noises or vibrations from the engine?
No thats ok then off you go!

I find it incredible how contributors to this forum who do not have access to facts have an opinion ready at hand in notime.

Knowing the very careful, highly experienced and meticulous pilot/owner very well I can assure you the aircraft and engine have been given a thorough inspection, and are fully airworthy. Period.

It is amazing that some people don’t seem to realize just how damaging these kind of ill-informed and incorrect comments in the public domain can be to people’s reputation.