Wow! Ooops, take #3

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 4:16:21 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 4:44:59 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
Yikes.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2015-0052-E

Wow, there are many more pure gliders now...

Hmm. Says it only applies if you have Solo 2350 c and a non foldable propeller. But in the "reason" section, it implies that all Solo 2350 C engine operation is prohibited. Don't know enough on the specific variants of the Solo 2350 to know how many this really impacts.

Also interesting is that you must inspect within 30 days and report your findings. Even if there is no issue to report, it does not remove the restriction from using the engine.

Bad news for all that are affected.

It will only be a matter of time before the U.S. FAA issues an AD based on the AESA AD that will impact gliders in the US.
US owners should heed the cautions and not operate the SOLO engine.
Interesting that the AD specifically identified the previous SOLO service bulletin as not acceptable.

BillT

Looking at the Solo website http://aircraft.solo-online.com/index.php it looks like the c model is very different in that it shows a belt drive while the straight 2350 shows a direct drive. It appears that the AD is only for the C model.

DVM

God doesn't like motors on sailplanes.......

It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's DG1000T in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

At 07:46 03 April 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's
DG1000T
in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not
concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

Also the turbo Antares - or at least the prototype according to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxwvd-ps2A

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 6:02:44 AM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
At 07:46 03 April 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's
DG1000T
in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not
concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

Also the turbo Antares - or at least the prototype according to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxwvd-ps2A

Try buying an Antares 23, they are not even being made.

I think it says more about the technical competence of the
engine designers; maybe God doesn't like them either?

At 02:42 03 April 2015, wrote:
God doesn't like motors on sailplanes.......

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:02:11 AM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
I think it says more about the technical competence of the
engine designers; maybe God doesn't like them either?


Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that. Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard

The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.