Oh those CERTIFIED plane engines !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For all you guys and gals building a homebuilt plane DO NOT use a auto
engine conversion or any other option that is not FAA certified, Ya see
the feds and Lycoming have a lock on the market providing "quality and
time tested powerplants". Let's see now. it all started a few years
back when Lycoming had a brain fart and decided they knew more about
crankshafts then god, so they redid them, with the FAA's blessing of
course. Ya know the feds demand strict safety testing and "high"
quality control over certified parts. Well, that batch of hundreds had
several break and kill a few innocent souls, So they recalled them and
redesigned the problem out of them and in the meantime kept hundrends
of planes grounded for months while they " patched" the issue. They
introduced a "New and Improved" crank that would cure all their issues.
Well, those broke at a alarming rate and killed 14 innocent souls. All
the while with the feds watching this all unfold. Lycoming then tried
to sue the forging company that stamped out the cranks that THEY speced
the design for. Well, that didn't fly either.


So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation..

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...tins/SB569.pdf

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

ya, I am the bad guy trying to get ol Barnyard Blob to wake up. G

So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love it... "While there has been no failures..."

But the 'early crankshaft retirement' is even more hilarious.
Lycoming makes it sound as if they're sending kids to summer camp
instead of commiting wilful murder by selling a product known to be
defective.

-R.S.Hoover

("stol" wrote)
So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support/publications/maintenancePublications/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf


Today's AvWeb lead story:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678
Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"

(From the link)
"In previous recalls totaling some 2400 crankshafts, Lycoming has paid for
the engine work to various degrees, even reimbursing owners for hangar
expenses and loss of use in the 2003 recalls. Not this time. Owners affected
by the crank retirement will get a discount deal on the replacement
crankshaft -- $2000 for the shaft, plus a box full of free parts such as
gears, bearings, piston ring sets, connecting rod bolts and nuts and seals.
But they're on their own for engine assembly, repair and reinstallation,
which field overhaul shops tell us will add another $4000 to $5000 to the
job if the crank is replaced proactively or before the engine reaches
routine TBO. Further, owners will have to ship the retired crankshaft back
to Lycoming to obtain the discount price, also at their own expense. The
$2000 offer applies to crankshafts for any engine and is substantially below
list price for a new part, especially for six-cylinder engines."

"Lycoming says it will ramp up production of replacement crankshafts but as
in previous recalls, priority will go to government operators and Part 121
and Part 135 operators, with private owners last. What's not known is if
this recall withdraws all of the potentially defective crankshafts from the
market. (We queried Lycoming about this but haven't received a reply yet.)
The crankshafts in question were manufactured between March of 1997 and
March of 2002."


Montblack

ya, I am the bad guy trying to get ol Barnyard Blob to wake up. G


You must have a lot of patience, a barrel full?, to get that one to
see the light.

Certaninly more patience than I cam muster!

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("stol" wrote)
So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation.


http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...ncePublication
s/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf


Today's AvWeb lead story:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678
Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"



But the mandatory service bulletin leaves out O-320's and O-235's.

One wonders if Teledyne is getting its alloys from the same source. I doubt
it.

And where are the reports of deaths or personal injury caused by the bad
cranks? Do we have a cite from a Lycophobe?

Is there something that indicates that:

1) Uncertified cranks from uncertified manufacturers are a more reliable
product

2) If there was a problem with an uncertified crank from an uncertified
manufacturer, the manufacturer would notify owners of the potential problem.

Otherwise, I don't see this as a certified vs non-certified issue.

KB

Is there something that indicates that:

1) Uncertified cranks from uncertified manufacturers are a more reliable
product


The point is not that Ben Haas forged 4340 steel crank for his Ford
conversion is a better product (it is, but that's not the point) - the point
is that the Lyc product is not magic, perfect, and made by elves in the
black forest, as the price and some of the folks here would have us believe.

Let a few Corvair cranks break after 40 years, and it's no longer a viable
motor, but Lyc gets a pass when they have (far worse) trouble??

P.T. Barnum had it right!






2) If there was a problem with an uncertified crank from an uncertified
manufacturer, the manufacturer would notify owners of the potential
problem.

Otherwise, I don't see this as a certified vs non-certified issue.

KB

jls wrote:

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

("stol" wrote)

So here comes round number three. Too bad they don't have the three
strike rule in aviation.


http://www.lycoming.textron.com/supp...ncePublication
s/serviceBulletins/SB569.pdf


Today's AvWeb lead story:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/586-full.html#191678
Lycoming Woes Continue: 5100 Crankshafts To Be "Retired"




But the mandatory service bulletin leaves out O-320's and O-235's.

One wonders if Teledyne is getting its alloys from the same source. I doubt
it.


Just guessing here, but aren't the O-235 adn O-320 cranks solid rather than
hollow (for constant speed props)?

Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
that huge knowledge base.

RapidRonnie wrote:

Bottom line is that if you use an auto engine made in the millions you
can research the failure rate, particularly if you pick an engine used
in motorsports run to destruction you can see where they fail first. I
would pay a premium, a big premium, to be able to fly a small block
Chevy in terms of a bigger airframe than you otherwise would, just for
that huge knowledge base.


Gently disagree, Ron.

The reason is that the prop loads are far different from anything you'll
see on the race track.

Apples and oranges again...

Richard