![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elliot,
I very much appreciate your factual and detailed account of the problems you experienced and the suggestions to seek return of the crankcases etc. This is what I need, good sound advice. Do you have any documents from your situation that you would be prepared to copy to me. I am a bit of a leech when folk do me down. In this case Airpower and Lycoming have gained a leech that, with help from the forum, is going to be difficult to shake off. Thanks again. -- Roy Page - Secretary Taylorcraft Flying Club http://www.taylorcraftflyingclub.org wrote in message news:Y7qud.3516$lZ6.3310@trnddc02... On 9-Dec-2004, "Roy Page" wrote: We would appreciate any suggestions how to counter this attack on our depleted piggy bank. I thought you might appreciate some constructive advice regarding your specific situation, as opposed to general griping. I reported this situation in an earlier thread, so I'll just summarize here. We recently swapped the IO-360 in our Arrow IV, which had about 2100 SMOH, for a Lyc factory rebuilt ("zero time") engine purchased through Airpower. Lycoming wanted to withhold $3000 of our core deposit because of some vaguely described cracks in the old crankcase. Our A&P (a very straight shooter at a very reputable shop) was quite surprised, as he had never seen the cracking problem as described on an IO-360. He had just recently inspected the old engine during the plane's regular annual. Upon questioning, the Lyc representative claimed that the cracks were well documented in photos of the dye penetrant test. We asked for copies of the photos, but after being put off for weeks, Lycoming claimed that the photos were not available, and that the case had been scrapped. At that point we SHOULD have demanded a full refund of the core deposit, but what we did do is offer to split the difference -- $1500 -- which was accepted. Throughout this process, Airpower acted merely as a conduit of communication between us (the owners) and Lycoming, so I can't say they really had anything to do with the outcome. Bottom line, my advice to you is to demand the "unacceptable" case back. You will, of course, have to pay shipping charges. If Lycoming has scrapped the case, then demand a full refund of the core deposit. I don't know whether Lycoming is doing anything underhanded in all of this. It could just be that they are becoming increasingly fussy about integrity of the case cores that they reuse in "rebuilt" engines. That would be good news for us, since that is what we just bought. My understanding is that there is a big demand for rebuilt IO-360s, so it is hard to imagine why they would scrap a usable case to save $3000. Unless, that is, they can build a new case for less than that. -- -Elliott Drucker |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Looking For A Lycoming IO-360-C136 Core | Clyde Torres | Home Built | 8 | August 28th 04 11:22 PM |
| Major Overhaul | Jim Weir | Owning | 10 | June 8th 04 06:12 PM |
| lycoming major overhaul | Marty from Sunny Florida | Owning | 14 | June 7th 04 06:57 PM |
| Engine... Overhaul? / Replace? advice please | text news | Owning | 11 | February 17th 04 05:44 PM |
| FS: O-235C1 Lycoming engine (core) | Del Rawlins | Home Built | 0 | October 8th 03 10:46 PM |