Strange that Cirrus reveals a future SB from Continental.
Cirrus must be angry at them though.
Jujupilote wrote:
Cirrus must be angry at them though.
so would you be if your whole SEP production of the last 2 years faces grounding.
The following was posted by Don Maxwell.
I have been asked to post to the various groups about TCM engines manufactured after June 1st of 2021. This applies to all TCM engines used in our Mooney’s. It is not a Cirrus only problem. It applies to our Mooney aircraft as well. TCM is asking that these planes not be flown until the service bulletin comes out which hopefully will be Monday. TCM is not saying what the issue is except that it is serious. The scuttle butt from engine shops is that it has to do with the keepers that hold the counter weight pins in.
so would you be if your whole SEP production of the last 2 years faces grounding
Cirrus Aircraft is taking the lead on this, they will force Continental to issue an SB on new engines…why this is not coming from TCM is puzzling though?
Ibra wrote:
Cirrus Aircraft is taking the lead on this, they will force Continental to issue an SB on new engines…why this is not coming from TCM is puzzling though?
I guess they did receive information on the issue by helping the ongoing investigation, started inspection of their own aircraft and found something causing them to immediate ground their own fleet as precaution. So far, so regular risk mitigation SOP. TCM counterweights are a nice thing for engine smoothness, but have had trouble in the past already, so I wonder what the issue now might be?
I don’t think there will be a lot of conflict or independent activity at Cirrus and Continental, they are both owned and run by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate that also makes their military and commercial aircraft.
BTW a guy I know who worked in engineering for Continental had free access to company owned Cirruses, apparently including free fuel when used for business trips.
Cirrus has revised their decision and they are only grounding airplanes with engines with less than 200 hours.
Continental has released a service bulletin describing an inspection of the Subject issue. The sharp side of the crankshaft counterweight retaining rings (a manufacturing artifact on most snap rings after stamping) is supposed to be oriented outboard, the rings need to be circumferentially oriented properly and a check is described to ensure that they are fully seated in their groove. The inspection requires pulling between one and three cylinders depending on engine type. Evidently somebody wasn’t installing the snap rings carefully enough, and if they aren’t installed with the correct care the ring pops out and the assembly comes apart within 200 hrs.
I would guess the main issue is that some rings weren’t fully seated in the grooves at installation, it’s easy to make that mistake with small snap rings unless you’re careful.
Fernando wrote:
Cirrus has revised their decision and they are only grounding airplanes with engines with less than 200 hours.
Silvaire wrote:
if they aren’t installed with the correct care the ring pops out and the assembly comes apart within 200 hrs.
So if the engine has not come apart in 200 hrs, it is safe to fly as Cirrus assumes then there are no faulty installation?
I’d call this a major quality control problem.
Snap rings have a perfectly machined flat side and the the other side is slightly beveled. Will they lock in a groove both ways? Yes. Chance of wearing faster… probably.
Carl
