Nothing in the oil filter at all. You can imagine both my IA and I have been looking very carefully at the filter on the engine since the start. Don’t forget running alongside the starter adaptor issues were spalling cam followers and the need for a top end overhaul due to some more questionable engineering from Continental. All these issues contribute to the iron figures.
Achimha is right. The final decision on the engine will be taken once we get the starter adaptor off. If the adaptor spring has broken then all should be well with the engine. If the internal gear is damaged that’s curtains and the engine has to come out completely to be sorted. Ah, what fun and games.
I can help with the starter adapter problems. I spent ten years of my life working for the following company, designing and approving improved designs of starter adapters, to prevent these failures. They are very poorly understood, and even less well cared for. I am testing a completely new starter motor design on a 550 powered 182 right now, which if used properly, should entirely prevent such failures. Have a look through the pages of Niagara Air Parts starter website here:
http://www.niagaraairparts.com/helpful.htm
More information will be coming, as this is somewhat dated, but it’s a great start. Niagara Air Parts is the leader in starter adapter repairs, it’s about all they have done for 25 years. We’ll talk some more….
Firstly, thanks for everyone thoughts here.
PilotDAR: I’m keen to understand all I can on the starter adaptor front. What completely new starter motor design have you fitted to your 550?
I fitted the Hartzell M type starter with the clutch mechanism which is to stop backfiring being a problem. Trouble is I think I should have replaced the starter adaptor at the same time as it’s likely my previous issues may have damaged the adaptor. In fact Hartzell issued a letter saying they were getting bad press because (like my case exactly) their starters were being fitted to deteriorating adaptors.
My 550 was rebuilt by Continental in 2010 and as far as I know has the new type adaptor. Part number is 64325A18R but I don’t suppose you can tell from this number whether it’s an old or new style. Thanks
STOLman,
I’ll do my best ti briefly tell the story, but it’s a long one….
Continental makes a good engine, but starters which are adequate, at best, and very troublesome if not maintained, or if modified. The problem is that Continental modified them themselves, and created a problem they did not anticipate. You have that problem.
There are two starter adapter philosophies: “Classic” and “new”.
In the classic, the clutch spring is loose on the shaft gear drum, so when the shaft gear, (which drives the crankshaft during star, and is driven by the crankshaft while engine is running) spins, it __should_ be free under the clutch spring. As long as the running engine’s shaft gear spins free under the clutch spring (not in contact), all is well, and nothing gets hot. Because of the worm/wormwheel design of the starter adapter, in is absolutely required that the starter motor itself actually turn backward about half a turn or so when it is de-energized following a start, so the clutch spring can release from the shaft gear drum. If this does not happen, the whole thing gets really hot fast, but the pilot has no idea, so he goes flying, and the starter adapter cooks itself, and makes lots of metal for the whole flight. It is only upon the next start attempt that any of this becomes evident.
In the “old days”, this was only ever a problem if the direct drive starter motor was in very poor condition, and stiff to turn. Otherwise, it all worked fine. Then… with the advent of smaller lighter geared permanent magnet starter motors, everyone jumped on the bandwagon to put these starters in place of the direct drive ones. Hey, great! Lighter, smaller, cheaper, and more available! But, people forgot about the need for the start motor to turn backward to release after start, and the new permanent magnet starters did not, because they have gear reduction, which has too much friction. So, the new small starter motors began cooking adapters, but no one seemed to figure it out until we did, and then no one wanted to admit it. We found it, as so many adapters started coming back for warranty, after we had just overhauled them. As a parallel problem, if the starter contactor sticks closed, and keeps the starter motor energized following the release of the key, the motor will keep turning the adapter, and this will keep the spring tight on the drum, and the same cooked adapter results. This is why a “starter engaged” light is vital in Continental powered aircraft.
The “new” style adapter has a different arrangement, in that the spring is constantly tight on the drum. I do not like this arrangement for many reasons. I do not recommend this type of adapter at all, and when we bought a brand new 550 for the 182, I had in changed to classic style during the installation of the engine. Time is too short for all the details of why I don’t like it, but I understand it, and don’t like it.
So, if your adapter is going for overhaul, ask for a classic style to replace it. Obviously, I highly recommend Niagara Air Parts,/ Canadian Aero Manufacturing. If you do send it there, I will personally go and have a look at it there (though they are more expert at them now than I). For now, install the old big heavy starter motor, NOT a gear reduced motor. I am vaguely aware that there may be “clutched” gear reduced permanent magnet motors – they might be okay, I just have not considered nor tested them. I am presently testing a different – to be patented – design of permanent magnet gear reduced motor, which will forever end these problems. My testing will result in STC or PDA/PMA approval, and Niagara Air Part will offer it for sale. So far, it has been flawless. This 182 also has the starter engaged light, which also does exactly as required. It is not my plane, I’m just doing all the testing. It is this one:
If you adapter is ruined (sorry, I did not read you whole post, time was short, an I kinda know the story already) you’ll need a new one, and may have put metal into your engine. If there is metal in the engine, and you are taking maintenance action to clean out the metal from the engine, the prop has go out for similar cleaning. Do not install a prop with the original metal contaminated oil onto the new/clean engine, or you’re immediately back where you came from.
There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but the forgoing are the highlights, in the time I have right now. If you have specific questions, I’ll be happy to answer them…
Do you know why Continental went for such a complex and fragile solution and did not do it like Lycoming? I think it is a very bad idea to have the starter adapter go inside the crankcase where it can do so much harm.
Just to say, this forum is a real asset. I get some advice from PilotDAR, I make a call and save $500 at a stroke and the part is shipped today. My other supplier was robbing me and wanted money up front.
So thank you forum and thank you PilotDAR.
And, I should have said, the adaptor I’ve ordered is the classic onto which I’ll fit my heavyweight starter motor.
As for the engine and prop, how best would you flush them out?
Opening up a prop is not expensive – I have seen a 2B prop done for about 250 quid. That includes mandatory oil seal replacements or whatever. This isn’t an overhaul; it is just opening it up and cleaning it out to make sure there is no debris in there. The prop in this case had a loose blade (!!) which I discovered when giving it a good yank.
Always good to hear somebody finds EuroGA useful 
Do you know why Continental went for such a complex and fragile solution and did not do it like Lycoming?Quote
I expect that it is a combination of differing design philosophies, and probably the fact that with no ring gear, the Continentals tend to fit well into small, sleek cowls. If you’ve ever seen a Lycoming engine into Continental powered aircraft, the cowls never look as good. Lycoming starters certainly have their problems too, and worse, If a Lycoming starter gives up, while you’re trying to start, hand propping the engine might be impossible, should you have considered doing that.
Continental starter systems which are caringly maintained last long, and work well. Do not cheap out on assuring that the engine and starter are in good shape, and install a starter engaged light.
If STOLman would like to assess the risk of engine and propeller contamination, (if it were me) I would be standing there looking, when the failed adapter is opened up. What you see in terms of how much metal was lost inside the adapter, and how much metal grit can be found in the oil in the adapter is your best starting point. This really will be a judgement call.
I expect that it is a combination of differing design philosophies, and probably the fact that with no ring gear, the Continentals tend to fit well into small, sleek cowls. If you’ve ever seen a Lycoming engine into Continental powered aircraft, the cowls never look as good.
Yes, and I’d theorize it might also have had to do with airframe customer philosophy: Piper bought Lycomings and always used the least expensive solution, if possible using car components or close derivatives. Continental has always been a little more ‘engineering driven’ and used ‘better on paper’ solutions that sometimes ended up being slightly little less practical. Another example is 4 cylinders (Lycoming) versus 6 cylinders (Continental) for a ~150 HP engine.
I have one of each but my little four cylinder Continental has no starter or generator.
