Post #11 suggests it isn’t “the vast majority”…
The biggest issue will be for people who can’t tell because the company doesn’t co-operate, has gone bust, the paperwork doesn’t exist, or the company used stock parts which they don’t know the date/origin of. Let’s face it, if a company used Lyco parts, you have to trust them when they tell you when they bought them.
Are these bushings serial numbered? Back to the “same old aviation story”…. with non numbered parts, all bets are off.
I described that procedure because it may be of interest in other respects. We had threads on this before… it is not always necessary to re-hone the cylinders when doing major engine work.
Most likely post #11 talks about engines that came from Lycoming. I was referring to field overhauls. Obviously the Lycoming factory is not a great fan of Superior PMA parts.
I think your theory of engine overhauls where companies don’t cooperate and paperwork doesn’t exist is unrealistic. We’re talking about recent overhauls and an overhaul requires extensive paperwork with all parts and their serial number. For an engine overhaul, nobody uses “stock parts for which they don’t know the date/origin of”. That is highly regulated.
Here is some back story of all our downed engines:
We have a brand new aircraft that is less than a year old that is affected by this SB. So these defective bushings are coming from Lycomings factory. The other two that are down were affected by overhauls done by a very reputable shop in the Midwest US.
I would imagine these bushings are not serialized since we have to perform tests on them.
Peters described procedure is common practice when removing cylinders and trying to save the rings. It does save all the ring work and then break in procedure for those rings. But this SB will take some time. All four cylinders must be removed and inspected and you can only remove one at a time to keep the preload of the case intact.
The problem with using PMA parts like Superior and ECI is that you will not qualify for the additional 200 hours life on the engine as person Lycoming SI 1009BA.
Jon wrote:
The problem with using PMA parts like Superior and ECI is that you will not qualify for the additional 200 hours life on the engine as person Lycoming SI 1009BA.
but seeing this development, would you rather have the extra 200 hours and this costly SB? In any case, for private owners, TBOs aren’t necessarily mandatory…..
Just read in the USA that the inspection tool is $250 and is on some lead time…
Again, Lycoming make money by shipping crappy products. Let’s hope they get punished down the line through extinction.
The only accaptable reaction would be a personal letter, signed by the CEO, and to each customer – and of course all the parts and work for free. It’s also clear that this shutdown a company like Lycoming for good (and the same applies to TCM in similar cases).
Peter wrote:
Just read in the USA that the inspection tool is $250 and is on some lead time…
2-3 week lead time for the tool. They are just now making them….
Avweb article
New Zealand CAA letter
The second one has a bit of a background which, reading between the lines, suggests there have been incidents. There is a rumour going around the US scene that there was a fatal accident; if you have numerous engine failures this is only a matter of time anyway.
