When people say there is no competitor to the original manufacturer they are neglecting the third party spares manufacturers who supply under PMA
When people say there is no competitor to the original manufacturer they are neglecting the third party spares manufacturers who supply under PMA
Indeed, and as a matter of fact, I use Superior for many/most engine parts on the Lyc.
That said, there is no evidence that their cams and lifters are better off than OEM !
The PMA makers would be a lot busier if Lyco metal was crap, because it would be easy to prove.
There are some stupid people out there but the rest are pretty smart.
there is no evidence that their cams and lifters are better off than OEM !
Which supports what I have been saying… there is something else going on.
Making steel and heat treating and case hardening it correctly has not been rocket science since before WW1.
And here is another data point which shows that this subject is damn hard:
In 2000-2003, Socata installed a number of internally corroded engines (purchased c. 2000/2001) into TB20GTs/TB21GTs. They were corroded through being stored way past the maximum preservation period. In 2008 they still had 14 of them although obviously they weren’t making any planes by then. By now, all should have been opened up for SB569, but I know there are still TB20s for sale which have not had this done (and they are not airworthy; they cannot legally fly).
So you could own one of these from new, fly it every day, and still find it is full of rust. Mine was corroded too (discovered in 2008) but not on the camshaft; the followers were on their way out. Whether the engine would have made TBO without metal showing up somewhere, I don’t know. Pics here
That’s very interesting Peter. Wish we’d considered having out existing crankshaft precision checked for balance while it was out for the ‘top end’ rebuild.
N2136E has been signed off by engineering and returned to service.
Will try and buckle down and post an extended report of our ‘troubles’.
No UK company does that sort of work. Barrett Precision is FAA approved for it.
But they can’ issue an EASA-1 form – neither can most of the really experienced US shops. (I see that Castleberry Instruments – the best instrument overhauler – can now do an 8130-3 with a dual release).
The best I found in the UK was Nicholson McLaren (the only UK engine shop on which any due diligence returns “reasonable results”) who did the standard thing which is to match up a piston say 5k over with a conrod small end which is 5g under. But nobody will take any metal off anything. And pistons don’t give you much leeway because they come in well matched sets already so you get a limited opportunity to “play” with them.
Well done getting your plane back on the road! Are you doing Friedrichshafen?
Your engine report will be really interesting!
Ok Peter I know it is not a statistically valid sample, my engine. But please reread my earlier post on my Cont engine and explain to me how my lifter came to be spald?
Ive owned and operated the engine since new. Never more than 2 weeks apart between flights etc etc.
I will be In the US for about a month so I flew my plane on a 2 hr “sightseeing” trip around Hungary the latter hr at 80% power. Camguard dehydrator Tanis with freshly reactivated Silicon pearls as well as dehydrator plug in each exhaust. I have dehydrator spark plugs as well but since Im a common hangar Im afraid someone might turn the prop. Thats all Id need. So with this level of care I still got a bad Lifter.
I with Achim on this. One US corporation owns everything and they could give 2 Sh*ts what we say. All they care about is their bottom line. After all without competition does a good or bad reputation really matter?
As far as after market stuff. I think there is something that s in the Dallas office FSDO. A lot of guys had to junk a lot of good cyl. with no proof that there was actually a problem with the ECI cyl. I wouldnt be surprised that the guy running the show might not retire soon and go work for one of the OEM manuf as a “consultant”.
Thats the way things work in the US. By I digress what about my case?
Every company works primarily for its bottom line, but that isn’t the same as saying they knowingly make crap for decades, when rectifying the issue (and note this is something which does give them a very bad name, thus priming the PMA market perfectly) would be really easy.
What will be really interesting is when my engine gets opened up, in a few years’ time. I’ve seen all the internals personally, I know my flying pattern with 100% certainty, etc. I don’t think there will be a lot of damage since I see nothing in oil analysis or the two filters.
Did you do oil analysis, C210 Flyer, and if the oil filter was cut open, did you check it personally? I know for a fact that one company I know did not cut them open, and anecdotally it seems that the majority of UK maintenance doesn’t cut them open either. The USA may be similar. I am not suggesting this is you but I am sure a lot of people would prefer to not know… the usual line is "are you really going to tear down an engine which runs “OK” just because there is some metal?".
But why an earth should one have to send of oil to be analysed? or mix two different types of oil plus add an additive? or have an top end overhaul at 1200 hours?
PMA doesn’t help either in most cases because there simply isn’t the market nor the qualification to do proper R&D. The risks of using different materials/processes is large and there is no return on substantial R&D which is why you get the same 1950 metallurgy from the PMA manufacturers.
A revision of a Mercedes car engine (i.e. improving an existing model) costs them north of 1 billion Euros in R&D. This is because virtually everything in engine technology is tedious trial and error. With all computer sophistication today, engine development is still mostly black magic.
