New Cylinder AD's released by FAA

[yr right]

I am old enough to be older than you

[yr right]

Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.

[27/09]

Jabawocky: I took the editor of Australian Pilot flying and with a one minute briefing and a 3 seconds doing, she managed an 83% power LOP setting with amazing precision. 3 seconds. When you get good at it 1-2 seconds is more like it I reckon by now she has mastered the art.

What aircraft/engine did you use? What equipment was fitted, GAMIjectors? EMS? etc.

I'm still trying to get a handle on how pratical LOP is for the average non owner pilot.

[Creampuff]

So anyway...

Has anyone heard anything about how many aircraft/engines this AD will affect in Australia? Any comms from any of the associations?

Any plan for a coordinated response?

Or will individual registered operators just wake up one morning and ask their maintenance organisations to swing their 1940s-style maintenance procedures and logistics systems into action and scratch their respective a*ses while the ice-age for GA in Australia continues to propagate across the landscape?

You all realise of course that yr right's opinions reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to engine maintenance rules? (Indeed, yr right's opinions seem to reflect pretty accurately the Australian regulator's preferred approach to lots of rules...) ;)

[Lumps]

I find it difficult to believe that the builders of flat engines did not know why they ran rough as the mixture was leaned out. Really?

What came first, the IO-520 used in the Malibu or GAMIjectors? If it is the former then clearly the engine makers knew how to fix the problem. Question is, why didn't they

[Oracle1]

The reason that LOP is a problem with the OEM's is because they were too lazy to fix their fuel distribution problems. This is of course in their highly overpriced engines, that they should have taken some of the profit from and plowed it back into development. Its not because they didn't know what LOP was.

They have enjoyed a monopoly for way to long. That's ok because reality is now biting. Build a product for a reasonable price and the people will come.

[Jabawocky]

27/09
What aircraft/engine did you use? IO540
What equipment was fitted, GAMIjectors? Yes, but that makes no difference, all it requires is a conforming engine with well balance F/A ratio's. Many do this without the need for GAMI's.
EMS? etc.Yes, but this was not used at all. We did just for the fun of the exercise prove how highly accurate the procedure was, this required the use of the EMS, but of course like setting a ROP setting this took considerably more time.

I'm still trying to get a handle on how pratical LOP is for the average non owner pilot. Very practical, I do qualify this that you just need to be taught, just like everything else you have been taught. Of course the engine needs to be a conforming one.

yr right......true to form. Will not answer anything. Why should we tell you anything about AA or anything else? You refuse to listen let alone learn.

Lumps,

What came first, the IO-520 used in the Malibu or GAMIjectors? If it is the former then clearly the engine makers knew how to fix the problem. Question is, why didn't they
The TSIO520 in the Malibu was around before GAMI injectors. TCM knew it was how the engines should be run, but their ability to build them right was more the issue. Many would run LOP as per the POH, but just like today the TCM balanced injector is true of name only, they weigh the same. F/A ratio's were a bigger deal.

I suspect the reason they do not go to all the trouble on every engine is the time and effort involved and not being able to do this means.....punch em out the door like always. Senior TCM (from Mobile AL) folk have told me in person, to my face, they try to get it as best they can now ex the factory but will never achieve the accuracy of a set of GAMI's. They know it. This is no secret.

I should point out again what John Deakin wrote recently,
Both CMI ("TCM" is several years out of date) and Lycoming have built their engines pretty much in isolation for decades. If a cylinder fails, their first step is to try and deny any responsibility, either warranty or otherwise. Either way, they grab a new cylinder off the line, ship it out, and melt the old one down. No checking, no "What happened to this cylinder." Into shipping, onto the junk pile, off to the ovens to recover the metal. I have my doubts, but I've seen the pile. Out of the box, and onto the pile. Out of the box, and onto the pile. ZERO interest in it.

Hardly the attitude of "Let's figure out what happened to it, and make it better." They very proudly show the pile off, saying, "Look, we don't re-use any of this, it all get melted down!"

Until very recently, no one at either factory was qualified to FLY any of their engines, and the very idea of doing that appalled them, repelled them. Until very recently, NO ONE at either factory had ever seen an engine monitor, much less used one. Bill Ross, the honcho at CMI has taken our course, and liked it so well he subsequently sent four more CMI employees. All have had their eyes opened, but when they go back, they run into the same bilzzard of misinformation and little gets done. That was last year, and there HAS been some progress. Not enough, but some.

Put yourself in CMI's shoes. They have produced what, a thousand different models of engines, with a manual for each? As they become dimly aware that their manuals have errors in them, only the most egregious errors get revised, because they simply don't have the manpower.

The manuals you're looking at are 50 years old! I say that because they take the old language from the old manuals, and blend it in with the text that goes with the new, often badly, same old text, year after year, decade after decade. I refer to the "How to operate," and not the LIMITATIONS, those are pretty good.

NO MENTION of MODERN engine monitors! We've had 'em for 30 years and more, and neither of the engine factories even mention them, much less tell you what to do with them! THEY DO NOT KNOW.

"Not invented here" and "We've done fine without 'em for 100 years."

Not their job. Their job is to turn out engines that pass the FAA required 150 hours on the test stand at full power, near the CHT redline. Then ship 'em out.


John Deakin
jdeakin // at // advancedpilot.com
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/536504-new-cylinder-ads-released-faa-8.html#post8450699

I was there for both these events 6 months apart. John has been a guest to CMI and applauded with much adulation (to his humble surprise) at a couple of their open days.

They are making progress.

[yr right]

Creamie you where a requelator. What I may or may not agree with is eralavant as I and everyone else has to do is follow the rules. Of the rules change then we all change but if you our anyone else think that they worth me or any other lame that puts his or her name to anything worth going to goal for I'm sorry you are all very much mistaken.
All we have is the data that is provided. We can't go against that it's all good when it's good but if something happens as it can then your left out on a limb. And at the engineers tree is almost empty.

[yr right]

Jaba I never ask you anything about AA. For a start. And it seams I'm not the only on that has an doubts. You should be politician with all the spin.

Cheers

[yr right]

So this is for creamie

If someone has an incident and you go to investigate
You find they been using none approve data.

Do you
1/ prosecute them
2/ turn a blind eye
3/ wish you never been ask this question.

Cheers

[Jabawocky]

Jaba I never ask you anything about AA. For a start.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I never invited you to post in my thread either? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

No you sarcastically tried to discredit the 400,000,000 hours of data collected by AA back in the days of radial piston airliners by making stupid comments about last you looked (assume 2014) AA only had jets not pistons. You effectively did ask.

I notice once again you never answer anyones direct questions.

[Walter Atkinson]

***Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.
***

You have that dead wrong. The vast majority of R-985s since the 1930s has been run LOP. ALL of the Model 17 and 18 Beechcrafts were leaned that way… for hundreds of thousands of hours. The only ones I know of which were run ROP were the ones on crop dusters. They suffered very poor maintenance histories and early overhauls, while the twin beeches did not. If one leans to roughness and richness slightly, IN THOSE ENGINES, the result is a mixture setting of between 50 & 60dF LOP, and it's been that way since the 1930s. Many operators never realized this but once we began to instrument them up with engine monitors and look, that was the FACT. Thank you for supporting our contentions; you see, as Sir Isaac pointed out, "the physics are everywhere the same"--even when you don't understand the physics.

[Walter Atkinson]

Hey, John!

Remember fifteen years ago, when we started APS? We’d been putting together the information for several years, gathering research and compiling the data and the various internet forum bullies were calling us names—some were even vulgar. Even a few of the aviation magazines were calling us heretics and nut-cases. We were considered renegades and we were having a ball fighting those who would rather slumber in the comforts of their superstitions than make their head hurt thinking about things they knew to be true, but weren’t.

Then several thousand pilots, mechanics, OEM representatives from Beechcraft, Columbia, and even the president of Cirrus, people from a major Detroit engine test facility, the top engine builders and a VP from TCM, along with FAA and CASA folks were counted among the APS graduates. The Aussie Coroner even came half way round the world to see George demonstrate detonation in the engine test facility and listen to the APS presentation on detonation and preignition. We became mainstream and the go-to guys in the US where piston engine management is concerned. It quit being so much fun when we were no longer considered renegades and we were writing articles for almost every aviation magazine.

Here we are in 2014, and we’ve stepped back into Mr. Peabody’s Way-back Machine on the PPRuNe Forum in OZ. We’re renegades all over again and back to having fun being called names by the same sorts of people who have finally given in to the data, science and majority opinion of educated aviators and mechanics in the US, while a few of the educated OZians are trying to help us educate the resistent.

Having flash-backs?

David, remember when I told you to be careful what you asked for??? :ugh:

[rutan around]

I notice once again you never answer anyones direct questions.
Jabba there could be reasons for that.

The following is an extract from 'The Wizard of Oz' spoken by the straw man.

"I realize at present that I'm only an imitation of a man,and I assure you that it is an uncomfortable feeling to know that one is a fool. It seems to me that a body is only a machine for brains to direct,and those who have no brains themselves are liable to be directed by the brains of others"

[LeadSled]

If someone has an incident and you go to investigate
You find they been using none approve data. yr right,
This is for you!!

Would you care to inform us of when approved data must be used, aviation-wise, and when acceptable data can be used, and what is the difference.
Tell us what parts of an POH (by whatever name) for an FAA certified aircraft must be observed by law, and just how do you classify the rest of the contents of a POH??

Over which period of years was there a CASA Legislative Instrument in place that declared all FAA ACs (as may have been relevant) acceptable data for the maintenance of an Australian aircraft, thereby relieving CASA of the burden of approving such documentation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Just for the fun of it, tell us what is "authorised data"

[Jabawocky]

David, remember when I told you to be careful what you asked for???

Yep :ok: And it seems so! :}

Rutan, amen!

Night all. :)

[jdeakin]

Walter said:
Having flash-backs?Yes, definitely.

I got the following in a private message just the other day. I "Cut and Pasted" so what you see is exactly what was written:

For John Deakin,Dear John,I noticed your closing remarks on a thread on pprune, lavishly contributed to by one yr right.What you need to understand in the words of a former director of CASA is that: Australia is an aviation Galapagos, where all sorts of strange mutations have developed in splendid isolation.CASA has a very poor reputation, very well deserved, I had some involvement with the Whyalla Chieftain accident, in strongly criticizing as AOPA AU Technical Director at the time the engine failure analysis.The general level of ignorance is, at times, astounding. The retort is: We have the worlds best air safety record, but a simple examination of the published statistics shows that is not so. Believe me, CASA are far worse than you can imagine. Recently, CASA demanded that, during endorsement flying on Metro 111/23, that whole stall warning and stick pusher system be disabled and the aircraft pulled into a full stall. The days flying was canned, we wound up having to get a directive from the TC holder prohibiting such an action. CASA got their own back, by cancelling the Check and Training approval of the then Head of T and C.Not long after, a Norwegian Metro was lost in training, in similar circumstances.John Deakin

[Walter Atkinson]

""an aviation Galapagos""

Wow. An excellent description. Have faith, eventually, even though it won't happen overnight, the Naysayer Birds will go the way of the Dodo.

Gentlemen, this is why the better aviation forums do not allow "handles" and require the use of correct, full names. The forum is more civil, the members polite to one another, and the education flows more readily.

[gerry111]

I agree, Walter. My name is Gerald Varley. And I really do live in Richmond, NSW, Australia.

But I think that I've possibly flushed out 'yr right'?

He may indeed be: 'The Good Soldier Schweik.'

From Wiki: "...possibly-feigned idiocy or incompetence he repeatedly manages to frustrate..." :eek:

[yr right]

mmm no ive never published under any other name .
cheers

[yr right]

Walter
All our engines where used in ag. As ive previous stated there are pilots and there are operators, we were operators to the highest level. We also didn't lop and all our engines made o/h and not one failure and when your flying at 100 feet our less do you wont a failure.
And as for backwaters well may be, but some of the stuff that has come out of the USA I wouldn't say to much if I was you.
What we may or may not do is controlled here by CASA not me not you.
As for approved data well you go take that up with a court.
Lets see what creamie has to say on the matter. I even took a pic of a casa poster yesterday on approved data.
And as for CASA well what can you say its been invaded by ex airline and military people that arnt in touch with the real world.
And to high light a point of one of your own Jabas even said and this is important that she would not let her crew fly in a org that ran out side the POH so if it good enough for her what it not for every one else and at hthe end of the day what are you saving 10-15 dollars an hour at best.


cheers


And Jaba this is a public forum so any one can have a say sorry.

[yr right]

***Now by memeroy the r985 had an o/h period of between 400 to 500 hours originally. Casa give 1200 and we had an extension out past that. Over double the orginal hours and then some. Not one engine failure. Not one lost head in operation ( cly found and removed before that happen due to always checking them ) never ran lop. And over 20000 hours.
***

You have that dead wrong. The vast majority of R-985s since the 1930s has been run LOP. ALL of the Model 17 and 18 Beechcrafts were leaned that way… for hundreds of thousands of hours. The only ones I know of which were run ROP were the ones on crop dusters. They suffered very poor maintenance histories and early overhauls, while the twin beeches did not. If one leans to roughness and richness slightly, IN THOSE ENGINES, the result is a mixture setting of between 50 & 60dF LOP, and it's been that way since the 1930s. Many operators never realized this but once we began to instrument them up with engine monitors and look, that was the FACT. Thank you for supporting our contentions; you see, as Sir Isaac pointed out, "the physics are everywhere the same"--even when you don't understand the physics.
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8454528)






Im sorry where did I mention anywhere about any other aircraft but our own and I never said anything about LOP but in our own case, I just stated that the engine o/h life as you brought up how AA increased the hours on there fleet, I just said what the original hours where for the R985 that strangely also got an increase in engine hours. So it also shows that the life of these engines across the broad has also increased. But once again you use that for your cause.


Cheers

[Jabawocky]

And Jaba this is a public forum so any one can have a say sorry.

What the?? You did not get the point. :rolleyes: It is a public forum, but the point is you never answer questions, and then you posted the

Jaba I never ask you anything about AA. For a start.

I replied with....


I never invited you to post in my thread either?

No you sarcastically tried to discredit the 400,000,000 hours of data collected by AA back in the days of radial piston airliners by making stupid comments about last you looked (assume 2014) AA only had jets not pistons. You effectively did ask.

I notice once again you never answer anyones direct questions.

As for POH's, and my wife's contracts etc, lets get back to Leadsleds questions which you have ignored as well.

So far I have found only one POH that is stating not LOP ops in Section 2. Of course this is at complete odds with other POH's with the same equipment. So which do you fly? What do you do when one says only fly right side up and the other says only fly inverted? Do you take an average?

By the way I had an operator ask me recently about another twin being used in Charter operations. I said which model? I consulted the POH and guess what, despite the owner and the operator and LAME (all three the one and the same) thinking he could not use LOP ops, he was wrong, it was there in black and white. All you had to do was read with a critical and educated mind. He is now much more educated :ok:

Go back and read Leadsleds questions and try to answer them rather than defending your out of touch position on everything. Otherwise we are wasting our time on you, although I hope others are learning a heap.

I should restate this for the benefit of others, I have a fair hunch you are a great LAME, do fine craftsmanship and turn out a quality product. Just in some area's misinformed. :ok:

[No Hoper]

Good evening Jaba
In reality probably is of no consequence if LAMEs and pilots are in disagreement
On the original post, i have found the AD for SAP cylinders but not ECi
Are they the same?

[yr right]

I've told a fib. R985 for military was 300 to 400 hours and 400 to 600 hours tbo for commercial. I will ask for r2000 that where in the the DC 4 and what they are now. They also in the carabao that military used as we'll see what I can come up with.
Cheers

[gerry111]

yr right, I find it difficult to believe that you'd ever tell a fib.

A bit of confusion caused by me though. 'The Good Soldier Schweik' is the name of a book and I encourage you to read it. Failing that, please simply read the Wiki entry. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

NH

It is an ECI not Superior.

[No Hoper]

Jabs
From research of the available data from NTSB and ECi, the cracking is in the roots of the first thread. Caused due to the interference fit not being tight enough and thus putting load on the first threads
The ECi AD still hasn't been issued from what I have seen

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Hi Mr Jabs,
Just curious as to why LOP is not recommended above 75% power. I would think that cht and egt would be lower regardless of cyl pressure?

[jdeakin]

Just curious as to why LOP is not recommended above 75% power. I would think that cht and egt would be lower regardless of cyl pressure? Jaba is still pounding his ear (lazy bugger) and not likely to make it out of his bed for hours and hours, so I'll take a stab at your excellent question.

Your thoughts are right on, mate! All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY). All will make well beyond TBO, PROVIDED THEY ARE INSTALLED TO STANDARDS. One forum I frequent has an informal "2500 club" made up of people who have taken their engines to that number without cylinder work. I think the high man is 2800.

(All with regular borescopes, oil and filter changes, and EMS systems. Oh yeah I forgot compression checks. All are graduates of that certain course I'm not supposed to mention, too. :D)

[Sunfish]

Walter Atkinson:

Gentlemen, this is why the better aviation forums do not allow "handles" and require the use of correct, full names. The forum is more civil, the members polite to one another, and the education flows more readily.

That may apply in a land where free speech is respected and protected.

In Australia, criticizing the regulator will get you either fired or vindictively hounded by the regulator, as has happened may times, and still continues.

[LeadSled]

Walter, John,
Just to add to the Sunfish remarks:
CASA will also sue individuals for defamation, if they get the chance, it is a bit hard to toss the Federal Government as a litigation funder.
Even under various states' and Federal "reformed" defamation law, truth is not necessarily an absolute defence.
Even under my handle on this blog, I am careful not to write anything that is defamatory.
"Freedom" in Australia does not have the same meaning as under the US Constitution, more's the pity.
Right now, there is a raging controversy about "freedom of the press", it is a controversy that could not happen in the USA.
Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Hi Mr Jabs,
Just curious as to why LOP is not recommended above 75% power. I would think that cht and egt would be lower regardless of cyl pressure?

Not by anyone who really knows what they are talking about. In fact you can make an engine run at 100% power LOP, given a Turbocharger and some control of MP and a few other things. It will do very nicely.

As you have correctly pointed out, the CHT's would be fine and that is because the ICP's would be fine. Better than doing it ROP.

It must be stated this is not possible to achieve (100% that is) on a NA engine but you can and I do if at 1000' up the coast run in the mid 80's as JD has detailed above ;) They love it :ok:

[Old Akro]

All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY).

JD. Including turbos?

[Walter Atkinson]

I consistently and routinely run my turbo Bonanza at 87-90% power in cruise. I have made a few flights from takeoff to let-down at 100% power as part of a proof of concept flight. We did have to reduce power to land! The engines are fine with it. It's all about controlling ICPs and CHTs. This is not possible at ROP mixtures other than full rich.

[jdeakin]

All the flat CMI (was TCM) and flat Lycomings are very happy at 85% to 90% power LOP (LOP ONLY).
"OldAkro" Quote:JD. Including turbos?
Nice catch, THANK YOU!

Here's George's opinion:

No… the 350 Hp engines are not happy at 85% = ~ 305 BHp.

That includes the TCM TSIO-550C (350Hp at 2700) and the Lycoming TIO 540 J2xx series engines (350 BHp at 2575 RPM).

The 550C is reasonably happy at 260-265. The Lycomings -- we have less extended experience with - - but based on the test stand operation, those engines typically run at cruise in the 2100 to 2200 RPM range and about 28 to 32” MP and LOP and do OK. But that is much less than the full power 43” x 2575 standard day power.


About 260-265 BHp at 2500 RPM is about the range at which I think the 550 c.i. engines are comfortable

The TSIO-520NB (typical RAM twin Cessna) at 335 BHp is pushing the limit for max power for a 520, especially the way that RAM sets them up.

That 520 c.i. engine doesn’t do well at more than 75-80% power even LOP. It is often difficult to get them to run well LOP.

Part of the problem with those engines is managing the TIT values.

A typical C 340 running at higher power and LOP will end up with a TIT at the 1630- 1640 range. While that is not a specific issue for the turbocharger - - the rest of the exhaust system can be challenged with continuous operation like that in the twin Cessna exhaust configuration. If you try to push up the BHP you end up butting heads with the TIT and exhaust operational considerations.

George