R44- Lycoming Service Bulletin No. 388C
1 Attachment(s)
My new helicopter is in for annual inspection. This is a 2020 new R44 Raven I with TT 105 hours. The shop asked me if I want to do above mentioned SB. The SB applies at 300 hours but the mechanic says they recommend doing at 100 hours and then 300 hours apart. This was a surprise to me. As a private part 91 owner/operator I am not required to comply. Cost is $1200.
To other R 44 owners : what is your experience with exhaust valve problems ? Are they common ? Helicopter is flying fine and there is no roughness at anytime . I do proper warm up and cooldown of engine as per POH. Engine uses 1 QT oil / 8 hours. I am using Phillips XC 20W 50 oil with Camguard . Apart from cost I am believer in if its not broken -dont fix it concept. When the things gets opened and closed, there is always potential of something not put together properly. Your suggestions are appreciated |
Cant speak for R44 but all Lycomings need an exhaust valve guide inspection every 300 hours. In a Schweizer 300c engine that revs at 3200 rpm way more than an R44 we find that at 900 hours they just pass, by 1200 hours they need to be replaced if that is any help
|
mechanic says they recommend Unless you only do short hops that oil consumption looks to be kinda high for a new engine. Follow their recommendations. $1200 now but it may save you a lot later. You need to catch problems when they start not when they’re fully developed. (Fixed wing Lycoming experience only) Don’t be a gringe when it gets to maintenance, at $450-$500k you’re not hurting for money. Crude but had to be said. |
Originally Posted by kansarasc
(Post 11008535)
The shop asked me if I want to do above mentioned SB.
|
400hrs is just fine if you're giving the aircraft and adequate cooldown and you're not doing lots of starts for those hours. A lot of people like to do the wobble check but I believe you're better off just honing (less desirable but also adequate - reaming) the valve guide and getting rid of the carbon build up. Stuck valves are a very real thing in Lycomings (especially with earlier oils) but it would be very strange for it to occur in a 400hr old engine.
|
[QUOTE=B2N2;11008576]At 105 hrs that engine isn’t even broken in yet.
Unless you only do short hops that oil consumption looks to be kinda high for a new engine. 1 Qt / 8 h is high ? this is the formula from Lycoming break in service instruction : 0.006 x BHP x 4 ÷ 7.4 = Qt./Hr. https://www.lycoming.com/sites/defau...onsumption.pdf Now that the max allowable oil consumption and and at that rate one will spend more time adding oil than flying. But most people I know are content with oil cons. of 1 Qt / 5-6 hours. And thats my average oil use for 40-45 hours between oil changes . I do not need to add oil for first 12-15 hours |
If it was me I'd be asking the mechanic for more compelling reasons, even ask the Robinson factory if there is any benefit.
For $1,200 you can buy something like this for your Lycoming. https://www.jpinstruments.com/shop/edm-350/ And it adds value when using it and when it's time to sell it. |
Originally Posted by kansarasc
(Post 11008535)
..... I am believer in if its not broken -dont fix it concept........
My view is that if you have a brand new heli, and this is recommended, $1200 is nothing, do it! |
I noticed that SB was dated 2004 and it was obvious from the wording that Lycoming intended to fit valve guides of "an improved material", to negate the requirement. Seems strange that after 17 years the requirement is still there, at least on helicopter engines.
|
Lycoming air cooled piston engines do have one or two known faults - I'm sure that Robinson have considered other air cooled piston engines but what might these be ?
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 11008882)
I noticed that SB was dated 2004 and it was obvious from the wording that Lycoming intended to fit valve guides of "an improved material", to negate the requirement. Seems strange that after 17 years the requirement is still there, at least on helicopter engines.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 11008882)
I noticed that SB was dated 2004 and it was obvious from the wording that Lycoming intended to fit valve guides of "an improved material", to negate the requirement. Seems strange that after 17 years the requirement is still there, at least on helicopter engines.
|
The airworthiness limitation section is the only section in the maintenance manual that is FAA approved. That makes anything in it mandatory for all. I don't know if it is the same in other countries but it probably is in many. The reason for this is that the legislative rules for making regulation extend only to government agencies, not to manufacturers. If manufacturers could make things actually be mandatory we'd be in a world of hurt by the time their legal departments were done with the manuals. Traditionally, all overhauls of components are not listed in the ALS and thus are not mandatory unless you are operating under some form of FAA approved operations specification that specifically makes them so. Also, airworthiness limitations lists only ever get longer, never shorter. Calling a service bulletin mandatory is a misnomer but gives the manufacturer some psychological recourse in a court. If they really wanted it to be mandatory they would petition the FAA to make it an AD which I'd venture has happened but rarely.
|
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
(Post 11009114)
Hi-Chrome valves were installed on engines built after around 1998, that negate the need for that SB. Unfortunately for some reason, you can't fit Hi-Chrome valves to engines installed in rotary wing, so the SB still stands.
4.2.2. Component change review 4.2.2.1. Valve guides Prior to 1998, some Lycoming aircraft engines were fitted with exhaust valve guides that exhibited premature 'bell-mouthing' type wear; contributing to a greater risk of valve sticking and/or sealing surface degradation. Mandatory Service Bulletin SB388 (2004) was introduced to require assessment of valve guide and valve condition at minimum 300 hour intervals, with Service Instruction SI1485 following to introduce a new 'Hi-chrome' wear resistant valve guide material. SI1485A noted that all Lycoming cylinder assemblies produced after 1998 contained guides produced from the new material |
Originally Posted by boratron
(Post 11008758)
Stop believing in that!! Maintenance is all about being proactive, not reactive. You wont always get the chance to fix something after its broken! My view is that if you have a brand new heli, and this is recommended, $1200 is nothing, do it!
|
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
(Post 11009114)
Hi-Chrome valves were installed on engines built after around 1998, that negate the need for that SB. Unfortunately for some reason, you can't fit Hi-Chrome valves to engines installed in rotary wing, so the SB still stands.
|
212 and wrench - just going by SI 1485A https://www.lycoming.com/sites/defau...0Procedure.pdf
If it is wrong, I blame Lycoming! For clarity I only have experience of maintaining Lycoming O360 in fixed wing, we have had the hi-chrome valve guides for a while now and I was able to dump the pesky wobble check, |
Mandatory checks are very conservative so I think it is ridiculous doing a 300-hour check at the 100-hour mark.
|
Frankly as it is an SB I would recommend Tech services and QA that it should not be done unless there is an economic benefit I would not do it honestly if it was that important (and after so long) it would have been an AD along time ago it would also appear the manufacturers think the same as it should have then been incorporated in production.
|
This is the EASA AD relating to it, note rotorcraft are separate from fixed wing requirements.
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_..._2005-0023R3_1 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.