Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:46:00 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4498342@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com
From: vtailjeff@aol.com
In-Reply-To: <list-4498140@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Performance Engines
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B405)
References: <list-4498140@logan.com>
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d29064caf29614785
X-AOL-IP: 67.204.159.207

Fraud, safety and unapproved parts come to mind....hmmm I think a =
California man went to jail for that last year.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2010, at 5:18 AM, "Bruce Gray" <bgray@glasair.org> wrote:

> And the FSDO will say "Airworthyness has no meaning in an experimental
> engine." I doubt if this shop is putting any of these mods on =
certified
> engines/airframes.
>=20
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of
> vtailjeff@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:46 PM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: Performance Engines
>=20
> My recommendation to all that have been burned by this individual is =
to
> contact the FAA and complain about the unairworthy product put out by
> Performance. You might make a difference and save someone's life. =
start
> with the FSDO in your area or his.
>=20
> Jeff Edwards
>=20
> Sent from my iPad
>=20
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 4:37 AM, Mark Davis <marksdavis@cox.net> wrote:
>=20
>> The recent posts regarding Performance Engines "issues" caused me to
> again look at my own experiences with them.  These posts proved to be
> the last straw that have now resulted in my losing complete confidence
> in the Performance Engines Lycoming IO-540 installed in my Legacy.  I =
am
> now in the process of having the engine overhauled, despite the fact
> that it runs very well, with just over 100 hours time on it.  I can no
> longer accept the potential but unknown risks that I must =
unfortunately
> admit I've been rationalizing as minor issues for those 100 hours.
>>=20
>> I originally chose to buy my engine from Performance based on =
positive
> recommendations and a personal visit to their shop (quite impressive).
> My first inkling of problems was while flow checking the fuel =
injection
> system prior to first start.  The fuel side seal of the Romec engine
> fuel pump (listed as overhauled on my purchase invoice) flowed fuel =
thru
> the seal vent at least as fast as thru the injectors when using the
> electric fuel pump.  I contacted Performance considering it a warranty
> item to which they agreed.  I was told to remove and return the pump =
and
> they would replace it within about a week.  Researching the fuel pump
> I'd removed found that there was a recurrent AD on the model installed
> on the engine that requiring re torquing the screws on the cover at
> first 25 hours and then 50 hour intervals.  Given the location on the
> engine and the significant hassle of complying with the AD, I first
> asked Performance why I had not been provided a modified AD free pump
> and was told that what I had was considered serviceable and met our
> purchase contract agreement for all parts to be new or overhauled.  I
> offered to pay the cost difference between the AD pump and am AD free
> modified one.  This was verbally agreed to by phone and I was told =
that
> I could expect to receive a replacement pump shortly.  That was the =
next
> to last telephone contact I had with them.  I was then faced with no
> further phone contact despite numerous calls which were either not
> answered or not returned over a several week period (apparently =
similar
> to recent post experience).  I then made a phone call using a friend's
> phone which was answered right away.  After a short unproductive
> discussion about when I might receive a replacement pump, I asked to
> have my original pump returned and that I would deal with the problem
> myself.  The pump was returned within about 2 days and I sent it to a
> well known repair facility in OK.  As part of part of my return of the
> original pump for the core charge, I was informed that, in their
> opinion, the original pump had not, in fact, been overhauled and was =
not
> serviceable.  This whole process cost me nearly $2K which I felt =
should
> have been covered under warranty.
>>=20
>> Since first startup the engine has leaked oil from all 6 cylinder
> bases (heavier from cylinders 1 and 2 and weeping from the other 4).  =
In
> addition there has been a case seam (parting line) leak forward of the
> sump which is enough that after an oil change without running the
> engine, a small amount of oil appears on the floor or cowling within
> about a day under that area of the parting line.  I have tried some
> sealing efforts on these leaks on the advice of several A&P's with
> little success.  I have not contacted Performance as I will no longer
> attempt to do any business with them.
>>=20
>> After installing the newly overhauled fuel pump from OK noted above,
> shortly after engine start, I found a few drops of fluid from the same
> fuel pump seal vent line which, in this case, proved to be oil vice
> 100LL.  The seal from the accessory case drive to fuel pump continues =
to
> have a small weep of oil.
>>=20
>> My Legacy is now down for engine teardown and any necessary repair.
>>=20
>> Mark Davis
>> Legacy N422MD
>> San Diego, CA
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html