Return-Path: Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net ([206.13.28.241]) by ns1.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:21:18 -0400 Received: from postoffice.pacbell.net (ppp-206-170-6-98.rdcy01.pacbell.net) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0FT6004LW5023X@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for lancair.list@olsusa.com; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:10:39 -0700 From: fmoreno4@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Continental Quality Woes To: Lancair List Reply-to: fmoreno4@pacbell.net Message-id: <38FB377F.AA0DE5D6@postoffice.pacbell.net> X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> It seems never to stop. (See AVWEB article reproduced below.) Continental continues to have quality problems. New engine failures are no longer rare. It would seem that the "conservative" approach to use a "proven aircraft engine" is not so conservative after all. I just visited some Lancair builders at Palomar airport which has more Lancairs than any other airport in the US. The view of one builder that has tracked a number of Lancair IV's in the area (and suffered an inflight failure with a TSIO-550) is that the TSIO-550 is good for about 500-800 hours before requiring a top overhaul. Increasingly it appears that this is a very expensive engine to operate. The gap between "certified" and experimental seems to be closing because the certified stuff is getting less and less reliable, alas. It would be interesting to see the factual, accurate data on the experience of the Lancair IV fleet with the TSIO-550: failures, top overhauls, and other defects. I suspect that failures and costs per hour of operation are disheartenly high. Perhaps this could be obtained by going to the FAA registry, getting all the names and addresses of Lancair IV owners, and sending out a questionnaire. I doubt that the factory, being a Continental dealer, would be interested in collecting such data, even given the value that would be obtained for the fleet. Should we pool our resources and do the research? Fred >From AVWEB April 17: TCM ORDERS 1,100 CRANKSHAFTS TO BE CHECKED FOR FAULTY STEEL... Late Friday, Teledyne Continental Motors issued an order that effectively grounds some 1,100 TCM engines with crankshafts manufactured during the past two years until they can be tested for a metallurgical flaw that can cause the crank to fracture in flight. The order, in the form of a Mandatory Service Bulletin, comes slightly more than a year after a separate and unrelated problem with crankshaft fabrication also grounded aircraft with the new parts. In this instance, TCM Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 00-5 affects 360-, 470-, 520- and 550-series engines, and requires within the next 10 hours that two core samples be bored from the crankshaft's propeller flange and be sent to TCM in Mobile, Ala., for metallurgical testing. Next week, the FAA is expected to issue a Priority Letter Airworthiness Directive to make compliance with MSB 00-5 mandatory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>