|
|
Eric Ahlstrom demonstrates the power of a little knowledge:
<<Does the recent engine mount / crankshaft failure AD cover Lycoming TIO-540's in Lancairs? If so, what is the response? Are the Lycoming TIO-540 Lancair IV's grounded? On a second note, how does this compare with the Continental crank AD of two years ago? For the uninformed, ALL (repeat ALL) 300+ HP turbo Lycomings have been grounded for crank and/or mount failures after two fatal accidents. After all the vitriol leveled by the Lyc crowd at the Con supporters over the last two years, it should be interesting to see how the shoe fits the other foot.>>
Not to interrupt Eric's peals of "Neener, neener, neener" but he may want to dry off his foot and put it back in that shoe.
The AD (#2002-17-53) does indeed cover ALL Lycoming 540s 300 Hp and over. Compliance involves seeing if your engine is on the provided list of 864 applicable engines. If it is not then, happily, you are done. The cranks in question were manufactured since January '99 when Lycoming switched vendors and the new vendors began using a "hammer forging" technique. The vendor and technique have roots in the automotive industry.
If you have made any modifications to the certified engine you installed in your aircraft then it is no longer conformal to the requirements of certification and therefore no longer certified, or to put it another way, experimental. Since the engine in my IV is technically a "Regan TIO-540" the AD does not apply EVEN IF I HAD ONE OF THE EFFECTED CRANKSHAFTS. I can put any thing I want in my engine. I could use a bent coat hanger for a crank if I notified the FAA and abided by the test flight restrictions they would likely impose for the major modification.
This list, and the experimental community in general, is best served by accurate and complete information. Misleading rhetorical questions not only reflect poorly on the author but add to the general pool or misinformation we all wade through. I find the stench of that pool objectionable and bail as fast as possible to prevent it from rising above my head.
As to the "savagely hostile remarks" Eric alludes to, I am unaware of any. Perhaps he could be more specific. I suspect that this statement, like many he has made, falls into the category of incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
I selected the Lycoming because Lycoming had far more experience in 350+ Hp engines, the K series Lycoming rotating section is stouter than the Continental and aerobatic airshow planes use Lycomings almost exclusively. The relative merits of the designs of the Continental versus the Lycoming are vanishingly small compared to the potential variances in the installation and operation of each.
In order of relative importance to the longevity of an engine are: Operation, Maintenance, Installation and far far down the list is Manufacturer of Origin. IMHO the Lycoming is a slightly better design but that advantage can easily be overcome by improper operation, poor maintenance or inept engineering of the installation.
No engine or installation is perfect. With my engine I have been struggling with marginal turbocharger oil scavenging since about 300 hours TT. I finally resorted to replacing the OEM scavenge pump with a dual chambered pump of my own design. Problem solved (see photo below).
Regards
Brent Regan
Dual Pump Parts.JPG
|
|