Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Eggenfellner G1 & G2 Gearboxes Grounded
- Thread starter Yukon
- Start date
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Proactive
At least he's doing something about it which is good, even if its ugly. It's more than I can say for some big car makers, for example, who know of a serious safety problem but ignore it, hoping it goes away to save face. It sucks for the folks that have to fork over more money, but the alternative is less desirable. Now the issue is how fast can he supply Gen III replacements?
At least he's doing something about it which is good, even if its ugly. It's more than I can say for some big car makers, for example, who know of a serious safety problem but ignore it, hoping it goes away to save face. It sucks for the folks that have to fork over more money, but the alternative is less desirable. Now the issue is how fast can he supply Gen III replacements?
Last edited:
Kahuna
Moderatoring
Posting this link does not help us if we are not members of that group. How about you (or someone) cut and paste the text here and reference the source please.
Thanks
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Ye ask
Re: Mandatory reduction drive unit upgrades
Of the hundreds of drive units in the field, this is the second shaft failure since we started the company and the main reason to upgrade to the much stronger G3 unit.
It has also pushed the mandatory grounding of all Generation 1 and Generation 2 units to the end of 2007. We will not be responsible for anyone continuing flight behind either of these units since a better unit is now available. This is an experimental aircraft / engine business. It has now been shown that it is time to update all previous engines with the latest technology reduction drive unit. This will continue to maintain a very low failure rate. Generation 3 drive units are available at eaainc@... at production cost, with a return of the earlier drive.
Jan Eggenfellner
Ref: Yahoo Subaruaircraft group
Ye ask ye shall receive.
Re: Mandatory reduction drive unit upgrades
Of the hundreds of drive units in the field, this is the second shaft failure since we started the company and the main reason to upgrade to the much stronger G3 unit.
It has also pushed the mandatory grounding of all Generation 1 and Generation 2 units to the end of 2007. We will not be responsible for anyone continuing flight behind either of these units since a better unit is now available. This is an experimental aircraft / engine business. It has now been shown that it is time to update all previous engines with the latest technology reduction drive unit. This will continue to maintain a very low failure rate. Generation 3 drive units are available at eaainc@... at production cost, with a return of the earlier drive.
Jan Eggenfellner
Ref: Yahoo Subaruaircraft group
N395V
Well Known Member
So if I read this right Jan is just moving up the date of planned replacement as a result of 2 units of a total of ? units. How many Lycoming cranks and fuel pumps failed before they put out an AD?
This is not an action by the FAA and it appears that he is comfortable waiting till the end of the year.
Hardly a "the sky is falling situation".
George is right Jan is taking prospective action for a potential problem.
This is not an action by the FAA and it appears that he is comfortable waiting till the end of the year.
Hardly a "the sky is falling situation".
George is right Jan is taking prospective action for a potential problem.
Last edited:
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
The issue probably isn't the number of failures, it is the failure rate vs the number of engines in service or vs the total fleet hours. Two failures in the same subsystem during however many hourst he Egg drivetrain has in service is probably a bad number.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
It was GEN3.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Proactive retroactively
Clearly he is not proactive about testing or building service history before selling the product. However there's no way a small experimental aircraft company will ever have 10,000 hour hardware flight test programs. I''m not defending just stating fact and the reality. How many hours did Van have on the first RV-3 when he sold his first kit or any other model for that matter. May be one prototype with a few 100 hours?
I think most (not all) customers of Eggs products realize they're buying experimental stuff, i.e., you're a test pilot. Clearly there are expectations it will be reliable and safe. That has always been a heated debate, is it reliable and safe.
I've never said PSRU's or auto engines in planes where unsafe, but I always balked at claims, when made, about how much better and more reliable it would be than a direct drive Lycoming (because it was "modern"). I made people mad by being cynical about claims. My cynicism is based on a simple reason, it's impossible to make those claims with out service history. Lycoming has a big head start in service history and "generations" of changes or small refinements.
In 10 years, with 1000's of Gen III PSRU's flying, with a combined total of 10's of thousands of hours, with out failure, than you have a claim to make. Double or triple this service history, than bragging can start. If a design is good from the start service history is academic. If a design is bad, it will not get better by testing it. Bottom line, I just don't know of any thing with gears in is 100% failure proof.
I was the one that said or implied addressing the failures in this way was proactive; I did not say he was proactive about development. However by developing a Gen III box from lessons learned on the Gen I & II, is a form of being proactive.
Clearly he is not proactive about testing or building service history before selling the product. However there's no way a small experimental aircraft company will ever have 10,000 hour hardware flight test programs. I''m not defending just stating fact and the reality. How many hours did Van have on the first RV-3 when he sold his first kit or any other model for that matter. May be one prototype with a few 100 hours?
I think most (not all) customers of Eggs products realize they're buying experimental stuff, i.e., you're a test pilot. Clearly there are expectations it will be reliable and safe. That has always been a heated debate, is it reliable and safe.
I've never said PSRU's or auto engines in planes where unsafe, but I always balked at claims, when made, about how much better and more reliable it would be than a direct drive Lycoming (because it was "modern"). I made people mad by being cynical about claims. My cynicism is based on a simple reason, it's impossible to make those claims with out service history. Lycoming has a big head start in service history and "generations" of changes or small refinements.
In 10 years, with 1000's of Gen III PSRU's flying, with a combined total of 10's of thousands of hours, with out failure, than you have a claim to make. Double or triple this service history, than bragging can start. If a design is good from the start service history is academic. If a design is bad, it will not get better by testing it. Bottom line, I just don't know of any thing with gears in is 100% failure proof.
Last edited:
N395V
Well Known Member
Didn't say it was fair from the standpoint of economics just that based on seeing a problem he is taking action before a problem gets worse.
Just like lycoming and the crankshafts that they are forcing everyone to replace. Lycoming should have done a better job proactively testing. And they should have had enough cranks in stock when they issued the AD but they didn't.
When Cessna had a wing AD issued on the 414 series of aircraft and entire 121 fleets were grounded they estimated 6 years before they had enough wing kits to bring all the 414 models into compliance. (at owners expense)
From a fairness standpoint any manufacturer who compels its customers to replace a product with a problem should foot the entire bill.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that there appears to be a lot of piling on Eggenfeller under the guise of "saving lives" or suggesting lawyers learn how to spell Egg.......... and this is really innappropriate.
This is called experimental aviation for a reason, it has risks and dangers. People who use this engine clearly accept those risks.
Sure you can make the point "they might crash into my house" but then again the general public can make that point about all of our "unsafe" experimental aircraft.
There is nothing wrong with a thread discussing a problem or notifying the group when a problem crops up but there are now 2 threads harping on Subaru gear boxes, at least one post (that I hope someone deleted) suggesting a lawyer go after egg, and several posts (that have been deleted or edited) suggesting a forum member is placing income above safety.
Good post George.
Not to start the Lyco/ Sube war up again but let's be fair here. Some people are so quick to attack the alternative stuff and simply look the other way when things like this happen to certified products. One look at this page: http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-bulletins/index.jsp, shows how many problems a mature design still has and that quality control still leaves something to be desired.
Jan is trying to do a good thing here. Should these drives ideally have 10,000 hours of testing on them before release? It would be nice, but as George points out, the economics of it in this market makes that unlikely. Should Jan pay for these? Would be nice, but not typically how things are done in the aviation world. Cost is better than the full retail shot.
Finally, good gearbox designs have been built in the hundreds of thousands with tens of millions of flight hours- in fact there are probably more flight hours on aero engines with reduction drives (1 million engines at a rough count) than direct drive ones if you add up the numbers produced and mission times. It just has to be done right. The historical facts don't support any notion that redrives are unreliable. Bad designs whether they be modern day or older PSRUs, propellers, engines or airframes will show up with many failures. We need to strive for good designs, validated by good testing and followed up by good quality control.
Reliability should be the first goal, then performance. We should be building on lessons learned from previous experience as all good designs do.
Above all, remember that we are flying single engined experimental aircraft here, irregardless of powerplant system. If something does happen- try to be prepared with a plan and try not to paint yourself into a corner.
Last edited:
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
It certainly hurts to have to pay for a fix for a problem that you didn't cause. But, the money to pay for the fix has to come from somewhere. Should the manufacturer charge a whole bunch more for the product in the first place so there is money in the bank to pay for fixes for problems? Or, if they believe they have a good design, should they try to keep the price as low as possible, and then charge for any required changes? It has to be one or the other, as fixes to problems don't come cheap.
Cessna, Lycoming, Van and Eggenfellner seem to have chosen to lower the initial purchase price, and then count on hitting the purchaser for more money to fix mistakes if it is needed. How much more would you be prepared to pay for your aircraft, engine, etc to guarantee no need to pay for future fixes? If builders are actually willing to pay more up front to protect against the cost of future problems, maybe there is a market for some type of insurance product to do this.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Milt, although I tend to agree with you, the hard truth is that there probably isnt enough $$$ in the business for Egg to absorb the cost of replacing the older PSRU's.
Do you remember HAPI engines????
VW conversions for homebuilt A/C. Highly reguarded in the business. Had a problem with crankshaft cracking after the third or fourth time they raised the HP in the same basic engine. They did the "Right Thing", and recalled all the problem engines, for a no cost crank replacement. The expense put the company under.
Question-----------How do you make a small fortune in Home built aviation????
Answer, start with a large fortune.
IIRC, Egg is selling the Gen 3 units at cost. My guess is that is the best he can do------specially considering that admitting the old units have a problem, will probably cost him some business on top of it all.
cytoxin
Well Known Member
not all charge for thes problems
how many people got replacement cylinders, cranks and various other engine parts from superior, lycoming, eci.
at no charge? i guess thats because the engines actually cost about 2500$ to make.
how many people got replacement cylinders, cranks and various other engine parts from superior, lycoming, eci.
at no charge? i guess thats because the engines actually cost about 2500$ to make.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
What? Right
As far as your estimate of cost to make a Lyc engine, how do you know? I think you are kidding right. Ironically a clone Lyc brand new out the box cost less than a FWF Eggenfellner engine kit with a used engine. So I think the Lyc is a deal. The question is why are Eggs engines so expensive?
If you want to make and analogy to the PSRU issue and Lyc, than you can say Lyc has accountability. What do I mean. Lyc has certified manufacturing, QC inspection processes and tracking/record keeping of parts. The "standardization" of manufacturing, tracking of parts is what makes "aerospace" stuff expensive, along with low volume, expensive materials and destructive testing of a certain percent of parts. [The Crank AD issue was due to a new subcontractor who did not follow the process. Lycs fault for not veting and overseeing the vendor.]
Well the other half of the cost equation is liability. When a car engine fails, the driver pulls over, calls trip-A. I know the idea of buying a whole car for $22,000 verses that just for a Lyc does not compute. When a plane engine fails 50 $million$ dollar lawsuits usually fly. Take Precision canceling Carb production due to cost of liability insurance. People can't accept that STUFF HAPPENS and flying has risk. This applies to the PSRU on Eggs. The difference is Eggenfellner's defense is no doubt.....nothing; he's not worth enough for a lawsuit. I doubt he has product insurance. If he did his engine kits would cost double. So when you buy these engines you accept the liability, which is as it should be. If that applied to a Lyc, may be you could buy them for $10,000.
If you really want to know the limited number of Lyc cranks affected by the crank AD, its a matter of record. My O-360 Lyc is vintage 1970's. It never had a Crank or any other significant AD (except oil pump & prop gov line). The 1000's of other Lycs made before and after my engine, for decades, never had crank AD's either. With the Lyc crank we're talking about a limited batch of parts, not some systemic design issue. The PSRU is/could be a design issue.
The Lyc is a totally different engine and its design is not in question. You can debate the lapse in Lyc crank quality control or how they handled warranties, but what does that have to do with Eggs PSRU. BTW, I recall Lyc paid for the parts and labor in full for some affected cranks. A later batch of cranks affected by a SB (not AD) did not get the full meal deal from Lyc. The deal was for parts at cost, no labor. The logic I guess was because that batch of cranks had no failures (yet), and they are only suspect.
You think a Lyc should cost $2,500 to make? Have you ever made a Lycoming from scratch? Precision high grade structural sand cast aluminum case, machined to high tolerances; large crank made with high quality steel and the best forging process and exacting finishes, plating & tolerance; High strength forged rods w/ fatigue rated bolts; cast heads w/ sodium filled valves; cylinder barrels w/ advanced coatings; geared accessory case which drives 5 or 6 items......... Yea sounds cheap.
What? William W. this is tired old rhetoric. It's totally irrelevant to PSRU's or autoengines. It makes no sense, except to make someone feel better. I guess? It changes nothing.how many people got replacement cylinders, cranks and various other engine parts from superior, lycoming, eci.
As far as your estimate of cost to make a Lyc engine, how do you know?
I think you are kidding right. Ironically a clone Lyc brand new out the box cost less than a FWF Eggenfellner engine kit with a used engine. So I think the Lyc is a deal. The question is why are Eggs engines so expensive?If you want to make and analogy to the PSRU issue and Lyc, than you can say Lyc has accountability. What do I mean. Lyc has certified manufacturing, QC inspection processes and tracking/record keeping of parts. The "standardization" of manufacturing, tracking of parts is what makes "aerospace" stuff expensive, along with low volume, expensive materials and destructive testing of a certain percent of parts. [The Crank AD issue was due to a new subcontractor who did not follow the process. Lycs fault for not veting and overseeing the vendor.]
Well the other half of the cost equation is liability. When a car engine fails, the driver pulls over, calls trip-A. I know the idea of buying a whole car for $22,000 verses that just for a Lyc does not compute. When a plane engine fails 50 $million$ dollar lawsuits usually fly. Take Precision canceling Carb production due to cost of liability insurance. People can't accept that STUFF HAPPENS and flying has risk. This applies to the PSRU on Eggs. The difference is Eggenfellner's defense is no doubt.....nothing; he's not worth enough for a lawsuit. I doubt he has product insurance. If he did his engine kits would cost double. So when you buy these engines you accept the liability, which is as it should be. If that applied to a Lyc, may be you could buy them for $10,000.
If you really want to know the limited number of Lyc cranks affected by the crank AD, its a matter of record. My O-360 Lyc is vintage 1970's. It never had a Crank or any other significant AD (except oil pump & prop gov line). The 1000's of other Lycs made before and after my engine, for decades, never had crank AD's either. With the Lyc crank we're talking about a limited batch of parts, not some systemic design issue. The PSRU is/could be a design issue.
The Lyc is a totally different engine and its design is not in question. You can debate the lapse in Lyc crank quality control or how they handled warranties, but what does that have to do with Eggs PSRU. BTW, I recall Lyc paid for the parts and labor in full for some affected cranks. A later batch of cranks affected by a SB (not AD) did not get the full meal deal from Lyc. The deal was for parts at cost, no labor. The logic I guess was because that batch of cranks had no failures (yet), and they are only suspect.
You think a Lyc should cost $2,500 to make? Have you ever made a Lycoming from scratch? Precision high grade structural sand cast aluminum case, machined to high tolerances; large crank made with high quality steel and the best forging process and exacting finishes, plating & tolerance; High strength forged rods w/ fatigue rated bolts; cast heads w/ sodium filled valves; cylinder barrels w/ advanced coatings; geared accessory case which drives 5 or 6 items......... Yea sounds cheap.
Last edited:
Jconard
Well Known Member
Well,
The cessna 414 was a long term corrosion and fatigue issue, which was unanticipated, could not be predicted, and happened after extensive testing and certification.
The crank issue was not a design issue, but rather a material issue, and again the design was tested extensively over Millions of hours.
Egg has again and again promised ready to fly tested and complete packages, and sold them as such. He takes huge deposits with the promise of a given delivery of a complete and working package on a given date. He vastly overestimates the engineering and testing support his products have. He is still taking deposits on the RV-10 package, though no complete package, with functional prop controller and turbo has EVER shipped. He refuses to refund deposits of those who ordered them, even when he fails to deliver on time, on spec, or even fails to deliver a fully functional unit. When people demand their money back for failure of delivery or function he refuses, until they begin legal action, then settles for much less than the deposit, and with a non-disclosure.
The only (former) flying RV-10 turbo blew up at least one turbocharger, though members of this board echoed Jan's misleading statements as to how much "trouble free" time the package had. It NEVER had a functioning constant speed prop control, and DID have gearbox cooling issues.
If people buy something based on representations about its testing, and readiness, and it turns out the package was not actually tested that much, and has not been proven, and then it becomes unairworthy, they have been harmed by a misreprsentation.
I am sorry, but this is not the same as a small batch of cranks. Imagine if Lycoming grounded THE ENTIRE FLEET of engines it ever produced, until it could build enough $3-4K widgets to make them airworthy again. Add on top of that the fact that the fleet was built through what can charitably be called "aggressive salesmanship", and you begin to see why many on the sidelines are scratching their heads and wondering.
Two years ago, if I were asked I would have said "alternative...think it over, but if you do, strongly consider EGG" But now, as each generation of products leaves many many people with no money, no functional package, and leaves the community with a host of ongoing claims and secrecy....I just cannot see why anyone would go that route.
Today, when new builders ask about an alternative, I suggest they visit Ross's site, Tracy's site, and think long and hard about doing it themselves, with a best of breed approach. At least they will know what they are getting.
Scary
Truly Scary
The cessna 414 was a long term corrosion and fatigue issue, which was unanticipated, could not be predicted, and happened after extensive testing and certification.
The crank issue was not a design issue, but rather a material issue, and again the design was tested extensively over Millions of hours.
Egg has again and again promised ready to fly tested and complete packages, and sold them as such. He takes huge deposits with the promise of a given delivery of a complete and working package on a given date. He vastly overestimates the engineering and testing support his products have. He is still taking deposits on the RV-10 package, though no complete package, with functional prop controller and turbo has EVER shipped. He refuses to refund deposits of those who ordered them, even when he fails to deliver on time, on spec, or even fails to deliver a fully functional unit. When people demand their money back for failure of delivery or function he refuses, until they begin legal action, then settles for much less than the deposit, and with a non-disclosure.
The only (former) flying RV-10 turbo blew up at least one turbocharger, though members of this board echoed Jan's misleading statements as to how much "trouble free" time the package had. It NEVER had a functioning constant speed prop control, and DID have gearbox cooling issues.
If people buy something based on representations about its testing, and readiness, and it turns out the package was not actually tested that much, and has not been proven, and then it becomes unairworthy, they have been harmed by a misreprsentation.
I am sorry, but this is not the same as a small batch of cranks. Imagine if Lycoming grounded THE ENTIRE FLEET of engines it ever produced, until it could build enough $3-4K widgets to make them airworthy again. Add on top of that the fact that the fleet was built through what can charitably be called "aggressive salesmanship", and you begin to see why many on the sidelines are scratching their heads and wondering.
Two years ago, if I were asked I would have said "alternative...think it over, but if you do, strongly consider EGG" But now, as each generation of products leaves many many people with no money, no functional package, and leaves the community with a host of ongoing claims and secrecy....I just cannot see why anyone would go that route.
Today, when new builders ask about an alternative, I suggest they visit Ross's site, Tracy's site, and think long and hard about doing it themselves, with a best of breed approach. At least they will know what they are getting.
Scary
Truly Scary
Safety in numbers
The one thing alternative engine advocates cannot argue is the concept of safety in numbers.
Put simply, if Lycoming has a design or manufacturing fault in their engine or associated power plant accessories, what is the chance that you will be the first to find it and something bad will happen to you or your airplane? Having a grounded airplane is a pain, but you and the plane both survive to fly another day. The real issue is if you are the guy with an in flight emergency caused by a failure.
I sure don't have a figure in mind, but I bet it is substantially higher than the alternative engines, regardless of the suppliers pedigree as there are simply way more flight hours and a larger installed base on the Lycoming.
If I were looking at buying one of these engines right now, particularly for an RV10, my decision would be real easy! Note I am not making any reference to Dan or his plane. Simply stating there isnt an alternative engine that could be called remotely proven for the RV10.
To the alternative guys - A big thank you from me! Someday I might have a low cost, no maintenance, smooth running, water cooled, lightweight engine that runs on canola oil. I am just not personally prepared to help you guys do the manufacturer's testing to make it happen!
Richard
The one thing alternative engine advocates cannot argue is the concept of safety in numbers.
Put simply, if Lycoming has a design or manufacturing fault in their engine or associated power plant accessories, what is the chance that you will be the first to find it and something bad will happen to you or your airplane? Having a grounded airplane is a pain, but you and the plane both survive to fly another day. The real issue is if you are the guy with an in flight emergency caused by a failure.
I sure don't have a figure in mind, but I bet it is substantially higher than the alternative engines, regardless of the suppliers pedigree as there are simply way more flight hours and a larger installed base on the Lycoming.
If I were looking at buying one of these engines right now, particularly for an RV10, my decision would be real easy! Note I am not making any reference to Dan or his plane. Simply stating there isnt an alternative engine that could be called remotely proven for the RV10.
To the alternative guys - A big thank you from me! Someday I might have a low cost, no maintenance, smooth running, water cooled, lightweight engine that runs on canola oil. I am just not personally prepared to help you guys do the manufacturer's testing to make it happen!
Richard
N395V
Well Known Member
So that makes it ok to compel replacement of many more cranks than were probably affected. Because they did not do their job inspecting parts before they put them into engines they sold as "certified and extensively tested"?
The simple fact is they screwed up and issued a series of broad ADs to cover themselves from a legal standpoint.
Actually the 414 wing AD was issued after structural failure was found in 2 414 wings in high time high dutycycle heavily loaded part 121 planes.
The AD was broad and also affected part 91 planes with 10% of the duty cycle and 10% the total hours. When queried by an owners group the FAA and Cessna refused to provide the data to the public that led to the broad sweeping AD, stating the analysis was based on proprietary Cessna data.
The general feeling in the Cessna owners community at that time was that Cessna was using the AD process to expedite the demise of their entire older fleet so they do not have to support it and will not be liable for it. If true this is less than a noble under taking.
It was only after Cessna realized that they couldn't produce enough kits to repair the entire affected fleet, in a timely manner, that they and the FAA relented on a timetable allowing several years to comply based on age and airframe time. By then the damage was done and the decrease in sales value of my 414 was decreased by more than the cost of several Eggenfeller fwf kits. I and many other 414 owners considered this rather egregious on the part of Cessna.
I hold my breath everytime Lycoming issues another series of engine serial numbers for crank applicability because I know the cost and work involved in pulling my Rocket engine. I consider this AD in slow motion egregious.
Yet you seem to want to triviliaze the the problems of Lycoming & Cessna and their impact on those affected but appear to be out for blood, relative to Eggenfeller.
Why is that?
I simply find this perplexing.
David-aviator
Well Known Member
What? William W. this is tired old rhetoric. It's totally irrelevant to PSRU's or autoengines. It makes no sense, except to make someone feel better. I guess? It changes nothing.
As far as your estimate of cost to make a Lyc engine, how do you know?
The original 2.5 engines were used. All of the H6 engines are new.
When I last saw Gary Newsted at SNF this year, he was organizing a list of vendors who supplied parts to make the engine work on an airplane - there were 52 persons or companies on the list. That's one reason the engines are not cheap.
An engine fresh out of a junk yard for $2500 simply will not work. The intake manifold, exhaust pipes, fly wheel, engine mount, alternator, ECU, PSRU and cooling system are not stock. Buying or having all that stuff made is the reason they cost what they do.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Good stuff
By that I mean its a no excuse component.
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.
No I would have loved it, if they paid 100% for it. As far as the AD that has nothing to do with Lycoming. The Federal Aviation Administration issues those, not Lycoming. Now the SB on the "other" cranks that are suspect is no doubt one for safety but also liability. I agree they screwed up and there is no excuse, its ugly. Continental did the same thing in the early mid 90's. In this case they changed their forging process intentionally to something new and better, presumably with an OK from the FAA. New C206's where puking cranks out. They went back to the old original methods. The CRANK is the Lycoming's PSRU or PSU.
By that I mean its a no excuse component.
Last edited:
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
I don't know the details in this case, but it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to request that the FAA issue an AD, because they consider that an unsafe condition exists with their product that must be rectified.
Actually, Eggenfellner does not have the ability to "ground" these aircraft. This is only a recommendation. There is no regulatory reason why the owners could not continue to fly if they wished. It might not be smart to continue to fly those aircraft, but it wouldn't be against the FARs.
One Untested Egg for Another
Thanks Kevin, but I understand the nature of experimental certification. If you read the posting from Eggenfellner, he actually uses the word "grounding".
True, not mandatory for an experimental aircraft, but when 100 hr Gen 2 units are shucking their gear shafts, it would be a silly goose indeed who would keep flying one.
Problem is, one untested unit is being replaced with another. I don't think there is more than 200 hrs on any Gen 3 gearbox, and according to Mickey Coggins, ( Gen 2 owner) there have already been two revisions on the production Gen 3.
Once again, I am not picking on Jan Eggenfellner. It just appears that reliable spur gear reduction units are possibly more difficult to achieve than once thought. Now with the H-6 pumping out considerably more horsepower with the turbo, I imagine the gear teeth will really start flying.
Thanks Kevin, but I understand the nature of experimental certification. If you read the posting from Eggenfellner, he actually uses the word "grounding".
True, not mandatory for an experimental aircraft, but when 100 hr Gen 2 units are shucking their gear shafts, it would be a silly goose indeed who would keep flying one.
Problem is, one untested unit is being replaced with another. I don't think there is more than 200 hrs on any Gen 3 gearbox, and according to Mickey Coggins, ( Gen 2 owner) there have already been two revisions on the production Gen 3.
Once again, I am not picking on Jan Eggenfellner. It just appears that reliable spur gear reduction units are possibly more difficult to achieve than once thought. Now with the H-6 pumping out considerably more horsepower with the turbo, I imagine the gear teeth will really start flying.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
It is expensive...
Kevin's correct. I paid $11,500 in 2001 for a wing center splice upgrade on my Air Tractor after one lost a wing in Arizona, killing the pilot. I biatched about it to Leland Snow, owner/ceo of Air Tractor and he said, " there are 1000 airplanes out there and I don't have $11,500,000". I was told then that I now have a "lifetime" spar. Fast forward to last year and the life is now 8000 hours. "New" upgrade, $33,500 thank you...and only the factory can do it. The wings must come off, the leading edges drilled off and the steel spar caps removed, new ones installed and re-rivetted....yes...we pay.
Air Tractor tests wings to destruction and I nevertheless have faith in them and in Mr. Snow's integrity, but in our busines with hundreds of turnarounds a day and zillions of G-force cycles...who know what might happen down the road? At least it was tested as thoroughly as could be.
Regards,
Kevin's correct. I paid $11,500 in 2001 for a wing center splice upgrade on my Air Tractor after one lost a wing in Arizona, killing the pilot. I biatched about it to Leland Snow, owner/ceo of Air Tractor and he said, " there are 1000 airplanes out there and I don't have $11,500,000". I was told then that I now have a "lifetime" spar. Fast forward to last year and the life is now 8000 hours. "New" upgrade, $33,500 thank you...and only the factory can do it. The wings must come off, the leading edges drilled off and the steel spar caps removed, new ones installed and re-rivetted....yes...we pay.
Air Tractor tests wings to destruction and I nevertheless have faith in them and in Mr. Snow's integrity, but in our busines with hundreds of turnarounds a day and zillions of G-force cycles...who know what might happen down the road? At least it was tested as thoroughly as could be.
Regards,
The Egg turbos are normalized at 30 inches and probably produce a bit less power than the atmo EZ30s at SL due to higher IAT , the exhaust restriction of the turbine and induction restriction of the compressor.
I agree, the G3 box has relatively limited time on it and the same problems could strike it down the road. Jan better have it right this time. It could be his last chance.
Pierre, I hope you are making good money with that airplane! That is some serious dough. Arrggh. Reminds me of the King Air bathtub fittings about 15-20 years ago.
We pay, we pay.
I agree, the G3 box has relatively limited time on it and the same problems could strike it down the road. Jan better have it right this time. It could be his last chance.
Pierre, I hope you are making good money with that airplane! That is some serious dough. Arrggh.
Reminds me of the King Air bathtub fittings about 15-20 years ago.We pay, we pay.
The Egg turbos are normalized at 30 inches and probably produce a bit less power than the atmo EZ30s at SL due to higher IAT , the exhaust restriction of the turbine and induction restriction of the compressor.
I agree, the G3 box has relatively limited time on it and the same problems could strike it down the road. Jan better have it right this time. It could be his last chance.
Pierre, I hope you are making good money with that airplane! That is some serious dough. Arrggh.
We pay, we pay.
Ross,
Is not an atmo H6 190hp and a turbo h6 220 hp? Why the comparison to EZ30's? Does Jan market EZ 30?
The Egg H6/ E6 engines are Subaru EZ30 engines. As you often point out, these engines have never been dynoed so nobody knows the true power output. Initially it was thought that the turbos would run 32-34 inches but that has been nixed to ensure longer life. The hp estimates on his site have not changed to reflect the lower 30 inch manifold pressures being used on these engines today.
That's as good a guess as any. Not so good if you are near SL, better if you live in Denver.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
FAA is unilateral ruling Emperor
(1)The BIG BAD FAA is like the IRS in theory, they have ultimate rule and control. They can be lobbyed by industry, but SAFETY is suppose to be their charter. This is in the land if ideal. You are partly right, truth is commercial pressures do figure in FAA public safety policy, but it's not suppose to be that way. In the end the FAA has control to issue or not issue AD's, regardless of manufacture desires.
Regarding the crank AD, after a crank or two failed and records where investigated...What new vendor? New process? No QC testing sample records?....... there was no choice, the FAA moved on that batch. The question is whether the second group of cranks in the SB - service bulletin gets turned into an AD down the road. Lyc does have control of SB's which are not regulatory. The cranks affected by the AD got the sweet deal, parts and labor paid. Lyc probably would NOT want the SB turned into an AD. It would be a case for a class action suit, demanding they pay the same deal they did for the other AD cranks.
Often plane owners think AD's are issued so the manufacture makes money. I have thought that with Hartzell AD's. However I don't think that's true. Its usually down to the engineering. The FAA will put out NPRM (notice of proposed rule making) to get input from owners/operators about an AD coming down the line. They even will change an AD from pressure by owners/operators, but in the end, they can ignore (and often do) ignore the manufactures, owners and operators. There is politics involved, even though its suppose to be about safety.
I agree with Pierre , some AD's seems ultra conservative. The FAA is inconsistent, one problem on one plane out of many, than the whole fleet is affected with an AD. In other cases there seems to be a systemic problem and they do nothing. It is the Government after all. We make fun of the FAA but they do have good people, its just the institution that ties their hands. Frankly the politicians are trying to get rid of the FAA and privatize it.
(2) Agreed. Many as John said are still in boxes, never flown, may be never will. Those who continue to fly.......... caveat emperor. Same thing applies to experimentals, ultimately we do not need to follow any AD.
(1)The BIG BAD FAA is like the IRS in theory, they have ultimate rule and control. They can be lobbyed by industry, but SAFETY is suppose to be their charter. This is in the land if ideal. You are partly right, truth is commercial pressures do figure in FAA public safety policy, but it's not suppose to be that way. In the end the FAA has control to issue or not issue AD's, regardless of manufacture desires.
Regarding the crank AD, after a crank or two failed and records where investigated...What new vendor? New process? No QC testing sample records?....... there was no choice, the FAA moved on that batch. The question is whether the second group of cranks in the SB - service bulletin gets turned into an AD down the road. Lyc does have control of SB's which are not regulatory. The cranks affected by the AD got the sweet deal, parts and labor paid. Lyc probably would NOT want the SB turned into an AD. It would be a case for a class action suit, demanding they pay the same deal they did for the other AD cranks.
Often plane owners think AD's are issued so the manufacture makes money. I have thought that with Hartzell AD's. However I don't think that's true. Its usually down to the engineering. The FAA will put out NPRM (notice of proposed rule making) to get input from owners/operators about an AD coming down the line. They even will change an AD from pressure by owners/operators, but in the end, they can ignore (and often do) ignore the manufactures, owners and operators. There is politics involved, even though its suppose to be about safety.
I agree with Pierre , some AD's seems ultra conservative. The FAA is inconsistent, one problem on one plane out of many, than the whole fleet is affected with an AD. In other cases there seems to be a systemic problem and they do nothing. It is the Government after all. We make fun of the FAA but they do have good people, its just the institution that ties their hands. Frankly the politicians are trying to get rid of the FAA and privatize it.
(2) Agreed. Many as John said are still in boxes, never flown, may be never will. Those who continue to fly.......... caveat emperor. Same thing applies to experimentals, ultimately we do not need to follow any AD.
Last edited:
Hey George, are you talking about SB569-A with the crankshaft retirement? If so, the FAA issued AD 2006-20-09 in November of last year on the "retirement" set of crankshafts. It's already a done deal, and we have done several replacements since that time.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Are there two AD's
Thanks lost track of it. What I was talking about was a second suspect batch of cranks that are not affected by AD but only a SB, where its recommended. Are you saying 2006-20-09 AD is that SB turned to AD? I don't have the SB number.
Last edited:
2006-20-09 is the AD resulting from MSB 569-A. This is the group of crankshafts that are to be retired from service with a new crankshaft and all of the mandatory parts at access (bearings, rod bolts, nuts, gaskets, etc., etc.) available to the owner for $2,000 from Lycoming. Based on the description of your comments, it seemed like it's the one you're talking about. AD 2005-19-11 was the first AD that was based off of MSB 566 and is the replacement at no out of pocket costs to the customer. The only glitch is that they require the work be accomplished at the factory, whereas the the retirement can be accomplished by an approved repair station/A&P in the field. In short, yes there are two ADs already in effect.
Last edited:
