Lycoming Mandatory SB (crankshaft, again, and more of 'em)

Lycoming has asked me (and hundreds/thousands of others?) to retire my
crankshaft at my convenience, or February 21, 2009, whichever comes first.

Check the Mandatory Service Bulletin from Lycoming to see if it applies to
you, but it looks like just counterweighted 360s and 390s that will be
affected RV-wise, and maybe a handful of 540s on Rockets and Supers. My
crankshaft serial # is right there in the list. Here's the SB:

http://tinyurl.com/lh54h

Hell, you'll be at TBO anyway, Dan. Look's liked I dodged this bullet again. Keeping my fingers crossed. I may have them all stuck together from all that proseal Van's is making me use.

Roberta

Angry

This downright p***es me off. I read this bulletin and I see that Lycoming is so generous that they will take $2,000.00 of your hard earned dollars to fix a problem that they are obviously responsible for. That is only the parts. You still have to come up with the 4 to 6 grand to have a shop do the mechanics. This whole crank thing with these guys screams of class action lawsuit.

At the rediculous prices that they are charging for their engines you would think that they could take care of one of their problems. I know that it is expensive to make engines but if the likes of BMW, Chevy, Ford and a myriad of others can give you the most technologically advanced and dependable engines that the world has ever seen for between $3,000 and $5,000 then these guys could do it also.

Certification does not take forever and the cost of certification should not be passed on to the customer 10's or even 100's of thousands of times. These engines are made of simple casts with a limited amount of machining. They have fewer parts and are simple in operation. No variable timing or power monitoring by computers.

I am not even flying yet and I am a long way from an engine. Because of things like this and the insane price of engines I have to seriously consider my engine options. I have two friends with engines that may just be affected by this one and I know that the one will sell before he can layout this kind of cash for a problem created by someone else.

I cannot lay out the cash for an engine and then have to turn around and replace the crank for another 6 to 8 grand. Something should be done to fight these big money businesses that are taking advantage of the little guys. A bunch of little guys make one big one with a lot more brains.

Thanks everyone for letting me rant.

Does this affect Lycoming Clones?

Call me green, but would this SB affect the numerous Lycoming clones on the market? When I build my RV, I plan on putting in a clone and am worried that they would be affected as well. Thanks in advance for the infomation. I agree about the little guy getting shafted.

I may be wrong on this, but I don't think any of the clones use a counterweighted crankshaft at this time. If they do and they use a Lycoming crankshaft then the SB would apply no matter what engine it is in.
Mel...DAR

Lycoming SB

I haven't had time to read the entire SB this morning but after scanning the table of affected engines, I didn't see any A1A engines listed.
Not knowing my crankshaft part # and serial # off the top of my head, maybe I won't be affected by this one?

The SB is on counterweighted shafts only. If you have a clone, counterweighted engine, of the models affected, and it was made with all new parts, then your shaft is likely affected, if the engine was produced during the timeframe of the SB. None of the aftermarket PMA parts suppliers produce a production counterweighted shaft yet, so if you have a new counterweighted shaft, in your engine, and it was installed during the effected timeframe listed in the SB, then the shaft is likely effected and you should be checking it out S/N's to see if you are effected.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are
hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided
responsibly and at you own risk."

ww2planes said:

At the rediculous prices that they are charging for their engines you would think that they could take care of one of their problems. I know that it is expensive to make engines but if the likes of BMW, Chevy, Ford and a myriad of others can give you the most technologically advanced and dependable engines that the world has ever seen for between $3,000 and $5,000 then these guys could do it also.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not the right thread/time, but I have to agree. Mechanical engineering is 19th century stuff, it's amazing what they can charge for a chunk of metal cut to spec by another chunk of metal.

One wonders if it's possible for one of the industrial giants to beat companies like Lycoming on logistics/mass production or if lawyers and certification really is such an obstacle.

One of the arguments against engines from the experimental market (i.e. not homegrown) is that the cost comparison to a Lyc is often small or negative. So if a small, independent company - with all its volume disadvantages - is able to bring engines to customers at similar or slightly higher prices, what could a giant machining plant do?

I bet if Toyota (or whatever) would, they could.

ww2planes said:

This downright p***es me off. I read this bulletin and I see that Lycoming is so generous that they will take $2,000.00 of your hard earned dollars to fix a problem that they are obviously responsible for. That is only the parts. You still have to come up with the 4 to 6 grand to have a shop do the mechanics. This whole crank thing with these guys screams of class action lawsuit.

At the rediculous prices that they are charging for their engines you would think that they could take care of one of their problems. I know that it is expensive to make engines but if the likes of BMW, Chevy, Ford and a myriad of others can give you the most technologically advanced and dependable engines that the world has ever seen for between $3,000 and $5,000 then these guys could do it also.

Certification does not take forever and the cost of certification should not be passed on to the customer 10's or even 100's of thousands of times. These engines are made of simple casts with a limited amount of machining. They have fewer parts and are simple in operation. No variable timing or power monitoring by computers.

I cannot lay out the cash for an engine and then have to turn around and replace the crank for another 6 to 8 grand. Something should be done to fight these big money businesses that are taking advantage of the little guys. A bunch of little guys make one big one with a lot more brains.

Thanks everyone for letting me rant.

Click to expand...

This is the main reason I fly behind a Subaru. If you can't get a reliable crankshaft design after 30-40 years/ tens of thousands of engines and you make the customer foot the bill for your ineptitude, you'll never get my money.

O-320 series

Not that this will help anyone with an existing 360 series powerplant, but new builders may also (again) want to consider using a (non-lyc) 320 series engine. There are very few S/B's, A/D's on these engines, and no placarded operating ranges. With F/I, high compression, and electronic ignition, they come reasonably close to a 360's power output. And when you do throttle back for cruise, the fuel burn is much more efficient.

Just my 2 cents and another option to consider...

Joe Blank
RV-6
N6810B

Ola said:

I bet if Toyota (or whatever) would, they could.

Click to expand...

Honda tried and they couldn't. Why? They can't sell enough of them to make a profit.

You can rant and rave about the cost of these dinosours but who else is going to build maybe 10,000 - 20,000 engines a year and face that kind of liability? Economics, plain and simple, are the reasons these things don't change much. When you weight the cost/benefit equation, it just makes more sense to sell the same thing rather than change it significantly.

If I understand the problem, it had to do with the metallurgy of the cranks, not the design.

metallurgy seems to be the root cause a lot with crank and cylinder/piston problems. how come whoever lyc is having forge the parts can't get it right (i don't think they forge their own if i remember correctly). i think this is a similar problem the big lycs faced a few years ago. we sell a lot of malibu's and everyone askes about the lycoming (malibu mirage) crank AD. didn't they say it was metallurgy in those affected engines as well? where's the quality control?

I second the sentiments of RV6ejguy. The Subarus have been getting more and more interesting ... this "breech loading" of thousands of owners by Lyco is just what i need to make a tough decision easier.

Rupester said:

I second the sentiments of RV6ejguy. The Subarus have been getting more and more interesting ... this "breech loading" of thousands of owners by Lyco is just what i need to make a tough decision easier.

Click to expand...

a soobie is just what you need terry! i'm right there with ya on your thoughts of making the engine choice.

the REAL problem

f I understand the problem, it had to do with the metallurgy of the cranks, not the design.
__________________
Randy

Sorry Randy, the REAL problem is LAWYERS and LAWSUITS.

Mike

The problem is definitely not the design. We have a 1969 vintage lycoming O-360A1A in our '68 Cardinal. It has never been overhaulled, the cylinders have never been off it. When we bought the airplane we had to do the oil pump AD on the engine because it hadn't been annualled in a 12 years. In August 2002 it had 950ish hours on it. We have have put an additional 550 tach hours on it and it still runs great. It's carburated, but with the CS prop we can get it down to about 7.5GPH on a long haul trip (high and lean). The only difference between this engine and the new lycomings made today, is back then everything Lycoming made was in-house. There were no problems with QC because it was all in-house. I fully expect when we do overhaul this engine, to put new cylinders on it, reuse the crank and case. Probably replace the Cam, not really sure on that, but it's old so it probably needs it.

With the quality of this old engine being what it is, and all the problems Lycoming has had with new engines. I feel that buying up a core and rebuilding it would be a much better option than a factory new. At least then you know what is in it. Also for those who are doing home-grown rebuilds, note all the S/N's of all the parts that go into the engine, so when crap like this comes up, the people working on the airplane will have something to go by, instead of having to crack the cases to figure it out.

Lycoming Mandatory SB

Just food for though guys, I am a rotary engine guy, and while I am not going to try to convert you all, (you'll likely all come around sooner or later anyway) I have to say, Experimental aircraft are just that, experimental, put in a Subaru or a Mazda, or whatever. It will save you a fortune in the long run.
Are you aware, I can rebuild my engine twice for the cost of ONE jug on a Lycoming. Now, don't get me wrong, Lycoming has served aviation well for MANY years, but why wouldn't Lycoming want to update their engines, some say because it works so well. Anyone out there ever made it to TBO with out some sort of major problem, a cylinder, a piston, rings, an AD? ANYONE even hear about someone that made it close. Not me. Now, why would lycoming not update their engine, and bring it into reasonably current technology. Hmm, some would argue certification costs too much. Perhaps, but a multi-billion dollar company like Textron Lycoming could not afford it? Unlikely. How many engines does Lycoming sell in a year? 5-10,000 tops? How many parts does Lycoming sell in a year? Got to be in the 100 millions+. Now we are onto something. What does it cost for Lycoming to make a cylinder jug? lets say for the sake of arguement it is $200 per. (and I would say that is pretty generous on our part) They sell them for what 14-1600 dollars per. Wow, that is a pretty good profit margin. If I sold alot more parts than engines, and by LAW my customers couldn't put any other parts on their engines, Hmm, I probably wouldn't change my design much either. The unfortunate thing is, as "experimenters" we have the option to do something different, but many choose not too. Their choice, but seems silly to me. Guess some have far more money to give to big business than I do.
Just some of what goes through my head in a minutes time.

N713R

N713R said:

The unfortunate thing is, as "experimenters" we have the option to do something different, but many choose not too.

Click to expand...

Actually, some of us just want inverted fuel/oil, a hydraulic prop and a more or less complete FWF package. Are you listening, Jan E.? I'm still waiting

I don't know how people where you live treat Lycomings, but mine had 2500 hours TTSN when I installed it on my -6. I flew it another 315 hours. When I tore it down for overhaul it had a total of 2815 trouble free hours and all parts were within service limits. The O-320 series is famous for making TBO and then some.
Mel...DAR

lyco ad

RV6 guy,I agree with you,We can buy a whole new block and heads for what a new lyco crank cost.Oil is 2.50 qt auto gas 2.50 gal an oil change costs 15 bucks nicer cabin heat,no preheating in winter,no mixture to deal with no carb ice,no shock cooling slightly better fuel consumption and super quiet,only downfall I have found is slightly higher insurance.
I have had 2 lycos in spam cans good engines but it is time for something better!

Tom rv9
NSI 2.5(225 hrs since june)

Mike S said:

If I understand the problem, it had to do with the metallurgy of the cranks, not the design.
__________________
Randy

Sorry Randy, the REAL problem is LAWYERS and LAWSUITS.

Mike

Click to expand...

The actual problem was improper heat treatment by the foundry that forged the crankshafts to Lycoming's specifications. That problem was made 100 times worse once the lawyers for folks who suffered engine failures got involved... So you're both right.

jarhead said:

The actual problem was improper heat treatment by the foundry that forged the crankshafts to Lycoming's specifications. That problem was made 100 times worse once the lawyers for folks who suffered engine failures got involved... So you're both right.

Click to expand...

Well if you can believe what you read and relate it to which crank problem you are talking about, you can make something out of the murk possibly. The biggest and latest one was related to the addition of vanadium to the material mix at Lycos request despite the concerns of the forging company and not heat treatment. Lyco lost the first round of lawsuits over this. There have been other issues in the past with crank gear pressing causing cracks (new process) and other issues related to improper heat treatment a few years back on a smaller number of six cylinder cranks. There was a class action suit filed by a Piper group a few years ago after a large number of catastrophic engine failures and some deaths and the utter inability of these engines even making it to 1/4 their stated TBO.

The the older manufacture Lycos appear to be a much more reliable than some of their later offerings and it seems to be exactly that quality went downhill when major component outsourcing started. It seems that some of the new manufacturing processes are very different from the original ones when the engines were first certificated. It's clear that inadequate testing and QC was being done to validate these new processes prior to release of the product to the public. A new piece of paper submitted to the FAA outlining design or process changes does not validate a design or process change.

The last 6 years or so have been very rough on Lyco. We are probably lucky that they just don't fold up the tent as some of the court awards have been staggering.

I'm afraid I can't lay the blame for a Lyco's high cost at the foot of the lawyers. If Lyco had done a proper job of things as they seemed to be doing 10-20 years ago, they'd have a lot less problems.

rv6ejguy said:

The biggest and latest one was related to the addition of vanadium to the material mix at Lycos request despite the concerns of the forging company and not heat treatment.
...

The the older manufacture Lycos appear to be a much more reliable than some of their later offerings and it seems to be exactly that quality went downhill when major component outsourcing started. It seems that some of the new manufacturing processes are very different from the original ones when the engines were first certificated. It's clear that inadequate testing and QC was being done to validate these new processes prior to release of the product to the public. A new piece of paper submitted to the FAA outlining design or process changes does not validate a design or process change.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, gotcha: open mouth, insert foot. Boy that's a familiar taste...

Based on what you're saying in the 2nd quoted paragraph, it seems the Feds have a bit of responsibility here too. If Lyco goes to them with process "improvements" and FAA just accepts them at face value, and those "improvements" turn around and start biting people's a**es down the road, seems to me the FAA should be answering to the lawyers and families as well. But we all know the odds of that happening... I'm not holding my breath.

Crankshafts

Here are a few notes on crankshafts. SBs are not mandatory, although it may sometimes be the first step towards an AD which is indeed mandatory. Service limits of a crankshaft or any other component in these engines is often misinterpreted. A "serviceable" crank used which is on far end scale of
limits is not a good crank to reinstall with new bearing. Stop and think, the engine will be reassembled with built it wear already in place. In the end, it will never see a second OH, and cause further damages, such as crankcase fretting, and in every case, will wear the new, overpriced bearing considerably faster.
Most of us, myself included, despises the FAA interference, however, there are rules that make sense. One is terminology and practice. The FAA does not recognize the term remanufactured. There only teo terms with regards to repairing an engine or any component. They are overhauled and rebuilt.
The process of repairing is the same. remove, clean inspect each compenent in accordance with accepted practices, make any repairs necesary and reassemble. The difference is that in an overhaul, components are to be within "limits", whereas a rebuilt must be assembled with compenents within "new tolerance". In the case of "rebuilt", in most cases it would require new parts, such as cylinders, due to cost. Cheapre nowadays to install new that to "rebuild".
In general. metalurgy in AC engines is abismal, archaic and generally no where near given the inspections we are led to believe. We can't be having crankshaft ADs year after year, if the damned things were made properly in the first place. How many crankshaft ADs are found in the auto world?
The biggest problem is the bearacracy, with draconian rules, tort laws, and generally manufacturers that have a captive market. They can experimenr, and our expense. Note, they screw up, we pay. Even the aftermarket guys weill pay for their mistakes. Case in point ECI cylinders.
And so it goes.
A crankshaft for a high powered auto race engine able to whitstand punishment unheard of in aviation are being manufactured for a fraction of the cost of even a used AV crank. Then again, the auto industry has competition, treputations to uphold, and no beauracracy.
Everytime this subject comes up, I have to vent. Sorry if it takes up time.
T88
RV10
A&P/IA/EAA Tech. Advisor,