VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Propellers (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   MT P860-3 Prop Gov fail. (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=140879)

GaryK 08-27-2016 04:48 AM

I think Vic's guess of what happened is pretty close. In my conversation with MT he mentioned sometime in 2014 they made a change in manufacturing. The flyweights were welded on prior to 2014. They increased the material thickness and pinned one side and welded the other on the models sometime during 2014. He said the actual fix shouldn't take more than 1.5 hours. They only have 3 sets of the new parts and are waiting on more from Germany.

Gary

jtrollin 08-27-2016 12:03 PM

SB Cost?
 
Anyone know if there is a cost for the SB?

Larkrv10 08-27-2016 01:43 PM

Dan, you are correct, although my prop over speed and P-860-3 governor failure was the result of the bushing seizure and SB 27.
Rick
Southampton, Ont





Quote:

Originally Posted by DanH (Post 1105832)
Perhaps you three are not the only failures.


Larkrv10 08-27-2016 01:56 PM

MT governor failure
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 (Post 1105861)
I have fwd'ed the details about the 3 RV-10's that have been provided here, to Martin at MT.

Scott, not sure if you're aware of my failure wrt SB 27. I do think MT is aware of me though.

FWIW, my P-860-3 governor was installed on a narrow deck IO-540 with 9.0 compression.

Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont

Larkrv10 08-27-2016 02:14 PM

MT governor failure
 
Guys, after realizing my governor self destructed which was found by placing it on a test stand at Tiffin Aire (Tiffin, 0H), MT did send me a new
p-860-3 with a manufactured date in 2016.
I have since completed my 25 hour Transport Canada test period.

When I recover from shoulder surgery and the shock of an almost $11k repair bill to my IO-540, I will be pulling that MT governor off and replacing it with a Hartzell governor.
If anyone wants a cheap slightly used governor let me know.

Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont

woxofswa 08-27-2016 06:12 PM

Rick,

What the rest of us are waiting to know with baited breath was if our internal failures were triggered as a result of the same bushing failure that you had. My unit hasn't been torn down and inspected and I don't think Todd's has either. The FAA forbade me from sending the unit to MT, but they haven't requested it either. (Those questioning Fed involvement please understand that a report of a component failure in flight is both an FAR requirement and in my case, an insurance requirement.)

Once the laws of physics get angry, anything can happen.


drill_and_buck 08-28-2016 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1107092)
Rick,
.......(Those questioning Fed involvement please understand that a report of a component failure in flight is both an FAR requirement and in my case, an insurance requirement.)

I was not aware of this. Is this true for aircraft registered in the experimental category? Does this mean that if my alternator or my electronic ignition equipment fails in flight I am obligated to report it?

Anyone have a link to the FAR?

Auburntsts 08-28-2016 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woxofswa (Post 1107092)
Rick,

What the rest of us are waiting to know with baited breath was if our internal failures were triggered as a result of the same bushing failure that you had. My unit hasn't been torn down and inspected and I don't think Todd's has either. The FAA forbade me from sending the unit to MT, but they haven't requested it either. (Those questioning Fed involvement please understand that a report of a component failure in flight is both an FAR requirement and in my case, an insurance requirement.)

Once the laws of physics get angry, anything can happen.


Can you provide the FAR ref for the reporting requirement? Ive read through part 21 and I'm aware that there is a requirement for such a report for 121/135 ops, but can't find any such requirement for part 91.

BillL 08-28-2016 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kellym (Post 1106640)
Correct Bob.
I went back to my Matronics archives for explanation by the late Jim Ayers, an MT distributor, dba Less Drag Products:
"The -3 and -5 governors are identical, except for the final adjustments.

For the -3 governor on the wide deck IO-540 engine, the high RPM stop screw has to be turned out quite a bit to get to 2700 RPM from the factory setting of about 2550 RPM. (For the narrow deck IO-540 engine, the initial stop setting on the -3 governor would be at about 2700 RPM.)

The -3 governor on a wide deck IO-540 now has a longer travel to get to the low RPM stop. The governor arm should have full travel from the high RPM stop to the low RPM stop.

Perhaps someone already flying can say if they have full travel (stop to stop) available with Van's governor cable.

Full governor arm travel is helpful to have for the mag check so it is possible to get the expected 450 RPM drop when the governor/propeller is cycled.

Jim Ayers"

With the -5 on my wide deck I only had to move the arm to match the cable approach angle.

The bold portion was correct for a recent 10 friend first flight. Stock Vans IO540. The adjustment screw did not have enough range, so rearming and reclocking was required. Not a difficult thing, just to get it adjusted properly took several flights. OK in Phase I, but not if you need to spend a few $hundred on fuel just to do this. The MT manuals' adjustment recommendation of rpm per screw flat is correct.

Jackm 08-29-2016 10:49 AM

Ratio
 
Just another curve ball in this governor issue. Our io540 is a wide deck with narrow deck drive gear ratio so 860-3 is correct one for our engine. We were told that the ratio difference is related to Io540 260 HP/vrs 300hp wide deck version but waiting for Aerosport to confirm. Just Fyi.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.