VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #91  
Old 08-23-2016, 06:26 PM
GaryK's Avatar
GaryK GaryK is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zeeland, Michigan
Posts: 398
Default

Vic,
Here are a few pics of the "form factor" I was asking about. For some reason the second pic is upside down (looking in the cowl inlet)

Thanks
Gary

[IMG][/IMG]

Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-24-2016, 08:30 AM
Kellym Kellym is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woxofswa View Post
This gets more confusinger by the day. I dug deep into my documents and there is a card (mostly in German), that says that the 860-3 is specified for 360
Series engines and 2500 RPM.

I've had supposed experts say that the ratio difference of WD and ND is a big huge ticking bomb deal and others say that it is very minor that all it does is slightly vary the speed of the pump and slightly change the distance throw of the arm to make a given change. .
It is clear that the P-860-3 will work on both the wide and narrow deck engines. It is also clear that it has the gear ratio specified for the narrow deck. The rpm specified is for the governor, not engine rpm, so 2700 times the gear ratio give. s you the governor rpm.
What is not clear is why Vans chose this version, when they have always sold wide deck engines, and the P-860-5 has the correct gear ratio for that engine. Also, MT's application document recommends a P-860-19 for the RV-10 with an MT 12B prop. Don't know anything about that version of the governor.
My P-860-5 is going back to MT today to have the SB31 done on it.
__________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD
RV-10 40866
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-24-2016, 08:49 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,626
Default

I confirmed this week that the P-860-3 is the correct governor.

Vic
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
Kitplanes "Unairworthy" monthly feature
EAA Sport Aviation "Checkpoints" column
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Author "Pre-Buy Guide for Amateur-Built Aircraft"
www.Baselegaviation.com
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-24-2016, 09:12 AM
Weasel's Avatar
Weasel Weasel is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Brooksville, MS
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellym View Post
My P-860-5 is going back to MT today to have the SB31 done on it.
Without the SB31 being published how do you know it needs to be done? Are you aware that maintenance induced failures are a reality?
__________________
Weasel
RV-4 715hr Sold
RV-10 "School Bus" - +1600hr counting
Fisher Classic Cassler Power VW sold
RV-10 N7631T 820hr Sold
RV-8 700+hrs
Carbon Cub 200 hr Sold
One-Off Super Cub 100 hr
SERFI AWARDS

http://weaselrv10.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-24-2016, 09:41 AM
Bavafa Bavafa is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,351
Default

Does any one know the difference between a P860-4 and P860-3. I just looked up my paperwork and it indicates I have a P860-4
__________________
Mehrdad
N825SM RV7A - IO360M1B - SOLD
N825MS RV14A - IO390 - Flying
Dues paid
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-24-2016, 10:30 AM
civengpe civengpe is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 212
Default

Juergen from MT USA told me today that all P-860 are the exact same except for the clocking. He said he doesn't understand why MT does it that way, because it is very confusing.

This came up, because I asked him why the MT applicability chart shows the P-860-19 as the appropriate PG for the IO-540-D4A5, but MT sold me the -3.

Also, the SB has now been pushed back to Monday next week.

Please don't shoot the messenger here. I am only parroting what I was told an hour ago by MT. I am not a PG expert and barely have an idea of how the dang things work.
__________________
Shannon
RV-10
Flying September 2015
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-24-2016, 10:47 AM
woxofswa woxofswa is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mesa Arizona
Posts: 608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse View Post
I confirmed this week that the P-860-3 is the correct governor.

Vic
Can I ask who confirmed that and for what application? I'm at the point where three experts have four opinions on the matter. Not literally, but I'm definitely stuck right on top of the VOR if you catch my azimuth.
__________________
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
RV-10 N24EV
KITPLANES Contributing Editor
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-24-2016, 03:44 PM
scsmith scsmith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashland, OR
Posts: 2,573
Default Service interval?

I'm just discovering this thread, kinda late, but I think I read through all the details.

I checked my paperwork, and my MT P-860-4 governor was manufactured in 2008 (thankfully outside the affected time period), and has been in service since September 2009 -- so, 7 years. It has 400 hrs on it.

From this thread, I just learned that there is a 72-month service interval in addition to the 2000 hr service interval. That surprised me. Can someone speculate or explain why there would be a 6-year service limit on a prop governor? I would think that calendar age would have no bearing at all on the service life, except perhaps for age-hardening of elastomeric seals.

If this service interval should be respected, I am a year overdue, and from what I have learned in this thread, it costs $800. It would seem a sensible choice to consider just buying a PCU-5000X instead.
Another alternative would be to ignore the calendar-based service interval and just operating the MT P-860-4.

I would love to hear supporting arguments for why a 6-yr service interval should be respected on a prop governor.

Thanks
__________________
Steve Smith
Aeronautical Engineer
RV-8 N825RV
IO-360 A1A
WW 200RV
"The Magic Carpet"
Hobbs 625
LS6-15/18W sailplane SOLD
bought my old LS6-A back!!
VAF donation Jan 2020
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-24-2016, 04:00 PM
Bavafa Bavafa is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scsmith View Post
I'm just discovering this thread, kinda late, but I think I read through all the details.

I checked my paperwork, and my MT P-860-4 governor was manufactured in 2008 (thankfully outside the affected time period), and has been in service since September 2009 -- so, 7 years. It has 400 hrs on it.

From this thread, I just learned that there is a 72-month service interval in addition to the 2000 hr service interval. That surprised me. Can someone speculate or explain why there would be a 6-year service limit on a prop governor? I would think that calendar age would have no bearing at all on the service life, except perhaps for age-hardening of elastomeric seals.

If this service interval should be respected, I am a year overdue, and from what I have learned in this thread, it costs $800. It would seem a sensible choice to consider just buying a PCU-5000X instead.
Another alternative would be to ignore the calendar-based service interval and just operating the MT P-860-4.

I would love to hear supporting arguments for why a 6-yr service interval should be respected on a prop governor.

Thanks
Steve,
I am in exact same boat as you are with the age/model of the governor and only slightly more hours, at 560 now. I have asked MT via e-mail this question and for a quote but if there is convincing evidence for this overhaul at 6 year interval, I will certainly go with Harzel governor which does not have this calendar base overhaul requirement. With only $400 or so more, I will put a brand new instead of an overhauled one.
__________________
Mehrdad
N825SM RV7A - IO360M1B - SOLD
N825MS RV14A - IO390 - Flying
Dues paid
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-24-2016, 04:26 PM
GaryK's Avatar
GaryK GaryK is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zeeland, Michigan
Posts: 398
Default

Based on some of the information posted by those who have spoken to MT directly there is a specific date range. Can we assume the new units being shipped by Vans today are OK.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:26 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.