VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Traditional Aircraft Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-05-2020, 03:50 AM
Thermos's Avatar
Thermos Thermos is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: KASH
Posts: 576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
If all material, heat treatment and hardness is within specs and the engines were operated within specs with approved props so harmonics are not an issue, these cranks should not have broken. Multiple reasons for failure may open more cans of worms.
Those are good words, Ross. These are PMA'd crankshafts so Superior/ECi had to show that they meet the same design and production standards as the original Lycoming part. To the best of my knowledge, Lycoming's crankshafts haven't had problems and it's reasonable to assume that they've been exposed to the same usage spectrum as Superior/ECi's products.

Dave
__________________
Dave Setser
CFII/MEI
EAA Technical Counselor/Flight Advisor
RV-7 N701ED Flying!
Nashua, NH (KASH) / Plymouth, NH (1P1)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-08-2020, 10:47 AM
walkman's Avatar
walkman walkman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
If ... the engines were operated within specs with approved props so harmonics are not an issue, these cranks should not have broken..
This is part of the problem. From memory at least one of the reports indicated a possible prior prop strike.
__________________
RV-8 IO-360 (Bought)
RV-6 O-360 C/S (Sold)
Walkman aka Flame Out
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-12-2020, 04:42 AM
JPGrobler's Avatar
JPGrobler JPGrobler is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Potchefstroom, South Africa
Posts: 13
Default

Anyone with latest news on this matter? Burning to get back in the air!
__________________
Lancair 360 Mkii
Superior IO-360 (E-Mag, GAMI, Cold air Induction)

Mechanical Engineer
South Africa
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-12-2020, 12:44 PM
walkman's Avatar
walkman walkman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPGrobler View Post
Anyone with latest news on this matter? Burning to get back in the air!
There's no AD at the moment, and you're flying an experimental anyway. There's nothing keeping you on the ground except your own suspicions.

If I wasn't down for maintenance I'd do at least local flying. Maybe not long over water or IFR legs though.

Mar 16 is the date on the NPRM
__________________
RV-8 IO-360 (Bought)
RV-6 O-360 C/S (Sold)
Walkman aka Flame Out
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-16-2020, 03:28 PM
Onewinglo's Avatar
Onewinglo Onewinglo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Hammond, LA
Posts: 93
Default AOPA Comment

AOPA made a formal comment on the proposed AD.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentS...ontentType=pdf
__________________
JP White
RV-8 "EL CABALLITO"
Cessna 170A SOLD
2021 Dues Gladly Paid
A new pilot having fun!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-16-2020, 11:24 PM
JPGrobler's Avatar
JPGrobler JPGrobler is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Potchefstroom, South Africa
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onewinglo View Post
AOPA made a formal comment on the proposed AD.
https://www.regulations.gov/contentS...ontentType=pdf
Thanks for the link.

But delay the entire process by another 2 months? I?m sure most operators would rather just like to get this resolved as quickly as possible?

If I knew the risk is minimal, I would still be flying, but getting up in the air now feels like playing russian roulette - knowing you have a potential issue, choose to ignore it and then just ?hope for the best?... not the way I think a good aviator should take to the skies.

Aviation, especially general aviation, is a game of risks and when we take to the skies we take calculated risks, be it with weather, fuel reserves, runway lengths, takeoff weight or mechanical dependability. Maintaining the aircraft I fly to the highest standard has always been my goal to know I can trust the machine I carry myself and loved ones in. Knowing there is a potential flaw (probably fatal) in the system and going for a flight is borderline reckless in my opinion.

We spent tens of thousands of dollars of our hard earned money buying a ?Superior? engine that now turned out to be ?inferior?. I think it?s time for Superior to step up to the plate and give a decent response as to how we are going to get this resolved ASAP.

The FAA won?t send a serious note like this out ?for the fun of it?. I?m sure they will have valid reasons for their evaluation of the flaw in the crankshafts. AOPA extending the comment time won?t make the crankshafts fix themselves over said period. They have to be replaced at one stage or another anyway.

Maybe my view on this is flawed, but it is how I see it and I truly hope it can be resolved for once and for all.

JP
__________________
Lancair 360 Mkii
Superior IO-360 (E-Mag, GAMI, Cold air Induction)

Mechanical Engineer
South Africa
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:05 AM
Onewinglo's Avatar
Onewinglo Onewinglo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Hammond, LA
Posts: 93
Default Superior Air Parts Comments

SAP posted three documents to the proposed AD:
A Response,
A Request of extension and
A SAE document about Gas Nitriding of Low-Alloy Steel Parts.

https://www.regulations.gov/document...2018-1077-0005
__________________
JP White
RV-8 "EL CABALLITO"
Cessna 170A SOLD
2021 Dues Gladly Paid
A new pilot having fun!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:34 AM
Cannon Cannon is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 173
Default

Just read Superior?s response.

Cliff?s notes as I read it:
An independent lab looked at each crank.
All three cranks were well within the ?white layer? spec.
All three cranks showed signs of abuse.
All three cranks were in a flight school environment.
__________________
C-185
J3C-65
S1S
RV-8 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-17-2020, 11:23 AM
theduff theduff is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fallbrook Calif.
Posts: 347
Default Superior Crankshaft Failures

I found it interesting in the second metallurgical report they found:
?The tensile properties of the Crankshaft material were outside the range of the specified limits?
They went on to say this wasn?t the cause of the failure but if your crankshaft as manufactured doesn?t meet specifications for tensile strength isn?t that a problem ?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-17-2020, 12:21 PM
skylor's Avatar
skylor skylor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,000
Default Requirements

Quote:
Originally Posted by theduff View Post
I found it interesting in the second metallurgical report they found:
?The tensile properties of the Crankshaft material were outside the range of the specified limits?
They went on to say this wasn?t the cause of the failure but if your crankshaft as manufactured doesn?t meet specifications for tensile strength isn?t that a problem ?
According to the Superior response, 2 of the 3 crankshafts failed to meet requirements.
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 02:20 PM.


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.