A

avi8tor50

Well Known Member
Hi all-
I am getting closer to my airworthiness inspection. There is a point of confusion as to any requirement for engine ground time run prior to inspection. I have a new Lycoming D1A which, of course, has had about an hour of "ground time" run at the factory. I realize that I will have to fire up the engine and inspect for leaks as well as complete some taxi tests. I spoke with technical support at Lycoming and their recommendation was to MINIMIZE the time of running the engine on the ground and to limit the taxi tests.

My question is, and this may best be answered by all the DARS out there, first of all, is there a specific requirement for a set amount of engine ground time run? What do most builders do in this regard, keeping in mind that this is a new engine that requires a break-in? I would appreciate any advice!

Peter K
9A
 
There is no requirement; howver, I suggest talking over any and all questions with your inspector (DAR or FAA inspector) prior to them showing up. That way you have already started building a relationship, and there are no surprises regarding what he expects to see.

Yes, the engine manufacturers all seem to want minimal ground run time, but you do need to run it of course to cycle the prop, ensure full RPM and power, etc

good luck

erich
 
I talked to my FAA inspector about running the engine.

He told me that he didn't need it done before the inspection/paperwork.
Therefore I ran it the first time after I put all the inspection plates back on. I ran it about 4 time for only a couple of minutes each time.
The first time I found that one of the mags was not working. Took me about 1/2 hour to find and correct the wiring. Ran it again to set the max CS prop speed and the ideal speed. I needed to do this a couple of time to get it close.
The only taxi test was from my hangar to the end of the runway (about 1/2 mile). A quick run-up and then full throttle down the runway.
With a Vans design you don't need to feel out the fly-ability of the airframe with high speed taxi testing. Just give it full power and be ready to abort if needed.

On my first flight I was so excited that I forgot to watch CHT until my flight advisor (flying behind in a chase plane) ask me where they were. Whoop! up to 460 already, so I backed off a little on power and tipped the nose down.

Have fun.

Kent
 
There is NOTHING in the regulations that require that you run the engine. The guys that responded before me are correct.
 
The information packet I received from the Minneapolis MIDO requires in the request letter for the airworthiness inspection that we check yes to:

"The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book."
 
MTBehnke said:
The information packet I received from the Minneapolis MIDO requires in the request letter for the airworthiness inspection that we check yes to:

"The powerplant installation has undergone at least one hour of ground operation at various speeds from idle to full power to determine and ensure that all systems are operating properly. This time has been recorded in the aircraft log book."
Click to expand...

I don't know who came up with this requirement but their is nothing in the regs that I know of to justify it.

On the other hand, in contrast to Gary's post, all of the DAR's and FAA airworthiness people that I know require the builder to sign of a condition inspection stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (the operating limitations that they are about to issue a builder requires a condition inspection within the previous 12 months). As part of the inspection, they expect that the engine has been run at least long enough to verify no leaks, seems to run normally with good power, and all instrumentation appears to be working. A builder can't really sign of an aircraft as being in a condition for safe operation if he hasn't checked these things can he? But this can all be done in just a few minutes...doesn't require an hour.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
I don't know who came up with this requirement but their is nothing in the regs that I know of to justify it.

FAA airworthiness people that I know require the builder to sign of a condition inspection stating the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation (the operating limitations that they are about to issue a builder requires a condition inspection within the previous 12 months).
Click to expand...

The Condition Inspection is per FAA Order 8130.2 (F Change 3 is the latest) in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D of part 43.

Read FAA Order 8130.2F Change 3 "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" that is linked above for all the requirements.
 
My DAR inspection.

I had heard that the DAR isn't required to even have you start your engine during the inspection. I thought that to be a bit strange. After mine did a very thorough visual of the plane and the paperwork, he then had me pull it out of the hangar and run it up long enough to see that the critical instruments came off the "peg" and begin to show OT, OP, and a few other indications to prove that each gage was indicating the increase in heat, pressure, etc., i.e. working as intended. One thing that he didn't check was something I'd read that Mel likes to do which made a lot of sense. Mel will have you go to full aileron deflection and then motor the flaps to match the aileron deflection. Then go full stick the opposite direction and check the other side, and this will confirm that the controls are properly rigged and the stops set as instructed. Easy check and, like I said, it will give you an indication of how well balanced the rigging is.
 
I don't have my info from the Minneapolis MIDO in front of me, but remember that they required one hour of engine run time on the airframe.
The DAR confirmed this when I talked with him prior to the inspection. He also wanted to see the engine start and run for just a minute or two.
I think this must be one of those areas that different FSDO/MIDO's have local policies.
 
I had my -9 inspected by the Charlotte FISDO and the guy just walked around the plane once. Not only did he not ask about the engine but he didn't even move a control surface of have me do it. Heck, he didn't even want me to power up the panel. His only comment was, "They are putting glass in these things now? Let's get to the paperwork." :rolleyes:
 
dmaib said:
I don't have my info from the Minneapolis MIDO in front of me, but remember that they required one hour of engine run time on the airframe.
The DAR confirmed this when I talked with him prior to the inspection. He also wanted to see the engine start and run for just a minute or two.
I think this must be one of those areas that different FSDO/MIDO's have local policies.
Click to expand...

Having dealt with this issue twice now, I can speak from some personal experience. Unlike the first time, I called the local FSDO to schedule an airworthiness inspection and it became immediately clear the newly assigned inspector on the other end of the phone had no experience with experimental aircraft and was interpreting written guidelines he pulled from his computer. He would have had me jump through hoops I didn't even know existed, including the 1 hour engine run. I politely ended the discussion after he asked if I had completed a required 15 hours of A&P training. Huh? Good grief. I then called the longtime DAR who conducted the first airworthiness inspection.

My DAR is fully aware of the dilemma that a 1 hour ground operation would present with an aircraft fitted with a new engine and common sense prevailed. As was the case the first time, he was satisfied with a fuel flow check and logging a few relatively brief starting events including taxi operations.

Certainly no two FSDO's operate, much less interpret regulations in exactly the same way. In this latter instance, a good DAR familiar with RV's saved me from enduring a lot of needless aggravation.
 
RV6_flyer said:
The Condition Inspection is per FAA Order 8130.2 (F Change 3 is the latest) in accordance with the scope and detail of Appendix D of part 43.

Read FAA Order 8130.2F Change 3 "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" that is linked above for all the requirements.
Click to expand...

Gary,
I guess my post was a bit confusing. I am not sure what your point is related to my post.
My post had a quote of another post talking about a 1 hour engine run requirement. It was that 1 hour engine run requirement that I was saying their was nothing in the regs to justify it.

So am I missing something?
 
On engine run time.

It's "somewhat" of a judgment call. If the engine has been run in at the factory, that's good. If the engine has had a new overhaul with no run time, extensive running on the ground is not good for it's health. Having said that, the engine needs to be run at least enough to determine that controls function properly and there are no leaks.
Sometimes I will ask to see a run, sometimes not.
 
Mel said:
It's "somewhat" of a judgment call. If the engine has been run in at the factory, that's good. If the engine has had a new overhaul with no run time, extensive running on the ground is not good for it's health. Having said that, the engine needs to be run at least enough to determine that controls function properly and there are no leaks.
Sometimes I will ask to see a run, sometimes not.
Click to expand...

Mel,
Do you require the builder to sign off a condition inspection before issuing them their airworthiness certificate (since the op limitations you issue require one to have been signed off within the previous 12 months to be legal for flight)? If so, do you agree that to complete a (first) condition inspection in accordance with appendix D that you need to have at least run the engine for a minute or two (not and hour:rolleyes:) to verify no leaks, instruments operation, etc.?
 
My DAR did not require it.

Idling a new engine for an hour is something that is stated as bad for your engine and I can't think of anything to be gained from it. Running it to make sure it runs correctly as far as you can tell and doesn't leak is necessary but mindlessly running it for an hour with no test objective makes no sense to me.

I also did not bore holes in the sky for an hour in the first flight. My objective was to get it in the air to verify that it functioned properly as an airplane and get it on the ground for a thorough inspection for gross problems related to flight. I got to high pattern altitude to provide some gliding range and landed after going around the pattern one time. All went well and no leaks or other discrepancies were found.

Don't trust the new engine manufacturer's test cell running to assure that your engine is ready to commence routine operations - my timing was off by about 65 degrees but without the LASAR timing tester I could not determine that. The procedure is not crystal clear in Unison's manual and I understand how Lycoming techs set up some of the engines wrong - the first time I went through the procedure after getting my tester I came up with exactly the same result they did. The procedure has a little ambiguity in it.

At one point in my testing I installed an oil line on the oil cooler hand tight to keep out foriegn material and did not go back and torque it properly - visual inspection before closeup did not detect it and there was a catastrophic engine failure.

You do what you have to do to get your sign off but I wouldn't run my new engine on the ground longer than necessary to complete my function and safety checks unless the DAR held my AWC hostage.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob Axsom said:
d

You do what you have to do to get your sign off but I wouldn't run my new engine on the ground longer than necessary to complete my function and safety checks unless the DAR held my AWC hostage.

Bob Axsom
Click to expand...

Even then I wouldn't.
I would get another DAR.
 
You are trying to do two different things it sounds like. You want to know what you "have" to do to get your A/W Cert and be legal. The other is what you "should" do for the engine.

Keep in mind that when you contact lycoming they are speaking with there best interests in mind. When you recieve a new engine for a freshly overhauled engine, it is just that, "new". The reason lycoming wants you to keep ground run time to a minimum is that the engine has not been properly broken in yet. The piston rings, pistons, drive train and such have not been run long enough for everything mesh and set themselves. When you get a new engine, the first 25 to 50 hours the piston rings actually grind themselves down a little bit, along with the cylinder walls, to create a perfect fit. This is why if you ever pull a cylinder off, make sure to keep everything on the same locations, dont mix and match. Lycoming wants you to fly the engine to get it up to operating temps and then run the engine at those temps for a specific time frame to make everything settle and mesh. There is a service bulletion for this run in procedure but I do not have it in front of me right now. The information is also in the Lycoming overhaul manual. It is interesting to note that the Lycoming rep did not explain this to you in great detail when you spoke with them. And make sure you change your oil frequently during a break in. I think Lycoming recommends something like 15 hrs, and then at 25. I could be off on the hours but they should be able to tell you. And also, make sure to use mineral oil for the break in. Then after the required hours, switch over to your multigrade.

As for satisfying the requirement for the A/W Cert. The FAA does not care if the motor is new or it has 1500 hours on it. All they want to see is that it is installed legally and that it has been run to determine that the engine is set up correctly and there are no leaks and that the engine is ready to go. The hour time frame is just a number they threw in there to have. Usually you will have about an hour of run time for intial set up and leak checks and such.

You aren't going to run into huge problems running your engines if they are new from lycoming of fresh out of overhaul. Just because Lycoming doens't reccomend it, don't rush through your engine installtion and set up (idle, full power settings). Take your time and make sure everything is right before you break away from terra firma.

Good luck. I get the pleaure of working on everyone elses airplanes currently, but am saving for my tail kit!
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Mel,
Do you require the builder to sign off a condition inspection before issuing them their airworthiness certificate (since the op limitations you issue require one to have been signed off within the previous 12 months to be legal for flight)? If so, do you agree that to complete a (first) condition inspection in accordance with appendix D that you need to have at least run the engine for a minute or two (not and hour:rolleyes:) to verify no leaks, instruments operation, etc.?
Click to expand...
No condition inspection is required for certification. 8130.2F specifically states, "There is NO requirement for airframe and powerplant mechanics to sign off on amateur-built airworthiness inspections. The aircraft builder's signature on Form 8130-6, block III, attests to the airworthiness of the amateur-built aircraft."
The first condition inspection is due 12 months after the airworthiness sign-off.
 
Mel said:
No condition inspection is required for certification. 8130.2F specifically states, "There is NO requirement for airframe and powerplant mechanics to sign off on amateur-built airworthiness inspections. The aircraft builder's signature on Form 8130-6, block III, attests to the airworthiness of the amateur-built aircraft."
The first condition inspection is due 12 months after the airworthiness sign-off.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mel.
I had always thought that the 8130 sig. should be enough. Thanks for the heads up about the "NO requirement" statement. I didn't remember that being there.
I guess that is just another one of the twisted issues regarding the FAR's that we get issued op limitations requiring a condition inspection sign off (and the operating limitation tell you how to make the logbook entry) within the previous 12 months, but you don't have to do it until the second 12 month period...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.