Very interesting

I've got about 260 hrs on my ECI cylinders. Even though I'm running 8.5:1 compression this is a motivator to comply with the AD sooner then the mandatory 350 hrs. Which I've been thinking about any way.

Does any one have recent experience on cost and/or turn around time from ECI? The AD hasn't been discussed much on the forum in the past 6+ months.
 
ECI cylinder failure

Who ever wrote the report doesn't seen to like "owner built aircraft" This seems like a politically motivated report with their repeated comments about owner built aircraft not being safe and being a danger to the public! I wish they would stick to the facts and drop the opinions.

This slant on the report caused me to suspect it's validity! I know there is a message for all of us non-certified engine users here but not sure what that message is.
 
Paul K said:
Who ever wrote the report doesn't seen to like "owner built aircraft" This seems like a politically motivated report with their repeated comments about owner built aircraft not being safe and being a danger to the public! I wish they would stick to the facts and drop the opinions.

This slant on the report caused me to suspect it's validity! I know there is a message for all of us non-certified engine users here but not sure what that message is.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment - I read the report and thought it treated the situation fairly. The only comment regarding public safety was this one

"The population of amateur-built, owner-maintained, and ultra-light aircraft is growing. This increases the risk to the public and to property if they are not properly designed, produced, and maintained."

and it was only stated ONCE, not repeatedly as you said, and it is in fact true as stated (with my added emphasis of the important part). All aircraft (and cars and trains and ships) are a danger to the public "unless properly designed, produced and maintained." The fact that they prefaced this with the statement about the population of non-certificated aircraft could be chalked up to the fact that this accident report is ABOUT a non-certificated aircraft.
 
ECI cylinder failure

Airguy,

I'm just blowing steam, tired of slanted reports.

The statement you underlined is totally unrelated to the investigation and only distracts from the facts. I really don't like the analysis section, it's like reading a news rag, not an official report.

Just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
 
Just to be clear. This incident would have involved Group B cylinders as the article stated that they would have had to be replaced by 350 hrs.
The group A cylinders are required to have continuing inspections every 50 hrs after 350 hrs.

As far as I am aware the Group A cylinders are not experiencing significantly more problems than would be expected with other brands of cylinders. I checked with Aero Sport Power as I have Group A cylinders fitted by them and they replied that they have not been made aware of any problems with the group A cylinders.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info Fin - I was thinking that was the case, but Im breathing easier jsut the same.

Does anyone know why Group A cylinders are even mentioned in the AD? How do they differ physically from ECI cylinders that are not listed at all, or for that matter, from the Group B Cylinders?

thanks

erich
 
troubling

Two things struck me as troubling:
1. that the recommended inspection (presumably required to ascertain that continued use was acceptable) performed in this case well before the AD required replacement, was described as one that would not necessarily detect an impending failure. Given the consequence of failure, it would seem immediate replacement would be the only reasonable course - the inspection just lends an unjustified sense of security;
2. that ECI has decided not to offer high compression pistons in their engine kits. Why? Absent more information, suggests that ECI cylinders and high compression pistons are not a good choice.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit
ECI cylinders not affected, but wondering...
 
C-GRVT said:
Two things struck me as troubling:
1. that the recommended inspection (presumably required to ascertain that continued use was acceptable) performed in this case well before the AD required replacement, was described as one that would not necessarily detect an impending failure. Given the consequence of failure, it would seem immediate replacement would be the only reasonable course - the inspection just lends an unjustified sense of security;
2. that ECI has decided not to offer high compression pistons in their engine kits. Why? Absent more information, suggests that ECI cylinders and high compression pistons are not a good choice.
Bill Brooks
Ottawa, Canada
RV-6A finishing kit
ECI cylinders not affected, but wondering...
Click to expand...

1. I agree. If I had Group B cylinders I would replace them ASAP

2. I am not sure if you can necessarily say that ECI considers higher compression pistons should not go in their cylinders. I know that Aero Sport Power offer higher compression pistons for ECi cylinders and have not had problems (apart from group B cylinders).

I am no engine expert and I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it the higher compression 9:1 pistons that are sometimes put into 0-320 cylinders are Lycoming pistons and were originally designed for the Lycoming 0-320-H engines. I think these H engines were installed in one of the Cessna 172 models but were discontinued due to valve lifter problems not necessarily related to the higher compression. I think these engines had the accessory case with just the one drive for the magnetos. I don't know if this is true, but I have been told by an engine expert that they had to increase the compression to 9:1 to increase the power to overcome the power loss caused by this magneto drive mechanism. So in the end the 9:1 H engines had the same 160 hp as the 8.5:1 engines.

It seems likely to me that ECI would not supply 9:1 pistons as they were designed for the some-what redundant H series engine. :confused:

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
There was another comment about public safety in that report:

The number of amateur-built, owner-maintained, and ultra-light aircraft is growing. The onus is on the owners of these aircraft to ensure airworthiness. Without additional system safeguards, there is a greater risk that these aircraft will not be properly built and maintained.
These aircraft often operate in the vicinity of populated areas, thereby increasing the risk to the public and to property.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.