T

tin man

Well Known Member
FYI
I was told Cessna a/c has just isssued an AD for ALL its a/c equipped with ECI cylinders. To be performed within the next 8 hours of operation. Our maint department says the cylinders are going out of round.
Tom
Northern California
 
Only the FAA can issue an AD not Cessna.Old style ECI cylinders have a problem not Titans.
 
N184JG said:
Only the FAA can issue an AD not Cessna.Old style ECI cylinders have a problem not Titans.
Click to expand...
Are you saying there is NOT an AD on ECI cylinders?
Tom
Northern California
 
Yes, there is an AD on ECI Classic Cast cylinders. AD 2005-26-10
Doesn't matter what (certificated) airframe the engine is attached to - if the engine has ECI Classic Cast cylinders of a certain casting number and serial number (below 9880), they must be replaced. The AD has all the gory details in it...
 
Information on identifying the effected cylinders is here:
http://www.eci2fly.com/pdf/05-8.pdf
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
Eci Classic Cast Cylinders

If you have any concerns go to www.eci2fly.com On the home page, under the technical index drop down open service publications. Go to SB 05-8.
It is a short two page version (with photo's for identification purposes) of the AD issued by the FAA. Basically nothing is requried until 800 hours time in service. If you have over 800 hours and if you have Classic Cast cylinders that fall under SB 05-8 they are to be removed within 60 hours. The SB 05-8 gives dates of cylinder produced (Jan 1997-Sept 2001) and affected serial numbers (110-9879) TiTan Cylinders are not affected by this Service Bulletin.
 
Sounds like a classic case of not ageing the raw casting long enough before machining them. Industries up north used to throw their steel castings in the river for six months or so before machining to age them. I had an oil field customer that sent me a truck load of huge piston castings for oil field Frac pumps to machine and everyone went out of round after machining because they were green. That was back in the late 70's when nobody wanted to wait for anything. 1981 cured that problem. :eek:
 
ECI barrels

The 800 hour thing is not entirely in line. We just replaced a set of Classic castECI with just under 300 hrs. The barrels were worn belly shaped. No sign of rust . The material appeared to be soft.
ECI replaced them free of charge, and with Titan cylinders. Classic cast are also, not hardened, at least these had no marking meaning plain steel.
T88
RV10 with ECI Titans
 
tacchi88 said:
The 800 hour thing is not entirely in line. We just replaced a set of Classic castECI with just under 300 hrs. The barrels were worn belly shaped. No sign of rust . The material appeared to be soft.
ECI replaced them free of charge, and with Titan cylinders. Classic cast are also, not hardened, at least these had no marking meaning plain steel.
T88
RV10 with ECI Titans
Click to expand...

All this talk of ECI Classic Cast barrels going out-of-round is interesting... however, it's not what the AD was issued for. The FAA is concerned about the CYLINDER HEAD, not the barrel, and this is stated in the AD.

I'm not saying the barrels are not wearing out-of-round; I don't work in the field yet, so I don't know what the wear characteristics of these cylinders (or any others) are. I'm merely pointing out that the AD was issued as a result of cylinder head cracking and failure.
 
I agree the AD is on head cracking not bore wear, I have lots of experience with eci cylinder barrels both the through hardened steel and the nickel carbide (AKA cermi-nil)ones. From my experience the through hardened ones wear similar, if not the same as Lycoming nitrided cylinder bores and the nickel carbide is indestructible, exhibiting, as little as .001 wear or in even the tenths, after 2000 hours or more of operation.
Maybe the wear mentioned was a fluke?
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
Eci

Gentlemen,
Fluke or not, the barrels removed were sets which came under the AD number scruteny, and frankly, given GA parts reputation of plain poor quality control, it's not easy to see that the bore wear was there in plain light. ECI, Superior, Lycoming and continental, are no paragon of quality control, given the number of units "flying" or in use, as compared the any of the automotive manufacturers, et all, who produce milliond without incidents, and yearly.
Despite that we are told that aircraft quality is so keen, it's astaounding that there are so many AD notices year after year, on engines that have changed little if any in more that 50+ years.
The particular aircraft was flown more than the average VFR time, and encompasses less than 2 years. The most common excuse was given for the wear was rust. and corrosion. Funny thing was, there was no sign whatsoever of either rust or corrosion.
I am an ECI user, and frankly, was very surprised at the condition of these barrels. It was just a few days before the issuance of the AD. ECI, to their credit, gave immediate attention to the matter.
There are a few more items produced by ECI which are presently under scruteny, and most likely prompted by this barrel fiasco. To be sure, some of it is knee jerk reaction, but never the less, given the fact that these parts have changed so little on many years, it seem to me that everyone in AC parts production gives very little attention to quality control. How many times is the same part going to made and still have problems.
T88
RV10 with ECI Titans
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Advisor
 
I agree with you, we all can continuously improve our efforts in quality. Some times it isn't as easy as perceived, like for instance metallurgical grain structure at the electron microscope level but other times it is basic quality control errors.
Unfortunately, it seems the harder a defect is to detect by normal manufacturing process and quality control check, the more we rely on usage failure to find the defect. You could do hundreds of checks and still miss the one that bites you down the road or check for everything even remotely possible and then have a product, that in some cases, that no one can afford to pay for,( like that isn't the case with most new aircraft engine parts;-)), because there was so much cost associated with the quality control matrix. When you have something that appears to be the result of poor quality control, it is very aggravating and frustrating to be the owner left holding the bag for something he didn't cause.
Get a subscription to AllDATA to see the repeated quality issues that plague the automotive world. It isn't a pretty picture either. They have similar quality issues. Any one with an aluminum block Dodge engine that blew a head gasket at 75,000 miles or a computer go bad for no apparent reason or a transmission fail with very low mileage can attest that even in the automotive world there are issues that might or should be regarded as quality control problems. Many aircraft engine owners of many different brands and models run happily to TBO with out incident and many car owners do the same. But owners of both often get surprised with unexpected service bulletins, recalls and the like.
Anyway, I had a thought and wonder if this cylinder wear might not be the result of operation rather then quality control. I am not saying that is what caused it, but I am saying it could of. Things like abrupt cylinder temperature change. lack of preheat, lack of warm up, crappy oil change habits, poor baffling, poor nacelle cooling characteristics, improper leaning, bad fuel can also cause barrel wear on a bore that was manufactured correctly and that met all quality control standards. Maybe the wear was a result of poor quality control but maybe it was the result of bad operational habits too.
Just a thought....... no attack intended on any operator, manufacturer or maintenance agency, juts thinking out loud. ;-).
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are
hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided
responsibly and at you own risk."
 
tacchi88 said:
...as compared the any of the automotive manufacturers, et all, who produce milliond without incidents, and yearly.
Click to expand...
As Mahlon suggested, take a good look at automotive TSB's and recalls - there can be dozens of TSB's on a vehicle, but only dealer service departments (or owners that make the effort to stay up-to-date on these issues) know about them, because the mfgr isn't required to notify owners about TSB's. You may be surprised... Case in point: I have a '97 Mitsubishi Eclipse with the 2.0L non-turbo engine. The head gaskets on these engines (also installed in Dodge Neons and a couple other platforms) were plain-old "composition" gaskets - the paper-like fiber ones. They were blowing out near an oil gallery in less than 60k miles, causing an oil leak bad enough that you could actually see the oil flowing from the block/head joint. No recall, but a TSB and a new gasket design (multi-layer steel-shim). Original owners ended up getting the new head gasket replacement for free (within a certain mileage limit), but non-original owners were on their own. Guess which category I fell into... :mad: My point is that I had no clue there was an issue with this entire engine line - I thought it was just my car - until I was researching the 'Net for head-gasket-change info.

tacchi88 said:
Despite that we are told that aircraft quality is so keen, it's astaounding that there are so many AD notices year after year, on engines that have changed little if any in more that 50+ years.
Click to expand...
Maybe a part of the problem is that the engines have changed so little in 50+ years. Maybe the aircraft engine mfgr's should think about collaborating with the automotive mfgr's a bit, and take advantage of what the automotive engineering community has learned in 30 years of finding new ways to make more efficient, lightweight, powerful engines, that will run reliably on varying grades and formulations of gasoline around the country.
 
Last edited:
Quality control

Gentlemen,
We can postulate untill we're all blue in the face, but bottom line, there have been around 500,000 GA engine built in the last 50 years, and by design with little improvements.
Any of the big auto makers can make one million of any one model in one year. The recalls by the numbers compared to aviation is "non exitant", and a non issue. True they all have recalls, but recalls, and even after many years, are paid for by the manufactures, not the buyer, along with an apology. In an AD, we're informed of the financial impact, ours.
I've owned new cars since 1962, and all three major brands. I can count on one hand how many recalls I've had in so many years, and all, in my case were well past warranty, and corrections to be performed free of charge.
I've been in aviation for 24 years and owner for 22. My stack of ADs are long, and corrections have come out of my pocket. This is not an example of "good" quality control or engineering.
On last comment, I've taken 2 long cross country trip, coast to coast. By the grace of God, all went well except the second time. I've had to add oil, had to lean fuel mixture, and constantly check that nothing came loose. I've taken similar excursion accross country with my Chrysler, added no oil, never leaned it, and never bothered to check if any thing came loose. I believe it is an example of good quality control at work.
That second cross country in my Arrow went well. but no more than 10 hrs later or so, oil consumption suddenly rose. I can't describe the condition of the barrells. In any case, I replaced them with new ones, ECIs, and it's still running well for the new owner. (They were not Classic Cast)
Please don't take my comments out of context, but I'm always surprised that all of us aren't screaming about the reliability of these dinosaurs we fly.
OK, so I'm screaming.
BTW,
I do enjoy the exchanges of ideas, and comments.
T88 :)
 
You are comparing apples to cumquats.

Any of the big auto makers can make one million of any one model in one year. The recalls by the numbers compared to aviation is "non exitant", and a non issue. True they all have recalls, but recalls, and even after many years, are paid for by the manufactures, not the buyer, along with an apology. In an AD, we're informed of the financial impact, ours.
I've owned new cars since 1962, and all three major brands. I can count on one hand how many recalls I've had in so many years, and all, in my case were well past warranty, and corrections to be performed free of charge.
I've been in aviation for 24 years and owner for 22. My stack of ADs are long, and corrections have come out of my pocket. This is not an example of "good" quality control or engineering.
Click to expand...


If the automotive world followed the same reporting and inspection model that the aviation world uses, I doubt you would be as happy with your cars.

Have you ever owned a Corsair, a Chevy Vega, a Pinto, a Yugo :eek: ? If so, you have my condolences. These are a few examples of poor quality control and/or engineering from the automotive world. The owners of these vehicles had to constantly fork out money to keep these things on the road after the warranty ran out. How long was the warranty period on these gems, two years maybe? How old does a car have to be before it is exempt from recalls? I am guessing 5 to 7 years.

For grins, let?s say we are required by federal law to have our Yugo torn apart and inspected each year by federally ?certified? mechanic, regardless of the vintage of the car. The mechanic is required to report any corrosion, mechanical defect, electrical anomalies back to the Feds. When the Feds detect a pattern of defects, they issue an automotive equivalent of an AD. How long do you think your Yugo would go without an AD being issued two, five, twenty, fifty years? Do you think GM would be footing the bill for the AD on your 65 Corsair?

With all due respect.

Hugh
 
Apples and cumquats

Mr. Hugh,
A little about my self, I have spent time in the auto industry, motorcycles, retired from the brewing industry, and while at it, dabbled "heavily" in aviation. How did I find time to do all that, simple, with great difficulty.
No matter how many Yugos or Corvairs, or what ever didn't make the scene, although you need to get your numbers straight, the auto industry has far fewer complaints that GA has ever dreamed of.
The number I gave you, and I know you'll agree, is comparing 500,000 GA engines built over a span of some 50+ years vs. the millions that the auto industry produces yearly.
Difference is that there are more Yugos, and Pintos in aviation than in the auto industry.
Not you, or I or any one else flying should have to pay for some manufacturer's mistakes, year after year, after year. If the automotive lemon law were include aircraft engines, we would no longer be able to fly.
As to taking yearly care of one's car, I would venture to say that even you do not take care of your car the way you take care of your airplanes engine. I know you would not be please at having to add oil on a hourly basis, and if you drive from sea level to Grand Canyon as I have, I doubt you'll lean your car the way you have to lean your flyer.
In the last six months alone on our field, at least 4 engines had to have top end work (and at least two more pending), and I assure you that all these owners take very good care of their flyers. I also know for a fact that "none" of them ever perform yearly maintenance of their daily drivers as they do in their ACs.
BTW, we have a Corvair power homebuilt on our field, and just like the car, it's requires very little attention, save for the aircraft related components. Oil consumption, FYI, not known it's changed every 40 hrs. Yeah, he does have to lean, but that will soon stop with a change to a CV carburator.
If we meet up. I'l buy you an apple or orange, your choice. ;)
T88
RV10/Lycosuarus 540
 
Apples and cumquats

Mr. Hugh,
A little about my self, I have spent time in the auto industry, motorcycles, retired from the brewing industry, and while at it, dabbled "heavily" in aviation. How did I find time to do all that, simple, with great difficulty.
No matter how many Yugos or Corvairs, or what ever didn't make the scene, although you need to get your numbers straight, the auto industry has far fewer complaints that GA has ever dreamed of.
The number I gave you, and I know you'll agree, is comparing 500,000 GA engines built over a span of some 50+ years vs. the millions that the auto industry produces yearly.
Difference is that there are more Yugos, and Pintos in aviation than in the auto industry.
Not you, or I or any one else flying should have to pay for some manufacturer's mistakes, year after year, after year. If the automotive lemon law were include aircraft engines, we would no longer be able to fly.
As to taking yearly care of one's car, I would venture to say that even you do not take care of your car the way you take care of your airplanes engine. I know you would not be please at having to add oil on a hourly basis, and if you drive from sea level to Grand Canyon as I have, I doubt you'll lean your car the way you have to lean your flyer.
In the last six months alone on our field, at least 4 engines had to have top end work (and at least two more pending), and I assure you that all these owners take very good care of their flyers. I also know for a fact that "none" of them ever perform yearly maintenance of their daily drivers as they do in their ACs.
BTW, we have a Corvair power homebuilt on our field, and just like the car, it's requires very little attention, save for the aircraft related components. Oil consumption, FYI, not known it's changed every 40 hrs. Yeah, he does have to lean, but that will soon stop with a change to a CV carburator.
If we meet up. I'l buy you an apple or orange, your choice. ;)
T88
RV10/Lycosuarus 540
 
You must log in or register to reply here.