Ye ask ye shall receive.Posting this link does not help us if we are not members of that group. How about you (or someone) cut and paste the text here and reference the source please. Thanks
So if I read this right Jan is just moving up the date of planned replacement as a result of 2 units of a total of ? units. How many Lycoming cranks and fuel pumps failed before they put out an AD?
This is not an action by the FAA and it appears that he is comfortable waiting till the end of the year.
Hardly a "the sky is falling situation".
George is right Jan is taking prospective action for a potential problem.
Does anybody know what gear box Dan Lloyd had when he went down?
I was the one that said or implied addressing the failures in this way was proactive; I did not say he was proactive about development. However by developing a Gen III box from lessons learned on the Gen I & II, is a form of being proactive.Milt, I am not sure forcing all the customers of the previous two untested drives to buy new (untested) ones is a form of being proactive.
Call me crazy, but "pro-active" to me means a tested and safe replacement drive would be designed and in manufacture.
Milt,
I am not sure forcing all the customers of the previous two untested drives to buy new ones is proactive.
Call me crazy, but "pro-active" to me means a tested and safe replacement drive would be designed and in manufacture.
I was the one that said or implied addressing the failures in this way was proactive; I did not say he was proactive about development. However by developing a Gen III box from lessons learned on the Gen I & II, is a form of being proactive.
Clearly he is not proactive about testing or building service history before selling the product. However there's no way a small experimental aircraft company will ever have 10,000 hour hardware flight test programs. I''m not defending just stating fact and the reality. How many hours did Van have on the first RV-3 when he sold his first kit or any other model for that matter. May be one prototype with a few 100 hours?
I think most (not all) customers of Eggs products realize they're buying experimental stuff, i.e., you're a test pilot. Clearly there are expectations it will be reliable and safe. That has always been a heated debate, is it reliable and safe.
I've never said PSRU's or auto engines in planes where unsafe, but I always balked at claims, when made, about how much better and more reliable it would be than a direct drive Lycoming (because it was "modern"). I made people mad by being cynical about claims. My cynicism is based on a simple reason, it's impossible to make those claims with out service history. Lycoming has a big head start in service history and "generations" of changes or small refinements.
In 10 years, with 1000's of Gen III PSRU's flying, with a combined total of 10's of thousands of hours, with out failure, than you have a claim to make. Double or triple this service history, than bragging can start. If a design is good from the start service history is academic. If a design is bad, it will not get better by testing it. Bottom line, I just don't know of any thing with gears in is 100% failure proof.
It certainly hurts to have to pay for a fix for a problem that you didn't cause. But, the money to pay for the fix has to come from somewhere. Should the manufacturer charge a whole bunch more for the product in the first place so there is money in the bank to pay for fixes for problems? Or, if they believe they have a good design, should they try to keep the price as low as possible, and then charge for any required changes? It has to be one or the other, as fixes to problems don't come cheap.From a fairness standpoint any manufacturer who compels its customers to replace a product with a problem should foot the entire bill.
Didn't say it was fair from the standpoint of economics just that based on seeing a problem he is taking action before a problem gets worse.
From a fairness standpoint any manufacturer who compels its customers to replace a product with a problem should foot the entire bill.
the hard truth is that there probably isnt enough $$$ in the business for Egg to absorb the cost of replacing the older PSRU's.
Milt,
...and its not just EGG, its also Van's (Nose gear SB) and Cessna and Lycoming...if we buy and fly, I guess we also pay for unknowns as well..... whoever said flying was fair???
Allan
What? William W. this is tired old rhetoric. It's totally irrelevant to PSRU's or autoengines. It makes no sense, except to make someone feel better. I guess? It changes nothing.how many people got replacement cylinders, cranks and various other engine parts from superior, lycoming, eci.at no charge? i guess thats because the engines actually cost about 2500$ to make.
![]()
The crank issue was not a design issue, but rather a material issue,
cessna 414 was a long term corrosion and fatigue issue, which was unanticipated, could not be predicted, and happened after extensive testing and certification.
What? William W. this is tired old rhetoric. It's totally irrelevant to PSRU's or autoengines. It makes no sense, except to make someone feel better. I guess? It changes nothing.
As far as your estimate of cost to make a Lyc engine, how do you know?I think you are kidding right. Ironically a clone Lyc brand new out the box cost less than a FWF Eggenfellner engine kit with a used engine. So I think the Lyc is a deal. The question is why are Eggs engines so expensive?
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.The original 2.5 engines were used. All of the H6 engines are new.
No I would have loved it, if they paid 100% for it. As far as the AD that has nothing to do with Lycoming. The Federal Aviation Administration issues those, not Lycoming. Now the SB on the "other" cranks that are suspect is no doubt one for safety but also liability. I agree they screwed up and there is no excuse, its ugly. Continental did the same thing in the early mid 90's. In this case they changed their forging process intentionally to something new and better, presumably with an OK from the FAA. New C206's where puking cranks out. They went back to the old original methods. The CRANK is the Lycoming's PSRU or PSU.So that makes it ok to compel replacement of many more cranks than were probably affected. Because they did not do their job inspecting parts before they put them into engines they sold as "certified and extensively tested"? The simple fact is they screwed up and issued a series of broad ADs to cover themselves from a legal standpoint.
I don't know the details in this case, but it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to request that the FAA issue an AD, because they consider that an unsafe condition exists with their product that must be rectified.As far as the AD that has nothing to do with Lycoming. The Federal Aviation Administration issues those, not Lycoming.
Actually, Eggenfellner does not have the ability to "ground" these aircraft. This is only a recommendation. There is no regulatory reason why the owners could not continue to fly if they wished. It might not be smart to continue to fly those aircraft, but it wouldn't be against the FARs.Eggenfellner G1 & G2 Gearboxes Grounded
I don't know the details in this case, but it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to request that the FAA issue an AD, because they consider that an unsafe condition exists with their product that must be rectified.
Actually, Eggenfellner does not have the ability to "ground" these aircraft. This is only a recommendation. There is no regulatory reason why the owners could not continue to fly if they wished. It might not be smart to continue to fly those aircraft, but it wouldn't be against the FARs.
I don't know the details in this case, but it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to request that the FAA issue an AD, because they consider that an unsafe condition exists with their product that must be rectified.
Pierre, I hope you are making good money with that airplane! That is some serious dough.
The Egg turbos are normalized at 30 inches and probably produce a bit less power than the atmo EZ30s at SL due to higher IAT , the exhaust restriction of the turbine and induction restriction of the compressor.
I agree, the G3 box has relatively limited time on it and the same problems could strike it down the road. Jan better have it right this time. It could be his last chance.
Pierre, I hope you are making good money with that airplane! That is some serious dough. Arrggh.Reminds me of the King Air bathtub fittings about 15-20 years ago.
We pay, we pay.
Does that mean RV-10 Egg users will have 190 hp for takeoff?
(1)I don't know the details in this case, but it is not uncommon for a manufacturer to request that the FAA issue an AD, because they consider that an unsafe condition exists with their product that must be rectified.
(2)Actually, Eggenfellner does not have the ability to "ground" these aircraft. This is only a recommendation. There is no regulatory reason why the owners could not continue to fly if they wished. It might not be smart to continue to fly those aircraft, but it wouldn't be against the FARs.
The question is whether the second group of cranks in the SB - service bulletin gets turned into an AD down the road. Lyc does have control of SB's which are not regulatory. The cranks affected by the AD got the sweet deal, parts and labor paid. Lyc probably would NOT want the SB turned into an AD. It would be a case for a class action suit, demanding they pay the same deal they did for the other AD cranks.
Thanks lost track of it. What I was talking about was a second suspect batch of cranks that are not affected by AD but only a SB, where its recommended. Are you saying 2006-20-09 AD is that SB turned to AD? I don't have the SB number.Hey George, are you talking about SB569-A with the crankshaft retirement? If so, the FAA issued AD 2006-20-09 in November of last year on the "retirement" set of crankshafts. It's already a done deal, and we have done several replacements since that time.