Lycoming AD

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:50 am

A64,
I agree on the oil separator, I've discovered sometimes when I think something is corney, it later turns out to be useful So, I ask others.
I thought the scope was in my trunk, not so lucky. Will retrieve when I go to the hanger (can't remember manufacture).
I found a company called Global Borescope, the internet site states we repair borescopes, could save you some green-backs?

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:48 am

David,
I'll look up global borescope. I'd rather have this one repaired, but it looks so old that may not be possible.

vaughans · Post by **vaughans** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:31 pm

a64pilot quotes he would rather fly the lyc. with crank AD over the rockies
than the franklin with their crank failure rate. What is their failure rate?
Do you know something that I don't? I haven't heard of a crank failure in the franklin, I have heard of some bad piston pins. a64pilot enlighten those of us who like the franklins, I have had nothing but good luck with the ones I have had.

W.A.T. · Post by **W.A.T.** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:02 pm

I tryed to keep quite on this one but just couldn't stand it.

FACT: The only AD ever issued on the Franklin 6A-350 series (the one Maule uses) was on the fuel pump. 2003-08-01 this AD had to be issued because Poland used faulty pumps.

That is one outstanding record for an engine producing 220 HP with only 350 Cubic Inches and weighing much less the 540 CI Lycoming.

If my counting is correct there are 37 AD's issued on the 0-540 Lycoming.

and 48 AD's issued on the IO-540

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:04 pm

Time for the dueling pistols, LOL.................

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:03 pm

OK I didn't mean that as any kind of attack against the Franklin. It wasn't my point. I apologize to the Franklin crowd. I have no idea what the crank failure rate is, I know only of two, neither catastropic. David one of them was in your shop wasn't it?
It was a bad example, if I could withdraw it I would. It was meant to show that unless I'm wrong there have been no failures in this latest round of AD's on Lycoming cranks.
Now I'm going to make another shocking statement that is at least as controversal as the first. AD's quite often really have very little to do with safety. They are most often generated by a manufacturers service bulletins. You see we live in a litigenous (sp?) society. If there is the perception of a problem a manufacturer writes a service bulletin and takes the issue to the FAA and asks for an AD. Now the manufacturer has put the ball in the gov'ments court. If the FAA doesn't find just cause to issue an AD and something happens, well that could hurt some bureaucrats career couldn't it. So guess what the outcome usually is. Not that any aviation manufacturer would consider this, but there is a lot of money in AD's, especially if you are the sole source of parts.
So what's different about an item no longer being manufactured and the company that made it not existing. Well there is no SB to start with, no company to sue, so there isn't anybody to go to the FAA. And believe it or not the FAA is very hesitant to just ground aircraft without a corrective action. So an AD is much less likely to happen.
How long something has been manufactured and how many there are also plays heavily on whether or not there is an AD issued, the more numbers of something there are, then the greater the chance of something bad happening.
Now not all companies are like I described, some will take action to prevent an AD. Iknow of one for example that prevented an AD because of a poorly designed flap jackshaft by writing a "mandatory" SB and sending each owner free parts to replace it. There were only a dozen or so aircraft affected.
Point is that the number of AD's or lack thereof cannot be used to determine the quality of a particular product.
I didn't mean to beat on the Franklin's, maybe I should have said that I am just as comfortable behind a Lycoming with a "bad" crank as I am behind a Franklin or a Continental.

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:19 pm

Good response A64.
Shucks, no dueling pistols today

vaughans · Post by **vaughans** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:18 pm

Nice back peddle A64pilot, one to many stories around the campfire!! The franklin is an oustanding engine, one of the smoothest recips you will ever fly behind just out of production and parts support is limited, but we keep hearing of new companies trying to put it back into production. I also think the lycomings are a good engine but they to also have their problems. Just was checking to make sure there wasn't something that I didn't know about and hate to see back rumors started about such a great engine.

W.A.T. · Post by **W.A.T.** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:47 am

OH NO,

Now it's the Continentals....lol

I have to say they all have their good and bad points. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

As long as I am up, looking down, and everything stays running smooth, that is a great engine.

For the record, I have only seen (1) Franklin engine with a bad crankshaft. It had a major propeller strike. The aircraft was rebuilt (not by me), a new propeller was installed and was flown about 40 hours. I received an order for a replacement crankshaft seal, after the seal was replaced the oil leak continued. A second seal was installed. I told the mechanic to look closer that there must be something else leaking. Yep, you guessed it, the crankshaft was cracked about 3/4 of an inch just behind the flange… 40 hours with a cracked crank and he didn't even loose his new propeller...pretty good crankshaft, I would say.

OK, I'll admit it, if I was going xcountry with little or no landing options, I would have to choose the Lycoming. Mostly due to parts availablity.

David W.

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:39 pm

Talkin about highjacking a thread........But it's entertaining.
If I was over some dangerous mountains, for example Williston Lake to Whitehorse, I would want an engine with a turbo so if my crank broke I would be high enough (17500)to coast to a road.

a64pilot · Post by **a64pilot** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:38 pm

I think both the 235's and the turbo are good to 20 thousand, although I'm sure the turbo does better up high than the N/A. I wonder why there were so few and why they aren't made anymore.
David come to the fly-in in Moultrie and ask that at the factory.

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:03 pm

A64,
Go to the turbo thread.

Green Hornet · Post by **Green Hornet** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:01 pm

Jeremy,
If your SN # is not on the AD can you get the crankshaft $ 2000.00 replacement deal. The reason I ask is I am having a bottom up tear down for a cam / lifter issue on my 1997 235C, 540IO. It is unknown to date if crank or bearings are effected but sounds like it would be the opportune time to have it done if needed. AD or damage?

maules.com · Post by **maules.com** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:56 pm

If your engine S/n has never had a crank change and it is not on the list, then it is not affected by the SB's so you pay normally for whatever parts you want to buy.
When you get to the crank, check the S/n on the flange and qualify with Lycoming for sure if your crank is affected.

210TC · Post by **210TC** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:41 am

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/429-

http://www.lycoming.com/support/publica ... SB569A.pdf

http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/texis/scri ... &x=32&y=10

Lycoming AD

franklin crank failure rate

Crankshafts....

Franklin cranks

Who is online