just_nifty

Mike, do you happen to know which FAR substantiates responsibility? I did a search but couldn't find it. The logbook shows the 100 hr, with the cylinder replacement, signed by the AP. The next entry is "annual performed" verbage signed by the IA. Any ideas on that?

Regarding the chome cylinders - the problem wasn't the cylinders. The other cylinders were fine other than the one that had low compression. The problem was the installation of chrome rings in a chrome cylinder. Rings couldn't possibly seat. As I said, Lycoming's part list for chrome barrels was totally different than the parts installed. However, that same list matches numbers for rings to be installed in nitride barrels. My question remains the same though. Has anyone come across any recommendation from Lycoming when this happens? Has anyone experienced this and what was the outcome?

Byron, I believe that part of this issue is due to the complexity. First of all, the shop owner solicited the annual from me stating he was qualified to perform annuals. During the annual, he is working on the plane but so is an "employee" who is an AP and signs off the 100 hr. The shop owner collects the $$$ for the annual. On reviewing the log books, a third person, an IA, has signed off the annual however, I am later told that the IA never looked at the plane and came in only to sign the book. I have learned much from this experience: Trust nobody. Demand proof. It just seems as though there should be some regulation somewhere preventing this type of convoluted occurance. A shop owner purports to be what the aren't and pays an IA to sign books but doesn't actually check the work done - all the while, the plane owner knows nothing of what's going on because they believe the business to be viable - in all of those kazillions of regulations, you'd think there was at least one covering this????

Quote: jetdriven According to an article from coy Jacobs, chrome cylinders do not work on a lycomong 360 on a mooney.

Yes, did that too...The FSDO is investigating but, apparently, doesn't think the shop owner is responsible even though he personally ordered the incorrect parts. In speaking with attorneys, it doesn't involve enough money for them to be interested. Not many lawyers with aviation experience around here. It seems to me that a shop owner who purports himself to be qualified to perform annuals and advertises such should not be able to conduct business. This shop owner claims to have an IA on his "staff" and so meets FAA regulations.

Yes, I understand that chrome/chrome is never supposed to be together. Dissimilar metals are needed to facilitate wear/break-in. Yes, I can prove the error. The shop listed the part numbers on the invoice to me which I compared to Lycoming's parts list for the engine. Yes, I have photos. Shop won't release insurance info. That leads me to believe they have none. The airport is state owned and, according to the lease agreement on the hangar in which he operates, he is to have commercial insurance however, the state won't release the info either. It's a joke. A very expensive joke. On me. I am getting recommendations for tear down and also that I should just do oil anaylsis for 10 to 20 flight hours to see if contamination lessens. The only problem I have with that is having an "issue" in flight during this look-and-see time period. I feel that I am quite fortunate to be here at all given the damage to the cylinder. Another question: The damaged cylinder has been replaced with a nitride steel so the engine now has 3 chromes, 1 nitride. Anyone else out there have mis-matched barrels and, if so, does it create any other problems?

During an annual inspection, one chrome cylinder was found to be below compression limits. The shop purported to be able and qualified to rebuild it. No test flight or run up was done after reassembly. The plane was returned to me with general guidlines on breaking the cylinder in. After flying a few hours, it was apparent that something was wrong. The belly was oil soaked. Plugs were oil fouled. The shop said I wasn't flying it enough. Oil consumption failed to diminish and I noted a vibration that increasingly worsened. When the cylinder was pulled, it was destroyed beyond salvage and was found to have chrome rings and both vertical and horizontal scoring of the cylinder walls. The oil analysis is showing elevated readings of everything. Does anyone have experience with this situation? Is a tear down necessary to determine crank and bearing involvement or does the elevated levels on the oil analysis suffice to determine the necessity of rebuild?