Engine breakin

[Shadrach]

It would be interesting to see the data on new lycoming engines in terms of fuel distribution. Byron's experience is not a one off. There are others who've wrestled with poor distribution.  I think this is odd, since almost every 60s vintage A1A I know of can be operated at 2500RPM from full rich to ~60 LOP or more.  The newer engines not so much.  Even if you think LOP is for crazy Hippies, poor fuel distribution has a negative impact on ROP ops as well

[Shadrach]

I did wonder that but I did a msg check back on the ground. Maybe it's only funcky at power though.

Mags and plugs are new, also provided by Lycoming.

-Robert

 

Do an in flight Mag check.  I have had plug failures that only show up above 2200RPM or on the extreme lean side of peak.

[aaronk25]

Broke mine in LOP...uses 1qt in 15 hours

[ArtVandelay]

Robert, did you consider the 390?

[RobertGary1]

Robert, did you consider the 390?

 

Not really. The extra power is restricted to non-continuous operation.  I think it requires a new prop plus replacement cylinders are double the price in the future.

 

-Robert

[Andy95W]

Robert, did you consider the 390?

I read somewhere, maybe in the MAPA Log, about a guy who did the 390 and was very unhappy. Also heard the better idea is Powerflow exhaust and Electroair ignition, and a factory reman with roller tappets.

Just what I remember hearing. I'm happy with my O-360.

[cliffy]

Just a couple of notes that maybe someone can remember-

Lycoming has an "approved" break in path by Service Bulletin.

At least  one A&P has been violated for signing off on a break in regime that did not follow that "approved" program.

That program also has a requirement to use "calibrated" gauges.

There used to be an issue that in order to legally call it an overhaul or rebuilt engine in the logs you had to have used calibrated gauges for break in or else it was a "repaired" engine.  Had an FAA guy mention this once.

In  talking a few years ago to Lycoming it was noted that if their engines fail and someone sues them unless one followed Lycomings instructions one wouldn't do too good in the law suit. 

I did mine by the Lycoming method and have 800 hrs on it with no issues, no cylinder problems, nothing of note.  Wondering what I'm missing. 

[cliffy]

Jim, I mention things I have seen happen over 50 years in this business. My "commentary" is to maybe keep someone from being violated or hurt. 

I have mentioned before that unless you have ever seen what a true FAA investigation is like you have no idea what you are in for if it ever happens. I've seen it happen to other people and it ain't pretty. 

Unless you have ever had personal close friends killed in plane accidents then the true impact of same has less feel. I've been there too many times in half a century. 

One of the leading causes of accidents is unauthorized or unlicensed owner done maintenance as pronounced by our local FAA Maint Insp at a recent Safety Meeting. 

 

Now maybe I could have changed my wording a little to be less "ambiguous"

 

Lycoming has a Service Bulletin that shows their break in procedure.

By FAR one is required to follow the manufacturers methods and recommendations for maintenance of certified aircraft.

Yes, SBs are are not mandatory but the argument may be specious if a problem develops with a log book sign off or accident. . 

 

At least 1 A&P HAS been violated for not following Lycomings break in procedure (no ambiguity here).

 

Lycoming's procedure  does require calibrated gauges.

 

I do talk to the FAA from time to time and they have told me of the issue of calibrated gauges and signing it off as an overhaul>

 

I had a long conversation with Lycoming at Oshkosh where in they did say that they win most law suits because their procedures  were not followed. Even SBs!

 

If my efforts to try to help keep folks legal and safe are out of line, sorry. I've lost too many friends to stupid issues to remain silent. 

 

I too have an issue with many of the problems the FAA brings about but for the most part, most all of the regulations have been written with someones blood in the pen.

[kmyfm20s]

"One of the leading causes of accidents is unauthorized or unlicensed owner done maintenance as pronounced by our local FAA Maint Insp at a recent Safety Meeting."

I don't advocate non approved maintenance but I don't recall seeing this on the most common causes of accident list. Does this fall in the subcategory of mechanical failures?

[RobertGary1]

 

One of the leading causes of accidents is unauthorized or unlicensed owner done maintenance as pronounced by our local FAA Maint Insp at a recent Safety Meeting. 

 

 

Seems as though we have drifted into topics in no way related to this discussion.

 

-Robert

[kmyfm20s]

Sorry! Back on course:)

[cliffy]

Yes and back to the movie

[Shadrach]

Took my F out for its first flight on the 0 time A3B6 engine. A couple things I noticed that I"m not sure they are common...

 

1) Fuel pressure on the mechanical pump was running 29 psi at 75% power. That's much higher than the old pump ran. Maybe this is normal for a new pump? Its within the green arch. I don't recall seeing a limiter on the old servo to the sensor line but maybe there was and I returned it with the old engine???

 

2) CHTs were fine. They were pretty flat across the 4 and were in the low 300's.

 

3) EGTs were uneven. At 75% power, pulling 12 gal/hr (slightly rich) I was seeing around 1180/1349/1460/1195. In my old engine the EGTs were very even. Is this common at break in? I did notice that while the EGTs were very uneven at idle before the flight they were level at idle after the flight.

 

4) Oil pressure was nicely in the middle of the green. An improvement over my last engine where its last 30 seconds of life were with oil pressure at 0.

 

I had previously ran the engine for 15 minutes to position the plane after I finished the engine install so I could get a hanger to work on the annual. So I guess this was 15-1:15 of its young life.

 

-Robert

 

Robert,

 

The Bendix fuel servo does not care about pressure, only that there is enough but not too much. It's in the green, the servo has adequate fuel to provide for the engine.

 

CHTs are the most important parameter and it looks like yours are actually running pretty cool for new jugs during break in, though I don't know you locale.

 

Your EGT spread is higher than I'm used to seeing, but it could be related to how/where the probes are installed. Or it could be very poor fuel/air distribution.  If you had a bad plug, I would expect EGTs to be in the high 1600 to 1800 range at break in power settings. Next time you fly it, record the full rich WOT EGT setting or if available upload the engine data.

[Shadrach]

Jim, I mention things I have seen happen over 50 years in this business. My "commentary" is to maybe keep someone from being violated or hurt.

I have mentioned before that unless you have ever seen what a true FAA investigation is like you have no idea what you are in for if it ever happens. I've seen it happen to other people and it ain't pretty.

Unless you have ever had personal close friends killed in plane accidents then the true impact of same has less feel. I've been there too many times in half a century.

One of the leading causes of accidents is unauthorized or unlicensed owner done maintenance as pronounced by our local FAA Maint Insp at a recent Safety Meeting.

Now maybe I could have changed my wording a little to be less "ambiguous"

Lycoming has a Service Bulletin that shows their break in procedure.

By FAR one is required to follow the manufacturers methods and recommendations for maintenance of certified aircraft.

Yes, SBs are are not mandatory but the argument may be specious if a problem develops with a log book sign off or accident.

The 2 sentences above contradict one another.

At least 1 A&P HAS been violated for not following Lycomings break in procedure (no ambiguity here).

Maybe not ambiguous but complete hearsay unless of course you were the violated mechanic.

Lycoming's procedure does require calibrated gauges.

Please provide a link to the document requiring the calibrating of gauges as well as the acceptable methods for doing so? Does Lycoming have a reference to which gauges must be calibrated? This is interesting given the airframe manufacturer and not the engine manufacturer determines what equipment goes into the cockpit. There are AC flying with almost no engine instrumentation whatsoever in the cockpit. What does Lycoming require in that case? The FAA requirement is the proverbial "TOMATO FLAMES"

I do talk to the FAA from time to time and they have told me of the issue of calibrated gauges and signing it off as an overhaul>

Again, if you're not the FAA then please provide a document, advisory circular or FAR that verifies your statement, otherwise it's just more hearsay subjected to your own opinion.

I had a long conversation with Lycoming at Oshkosh where in they did say that they win most law suits because their procedures were not followed. Even SBs!

I'm shocked to learn that they told you that they're the big winners! Lycoming's PR and legal departments are known for their honesty an integrity.

If my efforts to try to help keep folks legal and safe are out of line, sorry. I've lost too many friends to stupid issues to remain silent.

Sharing these real world experiences might be useful to us all, do tell!

I too have an issue with many of the problems the FAA brings about but for the most part, most all of the regulations have been written with someones blood in the pen.

This is your opinion and a rather dramatic statement. All sorts of situations contribute to the issuing of new regs, not just "someone's blood"...

Rant on:

The OP is seeing some odd readings during the break in of a Factory New Engine. He is breaking it in in accordance with Lycoming's "requirements" (I read them as recommendations, but we'll call them requirements just for you). I would bet a $500 hamburger that Robert's EGT number spread has nothing to do with a lack instrument "calibration".

As someone who was involved in flying and maintaining airplanes before the interwebs were fully functioning, I am of the opinion that the sharing of make and model specific "tribal information" has done a great deal to improve the maintenance and safety of GA aircraft.

I have suffered many "credentialed fools" throughout my life, and aviation is no exception. I have in fact witnessed awful maintenance injustices committed against my aircraft as well as those belonging to others to include but not limited to:

Misrouted aileron control cables sawing through wing stingers.

Fuel tanks punctured by improper length fasteners.

nose gear turn radius exceeded (99% sure this happened at an East coast MSC), denting the nose gear truss.

Over torqued injector "B" nuts that cracked the flanges on all 4 injectors.

Mag timed 180 degrees out of spec.

etc...

All of the "maintenance" above was completed and "committed" by FAA credentialed mechanics and repair stations. Does that mean non-credentialed folks should do their maintenance? NO! It means we should educate ourselves as much as possible about the machines we fly and how they are maintained. That is why I come to this board. I am familiar and comply with part 43 regs. I do appreciate you keeping everyone in line and informed of the regs and requirements. "saving lives" on the forum is thankless work, especially when it's unsolicited.

Rant off.

Back to your regularly scheduled Engine break-in thread.

[N601RX]

What Cliff is talking about is directly stated in chapter 9 of the lycoming direct drive overhaul manual so it is regulatory if you are using the overhual manual as your source of approved data to complete the work.  Its also summarized in a service bulletin which is not. It clearly says that the airframe gauges are not to be used and calibrated external gauges must be used. I attached the page.

[M20F]

What Cliff is talking about is directly stated in chapter 9 of the lycoming direct drive overhaul manual so it is regulatory if you are using the overhual manual as your source of approved data to complete the work.  Its also summarized in a service bulletin which is not. It clearly says that the airframe gauges are not to be used and calibrated external gauges must be used. I attached the page.

Hi you need to use calibrated gauges if using a test stand which they reccomend but don't require. Thus if you stick it on the airframe and fire it up far as I can see engine gauges and that methodology works. I don't have access to the complete document though nor am I an A&P, just commenting on the page you listed.

[N601RX]

Read the note carefully,  It says you may do it on the airplane if the following requirements are met.

[RobertGary1]

Read the note carefully,  It says you may do it on the airplane if the following requirements are met.

 

I assume that is just for the shade tree overhaul. Any overhaul shop is going to ship the engine with a complete breakdown of the data from the initial runs. I have several pages from Lycoming of pressures and temps from the initial run.

 

-Robert

[Shadrach]

What Cliff is talking about is directly stated in chapter 9 of the lycoming direct drive overhaul manual so it is regulatory if you are using the overhual manual as your source of approved data to complete the work.  Its also summarized in a service bulletin which is not. It clearly says that the airframe gauges are not to be used and calibrated external gauges must be used. I attached the page.

 

 

 I must assume that the engine was run on Lycoming's test cell!  I hope their "gages" were well calibrated at the time.  However, being that we are discussing a Lycoming factory new "0" time engine, I'm not sure how the document you posted applies. What does the document you've posted have to do with calibrating the instruments in one's airplane or requiring that they be calibrated? What does it have to do with in flight break-in? What does it have to do with Lycoming delivering some new engines with such poor fuel distribution that they barely run smooth at peak EGT?  Are you suggesting that these engines are coming from the factory already broken in? 

[philiplane]

This is not true, but to each their own. I have broken in jugs LOP and it works beautifully.

Breaking in LOP is very hit or miss and beyond the capabilities of most pilots and mechanics. If you run the engine just on the ragged edge of the red box during break-in, you will glaze the walls and the jugs will have to come off to be honed. ROP eliminates the wild card of glazing. This is not to each his own, there are reams of information from the manufacturers, engine rebuilders, and researchers regarding break in procedures. Read them all and the general conclusion is to run it like you stole it for ten hours, or until oil consumption stabilizes. 

[aaronk25]

Breaking in LOP is very hit or miss and beyond the capabilities of most pilots and mechanics. If you run the engine just on the ragged edge of the red box during break-in, you will glaze the walls and the jugs will have to come off to be honed. ROP eliminates the wild card of glazing. This is not to each his own, there are reams of information from the manufacturers, engine rebuilders, and researchers regarding break in procedures. Read them all and the general conclusion is to run it like you stole it for ten hours, or until oil consumption stabilizes.

It's impossible to glaze a cylinder wall if you don't get it hot. On a io-360 just leave it wot and drag the mixture back to 10.5gph or so or less and your there...if it gets to hot lean more if it's not warm enough richen up a bit.

I get what the manufactures are saying but boy last thing I want to do is go soot up a nice set of rings. Good way to dirty up a nice clean new engine.

I could care less if it's 30rop or 20lop, just so the CHTs are 380 or less and the mixture isn't excessively rich.

[Shadrach]

Breaking in LOP is very hit or miss and beyond the capabilities of most pilots and mechanics. If you run the engine just on the ragged edge of the red box during break-in, you will glaze the walls and the jugs will have to come off to be honed. ROP eliminates the wild card of glazing. This is not to each his own, there are reams of information from the manufacturers, engine rebuilders, and researchers regarding break in procedures. Read them all and the general conclusion is to run it like you stole it for ten hours, or until oil consumption stabilizes.

I live at 700ftMSL. It is rural enough that there are areas where I can tool around at 1200msl if I choose to and still be legal. Do you think that 28" and 40-60 LOP is babying an engine? It's not. I can develope plenty of power for break in with cool CHTs at 2000ftmsl. Hammering a piston is not what seats rings. High and consistent internal cylinder pressure throughout thoe power stroke seats rings. I can think of no better way to achieve this than running WOT LOP at low altitude. I'm not saying that folks should do what I and others have done. I'm just saying that saying you can't do it is false and saying that you shouldn't is "yeah, well, you know, thats just like your opinion, man"... As for ROP "eliminating the wild card of cylinder glazing", that's not your opinion, it untrue. I am sure that pilots managed to glaze cylinders on break-in during the 60s and 70s after LOP ops had almost completely dissapeared from the aviation landscape (save for guys like Roy Lopresti and folks from the Cafe Foundation).

Those of you in Denver are stuck with ROP brake-ins.

[cliffy]

Let me answer two questions that have been left unanswered by others:

1) The "mechanic" violated was mentioned and written about on a posting right here on MS 

2) And now I'll get personal:

    a) 1 friend died in a hot and high crash into Lake Powell AZ in the 60s I went to HS with him We were friends

    Another died in an icing incident in the NE flying a Bonanza in weather that he shouldn't have been in

    c) 1 friend died doing low altitude aerobatics in a WWII fighter 

    d) 2 died in a corp jet crash while trying to get into a foggy airport in the middle of the night. They are plastered on a mountainside

    e) Another died just after going IMC on takeoff in real crappy weather in a Comanche She was very low time in both flying and Inst,

Thank you for allowing me to drag up old memories of my dead friends. They were all good friends of mine from over 50 years in this business. I have a few more but will stop there.

 

As is required by regulation (here I go again) no licensed mechanic can do anything to an airplane without reference to some kind of accepted or approved data. Mention was made of referring to Part 43. Part 43 is an Advisory Circular not a "regulation". Secondly, on the very first page of Part 43 its 'Applicability" is stated. Therein it says (to paraphrase) that Part 43 Methods and Techniques may only be used IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS. Therefore, if the MANUFACTURER of the airframe, engine or appliance has instructions for maintenance and/or overhaul of that unit, those instructions shall be followed and not substituted by anything in Part 43. 

 

If someone wants to use the airframe for break in of a field overhauled engine it's OK to do it with calibrated gauges (either separate gauges or have the airplane gauges calibrated but for that they have to be removed and sent out and the calibration goes dead 1 year later). 

 

I, too, have come in behind other mechanics and found sloppy or unsafe work previously done. All mechanics are not the same. Remember, even some Doctor had to graduate at the bottom of his class! But I'll say it again- If you have never seen or been involved in a full blown FAA investigation you have no idea what you are in for if it happens to you. I've seen it, it ain't pretty!

 

A couple of questions that could come up in an investigation are:

What makes you think you know more than the manufacturer?  If you have a good answer so be it and-

Show me your approved or accepted data for the procedure you are following. Again, can you answer this one ?

[RobertGary1]

I assume Lycoming used calibrated gauges during the initial breakin runs. I'm not really in a position to question them.

-Robert

[Shadrach]

Cliffy,

I am sorry for your losses. Most of us have lost at least an acquaintance to aviation. I only asked you to share because your post implied that you had experienced a loss related to "one of the leading causes of accidents is unauthorized or unlicensed owner done maintenance". I thought it would be educational. I was not trying to encourage you to relive painful memories.

Anyway our fundamental disagreement here is the difference between an engine test stand ops check and the break in process. You do not seem to differentiate between the two. I see one as a verification that everything is working as it should and the other as seating rings and establishing full oil control. Certainly during overhaul there are strict methods and tests that must be performed IAW the manufacturer's specs. There are also recommendations; for instance, all of the powers settings in the POH are recommendations, they are not requirements. This is not to say that it's prudent to make up your own, just to say that it's not illegal.

RE Part 43: the link speaks for itself. I do not know what gave you the impression this was an advisory circular. It clearly codifies what mx an owner/pilot can perform. PART 43—MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION

I am done beating this horse. I agree to disagree. Any future posts I make to this thread will be related to the OP. I did not mean to hijack. This is what happens when I stay away for a year. Feel free to grab the last word or to PM me. Sorry Robert, back to your regularly scheduled thread.