Insurance

[DanM20C]

26 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Some brokers, mine included have *significant* input into what comes back from the underwriter. I've been amazed at what she can do for some of the people I've referred to her.

My new broker did spend a fair amount of time trying to convince the underwriter to make an exception.  In a different situation he may have been successful.  But I was trying to get insured after a total loss, so they were firm in their decision.

[carusoam]

Dan,

A total loss could have included the pilot, but it didn't... 

you saved them a ton of dough, learned how and took steps to keep it from happening again,  And shared the details of the solution amongst hundreds of pilots...

could be just the way I look at things...  

Best regards,

-a-

[chrixxer]

On 8/30/2017 at 6:51 PM, carusoam said:

Dan,

A total loss could have included the pilot, but it didn't... 

you saved them a ton of dough, learned how and took steps to keep it from happening again,  And shared the details of the solution amongst hundreds of pilots...

could be just the way I look at things...  

Best regards,

-a-

What happened?

[carusoam]

Dan had a significant CO problem in flight...

He awoke on the ground...

He has been active getting information spread about how and where to buy a good CO detector.

Similar situation, we hear about the Mooney accident and immediately try to find if we know the pilot, and if there is a way to help.  Mike Elliot heads up the details on that...

I'm glad to be explaining this to you... 

Best regards,

-a-

[chrixxer]

Yeah, me too. And I hope there are lessons to emerge from my situation. I’ve been talking to a lot of folks with a lot of varied experience, and already have ideas no one ever discussed with/showed me on what I could have been doing better or differently. Don’t know if any of them contributed, yet, but they make sense as best practices in any case... More soon.

[steingar]

7 hours ago, chrixxer said:

Yeah, me too. And I hope there are lessons to emerge from my situation. I’ve been talking to a lot of folks with a lot of varied experience, and already have ideas no one ever discussed with/showed me on what I could have been doing better or differently. Don’t know if any of them contributed, yet, but they make sense as best practices in any case... More soon.

I doubt the catastrophic engine failure you experience had anything to do with your operation it.  Unfortunately, engines are far more likely to fail just after assembly than at any other time.  if they get bad parts, assembled incorrectly, whatever.  I have little doubt that's what happened to you.  My engine was recently overhauled, and I am a bit reticent to fly over hostile terrain because it.  Thankfully where I live there are expanses of flat green farmland.  I don't think I'll be finding myself over any urban environments at night any time soon.  Not that you were wrong to do so, airplane doesn't know any better.  

Someone should have a look at what's going on in the shop that assembled your engine, though.

[N6758N]

The only way  you can really harm one of these engine is to run them extremely lean. The NA Lycomings are designed to run at 100% power all the way to TBO. Highly unlikely you did anything to cause the failure @chrixxer

[jetdriven]

53 minutes ago, steingar said:

I doubt the catastrophic engine failure you experience had anything to do with your operation it.  Unfortunately, engines are far more likely to fail just after assembly than at any other time.  if they get bad parts, assembled incorrectly, whatever.  I have little doubt that's what happened to you.  My engine was recently overhauled, and I am a bit reticent to fly over hostile terrain because it.  Thankfully where I live there are expanses of flat green farmland.  I don't think I'll be finding myself over any urban environments at night any time soon.  Not that you were wrong to do so, airplane doesn't know any better.  

Someone should have a look at what's going on in the shop that assembled your engine, though.

It might not be the shop that assembled the engine, but the prop strike and resultant maintenance that followed that. 

[KSMooniac]

Yep...if the cam timing gear was damaged and not inspected or replaced then it could make the engine go quiet at any time.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Hank]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

Yep...if the cam timing gear was damaged and not inspected or replaced then it could make the engine go quiet at any time.
 

And here I thought a bad cam would make the prop spin with much less authority [huge loss of thrust], while the engine continued to burn fuel and make noise, maybe even a little extra noise . . .

Sent from my desktop PC using Internet Explorer 10 or 11 [I forget]

[steingar]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

It might not be the shop that assembled the engine, but the prop strike and resultant maintenance that followed that. 

I am assuming that the engine was torn down for inspection and reassembled after the prop strike, I believe its mandatory for the Lycoming found in the earlier Mooneys.  I'll bet money someone screwed the pooch reassembling the engine, or a bad part got in unknowingly.  There have been instances lately from both big engine manufacturers.

[jetdriven]

thays a dangerous asssumption to make. Besides which is more likely, a reputable engine shop messed up the prop strike reassembly or the seller didn't do it and pocketed the 8 grand. 

[N6758N]

22 minutes ago, steingar said:

I am assuming that the engine was torn down for inspection and reassembled after the prop strike, I believe its mandatory for the Lycoming found in the earlier Mooneys.  I'll bet money someone screwed the pooch reassembling the engine, or a bad part got in unknowingly.  There have been instances lately from both big engine manufacturers.

It is NOT mandatory to tear the engine down after a prop strike on a Lycoming. There is a SB and and AD that have to be complied with. You have to repair/replace the prop, dial the crankshaft flange, and replace/inspect the  crankshaft gear at the back of the engine and install a new bolt as well. That's it. 

[Marauder]

19 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

thays a dangerous asssumption to make. Besides which is more likely, a reputable engine shop messed up the prop strike reassembly or the seller didn't do it and pocketed the 8 grand. 

Considering the magnitude of this incident, I suspect the NTSB will conduct a thorough inspection of the logs and engine will show what IRAN was done. I’m curious as well as to what was done after the prop strike. 

[HRM]

4 hours ago, N6758N said:

The only way  you can really harm one of these engine is to run them extremely lean.

Are you saying LOP? Seriously, is 'extremely lean' leaner than LOP? My E has a GAMI spread of 0.1 and I run it LOP all the time.

[N6758N]

Just now, HRM said:

Are you saying LOP? Seriously, is 'extremely lean' leaner than LOP? My E has a GAMI spread of 0.1 and I run it LOP all the time.

I mean leaning past the point of LOP, where the engine starts to detonate...Let's not get into a LOP debate here...

[HRM]

Just now, N6758N said:

I mean leaning past the point of LOP, where the engine starts to detonate...Let's not get into a LOP debate here...

AGREED! Thanks for the clarification.

[Cyril Gibb]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:08 PM, N6758N said:

I mean leaning past the point of LOP, where the engine starts to detonate...Let's not get into a LOP debate here...

You can't start a debate and then say let's not start a debate.

Leaning further, once you are LOP, slows the flame front which pushes the peak cylinder pressure point later in the downstroke reducing peak cylinder pressure.  It's impossible to get detonation in that regime based on everything I've read.

However, I'm willing to study ANY document ANYWHERE written by anyone knowledgeable about engine operation that says excessive LOP will cause detonation or engine damage.

Links?

[PTK]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:08 PM, N6758N said:

I mean leaning past the point of LOP, where the engine starts to detonate...Let's not get into a LOP debate here...

This is news to me. How do we get detonation with leaning past lop. As I undetstand it we need two things for detonation to occur: high ICP, and occuring early near TDC. Continuing to lean more moves the ICP further after TDC increasing our safe detonation margins. 

Am I missing something?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

You can't start a debate and then say let's not start a debate.

Leaning further, once you are LOP, slows the flame front which pushes the peak cylinder pressure point later in the downstroke reducing peak cylinder pressure.  It's impossible to get detonation in that regime based on everything I've read.

However, I'm willing to study ANY document ANYWHERE written by anyone knowledgeable about engine operation that says excessive LOP will cause detonation or engine damage.

Links?

Cyril,

My engine is sitting in my hangar right now, it is so LoP it won't stay running.  I think yours is doing the same, I suppose they are safe, but now I wonder.

Clareence

[N6758N]

On 9/30/2017 at 8:19 AM, Cyril Gibb said:

You can't start a debate and then say let's not start a debate.

Leaning further, once you are LOP, slows the flame front which pushes the peak cylinder pressure point later in the downstroke reducing peak cylinder pressure.  It's impossible to get detonation in that regime based on everything I've read.

However, I'm willing to study ANY document ANYWHERE written by anyone knowledgeable about engine operation that says excessive LOP will cause detonation or engine damage.

Links?

Actually I can, and I didn't start a debate. You fine folks are the ones who turn everything into a pissing match, me, I'm not interested in arguing with people over the internet. My point wasn't about LOP operations or even detonation. But next time you go flying, why don't you pull the mixture back until the engine starts making strange noises and vibrations, and then report back to us on how you think you will make TBO running it that way. I'm not calling those results detonation per say, but it isn't healthy for the engine either. 

[gsxrpilot]

7 minutes ago, N6758N said:

Actually I can, and I didn't start a debate. You fine folks are the ones who turn everything into a pissing match, me, I'm not interested in arguing with people over the internet. My point wasn't about LOP operations or even detonation. But next time you go flying, why don't you pull the mixture back until the engine starts making strange noises and vibrations, and then report back to us on how you think you will make TBO running it that way. I'm not calling those results detonation per say, but it isn't healthy for the engine either. 

That's not detonation, thats just one or more cylinders out of fuel and therefore not producing power. My 6 cylinder engine running on 5 cylinders because one is too lean and therefore not firing, will naturally feel rough. And while there are a host of reasons not to run on less than the full compliment of cylinders, detonation isn't the issue.

[HRM]

16 minutes ago, N6758N said:

But next time you go flying, why don't you pull the mixture back...

Has the discussion moved to BMP^† now? That's my favorite MO.

 

      ^†Big Mixture Pull

[N6758N]

4 minutes ago, HRM said:

Has the discussion moved to BMP^† now? That's my favorite MO.

 

      ^†Big Mixture Pull

I'll get it right next time 

[Hank]

4 hours ago, HRM said:

Has the discussion moved to BMP^† now? That's my favorite MO.

 

      ^†Big Mixture Pull

And here I thought tnis thread was about getting insurance for your Mooney . . . . Those darn titles are so confusing!