Jump to content

Lycoming Cam Issue Poll


INA201

Cam Issues  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Have you had a cam issue?

    • I have had a cam failure due to corrosion, lobe degradation, or a lifter problem related to the cam.
      25
    • I have never had a cam related problem.
      51


Recommended Posts

Bought a 1200 smoh engine from Tulsa. Flew 100hr/yr for 10 years, then 50 one year. Then 15 year 12. We got it and flew 250hr in about 9 months then 3 lifters were spalled. Note: we pulled the #1 cylinder off and the lifters we could inspect were all good. Of the people I know with Lycoming engines I would say they’re probably half of them it’s happened to. Oddly enough none of them built before about 1992 or 1994 do.  My boss’s 1987 overhauled IO360 rolls on and on. 

Edited by jetdriven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got almost 150 hours of Mooney time in an IO360 and 200 hours of time in an Archer Lycoming 0360A4M. The Archer is still running strong in a partnership approaching TBO. The Mooney was rebuilt in 2003, then a propstrike in 2008. I don’t see anywhere in the logbook history where the cam caused any MX to be done but I’ll look further back to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bought a 1200 smoh engine from Tulsa. Flew 100hr/yr for 10 years, then 50 one year. Then 15 year 12. We got it and flew 250hr in about 9 months then 3 lifters were spalled. Note: we pulled the #1 cylinder off and the lifters we could inspect were all good. Of the people I know with Lycoming engines I would say they’re probably half of them it’s happened to. Oddly enough none of them built before about 1992 or 1994 do.  My boss’s 1987 overhauled IO360 rolls on and on. 

So if you had to overhaul today, is there an OEM alternative to replace the cam?

 

My old AP’s 78J had it’s original engine, 1600 hrs, bad cam after 38 years.

 

Mike Busch says you cannot inspect a cam on a Lycoming, that’s not really true. You can tell the cam is bad by measuring the valve opening, that’s how my AP knew he had a bad cam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bought two years ago with 900SMOH, overhauled 2003. Put 300 hours on it. Engine started making metal about 75hours in..during overhaul, two lifters were severely spalled. Plane did have a period of sitting when I bought it.

Edited by AlexLev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lycoming 76 series engines installed in the C172N and Piper Seminole have removable valve lifters like a TCM engine.  When I worked on flight school plane we pulled the lifters every 200 hours and replaced any showing signs of distress, they all went well beyond normal TBO.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1978J I’m in sat for ten months for avionics work and another six months before I got her. Had a new cam put in because of prop strike in 2008. I’m thinking I’ll be a candidate for some cam issues at some point down the road. I bet if she does well the next 200 hours I’ll probably be in the clear.  I’m not an engineer but it seems like a cam and lifters could be produced that wouldn’t have the problems regardless of sitting etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my first M20F in 84 it had a fairly low time engine. It was the factory original engine and had less than 1000 hours in 17 years. I flew it almost daily for a few months putting over 100 hours on it. The engine was running strong. I had a problem where the engine lost oil pressure. It turned out that an idler gear came loose in the accessory cover and damaged the crank case. When I disassembled the engine I found 3 spalled lifters and worn cam lobes.

I've never had any cam problems sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve had 3 Lycoming 360s (one an O360 and the other two IO360s) overhauled before TBO either because of a cracked case or prop strike.  All three had worn cams.  On none did I notice any appreciable amounts of metal nor any clear degradation in performance prior to tear down.  I never saw the cams so I can’t say how severely worn they were but in each case the shop reported wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

O360 with plenty of issues... over a decade...

None known to be related to the cam...

Sat unused outside for a couple of years prior to my ownership...

Lived Outside eternally.

Lots of unheated cold starts...

Outside in NJ is a pretty unhappy place for a machine...

Better to be an indoor cat than an outdoor one...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that cams and lifters in an automotive engine can sit for years and not do this?

I rebuilt the engine in my Dodge (4.7l V8) with overhead cams.  They were perfect.  Over 250000 miles on it and 17 years old.  Thing sits for months at a time.

Are aircraft manufacturers using a different steel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, INA201 said:

See if we can get a few more votes. Based on comments 65% of folks with no problems is pretty good.

Actually that’s pretty awful.  This is a specific and single failure mode and a third of respondents have had it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, INA201 said:

See if we can get a few more votes. Based on comments 65% of folks with no problems is pretty good.

~ 4/10 with cam problems is pretty bad. That's almost half! I'd be interested to see chronology, as in when were these components manufactured, data in this poll. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Why is it that cams and lifters in an automotive engine can sit for years and not do this?

I rebuilt the engine in my Dodge (4.7l V8) with overhead cams.  They were perfect.  Over 250000 miles on it and 17 years old.  Thing sits for months at a time.

Are aircraft manufacturers using a different steel?

Short answer, better metallurgy, better lubrication design. How many here think Lycoming came out with the new DHC tappets because they wanted a fancy three letter acronym'ed part to sell vs legal saying "we gotta do something here guys...we cant spin this corrosion cause forever..."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should rephrase the “pretty good,” comment from my part. It’s “pretty bad” but better than I thought considering how it is such a bad design element in our engines. I’m assuming that we have a lot of years of Mooney ownership represented here. In my case I have a decade behind Lycomings with no issues “I think,” but I bet others on MS and who voted have twenty years or more. Should’ve put that question in too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been very disappointed in Engine reliability. For a couple months last year me and my two 201 friends of mine in Houston all three had planes with no engines on them at the same time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "study" needs other factors added in. For those with cam issues, how long did the plane sit for any period of time? How many were flown less than 20 hours per year? How many of these cam issues were planes sitting in high humidity environments? When was the cam manufactured? 

If these numbers were statistically relevant (more than 100 data points), it suggests a significant issue affecting 1/3 of the fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Why is it that cams and lifters in an automotive engine can sit for years and not do this?

I rebuilt the engine in my Dodge (4.7l V8) with overhead cams.  They were perfect.  Over 250000 miles on it and 17 years old.  Thing sits for months at a time.

Are aircraft manufacturers using a different steel?

Auto manufacturers don't have to go through an expensive certification process every time they change a design.  They are much more able to utilize improvements in metallurgy and design.   Their larger economy of scale doesn't hurt, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2018 at 8:35 AM, bluehighwayflyer said:

On the other hand, we've had five Lycomings over the course of 36 years and never had the issue.  None of our engines were from the late 90s and early 2000s, though.  I'm convinced much of this has been caused by bad metalugury from that time period, with lack of use as a condition precedent.

Jim

I agree this is intrinsically a metallurgy from a certain time period issue. I would also add that it probably has to do with the engine being operated properly in making sure the oil is actually dry. I’m not buying into how long it has sat or how many hours it has flown or using scamguard etc. My local mechanic who changes my oil at times relayed two similar stories to me a couple of years ago. One was about a Cessna that sat in a barn in upstate PA for 15 years. He went up there to get the plane back up. They changed the battery and oil and she fired up. That engine is still flying today. The other one was about a plane on my field but don’t remember the details. But the theme was similar. 

Point being the word “corrosion” scares people but I don't think all “corrosion” is created equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally don't do conspiracy theories, but I'll just throw this one out there.

A lot of engine ADs are worded, "at next overhaul, or the next separation of the crankcase".  

A failing camshaft is almost never a catastrophic failure, and usually gives warning signs before it becomes an issue.  Can you think of a better way to ensure that the crankcase is split every few years than a spalled camshaft and lifters?  

And from a liability insurance standpoint, what better way to further reduce the manufacturer's liability?

I'm not saying Lycoming is intentionally making bad camshafts, I'm saying I don't think they care because it reduces their liability footprint.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I normally don't do conspiracy theories, but I'll just throw this one out there.

A lot of engine ADs are worded, "at next overhaul, or the next separation of the crankcase".  

A failing camshaft is almost never a catastrophic failure, and usually gives warning signs before it becomes an issue.  Can you think of a better way to ensure that the crankcase is split every few years than a spalled camshaft and lifters?  

And from a liability insurance standpoint, what better way to further reduce the manufacturer's liability?

I'm not saying Lycoming is intentionally making bad camshafts, I'm saying I don't think they care because it reduces their liability footprint.

 Just to add a cent to Andy's .02(not to take a liberty), add in the word "corrosion" to all of this and people think they have to fly every two days or their cam/lifters will spall/corrode, fly more, rebuild the engine more often.  Win Win for Lycoming.

 

but no conspiracy theory here....no!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

I normally don't do conspiracy theories, but I'll just throw this one out there.

A lot of engine ADs are worded, "at next overhaul, or the next separation of the crankcase".  

A failing camshaft is almost never a catastrophic failure, and usually gives warning signs before it becomes an issue.  Can you think of a better way to ensure that the crankcase is split every few years than a spalled camshaft and lifters?  

And from a liability insurance standpoint, what better way to further reduce the manufacturer's liability?

I'm not saying Lycoming is intentionally making bad camshafts, I'm saying I don't think they care because it reduces their liability footprint.

So are you saying that Lycoming of conspiring to sell more engines? And our collective acceptance of the concept of "blame someone and sue them when something goes wrong with no regard to relevance" has nothing to do with it, right?! 

Personally I'm happy Lycoming is still here and hasn't gone to China the way Continental has. Frankly I don't know how long it'll be before it finally happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2018 at 8:15 PM, INA201 said:

This is just a simple poll to see if any folks have had cam issues over the years or not.  There are a lot of discussions regarding the cam on Lycoming engines failing.

Probably want to poll "Of those that have had your Lycoming rebuilt/directly inspected, how many have exhibited CAM issues/wear etc..." Some of us may very well have valve-train wear and it isn't caught until it is caught at rebuild time or upon failure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.