An Absolutely Horrible Day!

[carusoam]

When I had this challenge in 2012...

A factory reman engine was available in 2weeks...

A new TopProp was 6-8weeks...

The MT is probably similar for time, but the STC wasn’t complete for the O yet... add in some shipping time if it isn’t in stock in The US...

MT went with the Bravo STC first...

The four blade makes sense for the Bravo, flying at high altitudes...

Less sense for the O hanging around at TPA...

Best regards,

-a-

[exM20K]

Cautionary note on MT props: most field shops won’t overhaul them any more. At least that’s the case around the upper Midwest. The shop will take it in for inspection, must almost all of them are getting shipped to MT, and the downtime and poor communication on some of these has been frustrating.

-dan

[Guest]

15 hours ago, M016576 said:

That’s a real bummer- not something one would expect from a MSC that’s so highly regarded.  

Looking at the bright side, though- at least you won’t have to worry about a new motor or prop for a while after all this is over.  In some ways, it’s kind of lucky- I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.  Glad no one is hurt, sad you’re out of an airplane for a while.

The “nay sayers” in the crowd would disagree with you saying that infant mortality is a big risk with a new engine.

Clarence

[Shadrach]

On 11/2/2018 at 12:42 PM, M20Doc said:

The “nay sayers” in the crowd would disagree with you saying that infant mortality is a big risk with a new engine.

Clarence

It's not "nay sayers" saying nay... It's data that was compiled from 5 years of NTSB accident reports.  I'm not suggesting that we have reams of studies to choose from on the subject, but the data we do have is pretty compelling. If there is data to refute it, then please point me to it.  I sometimes find during discussions that people will say "so you think that"...I then find myself having to say "it's not that I think that, it's what the current data/analysis suggest".  It's up to an individual as to when, where and how to handle an engine replacement.  An individuals can find any number of paths to rationalize a decision that is often rooted in emotion.  To each their own.  Nevertheless, the data we have shows that of the reported accidents related to engine failure, most occur to aircraft with engines that have <500hrs and or  <4 years in service.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Shadrach

[Boilermonkey]

It would be great if the data could also tell us what percentage of the fleet has engines with that amount of time....so we could get a percentage failure rate.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

I agree that there is a limited amount to be drawn from the data.  To be sure it would be would be great to have detailed calendar and service time data on the entire fleet. Neither Lycoming nor Continental have ever released any engine data as far as I know.

With regard to the 5 year NTSB study, one could certainly say that the low representation of engines in the 2500-2999hr and 20-24yr range could be due the the fact that there just aren't that many engines remaining in service with that service and calendar time.  However, I don't think you can make the inverse argument for the over representation of engines in the 0-499/1-5 yr range.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Shadrach

[M016576]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:42 AM, M20Doc said:

The “nay sayers” in the crowd would disagree with you saying that infant mortality is a big risk with a new engine.

Clarence

Ahh- I see how that reads!  What I meant by saying “worry about a new engine / prop” was the downtime/purchase and timing, as Don’s engine probably would only last him 2-3 more years (it was at 1600hrs- I figure he probably would accrue about 900 hrs in the next 3 years- so taking the motor to about 2500-ish)- as the insurance company and shop’s carelessness have “solved” those problems.  I was not referring to not needing to worry about the mechanical risk.... but I see how my original statement reads- and it does come off that way.

when the day comes I need to spend 60-70K on a motor and prop... I’ll probably look at this event as “lucky” for Don. Although I’m sure it doesn’t feel that way right now.

Edited November 3, 2018 by M016576

[Bob_Belville]

4 hours ago, M016576 said:

 so taking the motor to about 2500-ish)- as the insurance company and shop’s carelessness have “solved” those problems. 

when the day comes I need to spend 60-70K on a motor and prop...

• With a few oddball exceptions, motors run on electricity, while engines run on combustion. 
• I suspect that the shop's insurance company is going to want to prorate the reimbursement to Don for a new engine.  

[N201MKTurbo]

4 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

• With a few oddball exceptions, motors run on electricity, while engines run on combustion. 
• I suspect that the shop's insurance company is going to want to prorate the reimbursement to Don for a new engine.  

Well if we are going to pick nits.

Engines convert fuel to mechanical energy. Motors convert one form of kenetic energy to mechanical energy. Normally motors convert electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic energy to mechanical energy. 

But there a lot of misnomers like motorcycle, motorboat, General Motors, etc...

[Hank]

53 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Well if we are going to pick nits.

Engines convert fuel to mechanical energy. Motors convert one form of kenetic energy to mechanical energy. Normally motors convert electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic energy to mechanical energy. 

Yep. The engines in our planes and cars convert chemical energy into kinetic energy. There is no kinetic energy in a tank of fuel, but burning it in an enclosed space creates kinetic energy by pushing down on the piston, then the crankshaft and rods turn that straight-line energy into rotational energy, causing the propellor or tires to turn. Thus they are not "motors," they are engines.

Who cares what people who don't know or care call them?

[N201MKTurbo]

27 minutes ago, Hank said:

Who cares what people who don't know or care call them?

My dad did....

[Bob_Belville]

4 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

My dad did....

I'm with your dad, words have meaning, even if some folks don't seem to care. 

When I grew up (on a golf course in the 40s/50s) "golf" was a noun. Now, though ignorance and misuse it is also a verb. Byron Nelson or Sam Snead never when golfing they played golf. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

•  
• I suspect that the shop's insurance company is going to want to prorate the reimbursement to Don for a new engine.  

Exactly. The insurance company is obligated to make him whole again. If he had a 1600 TT engine - they will value that and pay him accordingly. In the case of a prop strike, it requires an engine teardown, there's the labor of removal and install and the cost of shipping and the shop's labor to tear down and inspect the engine. I would assume some but very few parts might be covered. But when it's said and done they owe him an airworthy engine with 1600 hours on it. If an engine is close to TBO it might make sense for someone  to take the money for the teardown inspection and go ahead with an overhaul or factory reman, since either way the insurance company is paying for removal and install. Regarding the prop, the insurance may decide to pay for a new prop or in this case a couple of blades since it wasn't running at the time. Of course they will have to pay for any gear doors, sheet metal, misc airframe parts and labor, etc. But, taking all emotion out of it, to think that an insurance company is going to open up their checkbook and replace a 1600 hr engine with a new engine is not reasonable. That would be like someone totaling your 16 year old car and expecting a new one out of it.

[RobertGary1]

True. You’re not going to be a new engine out of it when only an inspection is required. Also when similar happened to me before replacing the prop they charged me “betterment” difference in value for my 300 hr prop vs the new prop. 

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Well if we are going to pick nits.

Engines convert fuel to mechanical energy. Motors convert one form of kenetic energy to mechanical energy. Normally motors convert electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic energy to mechanical energy. 

 

Websters disagrees.

As an engineer I see fuel and electricity as exactly the same; potential energy  

Definition of motor 

(Entry 1 of 3)

1: one that imparts motionspecifically : PRIME MOVER

2: any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: such as

a: a small compact engine

b: INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEespecially : a gasoline engine

c: a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy

-Robert

[ziggysanchez]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

Exactly. The insurance company is obligated to make him whole again. If he had a 1600 TT engine - they will value that and pay him accordingly. In the case of a prop strike, it requires an engine teardown, there's the labor of removal and install and the cost of shipping and the shop's labor to tear down and inspect the engine. I would assume some but very few parts might be covered. But when it's said and done they owe him an airworthy engine with 1600 hours on it. If an engine is close to TBO it might make sense for someone  to take the money for the teardown inspection and go ahead with an overhaul or factory reman, since either way the insurance company is paying for removal and install. Regarding the prop, the insurance may decide to pay for a new prop or in this case a couple of blades since it wasn't running at the time. Of course they will have to pay for any gear doors, sheet metal, misc airframe parts and labor, etc. But, taking all emotion out of it, to think that an insurance company is going to open up their checkbook and replace a 1600 hr engine with a new engine is not reasonable. That would be like someone totaling your 16 year old car and expecting a new one out of it.

I'm thinking it really may depend on the insurance company. I'm not sure what the differences are between the insurance a shop would carry and the insurance we carry on our aircraft but I'm sure there is some difference. I once slid on the ice in my car and ran into the prop of my Cirrus SR22 (the prop wasn't spinning). I ended up with a bent blade. The engine and prop both had 1900 hours on them since new. Without going into a whole lot of detail, I ended up claiming it on my car insurance and decided on an engine overhaul from Western Skyways and new prop in lieu of a teardown and inspection and prop repair because of the high time on the engine and prop. The insurance company paid all but approx. $10,000.00 of the entire bill (which was in excess of $69k). I'm sure I wouldn't have been paid that much had I claimed it on my aircraft insurance but the car insurance handled it much differently than the aircraft insurance would have and it benefited me. I'm guessing Don may do a little better based on the fact he's not claiming this through "aircraft insurance". I could be wrong though. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by ziggysanchez

[Andy95W]

48 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Websters disagrees.

As an engineer I see fuel and electricity as exactly the same; potential energy  

Definition of motor 

(Entry 1 of 3)

1: one that imparts motionspecifically : PRIME MOVER

2: any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: such as

a: a small compact engine

b: INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEespecially : a gasoline engine

c: a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy

-Robert

All we're saying is that if you don't want to sound like an idiot to your A&P, don't call your Lycoming engine a motor.  But by all means, quote Webster to him.  That usually impresses most people.

[RobertGary1]

2 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

All we're saying is that if you don't want to sound like an idiot to your A&P, don't call your engine a motor.  But by all means, quote Webster to him.  That usually impresses most people.

Motor is a synonym for engine so no worries you won’t sound like an idiot.  In American English the two are used interchangeably  In British historically there has been a preference for engine but that’s changing  

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/engine

-Robert 

[M016576]

4 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

• With a few oddball exceptions, motors run on electricity, while engines run on combustion. 
• I suspect that the shop's insurance company is going to want to prorate the reimbursement to Don for a new engine.  

Based on what Don is insinuating- this thread reads like he will receive more than the “fair value” of the 1600hr motor.  Of course- that remains to be seen.

as for motor vs engine- Thanks for your lesson... here’s something to think about though....

https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/whats-the-difference-between-a-motor-and-an-engine/

next time I push the throttle on my F-135 motor up to afterburner and watch flames come out the back as I head towards the mach, I’ll probably think about this thread.  And if an A&P thinks lesser of me for calling a lyc or conti 300hp boxer a motor... then I’ll find a different A&P: one that’s more progressive.... and not such an elitist.

 

[donkaye]

11 minutes ago, M016576 said:

Based on what Don is insinuating- this thread reads like he will receive more than the “fair value” of the 1600hr motor.  Of course- that remains to be seen.

as for motor vs engine- Thanks for your lesson... here’s something to think about though....

https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/whats-the-difference-between-a-motor-and-an-engine/

next time I push the throttle on my F-135 motor up to afterburner and watch flames come out the back as I head towards the mach, I’ll probably think about this thread.  And if an A&P thinks lesser of me for calling a lyc or conti 300hp boxer a motor... then I’ll find a different A&P: one that’s more progressive.... and not such an elitist.

 

I'm not claiming any more than I'm entitled to claim.  Regarding the "engine", I expect to be paid the removal, teardown, replacement, and shipping for the current engine, as if that were what I was going to do.  That money will then go towards the new reman engine cost.  The time I have on my current engine should not factor into this, except for the "loss of value" claim.  The cost to repair the blades is estimated at more than the cost of a new propeller.  I expect to be paid for a new propeller.  The adjuster has stated in a phone message that the engine teardown cost and damage repair costs have been approved.  I was in Kerrville last week training a new purchaser on an Acclaim Ultra and didn't speak with him directly, so I don't know if that included the propeller.  I'll find that out this coming week.  My other requests haven't been addressed, but it would be wise for them to agree to them.  I hope to reach an amiable settlement.  Wishful thinking?  We'll see.

[M016576]

11 minutes ago, donkaye said:

I'm not claiming any more than I'm entitled to claim.  Regarding the "engine", I expect to be paid the removal, teardown, replacement, and shipping for the current engine, as if that were what I was going to do.  That money will then go towards the new reman engine cost.  The time I have on my current engine should not factor into this, except for the "loss of value" claim.  The cost to repair the blades is estimated at more than the cost of a new propeller.  I expect to be paid for a new propeller.  The adjuster has stated in a phone message that the engine teardown cost and damage repair costs have been approved.  I was in Kerrville last week training a new purchaser on an Acclaim Ultra and didn't speak with him directly, so I don't know if that included the propeller.  I'll find that out this coming week.  My other requests haven't been addressed, but it would be wise for them to agree to them.  I hope to reach an amiable settlement.  Wishful thinking?  We'll see.

That all sounds reasonable.  It’s unfortunate that this happened- and during annual at that-  I hope that this situation is rectified in a quick and fair manner.

[Awful_Charlie]

Well, if it is any consolation Don, I sent my first run core back to Lycoming in June, so they most likely have one on the shelf!

[Bravoman]

If I was representing Don , he would have a brand new Rolls-Royce turbine  hanging on the front of that bravo and six blade prop! Seriously though, money is money, and the loss of use and diminished value claims can more than offset where carrier wants to pro rate for engine or prop time. And true it depends on the carrier. Sometimes you get pleasantly surprised.

[donkaye]

25 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

If I was representing Don , he would have a brand new Rolls-Royce turbine  hanging on the front of that bravo and six blade prop! Seriously though, money is money, and the loss of use and diminished value claims can more than offset where carrier wants to pro rate for engine or prop time. And true it depends on the carrier. Sometimes you get pleasantly surprised.

I hope that is true in my case, but if not, I am prepared to do what it takes no matter the cost. 

[amillet]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

I hope that is true in my case, but if not, I am prepared to do what it takes no matter the cost. 

Litigation attorneys love clients who want to fight on principal, no matter the cost