Possible cracked case O-360-A1A

[Shadrach]

17 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

You guys kill me, I suppose the mechanic who would do that is the same one you guys say will “sign off” an annual for a case of beer right?

No, I’m not going to dig through the regs to find something obvious.

‘I’ve seen over and over uneducated people try to pick apart the FAR’s and argue well the reg doesn’t specifically say that, when the intent is obvious, I’ve even testified in a couple of trials that didn’t go well for the outhouse lawyers too, and I’ve seen some enforcement action too.

But if I were to look I believe that I would pretty easily find that I can’t install a part without ensuring it’s airworthiness first, that all it would take.

‘Then there is what’s called hidden damage, that I’m required to inspect for too.

So your the guy who damages a wing, but only wants a new skin, don’t fix the cracked ribs?

So how long have you been an A&P?

No one ever said each assembly had to be disassembled, but any part removed has to be tagged apprioately, and how is that done without an inspection?

I’m not an A&P nor have I claimed to be but I have worked closely with many in 15 years of Mooney ownership. I have encountered and have experience with many of the issues common to Mooneys and Lycomings during that time. I’ve also worked through this very problem from start to finish from the owner’s perspective (as stated earlier in the thread). In my case, the crack started on the right case half at a bolt boss on the lower parting flange just aft of the generator pad.  Pics from the process are below. Do share your experience with regard to this issue? 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Shadrach

[N201MKTurbo]

An A&P is allowed to change out broken engine parts. The crankcase is just another part.

[ragedracer1977]

5 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

An A&P is allowed to change out broken engine parts. The crankcase is just another part.

I sure wish an IA or A&P would weigh in on this thread.  

[N201MKTurbo]

8 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I sure wish an IA or A&P would weigh in on this thread.  

If you are bored, there will be Cessna strut assembly and 310 inspections going on today.

[ragedracer1977]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

If you are bored, there will be Cessna strut assembly and 310 inspections going on today.

As much fun as that sounds, I'm in Cancun hanging on the beach.  

[N201MKTurbo]

Just now, ragedracer1977 said:

As much fun as that sounds, I'm in Cancun hanging on the beach.  

Oh, yea, 

well, you just suffer through and we will have fun at the airport. 

[A64Pilot]

5 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I sure wish an IA or A&P would weigh in on this thread.  

I’ve been an A&P for 30 years and an IA for 15 or so, and a repair station accountable manager, I stood up a repair station. wrote the manuals, and that was a big hairy deal. now Retired, with thankfully no enforcement actions or investigations against me. “Knock on wood”

‘Many people read an FAR and say “it doesn’t say I can’t do X” and try to play fast and loose with the FAR’s. But there are so many other FAR’s that in fact do cover what they are trying to get away with. Just reading the one doesn’t nearly cover it

Sure an A&P is allowed to replace broken parts, but let one disassemble an engine and miss something that causes an engine failure and try explaining to the FAA that you were only hired to change the case, it’s not going to help you one bit, and then there are the courts where your trying to tell the jury that yes poor Jim is dead, but you were only hired to change the case, the fact that the oil pump was worn beyond limits wasn’t your concern, or that a cylinder had a head that was separating, or the the cam had a worn lobe and several scored lifters, exhaust was rotted out etc, etc.

Any part you install on an aircraft, to include parts that you re-install, have to be airworthy.  The only way to determine that is by an inspection of some sort and or a records review. For instance I can’t reinstall a magneto that has an AD issued against it, unless I can determine that AD has been complied with, if you can’t determine AD compliance then you can’t reinstall the Mag.

‘The wing skin was a good analogy, you wack a light pole at the fuel pump and you really expect the A&P to only change the skin, don’t look at the ribs, I didn’t hire you for that?

 

[A64Pilot]

There are an astonishing lot of foolish, actually illegal things done, I’ve seen many especially on Ag airplanes, but just because you got some A&P to do something doesn’t make it correct or legal. So many get away with things for so long I guess they think they won’t be caught, and the FAA is slow, but buddy when they do get ahold of you it gets ugly fast, and your looking at prison time and or loss of certificates and all you were doing was trying to help someone out, sometimes. 

‘This guy is dead now so I assume posting this is OK, someone in Brazil bought a totaled airplane for parts, and on trying to export it to Brazil discovered he couldn’t import parts, so Frankie pencil whipped the inspection so his friend didn’t lose a lot of money.

‘Well someone must have told and the FAA heard about it, and Frankie came very, very close to prison time, he did lose his DAR and I believe his IA, and I believe was fined. He got dressed up in a suit when it did go to court and had to appear very apologetic, which he was, and narrowly escaped prison time, if there had been anything else it’s likely he would have gone to prison.

Anyone who knew Frankie kew he would give you the shirt off of his back, he was honest and never took advantage, but he did something he shouldn’t trying to help a friend, and he did know better.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2012-01-25/faa-indicts-two-falsifying-aircraft-inspection

Like I said earlier, I can’t imagine the level of stupidity that it takes for a licensed Physician to write fraudulent prescriptions for pain meds to make a little money, I mean how insane do you have to be to risk prison and all those years of hard work getting through med school?

But apparently it’s done.

[Andy95W]

I seriously cannot believe you're trying to equate the legal repair of an engine by an A&P to your buddy Franklin who knowingly and willfully signed off an Annual Inspection that wasn't conducted and wasn't airworthy.

[A64Pilot]

I seriously can’t believe you guys think it’s legal to disassemble and reassemble and engine without inspecting anything, with the obvious intent of reassembly with out of spec components, because you don’t want to pay for airworthy parts.

There can only be one reason you guys seem so adamant to not have the parts inspected.

By the way, all Frankie did was issue an export COA when handed a set of logbooks that declared the aircraft as airworthy.

In other words, he didn’t inspect the “parts”, which is pretty much what you guys are saying is legal.

[Shadrach]

14 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I seriously can’t believe you guys think it’s legal to disassemble and reassemble and engine without inspecting anything, with the obvious intent of reassembly with out of spec components, because you don’t want to pay for airworthy parts.

There can only be one reason you guys seem so adamant to not have the parts inspected.

By the way, all Frankie did was issue an export COA when handed a set of logbooks that declared the aircraft as airworthy.

In other words, he didn’t inspect the “parts”, which is pretty much what you guys are saying is legal.

It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s quite another to be wrong and disingenuous. You can see in my original post that I said there is no requirement to “MEASURE” the internals of the engine when the case is out for overhaul. Any prudent mechanic visually INSPECTS anything that they disassemble. Measuring and inspecting may be related but are not the same thing.  You’re now attempting to reframe my statement (and those that agreed with it) as recommending disassembly and reassembly without inspecting anything, which is not something I nor anyone else suggested.  
 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Shadrach

[A64Pilot]

A mechanic has to determine the airworthiness of the parts they install, often that's paperwork, quite often it’s a visual inspection, and quite often it means measuring if that’s what it takes. It goes like this, you see a part that looks worn, how do you tell if it’s within limits? You measure it.

 

[A64Pilot]

There is also this Lycoming SB which I woud never not comply with, because doing so negatively impacts safety, and it requires disassembly of the connecting rods, removal from the crank, which you said you didn’t have done.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul and During Repair or Maintenance.pdf

A copy of the last sentence of that SB

 “Carry out the dimensional inspections in accordance with measurements and tolerances as listed in “Table of Limits” (SSP­1776) for all parts approved for use.”

ssp1776

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SSP-1776-5 Table of Limits - Complete.pdf

Edited June 1, 2021 by A64Pilot

[N201MKTurbo]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

There is also this Lycoming SB which I woud never not comply with, because doing so negatively impacts safety, and it requires disassembly of the connecting rods, removal from the crank, which you said you didn’t have done.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul and During Repair or Maintenance.pdf

A copy of the last sentence of that SB

 “Carry out the dimensional inspections in accordance with measurements and tolerances as listed in “Table of Limits” (SSP­1776) for all parts approved for use.”

ssp1776

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SSP-1776-5 Table of Limits - Complete.pdf

I think you are reading it wrong. It in no way requires you to take your crank apart during a repair. It just says if you do take it apart, you have to replace certain parts like the rod bolts and nuts. If you take the counterbalance weights apart, you have to use new circlips, you are not required to take them apart.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

There is also this Lycoming SB which I woud never not comply with, because doing so negatively impacts safety, and it requires disassembly of the connecting rods, removal from the crank, which you said you didn’t have done.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/Mandatory Parts Replacement at Overhaul and During Repair or Maintenance.pdf

A copy of the last sentence of that SB

 “Carry out the dimensional inspections in accordance with measurements and tolerances as listed in “Table of Limits” (SSP­1776) for all parts approved for use.”

ssp1776

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SSP-1776-5 Table of Limits - Complete.pdf

I would not advocate reusing fasteners.  Splitting a case to send out for overhaul does not involve removal of connecting rods or rod bolts. Stretch bolts are designed to be stretched once. I think almost anyone would agree that it’s a bad idea to reuse them. Given there’s no need to remove them it’s a moot point.

My philosophy in general is that if a system is working well, the introduction of human hands (and error) is not likely to improve the situation.  I seek out individuals that share this philosophy when choosing maintenance and medical professionals.
I prefer to leave the fishing expeditions to the fisherman.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Shadrach

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I think you are reading it wrong. It in no way requires you to take your crank apart during a repair. It just says if you do take it apart, you have to replace certain parts like the rod bolts and nuts. If you take the counterbalance weights apart, you have to use new circlips, you are not required to take them apart.

Actually, your not required to comply with the SB, if you want to play that game, don’t do any of it, keep the old main bearings too.

I’m all about saving a nickel, but by not replacing bearings and rod bolts etc when your there, is how you end up with a thrown rod etc.

But I’m not posting this stuff for those that believe they know more than professionals that have spent most of their adult life in aircraft maintenance.

‘I’m posting it for the guy with the cracked case that started this thread and others that may be here one day, if you fly long enough odds are you will, maybe not a cracked case but something will have you splitting them, prop strike, bad cam etc.

To not change bearings when your there and start with a new bottom end makes about as much sense as not repacking bearings when you change a tire.

But as a Professional, not complying with that SB in its entirety is not only wrong, it’s cheating the customer, but it’s also crazy from a legal standpoint. Even ten years down the road let that engine have a failure like the 231 in Dawson Ga just did, and if that SB wasn’t complied with, and especially if there was a fatality or serious injury any slick Lawyer prints it out with all that RED printing and shows it to a jury, and your done, you have lost everything, and the Lawyer gets a down payment on a new Porsche and moves to the next personal injury case.

So anyone you pay to R&R a case who doesn’t comply with that SB, because you know even though it says mandatory in big red letters, you don’t have to, not for part 91, isn’t a professional, same guy I guess that you people claim that will sign off an annual for a case of beer.

For you guys that don’t TBO, replacing bearings on a mid time engine when it’s apart is how you get one to go way past overhaul, because ensuring the crank is within limits (a mid time Lycoming crank will be ) and installing new bearings is pretty much a new bottom end. If the crank is worn behind limits do you really want to fly it IFR over mountains or at night?

Same for the cam and lifters. your not going to inspect for wear and catch the beginnings of a failing camshaft BEFORE it fills the engine with metal?

This is your one chance to closely inspect everything while it’s laying there on the table out in plain sight, and to replace bearings etc that by design wear and start over with an engine that will likely go for many more years trouble free.

‘There are essentially three kinds of maintenance : scheduled, preventative and on condition. 

On condition is the guy who has a leaking water pump on his truck who drains the coolant, changes the pump and puts the old coolant back in and dives away thinking of how much money he saved, and a month later blows a radiator hose, or the thermostat sticks and overheats the engine and warps a head etc.

‘The Preventative maintenance guy, flushes the system to start with, and puts on new hoses, new thermostat, belts and coolant and doesn’t have another cooling issue for years, maybe decades, because he does preventative maintenance and changes coolant every few years, the on condition guy says leave it alone it’s working.

You the owner gets to pick the level of maintenance performed, remember that when your IFR at night or flying the family to the Bahamas for a vacation.

Edited June 1, 2021 by A64Pilot

[N201MKTurbo]

35 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Actually, your not required to comply with the SB, if you want to play that game, don’t do any of it, keep the old main bearings too.

I’m all about saving a nickel, but by not replacing bearings and rod bolts etc when your there, is how you end up with a thrown rod etc.

But I’m not posting this stuff for those that believe they know more than professionals that have spent most of their adult life in aircraft maintenance.

‘I’m posting it for the guy with the cracked case that started this thread and others that may be here one day, if you fly long enough odds are you will, maybe not a cracked case but something will have you splitting them, prop strike, bad cam etc.

To not change bearings when your there and start with a new bottom end makes about as much sense as not repacking bearings when you change a tire.

But as a Professional, not complying with that SB in its entirety is not only wrong, it’s cheating the customer, but it’s also crazy from a legal standpoint. Even ten years down the road let that engine have a failure like the 231 in Dawson Ga just did, and if that SB wasn’t complied with, and especially if there was a fatality or serious injury any slick Lawyer prints it out with all that RED printing and shows it to a jury, and your done, you have lost everything, and the Lawyer gets a down payment on a new Porsche and moves to the next personal injury case.

So anyone you pay to R&R a case who doesn’t comply with that SB, because you know even though it says mandatory in big red letters, you don’t have to, not for part 91, isn’t a professional, same guy I guess that you people claim that will sign off an annual for a case of beer.

For you guys that don’t TBO, replacing bearings on a mid time engine when it’s apart is how you get one to go way past overhaul, because ensuring the crank is within limits (a mid time Lycoming crank will be ) and installing new bearings is pretty much a new bottom end. If the crank is worn behind limits do you really want to fly it IFR over mountains or at night?

Same for the cam and lifters. your not going to inspect for wear and catch the beginnings of a failing camshaft BEFORE it fills the engine with metal?

This is your one chance to closely inspect everything while it’s laying there on the table out in plain sight, and to replace bearings etc that by design wear and start over with an engine that will likely go for many more years trouble free.

‘There are essentially three kinds of maintenance : scheduled, preventative and on condition. 

On condition is the guy who has a leaking water pump on his truck who drains the coolant, changes the pump and puts the old coolant back in and dives away thinking of how much money he saved, and a month later blows a radiator hose, or the thermostat sticks and overheats the engine and warps a head etc.

‘The Preventative maintenance guy, flushes the system to start with, and puts on new hoses, new thermostat, belts and coolant and doesn’t have another cooling issue for years, maybe decades, because he does preventative maintenance and changes coolant every few years, the on condition guy says leave it alone it’s working.

You the owner gets to pick the level of maintenance performed, remember that when your IFR at night or flying the family to the Bahamas for a vacation.

I don’t understand your attitude. You are not making any sense. You are accusing people of things that nobody is advocating.

Edited June 1, 2021 by N201MKTurbo

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Actually, your not required to comply with the SB, if you want to play that game, don’t do any of it, keep the old main bearings too.

I’m all about saving a nickel, but by not replacing bearings and rod bolts etc when your there, is how you end up with a thrown rod etc.

But I’m not posting this stuff for those that believe they know more than professionals that have spent most of their adult life in aircraft maintenance.

‘I’m posting it for the guy with the cracked case that started this thread and others that may be here one day, if you fly long enough odds are you will, maybe not a cracked case but something will have you splitting them, prop strike, bad cam etc.

To not change bearings when your there and start with a new bottom end makes about as much sense as not repacking bearings when you change a tire.

But as a Professional, not complying with that SB in its entirety is not only wrong, it’s cheating the customer, but it’s also crazy from a legal standpoint. Even ten years down the road let that engine have a failure like the 231 in Dawson Ga just did, and if that SB wasn’t complied with, and especially if there was a fatality or serious injury any slick Lawyer prints it out with all that RED printing and shows it to a jury, and your done, you have lost everything, and the Lawyer gets a down payment on a new Porsche and moves to the next personal injury case.

So anyone you pay to R&R a case who doesn’t comply with that SB, because you know even though it says mandatory in big red letters, you don’t have to, not for part 91, isn’t a professional, same guy I guess that you people claim that will sign off an annual for a case of beer.

For you guys that don’t TBO, replacing bearings on a mid time engine when it’s apart is how you get one to go way past overhaul, because ensuring the crank is within limits (a mid time Lycoming crank will be ) and installing new bearings is pretty much a new bottom end. If the crank is worn behind limits do you really want to fly it IFR over mountains or at night?

Same for the cam and lifters. your not going to inspect for wear and catch the beginnings of a failing camshaft BEFORE it fills the engine with metal?

This is your one chance to closely inspect everything while it’s laying there on the table out in plain sight, and to replace bearings etc that by design wear and start over with an engine that will likely go for many more years trouble free.

‘There are essentially three kinds of maintenance : scheduled, preventative and on condition. 

On condition is the guy who has a leaking water pump on his truck who drains the coolant, changes the pump and puts the old coolant back in and dives away thinking of how much money he saved, and a month later blows a radiator hose, or the thermostat sticks and overheats the engine and warps a head etc.

‘The Preventative maintenance guy, flushes the system to start with, and puts on new hoses, new thermostat, belts and coolant and doesn’t have another cooling issue for years, maybe decades, because he does preventative maintenance and changes coolant every few years, the on condition guy says leave it alone it’s working.

You the owner gets to pick the level of maintenance performed, remember that when your IFR at night or flying the family to the Bahamas for a vacation.

A64, how many hours are on your airplane engine and how old is it?

[A64Pilot]

25 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

A64, how many hours are on your airplane engine and how old is it?

It’s a Gann performance overhaul, approx 400 hours and maybe 6 years.

Why?

Edited June 1, 2021 by A64Pilot

[Old Chub]

A64Pilot

"But I’m not posting this stuff for those that believe they know more than professionals that have spent most of their adult life in aircraft maintenance."

You need to be careful on Mooney Space when talking about professionals.   There are many of us that have the same same or exceeding experience as yourself.  This site is to discuss and inform and learn.   

 

 

 

[M20F]

When I bought my F it had 2200 hours on it.  The intent was to rebuild so I knew what was in it.  It was so old it had the small valves and after ingesting 2 we broke it down after I want to say almost 2600hs.  Case was done by Divco. 
 

5yrs later it developed a crack too severe to weld so we did it again.  No surprise in spite of about 600hrs of constant flying the cam was shot as well.  We got a case.  This is the interesting part where in spite of a lot of questions it turns out the case was from a HIO-360 which is fine but inside there is a hole that makes it constant speed.   After putting back together and hanging we spent a lot of efforts trying to figure out why the prop wouldn’t work.  Turns out you need to locktite a bolt into that hole, apart again and life is grand since.  
 

So if you get a case make sure the hole is plugged :-)

[59Moonster]

38 minutes ago, M20F said:

... it turns out the case was from a HIO-360...

What engine was that for?

[M20F]

31 minutes ago, 59Moonster said:

What engine was that for?

Helicopter 

[A64Pilot]

35 minutes ago, 59Moonster said:

What engine was that for?

I’m nearly certain that the TH-55 I learned to fly had that motor, I know it had an IO 360 Lycoming, I believe 210 HP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_TH-55_Osage

I think we ran them at 2900 RPM? But ran that RPM constantly and we ran them hard as they weren’t overpowered, they were governed by”George” George was an oil driven plunger that when you hit the RPM limit, he would hit the throttle knocking it way down in power, then releasing it of course, this caused all sorts of problems for a fledgling pilot.

The Army sold them all off in lots and many of us really wanted one but of course couldn’t afford one.

‘I woudnt be surprised to find out that the HIO case wasn’t stronger then a regular IO 

I’d guess that with the aircraft and spares maybe up to 500 engines were sold? Most in aircraft though

Edited June 2, 2021 by A64Pilot

[59Moonster]

9 minutes ago, M20F said:

Helicopter 

 

Since I'm asking about an O-360-A1A I figured I would check and make sure. From what I'm seeing on the internet the F should have an IO-360-A1A. So I'm just guessing that your HIO-360 case won't work for my engine.